In a recent interview with the LA Times, Clint Eastwood appears to back Herman Cain for president. But to be fair, the interview could have been conducted before Cain’s crazy train went off the rails. If you ask us, he sounds like a Ron Paul man.
The Los Angeles Times ran an interview with Clint Eastwood a few days ago to promote his new movie “J. Edgar.”
In the interview he discusses his political views, voting history and who he likes for the 2012 election. Eastwood admits that he’s never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate—his unbroken string of Republican votes starts at Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and continues right up through McCain in 2008. When it comes to 2012, he likes Herman Cain.
“I love Cain’s story,” he says. “He’s a guy who came from nowhere and did well, obviously against heavy odds. He’s a doer and a straight-talker, which I don’t see enough of from either party.” He’s tepid at best on Mitt Romney, of whom he says, “If you were casting a movie where you needed someone to play president, you’d definitely pick him,” and even less enthusiastic about Rick Perry: “If he wanted to meet me, he might be a little disappointed.”
But in Eastwood’s defense, press junkets for movies are orchestrated well in advance and this interview could have been conducted before the Herman Cain crazy train went irrevocably off the rails. For instance, it was just three weeks ago that Cain flipped his positions on abortion and gay marriage from being staunchly laissez faire to anti on both counts. Eastwood, a libertarian, is an outspoken advocate for both abortion and gay marriage rights. In a recent issue of GQ he railed against Defense of Marriage Act: “Don’t give me that sanctity crap! Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want.”
And then of course there are the sexual harassment accusations that have haunted Cain for the past two weeks. Regardless of what becomes of the allegations, it’s hard to look back on Cain’s story, which now by his own admission includes one settlement fee of $35,000 for sexual harassment and one for $45,000 and say, “I love Cain’s story.”
For a guy who hasn’t voted Democrat in his life, with the exception of one gubernatorial race in California, the question becomes, who’s left to support? Especially in light of Cain’s sexual harassment problems and Rick Perry’s catastrophic “oops” last night, who’s left to endorse other than Mitt Romney? For Eastwood, the answer seems obvious: Ron Paul.
Eastwood admits that the only time he ever considered breaking his streak of Republican votes was for independent Ross Perot in 1992. “I liked him,” Eastwood says, “I guess because I like rebels.” Perot shares his status as a Texas rebel outside the normative mores of the Republican party with Ron Paul.
Plus, Eastwood shares Paul’s Libertarian passion for keeping government out of the bedroom and cutting the deficit. He told LA Times, “I’m a big hawk on cutting the deficit. I was against the stimulus thing too. We shouldn’t be bailing out the banks and car companies. If a CEO can’t figure out how to make his company profitable, then he shouldn’t be the CEO.” It could have easily been spoken by Paul himself.
Of course, one area they’d part ways is on Ron Paul’s one hypocrisy: abortion. A true Libertarian keeps government out of that decision as well and leaves it in each woman’s hands. Paul, citing religion, would ban abortion and overturn ‘Roe v. Wade.’
Eastwood may not find his perfect candidate this time around. Still, if you ask us, he looks like a Ron Paul 2012 man.
November 10, 2011 at 1:18 pm, MoEva said:
Ron Paul would not ban abortion. He, himself, personally, is against abortion, yes. What he wants to do, however, is return that decision to the states, where it belongs. Just as much as the decision of gay marriage belongs to the states.
November 10, 2011 at 1:42 pm, Joe Mama said:
Dude what was that abortion thing at the end? Citing religion? Where did you come up with that? Did you just make that up?
The Roe v. Wade thing is that he believes the states should have the right to choose pro-life or pro-choice for themselves. NOT forced on all states by the federal government. IF the majority of people in a particular state wanted to outlaw abortion, they could not do so because of Roe v. Wade. Therefor, it violates states’ rights. THAT is his position on that issue.
Now, if you hate the idea of a bunch of religious people in one area getting together and agreeing to outlaw abortion for themselves, then I can see where this would not appeal to you. If you are someone who believes your views should be forced on everyone, Ron Paul is not for you.
If, however, you appreciate the fact that you not being able to force your views on others has the benefit of others not being able to force their views on you, then Ron Paul just might be your guy.
November 10, 2011 at 1:45 pm, Jay Brown said:
Overturning Roe V Wade doesn’t ban abortion, it leaves it to the states. Look at what happened with Mississippi, the state was trying to find a way around Roe V Wade and they still failed. Mississippi is also a bible belt state so I think liberals and pro-choice Libertarians need to get off this abortion issue. Besides, for Paul abortion is a deeper issue then religion, it’s about protecting life (even though I’m sure Christianity directed Paul to his pro-life stance). Paul is anti-war (unless under threat or a declaration is issued), pro-life (but he is for the morning after pill and he is not for banning abortions Federally), and he is against the Federal death penalty (but of course would leave it to the states). Paul isn’t the perfect candidate for everyone, but he’s a gem compared to the rest of the crooks in congress and the Whitehouse.
November 10, 2011 at 1:47 pm, Attilathepun said:
Exactly what MoEva said, Ron Paul doesn’t think the president has the power to change abortion, regardless of his personal belief that life begins at conception.
November 10, 2011 at 2:17 pm, Anonymous said:
Thats to bad, any respect I had for Eastman just wen tdown the tube.
November 11, 2011 at 9:11 am, Sara_tiffin said:
No need to “lose respect” for Clint Eastwood (not Eastman) because of a stupid, inaccurate article…Ron Paul would never be for use of force for ANYTHING…He’s personally against abortion, but would NEVER want the Federal Gov’t. to be involved in a woman’s decision!!!
November 11, 2011 at 1:33 pm, Ericdondero said:
Except he’s perfectly fine with Islamists using force against Americans. Try asking Ron Paul about Sharia Law. He’ll respond either “huh?” or “such a thing doesn’t exist… Radical Islam is no threat to the US.”
Denial is more than a river in Egypt Ron. You can’t have liberty without first defeating the Islamists.
November 11, 2011 at 1:33 pm, Ericdondero said:
Except he’s perfectly fine with Islamists using force against Americans. Try asking Ron Paul about Sharia Law. He’ll respond either “huh?” or “such a thing doesn’t exist… Radical Islam is no threat to the US.”
Denial is more than a river in Egypt Ron. You can’t have liberty without first defeating the Islamists.
November 10, 2011 at 2:17 pm, Anonymous said:
Thats to bad, any respect I had for Eastman just wen tdown the tube.
November 10, 2011 at 2:22 pm, Jaye said:
I respectfully ask that you correct your article, as your closing statements are factually incorrect. Ron Paul does not seek to ban abortion nation wide, but rather turn the authority to make that decision over to the states by overturning Roe vs. Wade. He does– personally– however believe that abortion is wrong. I am personally of a different opinion on certain cases where abortion is performed, but the appeal of Ron Paul is he does not seek to legislate his opinion over yours.
November 10, 2011 at 2:59 pm, Jim Howes said:
Calling Ron Paul’s stance on abortion “hypocrisy” is shallow and misinformed. You make the erroneous assumption that he just feels that way for religious reasons, and that any true libertarian would support abortion. Try doing a Google search for “atheists against abortion” if you want some good arguments against it that have nothing to do with religion.
November 10, 2011 at 3:25 pm, Jackson Baer said:
Ron Paul did well in the debate last night. It sure would be nice if he could pull an upset in Iowa. Polling has him at 3rd or 4th right now but the numbers are relatively close.
http://www.whatthehellbook.com/the-book/
November 10, 2011 at 7:35 pm, Mario Luis said:
I don’t think he is citing reliegion in his PRO LIFE STANCE. He simply says that babies have rights even if they are unborn.
November 10, 2011 at 8:34 pm, Anonymous said:
You got that from ‘outspoken advocate for abortion’?
November 12, 2011 at 11:51 pm, FXTechnique said:
I think Mario is referring to Ron Paul, not Eastwood.
November 10, 2011 at 9:33 pm, Victor said:
Ron Paul would never ban anything. END OF STORY
November 10, 2011 at 10:20 pm, Treg said:
Alex, not so fast with the hypocrite charge. Perhaps the standard
pro-choice libertarian position that is actually hypocritical and/or
contradicts the basic Life premise of libertarianism. Indeed, Dr.
Paul wrote directly to libertarians to explain why he felt and why he
reasoned that a CONSISTENT libertarian position on the abortion issue is
the ProLife position. Now you can disagree, but he did write
libertarians directly and they can read his reason in a FREE book call
“abortion and liberty”
http://files.meetup.com/504095/Ron%20Paul-Abortion%20and%20Liberty.pdf
Now that was very honest and respectful of Dr Paul don’t you think? He
addresses the issue directly to libertarianism and he shows how he
reasons the Pro Life position is actually the consistent libertarian
position. What I find sad, is that no Pro Choice libertarian has taken
the time to write an honest rebuttal. So charges of hypocrisy, don’t
be so cock sure, it may be the Pro-Choice libertarians who haven’t
thought the issues through far enough or taken the time to read Dr.
Paul’s free book addressed to them personally.
November 11, 2011 at 1:43 am, Anonymous said:
You had better check your references on Ron Paul and banning abortion and overturning Roe v. Wade, his position is not as simple as you make it out to be, and you are basically inaccurate. You really need to give the guy a chance to get his reasoning out there to the people rather than what you are doing.
November 11, 2011 at 9:16 am, Sara_tiffin said:
It is so heartening that 99% of responses to this article are passionate about correcting Alex Moore’s article for its TOTAL INACCURACY on Ron Paul’s stance on abortion.
November 11, 2011 at 9:24 am, Ericdondero said:
So, Eastwood backs Cain, but you show a giant picture of Ron Paul instead? I mean c’mon. Talk about showing your bias. You don’t like his pick for prez, so you turn this into a propoganda piece for Ron Paul?
And yes, despite the claims of some inane commentators here, Paul is ardently pro-life. He uses the states rights deal as a way to deflect the issue.
November 11, 2011 at 3:05 pm, Anonymous said:
I see a slideshow of Paul, Eastwood and Cain…
November 11, 2011 at 9:27 am, Ericdondero said:
If Ron Paul is so libertarian, where’s his anti-smoking ban ad, like the one produced by the Cain campaign? I never hear Paul talk about nanny-state issues. Are they suddenly no longer part of the libertarian agenda? The Tea Party and Herman Cain are stridently anti-Nanny State. Opposing seat belt laws, smoking bans, political correctness, insane regulations on male-female sexual relationships, are just as legitamate libertarian issues as “The Fed.”
November 11, 2011 at 1:56 pm, JusB.Real said:
lol. You should call it “The New Tea Party”. Anti nanny? Oh unless its a nanny for the “homos” or other countries. Boy do some people reach…
November 11, 2011 at 11:02 pm, Paul said:
Perhaps he doesn’t mention the nanny state as much be cause he’s RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. Presidents don’t (or shouldn’t) deal with state issues. Presidents are head of the FEDERAL government, NOT state governments.
November 11, 2011 at 1:00 pm, jeremy from said:
great article, except for the part about abortion. Just totally untrue. Paul would not ban abortion. Paul has said, repeatedly, that the federal government has no constitutional authority to write laws concerning violent crimes (which if abortion were to become legal, it would be classified as such)
And it is not “hypocrisy”- the man simply believes that a 5 month old premature baby is every bit as alive as a 6 month old living in the womb. It is not an issue of a “woman’s right” to her body, it is an issue of whether or not the fetus deserves rights.
That’s not hypocrisy, it’s simply disagreement.
November 11, 2011 at 1:22 pm, David McGraw said:
Ron Paul has said that he wants the federal government out of the abortion debate so that the states will deal with it. How is that hypocritical when his consistent message has been for a humble federal government?
November 11, 2011 at 1:50 pm, JusB.Real said:
The end didnt paint an accurate picture i think. Paul has always been clear about abortion. “when a babie is premature in distress we do everything we can to save its LIFE” “If someone causes a woman to have miscarriage they can be charged with murder/manslaughter.”(paraphrasing). Thats not about “religoun”, its about logic. Unless anyone has heard of a case where someone got away w killin an unborn because the mother didnt consider it a living human til it was born….
November 11, 2011 at 2:14 pm, Puresambo said:
Your characterization of Paul as being hypocritical is not really fair, while it is true that many libertarians, prominent and otherwise, are pro-choice, it is by no means an open-and-shut case within the libertarian community. Rather, it is a highly debated issue within the libertarian community. The distinction is in the evaluation of the Non-Aggression axiom that governs libertarianism, and whether you only consider the mother as self-owning person. If however, you consider the unborn child as a self-owning person with rights, as Paul does, then the mother is not protected legally for abortion as that would constitute an act of aggression and violation of rights. Also, it is simply 100% NOT TRUE and very sloppy journalism that Paul would “ban abortion” as he is on the record, numerous times, saying he would do no such thing. Rather he would leave it up to the states to decide themselves. While the first issue I raised is an understandable mistake, the second is either deliberately misleading or poorly researched…either way it is unproffesional
November 11, 2011 at 2:29 pm, Jason said:
You’re wrong. Ron Paul would NOT ban abortion. He’d leave it to the states. His position is that the Federal Government has no place in making it legal or not. It’s simply up to individual states.
November 11, 2011 at 2:37 pm, The Kingfish said:
Apparently Vince Vaughan is a little more politically savvy than Eastwood! He recently appeared to endorse Ron Paul at a libertarian political action conference.
November 11, 2011 at 4:17 pm, T-BirdMan said:
I am a non-religious libertarian, and I am pro-life leaning. I am tired of the abortion debate being cast in terms of religion. It’s not a matter of choice vs. religion, even though folks from both sides of the debate like to paint it that way. It’s a matter of a respect for human life. Let’s face it, if aborting a baby/fetus 10 seconds before birth is legal, and intentionally killing a baby 10 seconds after birth is considered murder, where is the logic in that? What? The doctor has the magic scissors of god that bestow humanity with a snip of the umbilical cord? No. If the latter is a human being, then the former is as well.
Pro-Choicers: Your rights, and your choices, end where they infringe on the rights of another human being. And make no mistake, at some point in pregnancy, the “fetus” is a human being. Just because the unborn child depends on the body of the mother, does not mean squat. A newborn baby depends on the mother too, and yet if the mother were to quit caring for the baby: negligence and murder are the charges.
Pro-Lifers: A 10-day old fertilized egg is not a human being. I’s a clump of cells with some DNA..not much different than most your other cells. Vestigial hearbeats don’t change that. Earthworms have hearts too (5 of them actually). I have no moral problem with getting rid of those cells to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Quit using abortion as a back-door method to inflict your version of “moral justice” on people
The reality is, I don’t know when and where to draw the line. But the answer is not continuing to allow “fetuses” to be killed when they clearly are human beings. In my opinion, anything in the first trimester should be allowed, last trimester should be illegal, and if somewhere in the middle, I don’t know. Open to suggestions. I just know the way it is now is wrong, and that has nothing to do with God. Logic and pragmatism need to be injected into this stale debate.
I do know Ron Paul has strong religious beliefs, but he he has gone on record to say it is not the gov’t's role to push his beliefs on others. Good man. Believes in freedom and liberty. He gets my vote.
November 11, 2011 at 4:32 pm, JusB.Real said:
I’d say that the ‘morning after pill’, which Paul isnt against, would be more like a contraceptive than abortion. I would also add that the fetus doesnt only contain the mothers DNA but the fathers as well. If indeed it were to be a “choice” it should not be that of the mother only. There are alot of double standards in all of this mess.
November 11, 2011 at 4:33 pm, JusB.Real said:
when i say “mess” i mean the whole subject not your comment
November 12, 2011 at 6:01 pm, Anonymous said:
Your argument was fully correct until the third paragraph down where it completely ran off the rails. To quote you: “I don’t know when and where to draw the line.” That’s the problem with your arguing that a fertilized egg is not a human; you DON’T know where to draw the line. It is supreme arrogance to say things like “…I don’t know. Open to suggestions.” As if you and a bunch of people can get together and declare in your collective wisdom who is human and who is not. And those unfortunate souls who lie on the wrong side of the line are inflicted death.
WRONG. I say again, WRONG.
Just because a fetus does not resemble an adult or posses all of an adult’s faculties does not give any adult the right to arrogantly impose their arbitrary standards and faulty logic resulting in death.
You say they’re just “a clump of cells”, but all humans are collections of cells. Some are larger collections, some are smaller. And these collections of cells vary widely in their cognitive and physical capabilities–none of which, in part or in combination, form any justification to kill another human.
Our rights are derived solely from our humanity. What makes us human? The unique genetic material which differentiates us from other species and other individuals.
A Libertarian believes in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for all, without exception.
November 11, 2011 at 4:17 pm, T-BirdMan said:
I am a non-religious libertarian, and I am pro-life leaning. I am tired of the abortion debate being cast in terms of religion. It’s not a matter of choice vs. religion, even though folks from both sides of the debate like to paint it that way. It’s a matter of a respect for human life. Let’s face it, if aborting a baby/fetus 10 seconds before birth is legal, and intentionally killing a baby 10 seconds after birth is considered murder, where is the logic in that? What? The doctor has the magic scissors of god that bestow humanity with a snip of the umbilical cord? No. If the latter is a human being, then the former is as well.
Pro-Choicers: Your rights, and your choices, end where they infringe on the rights of another human being. And make no mistake, at some point in pregnancy, the “fetus” is a human being. Just because the unborn child depends on the body of the mother, does not mean squat. A newborn baby depends on the mother too, and yet if the mother were to quit caring for the baby: negligence and murder are the charges.
Pro-Lifers: A 10-day old fertilized egg is not a human being. I’s a clump of cells with some DNA..not much different than most your other cells. Vestigial hearbeats don’t change that. Earthworms have hearts too (5 of them actually). I have no moral problem with getting rid of those cells to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Quit using abortion as a back-door method to inflict your version of “moral justice” on people
The reality is, I don’t know when and where to draw the line. But the answer is not continuing to allow “fetuses” to be killed when they clearly are human beings. In my opinion, anything in the first trimester should be allowed, last trimester should be illegal, and if somewhere in the middle, I don’t know. Open to suggestions. I just know the way it is now is wrong, and that has nothing to do with God. Logic and pragmatism need to be injected into this stale debate.
I do know Ron Paul has strong religious beliefs, but he he has gone on record to say it is not the gov’t's role to push his beliefs on others. Good man. Believes in freedom and liberty. He gets my vote.
November 11, 2011 at 11:52 pm, Anonymous said:
So what if Clint Eastwood votes for Ron Paul or not. There are millions of us who will vote for him with or without Clint Eastwood’s take!! Wish this society would get the hell out of celebrity opinions on everything!!
November 12, 2011 at 3:31 am, bubbloy said:
This article is inaccurate. Ron Paul does not want to make abortion illegal. He believes it’s not a federal issue and that opinions on it should be changed by persuasion, not legislation.
November 12, 2011 at 6:11 am, Anonymous said:
Paul wants to get rid of Roe v Wade because he believes the thing was placed incorrectly at the Federal level.
He wants to move the decision-making to the State level — where it belongs.
I know it doesn’t make sense to your simple mind, but let me explain — Ron Paul follows the law of the Constitution and if it is supposed to be a State’s decision, that is where the decision should be.
Abortion should NOT be a nationwide law. It should be in the hands of the States.
Whether Ron Paul likes abortion or not WILL BE irrelevant if he gets elected, and he would be the first to explain it to you. Sorry, I mean the FIFTEENTH or more. Looks like I and about 10 others already schooled your dumbhole.
November 12, 2011 at 11:09 am, Ian said:
I’m a pro choice libertarian. Ron Paul would not ban abortion, he would leave up to the states, as per the Constitution. His personally being against abortion has nothing to do with his policy.
November 12, 2011 at 11:15 am, Anonymous said:
Abortion is one of those issues where both sides can be argued from valid, libertarian standpoints.
A libertarian need not cite religion to be opposed to abortion. Libertarians believe in liberty up to the point where it harms another human being — and a fetus is a human being, whether it is convenient human being or not. Attempts to dehumanize the unborn so that they can be killed without troubling one’s conscience smack of the same processes involved in dehumanizing blacks to enslave them or dehumanizing any number of races for the purpose of genocide.
November 12, 2011 at 3:07 pm, JusB.Real said:
Exactly. Well put.
November 12, 2011 at 11:17 am, Anonymous said:
I am very, very surprised to see Eastwood in the Cain camp. I thought he was a libertarian….
November 12, 2011 at 11:48 am, CircleV said:
Libertarianism is not necessarily pro – abortion. Libertarians respect the rights of individuals. The question is whether or not the unborn are included. Issues like these are impossible to settle. Personally, while i think abortion is wrong i think government involvement in people’s personal lives is worse. However, the libertarian solution for inherently divisive social issues NOT directly addressed in the constitution (abortion, gay marriage, drugs) is to let the states decide. Democracy is most effective on the local level so this is the only reasonably fair way to decide such questions in a large and diverse nation. That way, if you do not like the laws of your state, you can move to another one. Federal laws are the least democratic and we are all forced to live under them whether we live in California or Mississippi. Meanwhile, the values, culture, and lifestyle of those states are dramatically different. Our forefathers granted the police power to the states to promote compromise; give the states as much independence so we can all live together in peace.
November 12, 2011 at 5:38 pm, Anonymous said:
Alex Moore,
You are completely wrong about Ron Paul being a hypocrite on the abortion issue. Ron Paul believes in the protection of all human rights, the first being the right to live. You cannot have Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness if someone is allowed to kill you. Don’t go accusing Paul of hypocrisy when it’s you who doesn’t have your morals straight. A Libertarian who is “pro-choice” is someone who hasn’t sat down and thought enough about the full implications of their philosophy. You can’t protect the rights of some and trample the rights of others. That’s not how Libertarianism works.
November 12, 2011 at 8:42 pm, Truth said:
Wow, these results are quite scary. Ron Paul is the only candidate that has an unwavering record of defending our Constitution and addressing the problems that our country is facing. He had the foresight to predict and warn about the consequences throughout the years and the knowledge to put us back on the right track to restore our Constitutional Republic to be yet again a great nation. I find it quite odd that while the rest of the candidates laughed at Ron Paul for his warnings, they are now trying to mimic his message that has never changed like it was all their idea. The rest do not have a record to stand that mirrors what they now say – Ron Paul does.
November 12, 2011 at 11:58 pm, FXTechnique said:
Why is it so difficult for so many people to understand that just because someone has a certain personal belief, they may not seek to force that belief on others? Ron Paul’s personal belief is that life begins at conception and that abortion, therefore, is violence against a human being.
However, he is aware that this is a philosophical issue and that there is more than one valid opinion – the issue is neither clear cut nor simple. He does not wish to force his belief on other Americans, which is why he does not want the issue of abortion to be handled at the federal level. This is perfectly in line with his constitutionalist and libertarian principles.
February 09, 2012 at 7:07 am, Helen Bechtel said:
Basically: I’ve been swayed by the fiscal doomsayers regarding the economy. Has someone found any ray of optimism in this “down-turn”?
February 12, 2012 at 2:39 am, Katheryn Shum said:
I understand what you suggest in regards to the overall economy. The inflation is bad enough plus we can easily see it will eventually exacerbate. oof.
February 12, 2012 at 6:29 am, Chiquita Nietfeldt said:
If you ever listen to half these call-in drivel, most are constantly pushing precious metals as being a temporary measure to the crisis. But, my personal experience has been the salesmen never quit phoning and annoying you, and the margin is pretty awful unless you visit a local coin shop.