Clint Eastwood isn't satisfied with Congress
February 9th, 2013
04:02 PM ET
1 year ago

Clint Eastwood isn't satisfied with Congress

(CNN) - Clint Eastwood isn't pleased with the job Congress is doing.

"It's almost like they don't give a damn," he said Friday in an interview with CNBC. "So if they don't give a damn, why do they expect anybody else to?"

And he's not the only one.

A CNN poll conducted last month found only 21% approved of how Congress is handling its job.

That survey was taken fresh on the heels of the fiscal cliff standoff, where bickering between the parties sent the U.S. over the so-called fiscal cliff, although only briefly.

Some would say conditions on Capitol Hill hasn't improved much since, especially as lawmakers find themselves in gridlock ahead of future financial battles, such as the sequester deadline next month and the debt limit by May.

Congress also has immigration and gun violence legislation in the pipeline, and a number of Cabinet nominations to consider.

But Eastwood, who endorsed GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and drew attention for a rambling address at the Republican National Convention this summer, doesn't see progress in Washington.

"There's just a lot of people standing looking at one another and maybe it just appears that way to us who are outside of the beltway," Eastwood said. "Right now it's very disappointing. I just wish - the election's over, we should be moving ahead. And the leaders aren't stepping up."


Filed under: Congress
soundoff (375 Responses)
  1. Clown

    Is he going to put on his six shooters, pull a wild west and stratghten everyone up now.

    February 9, 2013 10:52 pm at 10:52 pm |
  2. Mark

    ncgreybr – You might want to care. Only with a blend of what all of America feels is goo for the country will represent us all. Your Dem only approach is blind and stupid. this isnt a Football game, or the Prom King and Queen.

    There are 80% of voters out there that have other than Dem political views.
    the only reason Obama was elected is because there were no candidates offered that everyone could truly vote for and feel safe about it. Obama,and the Dem philosophy was the best safe choice. Not a stamp of Dem politics.

    February 9, 2013 11:06 pm at 11:06 pm |
  3. Sue

    Why do we care about Eastwood's opinion? I have never considered him a man whose life experiences and behavior have been nothing but self-centered. Rather a poor man's Trump.

    February 9, 2013 11:09 pm at 11:09 pm |
  4. Pearl Lea

    It really isnt about republicans vs democrats,, liberals vs conservatives...it is about what our congress is doing for our country. They voted to give themselves a pay raise...they can pay themselves with taxpayer money while not doing anything to help the country. The congress want sthe general population to fight among ourselves, this way they can do whatever they want and all of us fools will fall into the party lines and bash the other side. "United We Stand; Divided We Fall". The "government of the people, for the people, and by the people" has perished from this earth, while we all sit around argueing politics. Wake up and smell the hummus people.

    February 9, 2013 11:10 pm at 11:10 pm |
  5. sfh

    Quite simply: He's correct.

    February 9, 2013 11:12 pm at 11:12 pm |
  6. Bob Burke

    The fallacy of the 21% approval rating for Congress is that "we like our Congressman; yours suck". House members are largely elected by a small number of constituents; they are the ones other constituents don't like.

    February 9, 2013 11:20 pm at 11:20 pm |
  7. edirol

    Agree with Eastman. We typically associate the word "impeachment" with a President, but, Congressmen, of all types, can also be impeached.

    February 9, 2013 11:20 pm at 11:20 pm |
  8. Jimh77

    This has to be the worse Congress ever since 1774. Neither branch is worth their weight in salt. Our entire political system is so compromised it is completely worthless. Only the truly rich people are the ones controlling America now.
    The rest of us are all pawns.

    February 9, 2013 11:21 pm at 11:21 pm |
  9. Fred Phred

    Clint, the guys you so heartily endorsed are blocking legislation

    They've got 4 more years of stalling to do until they can finally decide that they want to approve anything.

    Sounds like an empty chair congress.

    February 9, 2013 11:21 pm at 11:21 pm |
  10. John

    They already agreed to sequestration. If they cannot take it at 10%, all they need do is decide what percent is enough to be sending a message they are doing SOMETHING, while not doing anything fatal. 4%? Do I hear a 5? Okay, okay, I could live with 6, but that's tops. Oh, THREE? Okay, but why did you personally insist on 10 just 2 months ago? Fine, never mind, we'll do 3, we can always look again in 6 months. Besides, at last we're doing, or appear to be doing, SOMETHING.

    February 9, 2013 11:32 pm at 11:32 pm |
  11. John

    PS-that was me, talking to a chair.

    February 9, 2013 11:32 pm at 11:32 pm |
  12. Greenspam

    Go ahead, make my day.

    February 9, 2013 11:34 pm at 11:34 pm |
  13. mommytwice

    Many members of congress are now in a tailspin because their single goal for 4 years has been to get rid of Obama. The American people clearly didn't agree, and now they have no clue what to do. So, there will be more of the same...obstruct, block, and yell No. That's what they do.

    February 9, 2013 11:34 pm at 11:34 pm |
  14. Tommy

    You have to ask yourself one question Clint, does anybody care what you say anymore? Well do they??

    February 9, 2013 11:34 pm at 11:34 pm |
  15. Siamese Triplets

    Everybody thinks it was real cool that Eastwood was Mayor of Carmel, Ca. The only reason he ran for mayor was because he wanted to renovate a building in downtown Carmel, but what he wanted to build was too high to pass building regulations, so he ran for Mayor, won, forced the building commission to change the requirements, built his building, then didn't run for re-election because he no longer needed to maniulate the city council. He got what he wanted. What a chump.

    February 9, 2013 11:37 pm at 11:37 pm |
  16. Kenoscope

    I am not satisfied with Eastwood, he does not in ANY way represent me.

    February 9, 2013 11:39 pm at 11:39 pm |
  17. Dan

    Mr. Eastwood may have been all over the place at the republican convention, but he actually makes a good point here. The extent to which our representatives (particularly the Republicans who are being pushed farther to the right by the extremists in the Tea Party) have crossed their arms and refused to compromise or cooperate resembles an infantile level of intellect and has resulted in the continued degradation of our trust in their ability to serve the common good of their nation, rather than their party.

    February 9, 2013 11:47 pm at 11:47 pm |
  18. Tekbit

    I didn't surrender niether..but they took my Horse and made Him surrender. Probably pulling a cartel down in Mexico now.

    February 9, 2013 11:48 pm at 11:48 pm |
  19. USA

    Yea Clint. I'm sure a lot of people agree with You. Thanks. :-)

    February 9, 2013 11:50 pm at 11:50 pm |
  20. Sean

    How is this news? Nobody likes Congress and Eastwood is a senile old man who yells at inanimate objects.

    February 9, 2013 11:53 pm at 11:53 pm |
  21. Getoverit

    By the way, everyone, Congress includes the Democratically controlled Senate .

    February 9, 2013 11:54 pm at 11:54 pm |
  22. Walt

    Why do we continue with the party system at all? We should eliminate the party system in favor of a grass roots style system. Begin at the local level, then county, then state, and then regional until only two candidates remain. The need to fund these debates can be eliminated utilizing PBS. It is publicly funded is it not? Oh, wait. Did we forget that the FCC changed how this operates. A little history then. Broadcasters used to have to pay license fees to utilize portions of the spectrum. This was because the people/public owned those airwaves. They then utilized some of this money to pay for PBS. Anyway back to topic... This way we eliminate much of the greed factor. I would also eliminate lobbying period. Shorten terms for all politicians, such that performance dictates who remains in office/power. This system would eliminate the "party line" issue, as there wouldn't be any parties.

    February 9, 2013 11:57 pm at 11:57 pm |
  23. Wiseone

    You think this old flake would stay quiet after his foolish appearance at the RNC.

    February 10, 2013 12:04 am at 12:04 am |
  24. Rod

    Like we should care more about what you yahoos think?

    February 10, 2013 12:08 am at 12:08 am |
  25. Todd in DC

    Clint, that's not Congress you are talking to, that's a street light. Now come on, it's time for your happy pill. Be good, and I'll read you a story.

    February 10, 2013 12:11 am at 12:11 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15