Michael Avenatti is going to make a lot of Democratic hearts race if he follows through with his plans to run for the presidency, but he’ll have to learn how to attack his fellow Democrats in a way that’s a little less pugnacious than how he goes after Trump. Democratic voters will want a fighter, but they won’t want their own version of the insult comic dog.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
60 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Avenatti is a bulldog when it comes to lawyering style. He’s cocky and tough and he provokes his opponents. He seems to be good at what he does and I hope he has continued success with his case for Stormy Daniels against Trump and co.
But please let’s stop entertaining the idea of electing personalities to public office. It doesn’t always work and it weakens the government in a lot of ways. I don t want Dr Kildaire performing my surgery, I want a real doctor with experience.
We never learn from our mistakes, Trump being the hugest one I can remember. While government is far from perfect and our representatives are usually flawed, at least they have been in service for a longer period than some of the people popping up with no experience in governing at all.
Let’s focus on them, figure out who the good ones are, and back them.
At least, Avenatti has some charismatic appeal. I don’t see much of that in the names that have been proffered up on the Democratic side. I heard a discussion of this on the Nicole Wallace show yesterday and she and guests talked about a dearth of such candidates on the Dem side. And before anyone denigrates her and her guests, they are actually pulling for Dems to field a candidate who can win in 2020.
Given his profession, I’ve no doubt that he would be able to effectively push back on the attacks from the right. Off topic here, but the RGA Pac is running Stacey Abrams attack ads on both local cable and broadcast TV channels. I saw a third different one this morning about her recent tax issues and her funding her campaign instead of paying her tax bill. I don’t even know if the ad is based on fact or not. These ads are running constantly since July 24. of course one of them features her ties to Pelosi and Hillary.(If I were a candidate, I’d embrace the both of them;we don’t need to run from our party’s leaders.)
Thus far, the single Abrams ad is just mild mannered and policy focused, but at some point she’s gonna have to take off her gloves. Don’t know how any candidate can actually weather the constant attacks and come out on top, particularly if that candidate is the first of her kind in a red state. I don’t have a good feeling about her chances in November. i would be thrilled if her type of campaign actually does triumph. My opinion of voters would go up several notches. Not likely to happen, though.
I can’t help but think we hear all these “Will Avenatti/Oprah/Zuckerberg/etc. Run?” instead of talking to actual Democrats because a large segment of this nation’s media and electorate desperately needs to both tell and hear Trump-Of-The-Left fairytales in order to a swage their own guilt over making Trump happen and excuse themselves for not changing their own behavior and attitudes.
It’s the ultimate BothSiders! cover story to continue to ignore that fact that a large segment of white, materially secure, America wants a white nationalist dictatorship.
It’s a phenomenon as old as the hills.
I’m so old I remember the Lee Iacoca for President booms. (There were two.)
Six months ago, it was Oprah.
Six years ago it was Matt Damon.
Oh, and Warren Beatty, in 1999, too.
C’mon, Booman!!!
Avenatti’s a fucking high-level ambulance chaser!!!
What kind of country would elect that level of person to the most powerful position in the world?
Oh.
Wait a minute!!!
Trump.
Sigh…
Sorry…my bad.
AG
Avenatti has history which no one will sit on this time arround….I hope.
Please enlighten me. What history?
Please, God. NO!
Just another sign that the apocalypse will be here shortly.
The Four Horseman are not Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death but rather Trump, McConnell, Ryan, and Pence.
Avenatti is just helping to break the Seven Seals.
Or life has become a very bad RPG phone app without any cheat codes available.
Of course it’s also possible that I simply am suffering from the aftermath of mistakenly ingesting hallucinogenic `shrooms in 2011 and as soon as it wears off I’ll be voting for Obama’s re-election.
Over at No More Mister Nice Blog
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2018/08/avenatti-vs-trump-in-2020-i-dont-see-it.html
That Machina guy sure gets around, doesn’t he?
.
Deities can do that.
Not everyone gets everywhere…
The Progressive Master Plan is on to step 2.
Now all that remains is step 3:
3: Get the politics out of politics.
At that point we will have finally fixed politics.
I don’t think Avenatti would make it through a primary, but his advice is spot-on: hit. back. harder.
The obsession with civility and comity and just being nice and not playing hardball and acting like the GOP is a good-faith partner is part of what got us into this mess.
He’s got my vote.
Avenatti has the personality and the charisma to check Trump. Being the bully he is, Trump has left Avenatti alone, knowing here’s someone who will “punch back.”
It helps, but you need more than charisma, balls and wit in a president. Rather than continuing the trend of the presidency as game show host entertainer or reality show star, we need to get back to having leaders with honor and integrity; with experience and a history of passionate public service.
This is not meant as a put down of Avenatti, but its sad, and telling, that the attorney whose claim to fame is excellent representation of a porn star with zero public service experience is resonating to some extent as a democratic presidential hopeful. The democrats have some decent, experienced candidates who do have that public service background but lack charisma and so adhere to the canned democratic, don’t-rock-the-boat, “having conversations” approach they end up being dry as dust, status quo candidates that are less than inspiring.
Of course, any of ’em would be better than Trump as president, but we live in a world where voters need to be motivated and inspired by the idea that a candidate they’d be inclined to support would do more than the politics as usual, status quo approach which amounts to bupkis as far as change goes for the average Joe.
He would mop the floor with Trump in a debate. Hell, he’d mop the floor with him in an election.
He’s the Antitrump.
Hillary already destroyed Trump in debates.
Gore and Kerry destroyed Bush II.
The debates are not material to the actual election results
. . . Corporate Media intervene between voters’ impressions from the debate, formed independently based on what they saw/heard, to spin the preferred media narrative (e.g., Big Liar Gore!).
This phenomenon is well documented.
As I recall, Gore was fine, the sighing was hyped by SNL and it became a joke more than spin.
Just like SNL’s Palin caricature’s only work when the resonate based on the audience observations
. . . documented this long ago. Instant post-debate polls of people who actually watched indicated a majority thought Gore had “won”.
SNL may have contributed, but endless (and amplified!) looping of the “sighs”, etc., by the Worse-Than-Useless Corporate Media (who had formed a hideously unprofessional and irrational dislike of Gore) replaced that Reality with their preferred narrative, to the point that later polls re: the debates inverted that impression within the polled population (many of whom hadn’t seen the debates, but only media “reporting” of them) from that formed by people who actually watched them.
Pack journalism. Get a few Michael Kellys and Maureen Dowds on Gore’s case, and it’s an easy narrative the herd joins in.
. . . the million (+/- a few 100k) prematurely dead Iraqis.
I’d welcome him in the Dem primary. Just having him in the race would force the other candidates to toughen up and adopt some of his forceful style, and it’d quickly weed out the hand-wringing types. I don’t imagine a Joe Lieberman sort would be tolerated for long in a primary environment where everyone’s forced to step up their punching game.
Al Sharpton was good to have in the primaries in ‘004. Nobody expected him to win, but some of his rhetorical jabs were sharp and memorable.
As to actual governing, I have no reason to think Avenatti has the first clue how to run the country, aside from managing the bully pulpit (and this is keeping in mind the proper sense of the word “bully” in that phrase), but any “real” Dem candidate who can’t beat him in the primaries wouldn’t stand a chance in the general either, so I don’t see the harm.
What I really wish is that it were possible for Avenatti to somehow get Chuck Schumer’s job.
. . . “Go high” /= “gentleness”, not mutually exclusive with “hit back harder”. The “go[ing] low” that Michelle’s right that Dems should eschew = lying, including false character assassination, and cheating, e.g., all elements of the Banana Republicans’ massive, anti-American and anti-democratic voter suppression campaign.
seems to me that nearly everybody who quotes that statement interprets it differently than you do. I hear a lot of “we’re better than that”, and it’s usually very clear they mean not just not lying but avoiding anything that resembles hardball.
. . . inherent in the statement.
Guess you’d hafta ask Michelle if it was her intention. I don’t have access.
. . . that statement” includes a significant proportion of the Worse-Than-Useless Corporate Media (as I presume it does), then this take merits a giant “Duh, of course they do!”
Seems to me I remember learning about another “hit them harder” politician in my history books who was in a similar situation. Gosh what was his name again? Oh yeah! Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln was chosen over Seward for the 1860 nomination precisely because he wasn’t a ‘hit ’em harder’ politician…
True. But when the chips were down, Abe didn’t flinch he did what he had to do and he hit the racists harder.
His waffle prior to Ft. Sumter was of epic proportion, though. And his tardy embrace of abolitionism.
A triangulator before they had the word. I think it comes from time spent in the Illinois state legislature, and if the recent past is anything to go by, the virus is still there,
He was the original “I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.” president.
In 2017, Michael Avenatti was in a lot of financial trouble due to a lengthy dispute between his firm and a former employee. The dispute was halted when Tobin, a career criminal living in Florida, filed a court petition to force the firm into bankruptcy. Oddly, the firm didn’t contest the bankruptcy and exited the arbitration with the former employee. Tobin later stated that he was hired by the firm to investigate the Pulse shootings but wasn’t paid for his work.
The full story can be found here at the LA Times.
What is wrong with democrats and the party? Is there no one from their ranks to fill the job? I sure would like to see some of the fire of Alexandria by a few of them. I heard her give a very stirring speech the other day. It really seems we have no one to do the same. We are the party of disasters. Give us an economic disaster and we can handle it. But outside of that, not so much.
Someone who cares more than me might want do oppo on the guy. Look for things like: at least one business went into bankruptcy, cheats his partners, has has more than one civil suit filed against him, and defaulted on his taxes.
He has zero administrative experience. He’s a narcissist who is good at manipulating the media. We don’t even know his party affiliation.
Sound familiar?
The Dems will bury this guy before he gets out of the gate. No way his shtick plays in Iowa.
Exactly right. I want the party to do more than just be a tent outside of town with a FOR RENT sign on it, so any joker can show up with a checkbook and a crowd and take it over. Look what happened to the Republicans. It could have gone the other way, so let’s live and learn.
I don’t know Avenatti and I’m happy he’s an ally helping to slow down this regime. But I do care that he’s an unknown, has no government track record that I know of, and I do wonder who’s paying his bills right now. These are the kind of questions a party’s leadership should be asking and vetting him is the service they should be doing, not just cashing the check and handing him the keys.
. . . Especially the notion it’s something party leadership should be doing now. Avenatti looks a very long shot at this point, would need to show he’s more than a flash in the pan before serious “vetting” would seem warranted to me. Let him prove there’s something to this, first.
This presupposes a couple of things. First – that Trump will be able to run for a second term, and Second – that Avenatti’s abrasive style would appeal outside of NYC. It might appeal to these elusive Democrats we hear about who voted for Trump, but to the rest of us – not so much.
What is needed is a candidate with wit who would make mincemeat of Trump (or any other Rep. candidate) by the humorous and accurate rebuttal of inane pronouncements.
Given the Republican’s paucity of good policies and the rote declarations of inaccurate memes, almost any member of the pond could make them look absurd – without uttering a single untruth. Surely there is a Democrat somewhere out there who is fast enough on his/her feet to demolish these pretentious pols while also inspiring the nation to aim higher.
BFD.
Some yahoo whose claim to fame is that his client is famous is “exploring” a run for the presidency. So is Peter Buttigieg, Jason Kandar and Andrew Yang.
I’m all excited aren’t you?
Yeah.
Surely we can at least wait until he’s calling for ownership and control of the means of production by the workers, and their management in the workers’ interests.
My kids are going to the same public high school district in St Louis as Avenatti did. They do teach a lot about sticking up for others, and I like seeing him go after shithead. That said, I support Kamala at this early stage because she has some if that demeanor I’m looking for. Just my 2 cents.
Your 2 cents has my backing, Tommy.
BooMan, it is not like you to be this short-sighted. We don’t need a pit bull. We need someone who can:
Repair the damage done with regard to our allies.
Get rid of the Executive Orders that have done things like the Muslim Ban.
Stop the inhumane immigration policy.
Fix the Affordable Care Act
Get rid of these ridiculous tariffs.
Reinstate the Paris agreement
Undo the damage from the Iran sanctions.
Enforce the Russian sanctions.
Get rid of this silly Space Force.
Rebuild the State Department.
Hire people who actually know what they are doing in every area of Government.
Roll back as much of the damage done by the Cabinet as is humanly possible.
And on, and on, and on. There is so much work to be done. We need a leader with experience and dedication to civil service who shares our values and sees America the way we do.
Sorry, but your boy Avenatti ain’t up to the task. I’ll take the experienced, sincere, dedicated, smart but not very exciting candidate over a publicity whore every day and twice on Sunday.
Is it me or are more than a few people reading Boomans post as an endorsement rather than the criticism that i see it as?
It’s you.
I agree we need all those things. But we also need a pit bull.
If Avenatti could campaign for Democrats without actually running for office on his own account, that might be the best of all possible worlds.
But I know so little about him. Somebody said up
thread that he’s a narcissist, and that’s a pretty good bet.
Narcissism is a feature of most presidential candidates. It’s part of what makes them who they are. It’s a spectrum.
I see that there are two effects that have to be watched: the charm, the hypnotic effect that some have on others; and the reality distortion that extreme cases create. In other words, uncontrolled narcissism.
I suppose you’re right, but with Avenatti I had in mind a fairly extreme case.
His blocking of dissenters on twitter, thus shielding his followers from people who don’t agree with him is not a good sign.
One has to have a healthy ego to run for office. Straying into the extreme forms of narcissism seems like a fit description of Avenatti.
I see lots of dissenting voices on Avenattis twitter feed. So your claim can’t be true in general.
I’ve only commented here a couple of times, but I’ve been an avid reader here for a few years now, and felt like I had something to say.
A reminder as we strain to find some outside-the-box savior who can beat Trump in 2020.
We need to realize how exceptional 2016 was. In the absence of the types of factors HRC ended up facing, not only would she have beaten Trump, but likely any of our last four nominees (Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Gore) would have as well.
HRC was a perfectly good candidate (Booman — I remember you being very unhappy with her about her e-mails but the IG report basically says, “It wasn’t Hillary’s fault that the State Department’s technology sucked so much that she had to come up with another solution.” Seriously.). Clinton had to fight almost every media outlet, Cambridge Analytica, the FBI (if you read the IG report, he couldn’t figure out after months of investigating why in hell Comey, Page, Strzok, McCabe, etc were investigating HRC in the first place, why they continued three months after they’d realized there was nothing there, why Comey did the July press conference, and why they all have collective amnesia about anything that happened between the day they found out about Weiner’s computer and when Comey issued his letter) and the Russians in 2016 and still would’ve won by what would’ve been considered a landslide had the Comey letter not dropped when it did.
The Russians and the Mercer/Bannon/ex-CA crew could still be very active in 2020, but at least we’ll be aware of them.
Trump was incredibly unpopular (36%!) on Election Day 2016, but the Comey letter rode a wave generated by a perfect storm to swamp Hillary in the end. You can like her or not (and full disclosure, I think she’s great and took two months off from work to volunteer for her and in fact watched the election results at her Brooklyn HQ), but by nearly every conventional measure of a campaign, hers was better than Trump’s. We remember her “gaffes,” but we remember them specifically because there were so few but they were so picked over by the media while Trump’s could only be covered for 15 minutes before he threw out another shiny object. She gave three great performances in the debates, and had a solid GOTV effort that was built on Obama’s and Trump had very little (though we found out later the Kochs were sending out busloads of volunteers). Other than the Russian-generated Sanders supporter meltdown at the DNC, put on the best, most positive convention I can remember. She ran on undeniably the most progressive platform of my lifetime and talked constantly about the issues, though you wouldn’t know it because the TV networks would rather talk about her e-mails while showing an empty Trump podium for an hour on splitscreen.
No, she didn’t go to Wisconsin or Michigan down the stretch, but we’re not sure how much the candidate having rallies in a place actually matters (Republicans were telling us Romney had bigger turnouts than Obama in 2012; HRC put tons of time, money, and effort into Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania (for a lot of the stretch run, we didn’t have enough seats to accommodate all of the buses the campaign was sending to canvas in suburban Philly) but didn’t win them; and I remember laughing at the absurdity of Trump making appearances in deep blue Connecticut and New Jersey, which of course he lost. She had three times the field offices Trump did, and most of Trump’s were ghost towns. Not as many as Obama’s, but it didn’t make sense to have that many when Trump barely had any. She had superstar surrogates like the Obamas, Biden, Bill, LeBron James, and Queen Bey, while Trump had, um, Jeff Sessions, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Flynn, and Pam Bondi. She did have a lot of very enthusiastic supporters — on the night of the election, HQ was overwhelmed with volunteers. I was on tech support duty in the phone bank and I must’ve had to support 500 people, not just in the packed volunteer office, but in a huge overflow room and sitting on the floor lining the halls throughout HQ.
If the election had been held on October 25th, as far as conventional campaigns go, political scientists would’ve put hers right up there with Obama’s. That 3-4 point Comey slide moved her from a 6-7 point popular vote margin and around 330 EVs, to a 3 point margin and losing the EV by 70,000 votes in three states.
With that pro-Hillary rant off my chest…
Other than the incomprehensible exception of the NYT, most of the media is doing a much better job than in 2016 (particularly CNN’s prime-time lineup, most of whom have openly turned against Trump since Helsinki, and in some cases, before that).
Trump’s approval is only staying afloat because the economy is doing well. The Obama economy appears to have crested; not that it couldn’t potentially do better, but Trump’s policies seem tailor-made to kill it. Even if we don’t have a total collapse like 2008 (and I don’t think it’ll get that bad), I unfortunately think we’ll be in undeniably worse shape two years from now. It’ll suck for America, but at some point I’m guessing Trump, just on the economic merits, will be parked permanently in sub-40% approval territory.
Assuming Manafort goes down (and short of a member of the jury being paid off or threatened by Russians), Trump is not coming out of the Mueller investigation unscathed. I don’t believe he’ll be indicted, and I think more likely than not he’ll serve out the rest of his term, but Mueller is going to be picking off people significant to Trump for at least the next year.
It’s looking pretty damned likely that the Dems will take the House in November. If so, as many have pointed out, chairpeople like Nadler and Schiff are going to be dumping everything they can about Trump. Democratic members involved with the investigations in both houses have insinuated that there’s a heck of a lot more there on Trump than we’ve seen, but that the Republicans are blocking it from coming out.
I didn’t think liberals could build the energy we did in January 2017, let alone sustain it until November of 2018, but here we are less than three months before the midterms and we’re still finding ourselves on the verge of winning R+11 congressional races. After Bush’s fuckups became too terrible to deny, we had a pickup of progressive energy for a year or so until we all got knocked off our game by the “Tea Party;” I think Trump has fueled our fire much more than Bush did and he’s not going to stop. As Bob Cesca says, “Trump always makes things worse for himself.”
Trump’s base is a collective primal scream that is so loud because conservative whites know that they need to take more and more desperate measures (colluding with a foreign power, increased voter suppression). I figured going into 2016 that as their numbers dwindled, those white Republicans would nominate someone like Trump, but that would be one or two more cycles away and at that point it would be too late for them… it turned out they were close enough for a Hail Mary to eke out a win in 2016, but those demographics aren’t getting any better for them over four years.
Our 2016 field, outside of HRC and Sanders (before he turned into a petulant brat — thank you Tad Devine), was shit. When your third-best candidate is Martin O’Malley? Yikes. Our 2020 field (and it’s SO early still) feels like a cornucopia of riches, like 2008, when we had Obama, Clinton, Edwards (sans his dumb penis), and Biden, all of whom could’ve been great candidates. I mean, I’d enthusiastically get behind any of Warren, Gillibrand, Booker, Swalwell, Merkley, Harris, Holder, Patrick, Murphy, or Biden. I’d be OK with candidates I’ve had differences with in the past but who have improved as our party has moved left, like Cuomo or McAuliffe (both of whom the WaPo mentioned as potential candidates a month ago). The Trump crisis has turned all of these into household names (or at least names known by people who casually pay attention to politics), so they have a headstart. I’m pretty familiar with the Democratic presidential fields since 1988, and if the above is in fact the field, it’s the deepest I’ve seen. We don’t need a billionaire, Hollywood personality, or wild card.
I’m not being pollyannish; in fact, I’m scared as hell. I’ve been saying on Twitter for months that if any of these three things happen — the Mueller investigation being shut down, Kavanaugh getting confirmed, or the Dems failing to win BOTH houses (yes, we need the Senate so we can stop further Trump nominees), our democracy will basically be over. But if come 2019 none of those things have happened, it’s not looking for some dream candidate that we need to focus on — it’s making sure that a perfect storm like 2016 is not allowed to materialize.
First and foremost, we need to protect our democratic institutions. I really could foresee Trump declaring himself a dictator while the Republicans in Congress cheer him on and his packed court system decides that the original intent of the Founding Fathers was, in fact, to eventually put a clown king in power for life.
Then we need to combat the Russians and those who enable them, to make sure the media sees Trump for who he is and to fight “Dems in disarray” and mendacious Republican-invented teardown stories, to minimize voter suppression, and to keep up popular progressive momentum.
If we do those things, we will be starting to turn America around in 2021 with a pretty good President.
If not, well, um… fuck.
I’m hoping you contribute more often. Great commentary.
Thanks. I usually either use Twitter or my blog, but I’ve been on hiatus from them for the month. I did turn this comment into a good post, which was my first in three weeks. Sometimes when you’ve got something to say, you’ve got something to say!
. . . you don’t, but some folks around these parts feel compelled to say it anyway.
Thanks for the thoughtful and insightful comment. Am particularly glad to see this:
Thank you, too, for the positive retrospective on HRC and her campaign. I plan on sharing this with a couple of relatives who’ve long been negative on her and her candidacy. I’ve never quite understood why, except that we, all of us, hold women to a higher standard in the political arena.
Crossposted here: http://www.thegreatconsolidation.com/2018/08/do-we-need-avenatti.html
I think if the election had taken place on the 19th of November, the results might well have been different. In other words a reversion to the mean might have happened.
Fully agree. As of November 8th, the odds weren’t high that on any given day Trump would’ve won, but they had closed to 70-30ish, which would mean that if the election were held 10 times, Hillary would’ve won 7 of them. But that was one of the other three. A month before, the odds were more like 80-20. And as much as Nate Silver says he thinks Trump always had a chance, I remember when the gap got particularly large in late August/early September, and Nate and his podcast crew would laugh every time someone suggested that Trump had a chance because 538 at the time had its odds pegged around 90-10. And, you know, at the time, he was right. But some REALLY improbable stuff happened between that point and Election Night. But there were three momentous dates between September 1st and November 8th:
-September 11th — Hillary, who has to tough her way through FUCKING PNEUMONIA just because the right has been spreading rumors since 2012 that she was sick and was going to die ANY DAY NOW and she didn’t feel like she could afford to feed the conspiracy mongers.
-October 7th — Man, I can’t wait until we have the definitive history until exactly how that day happened. I was supposed to be out canvassing for HRC in Philadelphia that day but decided to drive and meet the bus there so I could spend the night afterwards visiting a friend there. On the way, the bus was rerouted to the suburbs and I didn’t know where it was, so I said, “Fuck it” and called my friend to say I’d be early. She wasn’t ready, so I went into a bar near Temple to have lunch and watch football until we could meet up. One of the TVs had the news on and it was mentioned that Jeh Johnson announced that the Russians were interfering with our elections. Up to that point, and really until mid-December, I didn’t think the race was close enough or Americans were stupid enough for the Russians dropping e-mails would make a difference. That was the last time I thought about Johnson’s announcement until, I think, Russian Roulette was released, because, of course, the Billy Bush tape dropped a few hours later (due to strange circumstances I have my reaction to that tape on my own recording, chronicled here — http://www.thegreatconsolidation.com/2017/08/the-hubris-of-before-time.html). I stayed up all night that night watching the news, including Trump’s awkward “apology” and laughing my ass off. I watched the news ravenously over the next week or two when I wasn’t phonebanking, looking for some Trumpenfreude. I expected to see hourlong blocks every hour on CNN beating Trump down (like they FINALLY do almost two years later), but was surprised to find that during the A-blocks the CNN panels would be talking about the Trump tapes, while the Trump representatives like Kayleigh McAneny and Jason Miller were squealing, “BUT WHY AREN’T WE TALKING ABOUT JOHN PODESTA’S E-MAILS?” And rather than say, “Fuck Podesta’s risotto recipe, the Republican nominee is a self-admitted serial sexual assaulter and the Russians are trying to put him in the White House,” the hosts (including my now beloved Don Lemon and Erin Burnett) would say, “We are! We’re going to get to that in the next segment.” And then they talked about Podesta’s e-mails in every B-block, utterly drowning out the Russia news and diluting the pussy tape. In retrospect, I now realize that those three bombs were dropped within six hours of each other. That can’t be a coincidence, right?
-And, of course, Comeynacht.
What were the fucking odds?
That was a damn good pep talk! Thank you.
I just hope we can do that sans winning the Senate, which I think won’t happen barring great fortune.