Avenutti King for the Day

So it is almost official, creepy porn lawyer really wants to run for president to be Democrats’ designated “fighter”. He’s already visited Iowa to listen to the grievance list.

Business Insider

“I think the party has yearned for a fighter — a fighter for good, if you will — for a significant period of time,” Avenatti said.

“And for many, I’m probably seen as that individual.”

Well, the only problem with that is he will have to fight off the dozens of other Democrat “fighters” Democrats all claim to be. Like Cory Booker with his imaginary drug dealer friend, T-Bone that just had his Spartacus moment. The guy in the pocket of big pharma.

Like Elizabeth Warren, who told us “you didn’t build that” the big government built it for you. Like Joe Biden who called us all Dreggs and said we are going to put black people back in chains, as a couple of his favorites. The anti-Me Too guy who freely gropes women and young girls publicly because he thinks they like it. Both designated Democrat “fighters.”

Or like Bernie Sanders, the king of socialism. Compete with that ‘fighter Avenutti.’ If you can’t promise people free stuff, how can people vote for you? Because you fight for them? Ha, all that Fighting is really for their free shit. Try an original line like “Two Americas.”

Like wannabe president, wing man Eric Holder who has a record of radicalism, contempt and fighting public interest behind him.

Does this mean Michael Avenutti is getting out of the Creepy Porn Lawyer business?

Right Ring | Bullright

Teamsters plays the ‘player’

This week the Teamsters (IBT) put out this statement about the endorsement of a presidential candidate.

(WASHINGTON) – On Tuesday, Sept. 29 the Teamsters Union General Executive Board decided to not endorse a presidential candidate at this time.

The Teamsters look forward to meeting with Hillary Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders and any other candidate, regardless of party affiliation, who is committed to improving the lives of America’s working families. This would include Vice President Joe Biden should he choose to run. In addition to meeting with the candidates, the union plans to survey its leaders and membership as well.

Earlier this month, the Teamsters Union launched the “Let’s Get America Working!” campaign to encourage both Democratic and Republican lawmakers to work together to focus on creating good jobs through investment in our nation’s infrastructure.

It’s long past time for Republicans and Democrats to put aside their differences and work together for the good of our country,” said Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa. “The Teamsters will work with and support any candidate who puts the needs of America’s working families above the deep pockets of their corporate donors.

Founded in 1903, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters represents 1.4 million hardworking men and women throughout the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. Visit www.teamster.org for more information.

https://teamster.org/news/2015/09/teamsters-statement-presidential-endorsement-process

On the heels of Hillary opposing the Keystone pipeline, this statement comes out. It reminds me of a statement another union made, but I’m not sure which one. (could have been teachers or nurses) They talk about surveying their members. Really?

While I don’t buy into too many possibilities here, I do think it is interesting. My reflexive opinion is that it is a some great head fake. One reason it may even be stated is that Hillary is in so much trouble. Face it, Hillary is so busy covering and protecting herself that there is no doubt what comes first to her. The only person as self-centered as Hillary is Obama. (talk about ideologues)

Beyond that reflex though, is it possible they are looking at all the candidates, including Trump? I do have a few doubts. But if so it may be the best thing they’ve done in 30 years. It is now up to them to prove it is not a head fake. Since Democrats are in disarray, it could be they don’t want to rule out supporting another candidate, on the left of course. Biden would be right up their alley. And you can’t tell me they wouldn’t drool for Warren. Bernie Sanders is still on the bench warming up. I doubt they would rule him out.

“It’s past time for Repubs and Dems to put aside differences.” That’s the kind of crazy talk I expect though from Teamsters. When they do put aside differences, we the people generally get screwed by both — and not for the good of the country. Amnesty is one example.  The IBT has been supporting ideologues for years, why act as if they are not drinking the Kool Aid now? Gee, it would be a little early to announce an endorsement, so it’s a pre-annnouncement not a prenuptial — more about self-relevance.

But I’m open to the potential possibilities as long as they are open to receiving feedback. (which they usually aren’t)  And I’m pretty sure it was one of the teachers’ unions who set the illusion  of surveying their members on a position.

 

The contract on Trump

No holds barred, takedown plans to rub out Trump in September. Wait, well maybe a few holds, like not by reluctant fellow candidates. They don’t want their fingerprints on that. Still it comes from the estabos anyway.
CNN

It’s no secret the Republican establishment is unnerved by Donald Trump and his lead in national and key state polls./…

“So they’re looking to more establishment PACs to potentially take him down in post-Labor Day ads.”

That opens it up to contract for hire. I wonder what the reward is? Rally the pacs to crank out the ads. All this might sound like a conspiracy if I didn’t know better. Knowing Trump and the way he handles things, who can rule out a backfire? They just might take aim to drive his poll numbers up even more.

Remember what Newt did in South Carolina. Now perhaps the same ire as the media got then will be turned on the estabos and their pacs. (their credibility is waning already) Just saying, at this point it is a possibility. And this being only the first unified attempt at the mission.

People are about to find out how nasty the estabos can be in a turf war. Never mind how nasty you think Trump is. That puts lamestream media and the establishment on the same page. Will they conspire (ally) with Democrats? Sounds like a job for the Cosa Nostra.

We reached the point…maybe of no return

We have reached the point. No, not the point of fusion, antimatter, or quantum physics squared, or the missing link. We may have reached the point where estabo candidates think Trump could win Iowa and potentially the nomination and, according to some, possibly the White House. Granted there is a ways to go, but that sort of sentiment is bound to have an effect on the election.

But then leave it to a politico like Mark Halprin to state the obvious, and cause everyone to start to talk about it, gasp, openly. Sea change is here?

Halperin: Trump Reached ‘Turning Point,’ ‘Most’ Estab Cands Think He Can Win Nomination

by Ian Hanchett17 Aug 2015 | Breitbart

Bloomberg Politics Managing Editor Mark Halperin stated that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has “reached a turning point” where the “establishment candidates” think he can win Iowa, “most” believe he can win the nomination, and “a significant number think he could win the White House” on Monday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Halperin was asked his writing that “Most importantly, we’ve reached a turning point with Trump, the major establishment campaigns of both parties now think Trump could win Iowa, and most of them think he could win the nomination, and a significant number think he could win the White House.” And that the campaigns were in “full freak out mode.”

More: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/17/halperin-trump-reached-turning-point-most-estab-cands-think-he-can-win-nomination/

I’m not sure which part scares the estabos most: that he could win the nomination, or that he changed the race? (it may seem like the same thing but I don’t think it is.)  Apparently it has them in scramble mode. Perhaps because they now see anger on both sides?

Is that all it takes a Trump to come along and do this? Heaven knows we’ve been sending them the strongest possible messages for six years, or longer. Finally, maybe because they see it in black and white in the polls and in popular opinion?  Maybe because they see a potential threat with the popularity and money? At any rate, the establishment are finally sitting up and taking notice.  And they don’t like what they are seeing.

Well, they tried dismissing him, ignoring him, calling him names and ridiculing him….. never mind media’s evolution. It’ll be interesting to see if they see him as the problem.

Trump Fox hit parade keeps rolling

Ordinarily I might not be as critical of Megyn Kelly. But then there is nothing ordinary, really, anymore. This is not an ordinary election, these are not ordinary times, these are not ordinary people involved either. The circumstances here are not ordinary at all. It is serious stuff too.

But then as I criticized Candice Crowley for her moderator failures, I also am critical of Megyn Kelly’s. Fair is fair. She sensationalized the program and turned it more into reality TV than an episode of Celebrity Apprentice. Or maybe that was the role she thought she was playing? She begs for that comparison. The only reason the record number of people/viewers means anything is the heightened interest in the process. But not to Fox. Maybe Fox did well with sponsors, ads and eyeballs, or bottom lines. Good for them. Cha-ching cha-ching! But that doesn’t change the fundamental purpose of the event. Then they doubled down on that theme afterward by high-fiving each other.

That is just inappropriate behavior — no matter how well the event went or not. We had the coverage of Katrina non-stop. We had the Gulf War coverage, originally in 91-92 Even that was not sensationalized this way, as a historic major achievement. Need I mention 9/11? We didn’t see this much self-congratulation over those. No, instead they, Fox, became an inseparably integrated part of the story — a major one. Even the CNN Crowley incident, and their defense of her, was not this sensationalized by their own network.

Media covered natural disasters, riots, trials and OJ Simpson. Yet this was over the top, especially concerning a serious debate in above serious times. They turned it into their personal reality side show. Ironic that Trump was at the center of it. If they did want to cover all the candidates, with a modicum of equality, they failed focusing their attention on Trump and then themselves — personally and as a news organization. They put themselves front and center. They over-engineered it.

Then Fox complains about the viewers’ outcry after, as another news story. Poor Fox victims. It was not just one question or the one answer, it was laced through with the same sensational theme. And we don’t really need extra sensationalizing in this current reality. We have quite enough already. Then to turn that all into some success for Fox, I don’t understand that logic.

I think we are witnessing a media meltdown. When they can’t cover a major event like this without turning it into some side-freak show, then we are in a tailspin. Instead of discussing solutions to problems, they are busy compounding more layers of problems on top, mediopolizing. We evidently can’t even have the semblance of an objective process. We expect it from much of lamestream, Fox has just gone the way of the limousine media. Yet, its funny that their big problem is Trump. After South Carolina in 2012 you would have thought they would have been self-conscious of that. No, rather they played it up into a reality circus.(who knows where their research came from) Is viewer numbers and their TV personalities all they care about? Winners – Fox, at what cost? Losers – we the people, especially conservatives and Republicans. But P/C will rule with Democrats. They pander to Dems so they can still get interviews from them.

On a previous post Lafayette Angel came up with an idea of doing debates ourselves. That’s a heck of an idea. I could see conservatives doing that — not like CPAC or summit — it seems possible and attractive. Go around them. Then I had the thought it really wouldn’t affect media because they would critique it how they always do anyway. Just that they would not control the process. And why can’t we do focus groups, too? I think Lafayette Angel has something there. I’d like to say, “media, you’re fired!”

If Trump offended someone, then Fox broke their heart over objectivity. So they didn’t see this coming, like 10 miles away? Dumbass award goes to Fox.

RightRing | Bullright

Debate: Shake and Bait Questions

Seems nothing new came in the debate. All recycled information we already new. (far as I’m concerned)

The gotcha didn’t get-cha squat for media head hunters.

But one issue I really take issue with. There are many but one suffices since they used it on multiple candidates. They quoted one person to ask another person to respond. Yes, I understand the objective to create back and forth. However, everyone missed the perfect opportunity to say from the start that “those are another persons words, not mine. If you want me to respond to their words, why not ask me about my own words. Ask them about their words.”

Okay another one was asking certain questions to certain candidates. I think it was “micro” session or something. (micro BS) A bit unfair to make it so personal with so many candidates, some of whom would like to respond to it.

The explosive back and forth between Christie and Paul. Well, inside baseball, really. There was bad blood between them from way back. It was largely due to Christie’s persistent penchant for attacking conservatives rather than Democrat progressives.

Of course, it is only my opinion and 2 cents.

Run for your life

Getting into the political weeds, or cobwebs, a few things occurred to me. Start with the candidates for president. Is this going to be a primary or a parade? Cause for a rant.

When things become a pattern I start to poke fun at them. Today it’s the announcements. Every few days I get an email from someone but the subject is mostly the same. Uusually something like “should I run or not?” Whoa, are you talking to me? Glad you asked. It’s amusing how they all claim to be asking if they should run. That’s sort of like Hillary asking people “should I run?” You know there is no question in her mind, she decided long ago. Same thing with Jeb Bush and most of the others. Huckabee, there was another. In his case he parlayed his show on Fox into that question prompting his step down.

One of the latest in particular was a message from Jeb before he formerly announced. That one had a family member saying something close to: “urge my father to run”, he’s sitting on the fence wondering. Really, he was just waiting for me to tell him whether to run or not. Oh, I’m the one he is waiting to hear “yes” from before jumping in. A little sarcasm is appropriate. He seemed to have decided without my urging.

It’s almost too much for me to bear that all these people are waiting for my humble opinion on running. I must be pretty important. Of course, I know none of it is true. I have to joke about it because it is funny when they all do and say the same thing. It’s not true that they want to know much less care what you think. They want your money. What if you say no, don’t bother running or wasting your time? And every one of them has that handy-dandy link for a contribution, to “be as generous” as you possibly can. Never mind how they are going to spend it. It’s like Jim and Tammy Faye Baker shaking you down: “I know you’re heart is just telling you “give give give.”” Right, I just can’t refuse a great cause. (sarcasm meter is redlining)

Back to the announcements. When they do announce, they send you helpful notes to tell you to tune in to their announcement speech — which hopefully won’t be at the same time the other guy is also announcing. Talk about scheduling conflicts? Then you get to read the headline that indeed they announced. Woo–hoo! Was there any question about it?

But I’m just kicking the tires of the process. Well, after it happens a dozen of times or so there is no suspense to it. What people say really doesn’t matter anyway. And how about those lists they are building? That’s half the purpose of it. Why else do they do all those petition drives between runs? There is not much mystery about it. Well, accept that most of it is staged in a phony way. They’ve strategized a reason for a run, known to them.

There is one other point. If history is any example, then I figure that there is really only a potential for 2 runs. You can claim ignorance and inexperience after losing the first time and do a 2.0 revision run. That leaves us with where we are. I see Huck is running the second time. Does he realize this is it? Rick Perry is doing a second-time-around run. Rick Sandtorum. Hillary’s doing her re-fried-beans run. Oh, sure they may think they can go three but by that time they are stale as a brick. You go from household name to household blame. By then, the jig is up and it looks more like a full time job running for president. And no one wants to look like a “professional candidate”.

That leads into another issue with Jeb. You know he can run again if for some reason it doesn’t work out. It’s a rather depressing thought. Who knows, maybe he could run against one of his relatives next time? Well, that could be more like family feud, imagine those email campaigns. It’s all just a put-on anyway. We have plenty of real problems and these guys personalize it like a seer-sucker suit. It really is about them. Does he have the stuff, is what people are supposed to look at. To them the message is “why not me?”

I suppose one of the most depressing parts of it — while it is supposed to be an optimistic thing — is that it starts by getting us sick of the process before we really start. It’s like watching the holding pattern for Chicago’s O’hare airport. And let’s leave the pollsters out of it for the time being. So maybe it is a little different on the Democrats’ side. They knew four years ago who was going to run, and who was going to be the nominee. I’m sure she had the same email approach despite that.

If they based their popularity on their twitter accounts we’d be in deep kim-chee. How many phony followers does it take to decide to run? Obama and Michele have their army of followers. Obama has his own email campaign to lobby himself. He ran an insurgent campaign as the incumbent president. Follow that logic. Then he won and people voted for him the 2nd time. So this running for president thing is many various things, but straight forward and honest is not one of them.

“Then I’ll get on my knees and pray we don’t get fooled again…no no.” – Who

We might need a Candidates’ Anonymous. It would probably be government funded.

RightRing | Bullright

Survey says….

Wonders never cease. Last night one of those polling outfits called me. One can always refuse but why? Sometimes the questions reveal a lot. I know, it’s all so mundane.

So, out of all the questions one stood out. Actually, it was many questions with one common denominator. When it came to 2016, the only Democrat they used was Hillary. Gee, I wonder why? There was a long list on the Republican side, but only Hillary as the Democrat. They did ask how you felt about Joe Biden? But other than that, I guess the only candidate worth polling on is Hillary. (lucky for her)

I just like the finger pointing thing.

Photo credit

Hillary: “pollsters must love me.”

So have a little 2016 with your Hillary.
Here’s to candidates who suck all the oxygen out of the room.