The Go-To Reference for People Afraid of Mass Culture

And one of many go-to references for pundits trying to explain Trump


Warner Bros.

Maybe Tuesday will finally bring an end to one of the more annoying pundit clichés of this campaign season: the constant comparisons between Donald Trump and Lonesome Rhodes, Andy Griffith's character in the 1957 film A Face in the Crowd.

For nearly 60 years, A Face in the Crowd has been a go-to reference for people afraid of the places where populist politics mix with popular culture. The movie has its charms—no film with Walter Matthau in it is all bad, and Griffith turns in the best performance of his career—but it's also bound up with a bunch of overblown anxieties about mass culture and mass media. In the December Reason I wrote about the problems with the picture's worldview, and I also explained why I think a superficially similar movie, Frank Capra's Meet John Doe, is a lot sharper.

And now that article is online! To read it, go here.

NEXT: Seeing Trump on the Silver Screen

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. As I recall (speaking of lazy, intellectually dishonest liberal hacks) Keith Olbermann constantly used invidious comparisons to Lonesome Rhodes when he talked about the superior rating s of Glenn Beck……

    1. I am grateful that I am unable to recall much of anything Olbermann ever said.

      1. I’m making over $17k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. More info this web..

        1. No, I don’t believe that was one of his go to talking points.

      2. Calm Down Just Relaks – If This Sound Good For You – Popcorn First !!!
        Interested? Check – visit don’t forget to like & share
        Latest Update More HD Quality Movie Complete Available Here:
        ? ? ? ? ? ?
        Happy & Enjoy to Watch For Free

    2. That guy is insufferable. He once took on an insufferable, arrogant, lazy, intellectual, dishonest progressive, infantile hack sports writer here in Montreal (a draft dodger from the U.S.). A retard fight ensued.

  2. Thanks to Cafe Hayek to turning me onto this article about Heidegger

    I’m glad there are other people willing to do the work of deciphering the modern philosophers and their insufferably obtuse language.

    Heidegger asks about the meaning of being, which is a term that has been considered either so general or so empty as to defy description. However, seeming to start with a phenomenological method, Heidegger looks into the kind of being that asks about being, which is us, which he terms ? in German ? Dasein. He claims boldly that we can see the meaning of being by examining our very asking about it.

    In the process, he inaugurates what comes to be known as existentialism, for he argues that, whereas we use categorials to name the ways in which we can speak of a thing, such as substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, and so on. In contrast, Dasein is structured by existentials. He denies that Dasein has an essence, or a “what,” “because its essence lies rather in the fact that in each case it has its Being to be, and has it as its own.” Dasein, he wrote, “always understands itself in terms of its existence ? in terms of a possibility of itself: to be itself or not itself.”

    1. I completely disagree that he created existentialism. Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard did that. What both Kierkegaard and Heidegger are talking about self awareness. We don’t just perceive the world, we are aware we are doing it and can step outside of ourselves and see ourselves doing it. Moreover, our self awareness allows humans to create themselves through their perceptions and actions.

      I agree with that. I do not, however, agree with what Heidegger and later existentialists conclude from that. I think it is just a fancy and perhaps more precise restatement of Plato. Since we are aware of our actions and thus we can perceptive and be effected our decisions and actions, our self is a product of all of our actions and perceptions. We choose how we perceive the world and how we act in consequence and in doing so create ourselves. My problem with the existentialists is they start using that to deny free will and start talking about how the Sein drives and controls the Dasein. The spirit of the age picks us up and carries us towards the future. This is why Heiddegger went Nazi. He couldn’t resist the talk about the “Volk” and its destiny and all that. Once you start thinking people are entirely products of and enslaved by the spirit of the age, it is a short leap to the kind of collectivist madness of fascism.

      1. Existentialists do the complete opposite of deny free will. Sartre thought free will was absolute.

        1. No some existentialists do that. We are not talking about Satre. We are talking about Heidegger. And Heidegger comes pretty close to denying it if you look at the full implications of his view of being and the relationship to the self.

    2. Thanks for posting that.

      I’ve never quite understood the need of some on the left to defend Heidegger. He was a Nazi, unapologetic, who lied about being a Nazi.

      The idea of authenticity that Heidegger promoted is another key idea that has been deployed by anti-libertarian movements, in which an authentic collective self is allegedly liberated from the abstract rules-approach of liberalism. Every modern national fascist movement, every modern populist movement of modern times, has roots that are deeply embedded in the soil prepared by Heidegger, which found authentic existence in a historical collectivity, which may be taken to be a national-linguistic-racial collectivity, such as Germanness, or the Islamic Umma, or community of believers. Heidegger’s thinking is central to the neo-Nazi Jobbik and Golden Dawn movements in Hungary and Greece, the Neo-Eurasianist Nazi movement in Russia, and in the Islamic Republic of Iran and radical Islamism generally. The Islamic Republic is a most interesting case, because the intellectual leaders behind its establishment were very committed Heideggerians.

      1. No, not every populist movement is like that. American populism is different and unique because it is not based on blood and soil. In Europe populism is collectivism because it is exclusive to blood and soil. You can’t become a German or a Frenchman, because being one is a product of our parentage and where you were born. You can, however, become an American. Being an American has nothing to do with your race, religion or even where you were a born. Being an American means buying into a set of liberal values and pledging allegiance to the country. That is completely different than the blood and soil populism of Europe.

        For this reason, American populism can be a very positive thing. Rather than being a collective movement bent on purging a collective enemy like European populism, American populism is the public reasserting its sovereignty over its self appointed elites. You need elites. Someone has to be in charge of the government and all that. But the public needs to purge them every so often so they understand who it is they serve. That is the whole Jefferson thing about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants.

        Our current crop of sorry elites of course don’t want to be purged. And they have over the last 70 years learned some German philosophy. So, they purposefully confuse American populism with European populism as a way to avoid the natural and needed process of purging our elites every once in a while.

        1. This is why I’ve always been bothered by the trend of criticising American exceptionalism. America is exceptional. It’s one of the few countries where there is no ethnic component to national identity. There’s no “American” language or ethnicity, in other words. You’re an American because you believe in certain principles, not because you speak a certain language or were born in a particular region. And yes, I know that birth on American soil makes you an American citizen; I’m talking about the phenomenon of national identity–most Americans see a Tunisian immigrant’s son as just as American as themselves, in a way that wouldn’t happen as readily in France, for instance. I think that meshes with what you’re saying about American populism as a grass-roots phenomenon, John.

        2. You can’t generalize that way about American populism. It’s a very broad and fuzzy-edged tendency. To some it has more to do with process or style than product. To others it is indeed about blood & soil, which is why black & white populists couldn’t get together 30-40 yrs. ago. The label has been applied to all sorts of tendencies in the USA & Canada, & I can’t say any of them are wrong. Many populists would like their type to own the label & disavow the other types, but more commonly the label’s been applied to them by observers rather than themselves.

          Maddox & Lilie applied the term “populist” to the closest tendency they could find to authoritarians on the diamond chart in 1979, because there’s never been a truly authoritarian mass tendency in the USA like the European ones. Communists, fascists, etc. in the USA have always been considered oddballs or mere eggheads w no more than a cult following. Maddox & Lilie traced all 4 quadrants of the diamond chart to an original American liberalism around the time of the founding.

          Because of Maddox & Lilie’s straw-grasping use of the term, for decades among movement libertarians there’s been a tendency to identify populism with authoritarianism, the identification working in both directions so that any nascent movement w populist tendencies, such as Perot’s, has been caricatured as authoritarian. However, American populism can sometimes be quite libertarian, as libertarians finally started to notice in the past 20 yrs.

          1. Can there be blood and soil populism in the US? Sure. But it has been rare and received very little support. Populism in the US has mostly been of the sort I describe.

        3. Agreed about the need to *peacefully* (hi, Preet!) purge the elites and replace them with a more chastened crowd with better principles.

          1. Ah, well, hope in one hand, etc.

        4. Being an American has nothing to do with your race, religion or even where you were a born.

          I’d love to see you convince tens of millions of anchor babies that the last phrase is true.

  3. ‘ I’m telling you Andy,we got to nip it, nip it in the bud ! ‘

    1. Calm Down Just Relaks – If This Sound Good For You – Popcorn First !!!
      Interested? Check – visit don’t forget to like & share
      Latest Update More HD Quality Movie Complete Available Here:
      ? ? ? ? ? ?
      Happy & Enjoy to Watch For Free

  4. First I’ve heard of this meme (or this movie) but as I read the linked article my immediate thought was “Al Sharpton”.

  5. I think it is a good movie and it shows that Andy Griffith was a hell of an actor, but I think it is not a very good reflection of reality. Is there some truth to it? Yes. But it is not the entire truth. If it were, then you might as well reject the idea of a Republic. A Republic does not embrace unrestrained Democracy. It does, however, recognize the people as the ultimate sovereign. Yes, people get pissed off and go off the rails and make hot headed and wrong and sometimes evil decisions. And a Republic is designed to limit the effects of these fits of madness by limiting the immediate power of popular will. It only, however, limits the immediate power of the popular will. If the popular will is unified and determined enough, a Republic will necessarily and by design bend to it. The point of a Republic is to make that difficult so that the public has really thought about what it is doing before it does it. The point is not, however, to deny that will. In a properly functioning Republic the popular will ultimately always wins out if it chooses to do so.

    1. You can’t embrace the ultimate supremacy of popular will that is necessary for a Republic without also embracing the ultimate wisdom of that will. The problem with this movie is that it rejects the popular will altogether. It basically says that people, because they are so easily taken in by charlatans like the protagonists, can’t be trusted with the ultimate word on their own government and must instead be governed by their betters who can resist such. That movie is basically a giant justification for technocratic Progressivism.

      1. “…because they are so easily taken in by charlatans like the protagonists, can’t be trusted with the ultimate word on their own government and must instead be governed by their betters who can resist such. ”

        I was pretty young when we had Carter’s gas crisis, a crisis of his making. It confused me why he would do such an incredibly stupid thing so I asked my father about it.

        Me – “Why cant we get better people in charge?”

        Him – “Who?”

        Me – “I don’t know, there has to be someone better than these idiots”

        Him – “Ok, so name them. Who?”

        Me – *sulking*

        Him – “The truth is, there just isnt anyone”

        Over the years I have found that he was correct.

        1. Conservative and libertarian elites are better than leftist elites. They are not downright evil like the left. They are however not immune from the temptation of thinking they know best and the dumb masses need to fall in line and do what they are told. Like all elites, the need to be purged every so often as a reminder that they don’t.

          1. Thanks for posting that link. I miss George and his over-bubbling optimism

  6. The other thing I don’t like about that movie is that it pretends that only the unwashed masses are susceptible to this kind of thing. History shows that to be complete bunk. intellectuals are forever looking for the populist demagogue who seduces the unwashed masses while always being the first to fall in line when such a person comes along.

    Neither the communists nor the fascists were ever that popular among the middle and lower classes of Germany or Russia. Neither of them ever won a popular election of any kind. They both were, however, wildly popular among the intellectual classes. The myth is that Nazism took root on the streets of Munich among low end ignorant angry Germans. There were plenty of thugs who joined the movement as brown shirt muscle because it was a good place to be a thug. But where Nazism really took root was among college students and professors. The same is true of Communism. All the communist monsters were or at least thought of themselves as intellectuals. And as everyone knows intellectuals have proven to be the most shameful apologists for both.

    The famous quip about the dark night of fascism forever falling on America and landing on Europe is not quite right. The dark night of collectivism movements of all types is forever falling on the unwashed masses and landing on the intellectuals.

    1. The best treatment of this is T. Sowell’s ‘The Vision of the Annointed’.

      1. Read Paul Johnson’s “Modern Times” sometime. I read that book either in or right after high school. It is one of the books that literally changed my life and outlook on things. It is a history of the world from 1919 to 1985. Johnson lays out all of the evils of fascism and communism and how they are just two sides of the same collectivist evil. He also leaves no doubt that intellectuals and elites, not the evil masses, were the ones behind those movements and the evils that resulted.

        Jonah Goldberg got a lot of press a couple of years ago for writing a book called Liberal Fascism which explained the Progressive movement’s relationship and embrace of fascism in the 20s and 30s. It is a good book but really just tells you nothing you can’t read in Johnson only, it being Goldberg, with fart jokes.

        1. Read Paul Johnson’s “Modern Times” sometime. I read that book either in or right after high school. It is one of the books that literally changed my life and outlook on things

          That’s a great book, although obviously pretty outdated at this point. But he does a fantastic job explaining the over-arching theme of how various leftist shibboleths came to dominate the 20th century world-wide. It’s like the Anti-Howard Zinn.

        2. Jonah Goldberg got a lot of press a couple of years ago for writing a book called Liberal Fascism which explained the Progressive movement’s relationship and embrace of fascism in the 20s and 30s.

          There was a blogger I read years ago called Dennis the Peasant (blog’s shut down now) who pointed out that a critical shortcoming of Goldberg’s book is that he never examined the role of will to power in the rise of totalitarian leftist regimes. It was basically just “Dems R Real Racists!” type-stuff.

          1. Goldberg is a funny guy and can be an entertaining writer, but he is not much of a deep thinker.

    2. The docudrama The Iron Curtain (based on the story of Igor Gouzenko, who defected with his wife to Canada) starts off with scenes showing the Communists duping right-thinking people with the Communists’ “peace organizations” and the like.

    3. Interesting point. Among the progressive types I know, I’ve found that they are subject to the same emotional populism as the so-called ignorant rednecks they look down on. BUT because they see themselves as intellectually superior, they justify their emotions with whatever intellectual claptrap they can.

      I would say the same thing for the entire social justice movement. It is entirely based on emotion, but they don’t see that because they think someone who has studied critical theory and postmodernism can’t possibly be swayed by emotion. But all those lower classes, the un-woke who won’t acknowledgement their own privilege, of course THEY are emotion-driven.

      1. The key to evil is rationalization. Unless they are just some kind of hedonist deviant like Ted Bundy, people want to do good and do not as a general rule embrace what they think of as being evil. They do evil or wrong things in isolated instances because they don’t control their emotion or impulses (think having a one night stand with someone other than your spouse). They do not, however, do systematic and monstrously evil things without rationalizing to themselves how that evil is really doing good. When you understand that, it makes perfect sense that people who are have high IQs are also, by virtue of being the most adept at rationalization, the ones most apt to engage in systematic evil.

        1. There’s also the part where the kind of movements which appeal to intellectuals lure intellectuals with the promise of power.

          And if they avoid getting put up against the wall and shot, maybe they *can* get power through an authoritarian movement. Certainly more power than they’d have under a more freedom-oriented setup.

          1. And the rationalization part is sometimes as simple as: “The more power I have, the more good I’ll be able to do!”

            1. The model regime is FDR, who knew how to win elections he hired a bunch of intellectuals and gave them all a chance to push their various schemes. FDR was “flexible” and “nonideological,” meaning he would let his intellectuals fight over what policy was best, and whichever policy looked good (and popular) he’d give it a whirl, all the time letting everyone think he liked their idea best.

              (This also worked with non-intellectuals)

              Not being “rigid,” FDR wasn’t confined by any particular principle (such as the balanced-budged stuff in his campaign platform), but was willing to have his intellectuals make “experiments” on the country without having to limit himself by any set of predictable rules. Also known as arbitrary government, but since his intellectuals each had a shot at their particular varieties of arbitrariness, it was like kids in a candy store and they still fantasize about it.

    4. The difference is that in America there tends to be a great skepticism of, and resistance by, the common people against the intellectuals. Americans are anti -ism. So as I wrote above, ideologies in the USA tend to be seen as the province of eggheads & oddballs, while in Europe they tend to get sold to the gen’l public much more easily. It’s as if in Europe there were a feeling that everyone should embrace some -ism, so as to be a complete person.

      1. In America, were more into -ity. Christianity, Insanity, Hannity, etc.

        1. You forgot the church of Gaia.

          1. So… Gaiety?

    5. Scott Adams made a good comment that relates to this. To paraphrase he said that intelligence is overrated when emotions are involved. Intellectuals can be just as irrational as anyone if they have even a little bit of an emotional stake in the subject.

    6. 17 million people voted for Hitler in 1933. The idea that they were mostly intellectuals and college students seems a little far fetched.

      Hitlers rise didn’t just happen to include brownshirts. They were the central to the whole thing. His key constituents in the early days were disaffected soldiers like himself. This isnt a controversial position. Writers from Hohne to Keegan have called attention to the central importance of the freikorps in the rise of the SA. And it was Rohm’s power within the SA that led to his being killed in the very first days of the Nazi regime.

  7. Logged in just to say thank you Jesse. That was a fascinating and thoughtful article. This site could use more like it.

    1. Yes it could. Jesse is the best writer Reason has. He is very thoughtful and doesn’t have the cultural blind spots that the rest of the staff has.

  8. Has anyone read this shit yet? This would never happen in house of cards:

    As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton routinely asked her maid to print out sensitive government e-mails and documents ? including ones containing classified information ? from her house in Washington, DC, e-mails and FBI memos show. But the housekeeper lacked the security clearance to handle such material.

    In fact, Marina Santos was called on so frequently to receive e-mails that she may hold the secrets to E-mailgate ? if only the FBI and Congress would subpoena her and the equipment she used.

    Clinton entrusted far more than the care of her DC residence, known as Whitehaven, to Santos. She expected the Filipino immigrant to handle state secrets, further opening the Democratic presidential nominee to criticism that she played fast and loose with national security.

    1. further opening the Democratic presidential nominee to criticism that she played fast and loose with national security.

      That is like saying that Sabrina Ederly’s being found liable for slander on Friday “further opened her to criticism that she acted with malice and wrote an untruthful account of the alleged UVA rape”. You just have to laugh at the rhetorical lengths the media goes to to deny the obvious and cover for Hillary. It is, strictly speaking, true that this “opens her to criticism”. That, however, is true because she did act with complete disregard for national security. They can never tell the truth. If the truth is undeniable, they will just talk about how it effects Clinton in a way that never admits the truth and in fact implies to the reader that it might be something other than it is. I mean if it just opens her to criticism, perhaps it is not really true.

      God I hate journalists.

      1. At this point I’m actually at a loss of words beyond laughing.

    2. It also appears the FBI did not formally interview Santos as a key witness in its investigation.

      This is a major oversight: Santos may know the whereabouts of a missing Apple MacBook laptop and USB flash drive that contain all of Clinton’s e-mails archived over her four years in office.

      In 2013, Hanley downloaded Clinton’s e-mails from her private server to the MacBook and flash drive.

      “The two copies of the Clinton e-mail archive (one on the archive laptop and one on the thumb drive) were intended to be stored in Clinton’s Chappaqua and Whitehaven residences,” the FBI said in its case summary.

      But Hanley says the devices were “lost,” and the FBI says it “does not have either item in its possession.”

      The best and brightest all around.

      1. According to a 2010 profile in The Philippine Star, close Clinton friend Vernon Jordan recommended Santos to the Clintons after she worked part-time for him.

        The dream of the nineties is alive with the Clintons.

        1. What ever happened to Vernon Jordan?

          1. He runs a yelp for Filipino maids.

            1. “Can clean, cook and use a printer better than most” three stars.

      2. I mean this is more than likely the future president of the free world here. If your going to be a corrupt plutocrat I at least expect something a little more house of cardsy than this level of veep shit.

      3. I wonder what happened to the print-outs that Miss Thing demanded because she couldn’t be arsed to get off her reclining couch. Stuffed in a shoe-box somewhere maybe.

      4. a missing Apple MacBook laptop and USB flash drive that contain all of Clinton’s e-mails archived over her four years in office.


        So Clinton lost a backup of all her govt communications, but no one’s mentioned it before?

        1. Didn’t it come out during the FBI investigation that these were missing? Or am I thinking of two different missing devices with classified information on them?

      5. Santos better watch her back.

  9. the constant comparisons between Donald Trump and Lonesome Rhodes,

    Page 14 of about 134 results

    No wonder I’ve never seen one of those constant comparisons – only 134 results, some of which don’t make the comparison.

    1. Do you understand that Google doesn’t show everybody the same results?

      On the first page of 3,960 results, Walker’s link gives me all ten hits with those keywords ranging from September of 2015 through October of 2016.

      That’s what I get anyway. People who are constantly searching Google for “fat girls” and “barnyard animals” probably get something else.

      1. “One Adam Twelve, One Adam Twelve, we have a 10-91D in progress.”

      2. I got a whole bunch of establishment and TEAM BLUE shill sites’ articles making the comparison.

  10. Idiocracy?

  11. The support for Trump was a reaction to elitism. It still is.

    The white, blue collar, middle class was chased out of the Democratic party by elitist progressives. Progressives are still confused by the whole thing. It’s hard for them to understand that their own base doesn’t like being demonized as racists for being white, stupid for being reluctant to squander their standard of living for the environment, homophobic for being Christian and Catholic, misogynist for being male, etc., etc.

    At the same time, progressives still somehow imagine that they’re the voice of the downtrodden, working middle class–the very people they demonize!

    Regardless of whether Hillary or Trump wins the election, the Democrats will have a steep price to pay for alienating their core constituency. They can blame Trump all they want, but why was the white, blue collar, middle class such easy pickings for Trump? Cant blame the Republican leadership–they all opposed him.

    Whether Trump wins or loses, the ugly truth for the Democrats will still remain the same: If you aren’t a feminist, LGBTQI, a radical environmentalist, a government employee, in Black Lives Matter, an illegal alien, in the UAW, or a social justice warrior, then why should you support the Democratic Party?

    1. Or a terrorist, dims love them Islamic terrorists.

    2. The Democrats have moved on from class-oriented politics to racial/sexual identity politics. Their thinking is that since white people are going to be a minority in the near future, it makes no sense to remain focused on a political plank that’s been essentially dead since NAFTA was passed.

      They’ll continue to demonize “the rich”, but only in the most distracted way. Just look at all the fund-raisers Hillary has been pimping–wall-to-wall shitlib celebrities, Silicon Valley tech magnates, and media personalities that make more money in a year than the average middle-class family will make in 20. No one takes their class-warfare rhetoric seriously anymore, especially after the DNC stabbed the ultimate class warrior in the back this election cycle in favor of an established insider who gives $250K speeches to investment bankers.

      1. “Their thinking is that since white people are going to be a minority in the near future, it makes no sense to remain focused on a political plank that’s been essentially dead since NAFTA was passed.”

        I think their leadership has just become dominated by progressives who are obsessed with wedge issues.

        They haven’t changed yet because they haven’t lost an election because of that yet, but they will lose an election because of that, and after they do, they’ll have to sell themselves as something more than a gay rights, cop hating, illegal immigrant organization to beat someone more appealing than Donald Trump.


    Jill Stein approves this message.

    1. Have some attention. Here.

  13. Posted in the wrong thread.

    Podesta e-mail about a pool party

    >> With enormous gratitude to Advance Man Extraordinaire Haber, I am popping
    >> up again to share our excitement about the Reprise of Our Gang’s visit to
    >> the farm in Lovettsville. And I thought I’d share a couple more notes:
    >> We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be
    >> Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and
    >> almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and they will be in
    >> that pool for sure
    . And with the forecast showing prospects of some sun,
    >> and a cooler temp of lower 60s, I suggest you bring sweaters of whatever
    >> attire will enable us to use our outdoor table with a pergola overhead so
    >> we dine al fresco (and ideally not al-CHILLo).

    1. Assuming that is real, am I missing something or is that pretty clear and convincing evidence Podesta is a fucking pedo? Seriously, I would like to be skeptical of this but I am having a very hard time seeing how I can be. If that means what it appears to mean, this is the worst political scandal in US history.

      1. I mean maybe I’m being overly critical but I really don’t get why you would mention the kids ages and say that they are the entertainment at best it’s really sort of strange. But than I also can’t stand kids so.

      2. I found it on a page claiming that this is proof Podesta is a pedo. I don’t see how it is proof, but it is really fucking weird.

        1. I found the page I got the link from, follow the linked story. Sorry, the page didn’t claim Podesta is a pedo, but hinted heavily at it.

          Note the Chris Hanson reference

      3. I can see that interpretation but it could just mean they plan to have fun playing with family. I don’t know who those kids are.

        1. See my note below. It is the detail and the specific references to the pool that make is so incriminating. First, who is Bonnie? Clearly not any of those kids parents. And why is she taxing them to the party? Think abou this for a second.

          We know this is an adult party because Podesta, Bonnie and whoever sent this email is attending.

          We know three kids under the age of 12 are attending.

          We know those kids are coming without their parents, otherwise why would Bonnie need to play Uber to get them there.

          We know that the author of the email feels it important enough to tell Podesta this fact, including the ages of the kids.

          And we know that the author of the email feels it important to tell Podesta the fact that the kids are coming and their ages because ” so you’ll have some further entertainment, and they will be in that pool for sure”

          So we have underage kids being taken to a party without their parents and Podesta being told that they will give him “futher entertainment and they will be in the pool for sure.”

          And you think there is any kind of innocent explanation for that? I sure as hell don’t.

          1. The “Kids” could be dogs or some other playful animal. Unlikely, sure but possible.

            1. There is a woman who lives in Washington named Alexandra Tydings who has kids of that age and name. So, it seems they are talking about actual people.

              1. Yeah, I saw that almost as soon as I posted the above. Just trying to keep the suspicions at arms length, I was suckered by the McMartin hysteria and have been really skeptical of weird accusations ever since. But the email is damn weird and suspicious.

              2. Right, and the person who wrote the email is her mother-in-law.

      4. Why can’t people do some grade school level googling to see that these are three daughters of actors. What is this, the plot of True Detective III? Fucking stupid hand-wringing.

        1. They appear to be the Children of an actress named Alexandra Tydings

          She is married to a guy named Ben Luzzatto who is some kind of artist living in Baltimore.

          If we didn’t have a state run media, someone in the media would perhaps be asking the Lazzados just what the fuck this email was about and why their kids are attending pool parties with Jon Podesta.

        2. But wouldn’t it be more normal to say that so-and-so’s kids are coming over? Phrasing it the way Podesta did comes across as vaguely odd.

          1. To put it mildly. It is not just any single thing about the email. It is all of the things in it. The kids are there without their parents. Podesta doesn’t know the kids but the author is sure he will have some “entertainment with them”. The fact that the pool being open and that they will for sure be in the pool is also something the author of the email feels it important to tell Podesta.

            There is no way that email is anything other than what it seems. Does it alone prove Podesta guilty of a crime? No it does not because it doesn’t say he actually went to the party and did anything. It is, however, pretty compelling evidence that he is. And certainly compelling enough to justify the police investigating whether he is.

            1. It’s also weird that they mention it will be cold (bring sweaters) out but that the kids will definitely be in the pool.

          2. Definitely weird language, but jumping right to pedoland reminds me of all those dumb satanism ritual scares from the 1990s that turned out to be life-ruining sewing circle gossip and small town boredom.

            1. Why are kids at an adult pool party without their parents Pompey? Give me an innocent explanation for why kids that age would not just be there but be picked up and taken there so they could go to the party without their parents’? We are not talking about kids in a day care center being coached into saying they were molested. We are talking about fairly compelling circumstantial evidence here.

              You tell me why you would go out and get kids to come to a pool party at your house when their parents are not attending and then tell one of your guests that and give their ages while assuring him there will be “plenty of entertainment”.

              Come on.

              1. Heated pool. Hmm, why does the email header show that the passage wasn’t written by Podesta? Where’s the smoking gun, Johnno?

                As an aside, rumour has it that even Damien Echols’ own legal counsel thought he was a raging satanist and was utterly convinced they killed that boy in Robin Hood Hills, but there was just no proof. Raging satanists slamdancing at nighttime boogie clubs and all.

                1. Oh my heavens to gimble, I’m laughing my nuts off right now. I feel like it’s 1995 again. Thanks for that.

                  1. You apparently know nothing about 1995 or the nature of those cases. They were not about circumstantial evidence. They were about the tainted direct evidence of kids claiming they were molested. If you are going to talk about these things, try having some idea about what you are talking about.

                2. There is a difference between factual guilt and legal guilt. Echols very well may have committed that crime. That however doesn’t mean the government met its legal burden of proving it.

                  1. Please give me more insight into the highly compelling circumstantial evidence surrounding Potesta’s late night criminal pool orgies. Lecture me.

      5. am I missing something or is that pretty clear and convincing evidence Podesta is a fucking pedo?

        I see no mentioned of “Pizza” here

          1. I still haven’t bothered to find out what the fuck that’s supposed to be.

            1. It involves bodily fluids, some Eastern bloc immigrant woman/artist, and is a complete waste of your time.

    2. Um, sorry, but I’m not seeing it.

      1. And I thought I’d share a couple more notes: We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and >> almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and they will be in that pool for sure.

        Really? What exactly is the innocent explanation for that? Okay, Podesta likes kids. A lot of people like kids. And I can see how someone would say “hey so and so are bringing their kids to the party” or something like that. But what does that have to do with the pool and “fun in the pool” or require telling Podesta the ages of the kids, whom he apparently doesn’t know otherwise why the need to tell them their ages?

        That email doesn’t make your stomach turn a bit? Just what “fun in the pool” does Podesta have with kids such that the person sending the email feels it important enough to mention both that the pool will be open and that the kids will be there?

        1. Creepy and these are dirtbags, but I’m not going to infer from that what I suppose you could infer if you wanted to. You can run with it and maybe something will turn up later.

          1. Why should you not infer the obvious?

            1. They’ll be in that pool for sure… as in, “The kids love swimming and they’ll be all over that pool”, or “I’ll be putting them in the pool so that guests can be entertained by fondling them.” Again, I’m going with the former, but am creeped out that it could be the latter.

        2. I am frying ten pounds of catfish filets and 3 lbs of oysters today. No pool but I do plan to have fun playing with the grandkids. There will be five of them from 6wks to 6 years old. It is going to be mayhem around here.

          Ok, I was going to try and write a description of my day describing an innocent family get-together in the same style as that email. It doesnt work. Yeah, a flag went up for me when I first read that but it isnt that clear and convincing. It just sets off the radar.

          1. If you are excited to see the kids and know you will have fun playing with them, that to me at least necessarily implies you know them and thus do not need to be told how old they are. Also, kids generally don’t show up to parties at my house without their parents. My wife is a social butterfly and we have parties at our house several times a year and some of them are kid friendly. Never once has someone’s small child come to one of those parties without their parents. How does that happen?

            1. “Our Gang”

              I would be interested in finding out what that means.

          2. I got much the same vibe: creepy, but no smoking gun.

          3. I got creeped out reading that, and I have 5 GKs 3mo-8yrs, have fun today Suthen!

            1. Thanks. The weather has cooled off and the bugs aren’t so bad. I am pretty sure at some point the oldest boys and I will be down at the bayou with the browning 22. Every time they come here they go straight to the garage and get their ear muffs and start haranguing me. “Lets go do the shootin’ gun!”

              How could I say no?

      2. Yeah I put it at weirdly excited to see children, which in fairness some people get like that.

        1. Not just weirdly excited to see kids. Weirdly excited to see kids who are being taken to a party of adults without their parents.

          Imagine you are an NYPD cop stuck with the task of reviewing Weiner’s computer and you stumble on that email. Wouldn’t that warrant some additional investigation? Who are these people? What was this party? Where were these kids parents?

          I don’t see how you can just ignore this.

    3. Between this and the spirit cooking I’m really kind of weirded out by these people. I mean even if this is completely innocent it’s still fucking weird.

      1. Here is how I look at it. We know these people are depraved. We know that for no other reason than they knew Weiner was out propositioning underage girls for over three years and did or said nothing about it.

        And it is not like someone being into kids is that rare. We are not talking about accusing them of being in league with aliens or something. Plenty of well known or powerful people have been found to be into kids. So the accusation is not out of the realm of possibility.

        You can give an innocent explanation to all of this, though this email is pretty difficult, if you take each one in isolation. But when you take it all together, I find unlikely that Podesta isn’t a pedo. Is it possible? Sure. But more likely than not he is. You can explain away one thing. But when you get several things that although could have an innocent explanation all could also have the same non innocent explanation, the chances of all of them being innocent start to drop pretty fast.

      2. The flowery prose raised a flag for me. Who writes (emails!) like that?!

        1. I can tell you how you write an email like that. For some reason this lyric popped into my head after the nausea I experienced upon reading that email passed a bit,

          It’s just some friends of mine that say,
          “Hey, what’s the matter man?
          We’re gonna come around at twelve
          With some Puerto Rican girls that are just dyin’ to meet you
          We’re gonna bring a case of wine
          Hey, let’s go mess and fool around
          You know, like we used to”

          It only seems flowery and bizarre because it is talking about kids. If the guy were telling Podesta “hey one of the K-Street firms is bringing in some hookers for the evening and the pool will be open”, it would tawdry and gross but the language wouldn’t be out of place the way it is here.

    4. The only plausible explanation: everyone associated with the Clintons is a Cylon with a software defect that causes them to be attracted to children.

    5. >> We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be
      >> Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and
      >> almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and they will be in
      >> that pool for sure.

      He’s saying that watching the kids play in the pool is a barrel full of monkeys.

      There’s so much legitimate weirdness surrounding Hillary, let’s be careful not to cry wolf.

      1. Skenazy would have a field day with accusations like that.

        Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton accepted money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State.

        “In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.”

        —-Mother Jones…..arms-deals

        Put that in your Facebook feed.

        1. I have. Lots of sputtering or crickets. One moron even complained about me using “right-wing smear jobs.”

          1. The smear job accusation would have stung worse if you’d put in something about how so and so is a devil worshiper who wants to molest children instead.

            To my quote, the response to the accusation that it’s a smear job is easy.

            1) One source is Hillary’s own State Department.

            2) The other source is Hillary’s own Clinton Foundation.

            3) It was reported by Mother Jones, which is unabashedly socialist.

            These are facts that Hillary has reported herself.

            She’s taking the tack that if she holds a press conference announcing that she’s going to rob a bank and how much she’s going to steal, then there’s nothing wrong with robbing a bank.

            That’s criticism of my quote is easily crushed with the facts.

            Speculating about the intent behind a cryptic email–not so much.

      2. There’s so much legitimate weirdness surrounding Hillary, let’s be careful not to cry wolf.


      3. Yeah, that’s what I got out of it, too.

  14. Andy Griffith’s best performance ever was in ‘Pray for the Wildcats’.
    “You just earned yourself a looongggg walk home.”

  15. Cher threatens to leave the planet if Trump wins.

    1. Now I am tempted to vote Trump.

      1. I don’t know, she’s nice in an eccentric-aunt kind of way. I hope she sticks around earth a bit longer whatever happens with the election.

        1. (Or did she threaten not to come *back* to earth if Trump wins?)

        2. I think she’s a creep. Didn’t she screw her kids head up?

      2. -1, planet needs more autotune

    2. *burns sheer black leotard*

      1. *Picks up smoldering nylon*

        Hey, you gonna use this?

        1. Ewww…that belonged to Crusty. You don’t want to touch it.

          1. Great. You tell me after I put in on commando style.

            1. You can try a regiment of antibiotics but you’re probably not going to survive. Sorry.

    3. Silly rabbits, she needs Tuesday to decide whether or not to pre-book a trip for Virgin Galactica (code phrase for pedophilia!!!!!@@!!).

    4. Who will turn back time?

      1. Cher could rock a headdress

  16. Also, the Democrats have another problem: Their leader is a shit eating, lying, corruption magnet.

  17. Pope Francis opens his summer residence to tourists

    Pope Francis has once again bucked tradition by opening his exclusive papal vacation apartments for public viewing.

    Hmm… I hear there are refugees in Europe. Why tourists and not refugees? Why didn’t Francis take a hint from Pius XII?

    These rooms have witnessed history: During the Nazi occupation of World War II, Jewish women gave birth to their babies in the bedroom while they were being hidden by Pope Pius XII.

  18. Anthony Bourdain in Houston

    Warning: auto-play video

    Samuel Johnson said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel,” but I consider myself a patriot.
    The fact that the United States of America is the birthplace of the blues, jazz, rock and roll and Muhammad Ali is argument enough for me that we are a place worthy of pride.
    Texas, however, was, for most of my life, a foreign land — a place and a culture far from the one I knew, growing up in New York City and suburban New Jersey. And I will shamefacedly admit that for most of those years, I entertained the same lazy prejudices and assumptions about what Texas was like — and who, I believed, lived there.

    But judging from Houston, it ain’t like that at all, is it?
    Houston, is, in fact, about as multicultural a city as exists in the country. Houston has been, from what I experienced, particularly if not more welcoming to immigrants and refugees from all over the world than most other cities I know.

    1. Bourdain is a stupid hick who happens to be from New York. At least he is self aware enough to realize that. Good for him.

      1. In the past couple of weeks, I’ve seen a couple of breathless “OMG! DID YOU KNOW THERE ARE ASIANS IN TEXAS!” articles in the media. I don’t know what’s up with the timing or why. Maybe the Texas tourism board sent out a few pressers? *shrugs*

        1. It’s the Democrats saying to Texans, “have we mentioned how much we love and respect your great state?”

        2. Houston is one of the centers of the global petroleum industry and it is one of the ten largest cities in America. You have to be a special kind of dumb ass to think it is populated exclusively by variations of Hank Hill.

        3. My father moved to Houston. I cant stand the place. You couldn’t beat me and make me live there. I will give it this: it is an extremely cosmopolitan place. You can go every week to a different cultural festival.

          My personal preference is to live somewhere I can piss off my back porch and shoot my pistol without bothering anyone.

          1. You can say a lot of bad things about Houston Suthenboy. That it is backward and lacks diversity is, however, not one of them.

  19. Another way for a cop to get fired

    A San Antonio police officer has been fired after an internal investigation determined he tried to give a homeless man a sandwich with feces inside it.

    Police Chief William McManus said in a statement Friday that former officer Matthew Luckhurst committed a “vile and disgusting act.”

    1. It was just a parable about the election.

    2. That’s what “hero” means to a cop.

  20. You’re way out of line Jesse. Invoking Lonesome Rhodes or Elmer Gantry is always appropriate, no matter what public figure you’re talking about. The fact of the matter is, the masses are asses and they line up behind the loudest jackass.

    1. But do they fish for basses?

      1. “Hello, bartender, I’m looking for a Mr. Cass, first name Jack.”

      2. Like School in Summer, Y’all aint got No Classes

    2. But are the masses thicc?

  21. Thank God the establishment approved candidates and their media sycophants never engage in demagoguery or image manipulation. They just give everyone the facts and let them use their wisdom to decide. Because to appeal to their baser instincts about racism, income disparity, etc would just be wrong.

  22. I don’t feel no ways tired. You have publics views and your private views.


    Clinton campaign “If ‘whopper’ email is published by WikiLeaks in next 2 days, ‘it’s probably a fake'”

    Could these people act more guilty? It is like me going home this afternoon and telling my wife “if some woman calls you tonight and claims to be my mistress, she is probably lying”.

    So the question is what size 12 is about to drop?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.