He never misses an opportunity to bash our party

[SHRED]

And he's considering a presidential run as a Democrat?
WTH?

Link to tweet

[Nitram]

1. I don't read Avenatti's statement as Democrat-bashing. Rather, it strikes me as a warning how much

worse it could be with Republicans in charge. Al Gore was in charge of the Judiciary Committee during the Anita Hill testimony, and he has apologized publicly for not doing more to protect her from Republican attacks: ""And my one regret is that I wasn’t able to tone down the attacks on her by some of my Republican friends. I mean, they really went after her. As much as I tried to intervene, I did not have the power to gavel them out of order. I tried to be like a judge and only allow a question that would be relevant to ask."

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/364830-biden-i-wish-i-had-protected-anita-hill-more-in-testimony-against-clarence

[Power 2 the People]

13. +1

[pnwmom]

2. This isn't about bashing our party. Those hearings WERE a disgrace. Watch them again

if you don't believe me.

And unlike some other people, Avenatti has always been a Democrat.

[SHRED]

4. I wouldn't think so either

If I didn't know his history of tweets.

[Hortensis]

3. How incompetent, Nitram, for Avanotti not to name the guilty then.

Don't be clueless, it doesn't become you. Attorneys usually don't accidentally throw mud the wrong direction.

I don't listen to him, so I didn't know he had a Dem-bashing pattern, but it is an indicator that he is seriously considering running for office.

The very thought of him running for president for any party is assinine, though. No one of substance and judgement would support him. You can take that to the bank.

No matter, he would have to run as an outsider, as Nader and Sanders did for instance. And outsider candidates have to bash the party their competitor for the nomination belongs to. Or what's the point?

Btw, they also always style themselves as voices of the people against the establishment and as reformers against corruption. (Truth irrelevant, it's what malcontents on the fringes are looking for.)

So if Avanotti is running, listen for those themes. They'll be as predictable as what happened after Sanders stepped into the vacuum our warrior-progressive Elizabeth Warren left when she disappointed so many of us by not running.

[SHRED]

5. Spot on

[pnwmom]

6. Why would he have to run as an outsider? He's always been a Democrat,

unlike some other people. His very first job out of college involved working on Democratic campaigns. And there's no incumbent Democrat to be opposing.

And those hearings were AWFUL. The Democrats allowed the Republicans to ride roughshod over Anita -- and Biden prevented two corroborating witnesses from speaking, because he had promised the GOP he would meet an arbitrary deadline.

[Hortensis]

9. Outsider is a political style chosen when the only

people who will vote for you, at least initially, are disaffected and resentful toward whoever the mainstream candidates are. AND when none of your peers and knowledgeable insiders who know you will support you or donate to your campaign.

An appeal to populist resentments is virtually always part of this. Populism by definition is a mindless resentment against an amorphous undefined "the establishment." You know, the "they" and "them" in angry posts. People eager for someone to come along and tell them exactly what they want to hear.

Jimmy Carter was a insider congressman who adopted the outsider, populist leader identity because none of his colleagues who knew him would endorse him and because none of the many Democratic power centers in towns throughout the nation would support him or donate to him. Same for Sanders. Sanders copied a lot from Carter, who of course won the primary by claiming Democrats were corrupt but he was going to fix it. I was young and stupid and voted for him. Those were pre-internet days, though, and incredibly less information was available.

So, "uncorrupted outsider" is just a normal pattern for candidates trying to compete against stronger opponents who already have the popular vote mostly sewn up. This can wear almost any currently popular label, such as democratic socialist right now. Some of those of course really are.

[pnwmom]

11. I disagree. Outsiders are non-Democrats, not lifelong Democrats. And I haven't seen any positions

I'd call populist. He's a standard progressive.

[Hortensis]

12. Populist is not an ideology, Pnw, it's a negative energy

turned on "the establishment," whatever that is. It's dangerous because of that. Almost any charismatic, strong-seeming leader can grab it like a nose ring and lead his followers almost anywhere, as long as he promises to hurt ("reform" ) the establishment.

The Tea Party was a populist wave that was harnessed by the very people they were rebelling against (the Republican establishment and its ultrawealthy controllers) and turned against themselves and us. How's that for clueless idiocy? They were passionate, though, until they slipped the harness and the Kochs cut off their funds and assigned those directing them to other projects.

[lunatica]

7. I'm a lifelong, diehard, straight ticket Democrat.

I remember those hearings and they were a blot on our Democratic representatives. The way to understand them is to know that today Anita Hill’s testimony would have rightfully destroyed Justice Thomas completely. Our Supreme Court would be better represented for it.

I certainly hope you aren’t saying that because the hearing panelists were Democrats that they should get a pass. That would be very un Democratic, and with more than a tinge of misogyny.

[SHRED]

8. No

I'm saying, based on many previous tweets of his, that he's an opportunist.
He claims to be a Democrat but never misses an opportunity to go after the party.

It's his history.

And yes those hearings were an atrocity.

[lunatica]

10. Well then it's judicious to picking your battles with him

And by all means go after him if you think he’s no more than an opportunist. Though I’m hard pressed to believe any President, good or bad, isn’t one on some level.