Steve Bannon debate widely criticized as platform for populist fascism

136 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mighty Middle
Steve Bannon debate widely criticized as platform for populist fascism

The federal NDP is calling on organizers of a Toronto debate series to cancel an event that is set to include U.S. President Donald Trump's former strategist Steve Bannon.

The party said having Bannon participate in the Munk Debates is inappropriate after the death of 11 people in a Pittsburgh synagogue this past weekend. 

"I ask the Munk Foundation to cancel its invitation out of respect for the victims in Pittsburgh," NDP MP Charlie Angus told CBC News, in French. 

"It isn't acceptable to give provocateurs like Mr. Bannon the opportunity to present their extreme views," he said.

An NDP spokesperson later confirmed Angus' views reflect those of the party. 

Bannon is scheduled to debate conservative commentator David Frum on Friday evening at Toronto's Roy Thomson Hall about "the rise of populism."

Bannon will be arguing in favour of the resolution: "The future of Western politics is populist not liberal." Frum will argue against. The event was announced in early September.

Angus said Bannon "feed[s] divisions in our society," contributing to a climate where Muslim and Jewish communities are being attacked.

Fellow NDP MP Nathan Cullen would not say if he's against Bannon's appearance, but noted it raises the difficult issue of protecting freedom of speech while mitigating the possible impact of harmful speech. 

"We've seen so tragically the effects of those in politics, in public discourse, when they spread hate that others pick up that language and turn it into actions," Cullen said.

Critics have attacked Bannon for stoking racial divisions and advocating for far-right ideas, both inside the White House and during his time heading the Breitbart News Network.

Bannon once described Breitbart as "the platform for the alt-right." But while admitting the website attracts racists, homophobes and anti-Semites, he has vowed he doesn't hold those views.

Despite the criticism, the organizers don't appear to be backing down.

Rudyard Griffiths, chair of the Munk Debates, sent a statement Tuesday morning saying the organization looks forward to the event. He added that substantive debate helps the public better understand society's challenges.

"For over a decade, the Munk Debates have provided a neutral public forum to discuss challenging issues and ideas. In this context, the rise of populist politics in western societies was an obvious topic to tackle at our upcoming debate," he wrote.

"We believe we are providing a public service by allowing their ideas to be vigorously contested and letting the public draw their own conclusions from the debate. In our increasingly polarized societies we often struggle to see across ideological and moral divides."

Liberal MP Adam Vaughan, who represents that area of Toronto, said he would have preferred if Bannon hadn't been invited, but added it's not for politicians to decide who can speak at events.

Vaughan said offering Bannon a platform won't help people understand populism. Rather, it "inflames problems and exaggerates issues."

"He's intentionally provocative. We've seen that dangerous people don't need much provocation to do some pretty serious damage," said Vaughan. "The attacks against religious institutions even in Toronto are intensifying."

Maxime Bernier, leader of the new People's Party of Canada, sided with freedom of expression.

"It's part of our democracy," he said in French. "People who we don't share the same opinion are nonetheless welcome to have a debate."

Bernier said he doesn't share all of Bannon's ideas and that the timing of the event is not very good in light of the events in Pittsburgh.

The interim leader of the Bloc Québécois, Mario Beaulieu, said freedom of expression should be given precedence — though there should be no invitation to hatred or violence.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/steve-bannon-munk-debate-1.4883327

Issues Pages: 
Regions: 
Mighty Middle

Community groups in Toronto are calling for a planned event featuring controversial political figure Steve Bannon to be cancelled.

Bannon, a former advisor to U.S. President Donald Trump and the former chair of right-wing website Breitbart News, is often accused of promoting white nationalist viewpoints.

He is scheduled to appear Friday, with conservative author David Frum, at a Munk Debates public discussion event. The two will be arguing whether the political future of the West is populist, with Bannon arguing in favour and Frum opposed.

People describing themselves as members of an “anti-racist and anti-fascist coalition” of more than 30 community groups held a press conference Tuesday, to call on the organizers to cancel it.

“We are horrified that at the same time of heightened white supremacy, racism, Islamophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment, when hate crimes are on the rise … that the Munk debates would invite the poster boy for white supremacy to Toronto,” said Maya Menezes, an organizer with the migrant justice group No One Is Illegal.

Menezes’ group is planning to protest outside the theatre where Bannonis due to appear Friday night.

Several speakers at the press conference attempted to tie Bannon’s rhetoric to various incidents of violence perpetrated by people with apparent bigoted beliefs, including last weekend’s mass shooting at a synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pa., and last year’s deadly shooting at a mosque in Quebec City.

“The hate we are witnessing is serious; in fact it is deadly. Opposing this kind of hate, and the violence it fosters, is not up for debate,” said Rachel Epstein of the United Jewish People’s Order advocacy group.

Organizers of the Munk Debates have said that they believe inviting Bannon to speak is a “public service” allowing people to draw their own conclusions about his ideas.

Canadian politicians demurred when asked Monday, for their thoughts on whether the event should go on as scheduled.

Tourism and Official Languages Minister Mélanie Joly said she does not personally share many of Bannon’s ideals and her government stands against intolerance and hatred, but said it was not her place to offer an opinion on whether the event should be cancelled.

NDP MP Nathan Cullen described Bannon’s rhetoric as “spewing hate and demonizing groups of people,” but stopped short of saying the event should be cancelled.

“I have confidence in Canadians to be able to reject that, as they properly should,” he said.

Maxime Bernier, founder of the People’s Party, said people should have the chance to listen to controversial viewpoints and make up their own minds. He said the timing of the event is unfortunate, but ultimately the decision on whether it should go ahead rests with its organizers.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/hate-speech-or-public-service-controversy-...

quizzical

far more than the NDP are calling for cancellation but your thread title doesn't indicate this.

who is this Frum guy anyway? and why do we want  Bannon to speak here in Canada?

Mighty Middle

quizzical wrote:

far more than the NDP are calling for cancellation but your thread title doesn't indicate this.

The title "NDP Wants Steve Bannon Debate Cancelled" is taken from the CBC News story, which is copied and pasted in its entireity

MegB

quizzical wrote:

who is this Frum guy anyway? and why do we want  Bannon to speak here in Canada?

David Frum is the son of the late Barbara Frum of the CBC. He's right-wing writer most notable for his claim to have come up with the phrase "axis of evil" during a brief stint as a Whitehouse speech writer. He's an intellectual lightweight. It's also worth noting that the Munk debates are sponsored by the Munk family who are heavily invested in Barrick Gold, the world's largest gold extraction company linked to brutal human rights abuses in support of dictatorships around the world.

quizzical

thanks meg. don't know Barbara Frum though.

going to read up on the Munk family. are they trying to turn Canada into a creature like the US then?

mm, ok then you just decided to regurgitate the CBCs slant then.

Mighty Middle

quizzical wrote:

mm, ok then you just decided to regurgitate the CBCs slant then.

Quizzical tell me what the title should be, and I'll edit accordingly.

Mobo2000

David Frum is a twit.    And former Bush speechwriter, writer for the Atlantic, and one of the Bush-era neocons trying to rehabilitate his image from lying warmonger to a defender of liberal democratic values.

MegB

Mighty Middle wrote:

quizzical wrote:

mm, ok then you just decided to regurgitate the CBCs slant then.

Quizzical tell me what the title should be, and I'll edit accordingly.

I was going to edit the headline (for style, not content) but I can make any other suggested changes while I'm at it to include all the other folks who are fairly mortified by Steve Bannon's inclusion in the debate series.

Mighty Middle

MegB wrote:

I was going to edit the headline (for style, not content) but I can make any other suggested changes while I'm at it to include all the other folks who are fairly mortified by Steve Bannon's inclusion in the debate series.

No probs Meg, why not edit the title to what you think is best - I just thought using the CBC title (since I copied and pasted the originating article) was the best way to go. But if you could think of a better title, by all means go for it.

quizzical

meg a more inclusive title would be good.

read around on the Munk family. see the patriarch just died this year.

i don't get why they would do this debate in the context of family history even. 

freaks me out.

Sean in Ottawa

I have mixed feeling about this. On the one hand, I think publicly engaging Bannon could be a good thing. This is not about giving him a platform, he already has one.

However, the debate is wrongly titled. It is a fight between a strongly establishment conservative and a"populist" conservative. While we can refer to neo-liberalism and know we are referencing a conservative libertarian ideology that Frum subscribes to, the use of the word "liberal" implies other meaning for this word that tend more to the centre left. Frum is not qualified to speak to that. A debate within the right could be interesting. I do not mind it being hosted. However, a more interesting debate would include a populist left representative, a centre representative and a more establishment left representative. Given the context the earth is in such a debate ought to include an Indigenous voice (they have a different local and global view beyond the needed justice perspective that should be heard) and an environmentalist. That brings my count to seven. In this context I think it would be an interesting conversation worth hearing.

Unfortunately this binary between the right wing Frum and the fascist Bannon is a false choice distorting the conversation. It is that distortion that leads me to support cancelling it. I think the right speakers and moderation and Bannon would be thrashed. It would not be difficult to name some that could fill the gaps.

Such a discussion ought to allow for audience to participate and engage.

I also think that such a debate with the right people, would be interesting in the follow up to the US election.

I prefer this to complete censorship, of views I find objectionable.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..bannon isn't just about debate. bannon is a very active and succesful organizer. also politically connected. i applaud and support those folks who want shut down this event. this is what fighting hatred/facism means. this is the type of battle i saw waged in my 2 years in europe.  

Sean in Ottawa

epaulo13 wrote:

..bannon isn't just about debate. bannon is a very active and succesful organizer. also politically connected. i applaud and support those folks who want shut down this event. this is what fighting hatred/facism means. this is the type of battle i saw waged in my 2 years in europe.  

No worries -- Bannon would not come to the kind of debate that I outlined.

MegB

For those interested (yes, I know some folks have issues with online petitions in general and LeadNow specifically, but still): Cancel Steve Bannon.

 

Bacchus

Cancel or not, Bannon wins

MegB

I've changed the thread title to reflect a broader expression of concern over the debate. Hope this works for everyone.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..works for me

MegB

epaulo, do you always have to be so difficult? ;)

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

MegB wrote:

epaulo, do you always have to be so difficult? ;)

..you want more? txs for the petition :)

voice of the damned

Given that Bannon's recent debates have been the subject of controversy in both the US and UK, I'm pretty sure that the Munk people fully anticipated the negative reaction they're getting, and are quite prepared to go through with the show, regardless of what anyone in the federal third party has to say about it.

And, really, progressives are whistling past the graveyard if they think that the rise of populism in Canada can in any way be hindered by stopping one guy, whose words are already accessible with a mouseclick, from speaking at a debate.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

And, really, progressives are whistling past the graveyard if they think that the rise of populism in Canada can in any way be hindered by stopping one guy, whose words are already accessible with a mouseclick, from speaking at a debate.

..you don't have a high opinion of people who want to stop this event. that's sad to hear.

Bacchus

Sad but true. If they get it canceled he gets to shout so much for free speech. Its only free if they agree with you and they want to control you' and his followers will cheer and he will gain a few more followers who now begin to think he might be right. If it goes on he will wipe the floor with Frum and same result

6079_Smith_W

I wouldn't assume that he would beat Frum, actually.

This is kind of like closing the barn after the horse is out. Who did they have last time? Jordan Peterson. And the time before? Newt Gingrich (who actually won, IMO, but only by default because Andrew Sullivan didn't put up any real argument).

As I pointed out on their site, Munk is already the National Review Comedy Hour. And Bannon was just as objectionable a week ago before this mass murder.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Bacchus wrote:

Sad but true. If they get it canceled he gets to shout so much for free speech. Its only free if they agree with you and they want to control you' and his followers will cheer and he will gain a few more followers who now begin to think he might be right. If it goes on he will wipe the floor with Frum and same result

..you have the wrong focus imo. it's not about bannon perse but the movement needed to counter his ilk. if he gets cancelled maybe he doesn't come to toronto. maybe he doesn't get to make those connections he would otherwise make. maybe the movement that stops this event, a movement still forming, gets inspired and inspires others. and so on and so forth.

voice of the damned

epaulo13 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

And, really, progressives are whistling past the graveyard if they think that the rise of populism in Canada can in any way be hindered by stopping one guy, whose words are already accessible with a mouseclick, from speaking at a debate.

..you don't have a high opinion of people who want to stop this event. that's sad to hear.

Well, it's nothing personal against the people who disagree with Bannon's worldview(among whom I would happily classify myself). I just don't think the method some of them have chosen to counter it is a particularly effective one.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

And, really, progressives are whistling past the graveyard if they think that the rise of populism in Canada can in any way be hindered by stopping one guy, whose words are already accessible with a mouseclick, from speaking at a debate.

..you don't have a high opinion of people who want to stop this event. that's sad to hear.

Well, it's nothing personal against the people who disagree with Bannon's worldview(among whom I would happily classify myself). I just don't think the method some of them have chosen to counter it is a particularly effective one.

..but your comment is personal. you didn't express a different point of view you took a swipe at them.

voice of the damned

epaulo13 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

And, really, progressives are whistling past the graveyard if they think that the rise of populism in Canada can in any way be hindered by stopping one guy, whose words are already accessible with a mouseclick, from speaking at a debate.

..you don't have a high opinion of people who want to stop this event. that's sad to hear.

Well, it's nothing personal against the people who disagree with Bannon's worldview(among whom I would happily classify myself). I just don't think the method some of them have chosen to counter it is a particularly effective one.

..but your comment is personal. you didn't express a different point of view you took a swipe at them.

Is it because I specifically stated that it was progressives who were trying to stop Bannon that made it personal? Okay. I'll rephrase...

It is futile to imagine that stopping one guy from speaking at one conference is going to be in any way effective at stopping the rise of a political movement.

voice of the damned

And, by the way, if people wanna show up and demonstrate against Bannon's views, I think that's totally cool, and might even join them were I in Canada. And they could even make a cusrosry demand that he his speech be cancelled; I don't regard such a demand as being in any way an infringement on free-speech.

I'm just saying that actually stopping him from showing up for the debate won't make much difference to the overall fortunes of his movement in Canada.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..no that's not it. i'm speaking about your opinion that the progressives think they can stop populism by stopping one guy. you think they're stupid even if you didn't use that word.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

It's a tiny morsel of good news that this debate wasn't being sponsored or hosted by an Ontario university.  No point giving Doug Ford an opportunity to put on his cape and mask and shout "Worry not!  I shall take care of this!".

quizzical

like the thread title ty meg.

don't believe for 1 minute anyone believes stopping Bannon will stop fascism. 

labeling people against Bannon as progressives is silly. you're making a position, or positions just not real. like there is only progressives or fascists in the world. way to further unreal divisions VoD.

pookie

David Frum is many things but he is not an intellectual lightweight.  Nor, by all accounts, is Steve Bannon. 

Frum is an excellent writer with an impressive amount of knowledge.  He is also extremely articulate.  I have not followed Bannon as closely but by all accounts he is very intelligent. We'll see. 

voice of the damned

quizzical wrote:

like the thread title ty meg.

don't believe for 1 minute anyone believes stopping Bannon will stop fascism. 

labeling people against Bannon as progressives is silly. you're making a position, or positions just not real. like there is only progressives or fascists in the world. way to further unreal divisions VoD.

Well, in my defense, I was thinking specifically of the NDP trying to stop Bannon, as mentioned in the OP. I don't think it's totally psychedelic to classify the NDP as progressive.

As for the overall Stop Bannon movement, okay, maybe they're not all progressives in an absolute sense, but I'd have to think that the overwhelming majority of them are more progressive, relative to the people who support Bannon. Perhaps a lot of them would qualify as liberal, or maybe "left-wing in an undirected sort of way" to borrow a phrase from Orwell?

voice of the damned

epaulo13 wrote:

..no that's not it. i'm speaking about your opinion that the progressives think they can stop populism by stopping one guy. you think they're stupid even if you didn't use that word.

Well, is there a way to express disagreement with someone's ideas or plans that wouldn't lead you to conclude that I think they're all stupid?

6079_Smith_W

pookie wrote:

David Frum is many things but he is not an intellectual lightweight. 

He said the most perceptive thing I heard anyone say on Trump's election night. I know I have paraphrased it here before, but it is worth repeating:

We assume that institutions will save us, but institutions are just people.

I was serious about the comedy hour comment though; the one two years ago was frustratingly disappointing. I haven't bothered to listen to the last one yet, but did note Stephen Fry's curious comment about being paired up with Jordan Peterson about representation from different aspects of a position.

And the way Munk seems to be brushing off this criticism also shows a flippant disregard for what is a very serious charge, even if it is odd that it is only coming now.

Even if they are going on with the show, they didn't have to do it this way. Them wrapping themselves in open forum and neutrality says to me they like the fact some people want them to cancel.

As for the debate, I make no assumptions about this one, but you are right; both of them are far from stupid.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

..no that's not it. i'm speaking about your opinion that the progressives think they can stop populism by stopping one guy. you think they're stupid even if you didn't use that word.

Well, is there a way to express disagreement with someone's ideas or plans that wouldn't lead you to conclude that I think they're all stupid?

..was there a way you could have voiced your disagreement without the insult? that's for you to say. i reacted to what you did say. 

quizzical

voice of the damned wrote:

quizzical wrote:

like the thread title ty meg.

don't believe for 1 minute anyone believes stopping Bannon will stop fascism. 

labeling people against Bannon as progressives is silly. you're making a position, or positions just not real. like there is only progressives or fascists in the world. way to further unreal divisions VoD.

Well, in my defense, I was thinking specifically of the NDP trying to stop Bannon, as mentioned in the OP. I don't think it's totally psychedelic to classify the NDP as progressive.

As for the overall Stop Bannon movement, okay, maybe they're not all progressives in an absolute sense, but I'd have to think that the overwhelming majority of them are more progressive, relative to the people who support Bannon. Perhaps a lot of them would qualify as liberal, or maybe "left-wing in an undirected sort of way" to borrow a phrase from Orwell?

nope. no left right distinctions are valid. again your perceptions are divisive.

my Pentecostal gma, who you would classify as right wing if you knew her, is anti Bannon and Trump. she is not alone amongst the religious right either.

 

 

josh
Mobo2000

RE: post 33,  Frum can string sentances together but he's been on the wrong side of every foreign policy issue the past 20 years.    I haven't seen anything he's said that I thought insightful.  He strikes me as the sort of naiive Republican toady who believes they live in a functioning democracy where decisions are made for ideological reasons.   He pushes and supports similar "clash of civilizations" rhetoric as Bannon.

https://theoutline.com/post/2079/things-are-bad-and-david-frum-makes-the...

"If the policies Frum backed at the peak of his influence are so close to those of the current administration, why does he hold Trump in such contempt? The descriptions of Bush in The Right Man suggest a similar motive as other #NeverTrump conservatives — a non-negotiable commitment to good manners. Frum’s recollections show a particular reverence for Bush’s demeanor. Bush brought a certain evangelical stoicism to the Oval Office, as Frum painstakingly pointed out. No one in the administration drank, smoked, cursed or referred to Bush as anything other than “the president.” Frum wrote that he once made the mistake of using the word “damn” in a meeting, at which point the entire room went silent and shot him icy glares. On the dress code: “Women could wear brighter colors — but never higher than the knee.” Don’t tell Mike Pence! Frum even compared the Bush White House to The West Wing — a sacred text for “You, sir, Mr. Trump, are a disgrace to the office, sir!” types — but found President Jed Bartlet far less refined. “I seldom heard a voice raised in anger,” he wrote, “and never witnessed a single one of those finger-jabbing confrontations you see in movies.” They may have authorized a war that seems likely to outlive everyone involved in its creation, but at least they did it while using their indoor voice."

NDPP

I can back banning Bannon. And his Bush-era Ziocon pretend opposition Frum too. After all Canada refused entry to George Galloway and even Chelsea Manning. But then I would also insist on the banning of bonafide American war criminals like the Clintons due into Toronto in late November.

MegB

Read David Climenhaga's blog on the Steve Bannon debate here.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Toronto Munk Debate must dump Steve Bannon, community groups say after Pittsburgh shooting

A coalition of 35 community groups advocating against racism is demanding organizers of a Toronto debate series scrap a November event featuring Steve Bannon, the controversial former chief strategist to U.S. President Donald Trump, in the wake of the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre.

The coalition ramped up its call during a Tuesday morning news conference, saying having Bannon participate in the sold out Munk Debate gives him a platform to "normalize his hateful ideology" — however, the organizers are standing by the event.

Dozens of students from the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, at the University of Toronto, have also signed an online petition against Bannon's appearance, arguing hateful rhetoric is being presented and defended under the guise of free speech.

"Bannon is not just stopping by for a chat," said Maya Menezes, who is with the Toronto chapter of No One Is Illegal, a national advocacy group for immigrants and refugees. 

"This is part of his failing world tour to create a foundation called 'The Movement' aimed at supporting right-wing parties throughout the world.".....

6079_Smith_W

Maybe Climenhaga is just pointing out the double standard. Whether he is or isn't, the problem with the banning rationale is that it means accepting that preventing Galloway and Manning from entry was the right thing to do.

It was not the right thing to do. Not only because Galloway was a sitting member of parliament.

That isn't to say there aren't reasons TO prevent a public figure from entering the country, (and Bannon might meet what should be a very high bar), but tit for tat is not a valid argument here. Kenney was wrong, and arbitrary use of that power would be wrong now.

But again, I think he might have just been making a rhetorical point. I know I don't want the PM using that kind of power in any case.

quizzical

MegB wrote:

Read David Climenhaga's blog on the Steve Bannon debate here.

yup.  i'm going to email the PMO right now. 

MegB

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Maybe Climenhaga is just pointing out the double standard. Whether he is or isn't, the problem with the banning rationale is that it means accepting that preventing Galloway and Manning from entry was the right thing to do.

It was not the right thing to do. Not only because Galloway was a sitting member of parliament.

That isn't to say there aren't reasons TO prevent a public figure from entering the country, (and Bannon might meet what should be a very high bar), but tit for tat is not a valid argument here. Kenney was wrong, and arbitrary use of that power would be wrong now.

I have no doubt the double standard is being used ironically.

NDPP

The Director of Canadian Civil Liberties Association is not in favour of a ban for obvious free speech reasons. Appealing to the state to ban political enemies from speaking is probably not a good precedent to reinforce either. Especially when the same liberal left apparently has no difficulty with the warcriminal Clintons or outright Nazis like Andriy Parubiy visiting and speaking here.  

Michael Bryant

https://twitter.com/MJ_Bryant/status/1057304200307073024

"David Frum v Bannon is an interrorgation and evisceration of hate, not an amplification of it."

quizzical

nope. the rise of hate against FN's is getting bad.

we don't need more normalization of hate here.

just because Kenney was wrong to do what he did doesn't mean it shouldn't ever be done when there's an actual threat.

don't see any tit for tat here. 2 totally different realities.

6079_Smith_W

Yes, I do as well. It isn't that I don't sympathize with the sentiment about wanting to can this thing, as Munk has been peddling this racket for awhile. But for the same reason the timing is a bit weird, and could wind up giving ammunition to the haters. After all, nothing of substance has changed with this mass murder; this debate was announced months ago, and Bannon was just as much of a hatemonger then.

And to confess a guilty pleasure, I wouldn't mind seeing these two square off, if only it was in a lead-lined room. For that reason, I probably will listen, unlike the last one. I'm sure Bannon will be on good behaviour, and not resort to calling Frum a cuck. I also wonder if Frum will play nice, or push him the way he should be pushed on his ideas.

That isn't to absolve Frum of anything, but he isn't the first right-winger who was also in some things an ally. I am thinking of Barry Goldwater, who for all his dogma was himself the target of anti-semitic smears, and right when it came to challenging religious fundamentalism and anti-LGBT rhetoric, and on dealing with Nixon.

6079_Smith_W

Cross-posted with you quizzical. Any time a head of government can pick up the phone and stop someone at the border it is too much arbitrary power. But again, the argument was most certainly a rhetorical one, not literal.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

As much of a genius Bannon thinks he is, I've seen interviws . He's not the brightest bulb in the cupboard and as much as I hate Mr.Frum,he is the smarter man.

Maybe Bannon can wow the spectators and take off a shirt or 2. The man needs to stay away from whiskey. He's a raging alcoholic.

Pages