Recent searches
Search options
![@tlakomy: The only person who should interview Putin [Photo of Philomena Cunk]](https://media.universeodon.com/media_attachments/files/111/919/624/082/005/940/original/445aada846a511ac.jpg "@tlakomy: The only person who should interview Putin [Photo of Philomena Cunk]")
She's reasonably funny if her interviewee is at least TRYING to make sense. Lying, possibly, as Putin would, but at least attempting to make sense.
The counterpart: Philomena vs Trump would just be disappointing. Neither of them have the foggiest notion of what the truth means, let alone any loyalty to it.
@weekend_editor @georgetakei Oh, I think you misunderestimate Philomena. She knows exactly what she's doing; there's a very smart woman behind that ditzy character. Her interview schtick works best when the subject is cooperating by taking her questions seriously no matter how ridiculous they are, and I think Trump would do that even without even being prepped because he has no sense of humor or irony and is incapable of perceiving that he's being kidded. If they ran "Cunk on Trump" as a pay-per-view, I'd cough up a considerable sum to watch it.
Oh, I *absolutely* believe the actress (Diane Morgan?)
portraying this character is smart. In the tradition of Groucho Marx, Gracie Allen, and Tommy Smothers, it takes brains to play a zany!
I'm just not sure her particular shtick would work with Trump. He not only has no respect or allegiance for the truth, he has no use for it. The Cunk character works when *one* of the conversants is crazy, but probably not both.
I've sadly grown to respect the skill with which Trump evades being trapped by truth.
It would be absolutely lovely to be shown that I am wrong in that regard, when someone finally gets Trump. It would be just about perfect if the person proving that were *pretending* to be an idiot, after so many oh-so-very serious people failed.
Edited to add: See this video by Chris Cillizza, on why Trump's crazy statements never seem to hurt him.