WEDNESDAY, JULY 1, 2026
All in all, Look who's talking: On Election Day in Gotham, Emily Compagno, co-hosting The Five, was visibly upset.
Mayor Mamdani had endorsed three candidates for the House in that day's Democratic Party primaries. On the "cable news" show which defines the shape of our failed state, Compagno assessed the three candidates thusly:
COMPAGNO (6/23/26): Yeah, I'm horrified by this. I'm horrified! When did the Democrat [sic] Party normalize monsters like these?
Compagno linked her use of the term "monsters" to an earlier use of the word by Mamdani himself. But as her assessment unfolded, the excitable co-host blazed a trail to her own linguistic frontier:
COMPAGNO: There is no gray area here, in my opinion. It's pretty obvious that these candidates are absolutely disqualified to even run. And yet somehow, they're being celebrated, and then endorsed, by our super-smiley, annoying mayor.
These people are pro-defund the police. Every deportation is an abomination. They are against prison altogether. They are against everything that makes a society run, and they continue to display such juvenile comments and tendencies in policies like [mocking tone] "free buses" and "free houses."
[...]
This city is going to Hell in a handbasket because of this mayor and I do not understand... why he is bothering to endorse all of these psychopaths instead of saying, "You know what? I'm in the office. I'm going to sit this one out," as he should.
I hope there's more national leadership that comes out and says all of these people are tragically unqualified and disqualified...
Right there, on primary Election Day, so Compagno said. The three candidates weren't just "monsters." They were also "psychopaths," the horrified co-host said.
(For the record, we have a bunch of free bus lines in Baltimore. For full exposure, click here.)
More to the point, were the three candidates all just alike? Setting the "psychopath" claim to the side, were all three "tragically unqualified?"
We're willing to venture a no.
As we noted yesterday, one of the three was Brad Lander, the former comptroller of the city of New York. Before being elected citywide to that position, he'd been elected to three terms on the Gotham City Council, serving from 2010 through 2021.
In June 2025, the New York Times Opinion Panel (a group of Gotham residents) made him their choice to be the city's next mayor. The Times explained his selection thusly:
OPINION
Who Should Lead New York City?
15 New Yorkers assess the candidates for the Democratic mayoral primary
[...]
In the end, a veteran civic leader and elected official, Brad Lander, the city comptroller, emerged as the top overall choice among the panelists, including four who recently shifted away from Mr. Cuomo, Mr. Mamdani and other candidates. Mr. Lander was also cited as best on education, the economy and leadership. Those who favored him cited his experience in city government and his ability to work with others—but, truth be told, he also benefited from lacking the heavy baggage of Mr. Cuomo and the democratic socialist image of Mr. Mamdani. Danny Meyer, the restaurateur, spoke for others in our group when he said of Mr. Lander, “He understands the complexity of how the city works, what our city government does and what it can and cannot do.”
Depending on your policy views, he may not be your cup of tea. No candidate is ever the everyone's choice.
No one is ever everyone's choice! But is Lander "tragically unqualified" even to seek a seat in the House?
We're going to venture a no. Meanwhile, does Lander hold the beliefs the three "monsters" were said to share? Is Lander "against prison altogether," to cite one example?
This being The Five, no evidence was ever given in support of Compagno's assertions. Given the way the game is played by reliable messaging agents like Compagno, we know of no reason to place any faith in anything she ever says.
Further thoughts on Compagno below. Earlier in the segment that day, Jessica Tarlov had offered a saner assessment of the three nominees in question.
As we've frequently noted, Tarlov is the designated punching bag on this ersatz "cable news" show. Compagno screeches and Greg Gutfeld offers towel-snapping jokes, as he inanely did in this very segment about "a Muslim Santa" flying his sled into the chimneys of houses.
By way of contrast, Tarlov tends to operate in conventional ways when she co-hosts the show, until she's interrupted and overtalked by guardians of the corporate line like Gutfeld and Jesse Watters.
Uh-oh! According to Tarlov, the three Mamdani-endorsed nominees actually aren't all alike! Regarding the three alleged psychopaths, the lone liberal co-host said this:
TARLOV (6/23/26): I think that there is a big difference between, for instance, Claire Valdez, who you played the original clip of, and then Darializa [Avila] Chevalier, who is challenging Espaillat in New York 13.
I mean, she is dangerous [notable pause] and seems pretty dumb also. And I don't know why Mamdani would waste capital on that.
Tarlov didn't mention the highly experienced Lander. She said there was a significant difference between Avila Chevalia and Claire Valdez, the other two candidates.
Avila Chevalier is "dangerous," Tarlov said. Unless she meant dangerous to Democratic Party interests, we don't know why she said that.
After a pause, she also said that Avila Chevalier "seems pretty dumb." We wouldn't use that term in this context ourselves, but in her June 24 column for the New York Times, Michelle Goldberg sketched the shape of the possible problem:
Democrats Are Done With Caution
Of the three New York City congressional candidates endorsed by Zohran Mamdani in Tuesday’s primary, Darializa Avila Chevalier was the weakest.
A sociology Ph.D. student and doctrinaire leftist who has never held elected office, she was running against Adriano Espaillat, head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus...
Last week, in an interview with the New York Editorial Board, a group of veteran journalists who question local political and civic leaders, Avila Chevalier said she opposed all deportations, even those of violent criminals. A prison abolitionist, she either couldn’t or wouldn’t answer repeated questions about whether murderers should be incarcerated...In [several] since-deleted tweets, Avila Chevalier cursed at Kamala Harris, called Joe Biden a “rapist” and derided his support for Ukraine as “bullying Russia.” Her name was notably absent from a get-out-the-vote message that Bernie Sanders posted for other progressives on Tuesday.
But in the end, Avila Chevalier won, carried to a narrow victory by the left-wing tsunami that created landslides for the other congressional candidates Mamdani endorsed, Brad Lander and Claire Valdez. She will almost certainly become the most left-wing member of Congress, and Republicans are sure to try to make her the face of the Democratic Party.
Like Tarlov, Goldberg said that Mamdani's three nominees simply aren't all alike.
As she continued, she said "the Democratic version of the Tea Party is here." Avila Chevalier was offered as the poster child for this potentially (politically) dangerous set of unconventional candidates.
Goldberg's assessment was the work of a qualified journalist—of a person who is able to draw the most obvious sorts of distinctions between as many as three different people. Compagno's rather typical rant seemed more like the work of someone who shouldn't be on the nation's most watched "cable news" program--someone who may not be "qualified" to be cast in such a position.
It flies in the face of American instinct to say that someone is unqualified to offer a political assessment or opinion. Borrowing from President Kennedy in Berlin, we would say this:
Let the person who feels that way watch some programs on the Fox News Channel!
That person will see the intellectual squalor which arises when people like Compagno, Watters and Gutfeld are hired by a corporate empire, then are deployed for the purpose of advancing an endless array of corporate propaganda messages.
Within the context of American politics, there seem to be few unlikely statements Avila Chevalier hasn't made. Within the context of American pseudo-journalism, the same could be saif of a person like Compagno—or of an apparent nutcase like Jesse Watters, who still seemed to think, as of June 24, that Mayor Mamdani's three "Commie" nominees were, in fact, all women.
A nation which tolerates staffing like this may already be a failed state. As in The Sixth Sense, so too here, with us:
It's possible that we the people simply don't know that the American project is already dead.
That said, were Compagno's various claims really true? Do all three "monstera" and "psychopaths" hold the outlandish views she attributed to them in her latest angry rant?
What do the nominees think and believe? Just how crazy are their beliefs?
Tomorrow, we'll note what happened when Claire Valdez was interviewed by Erin Burnett, right there on CNN.
Tomorrow: Medicare for All—even that!
These people are pro-defund the police. COMPAGNO
ReplyDeleteCompagno literally voted for the man who unleashed an attack on our Capital building and campaigned on pardoning the people who assaulted police protecting the capital. And then he fucking did it on Day 1 and she never blinked. Why the fuck should I care what she says?!
If you support Trump, you have lost the right to call any other politician a "monster," without being laughed out of all rational discourse as a buffoon. But we don't have rational discourse. We have a press corps dedicated to maintaining drama to keep the ad dollars rolling in, so a politician who advocates Medicare for all or some kind of just resolution in Palestine becomes just as "monstrous" as one who wants armed soldiers roaming our streets, naked corruption throughout the government, to cancel elections that look bad for them, launching insane wars, alienating decades-long allies and trading partners, and on, and on, and on. That's what people get on our media -- and it shows in what America has become.
ReplyDelete"Hispanic naming customs use two surnames (apellidos) to honor both parental lineages. Individuals inherit the first surname of their father followed by the first surname of their mother. Women do not traditionally change their names upon marriage, and there is no concept of a "middle name"."
ReplyDelete"and then Darializa [Avila] Chevalier, " Tarlov says.
Somerby correctly inserts the father's surname "Avila" to complete Chevalier's name. Tarlov's omission of one surname shows additional disrespect, beyond the words she uses to disparage Avila Chevalier. That is the same kind of cheap shot as when Republicans pretend they cannot pronounce Kamala.
"Like Tarlov, Goldberg said that Mamdani's three nominees simply aren't all alike."
ReplyDeleteSomerby is being excessively literal. They are all three alike in that Mamdani endorsed them. That doesn't mean they are necessarily alike in other ways. They are being lumped together so that Republicans can attack them as a group.
They have become the new "Squad," which, while it still exists, hasn't been much of a target of the right wing hysteria machine lately.
DeleteAvila Chevalier defeated a 5-term Democratic incumbent in her race. Many Democrats are upset that the Democrats in Congress have been so ineffective in controlling Trump and opposing the Republicans in the House. Further, there is a movement toward younger candidates, based on the "Biden is too old" campaign in 2024.
ReplyDeleteGiven Somerby's very aggressive "Biden is too old" essays, it seems hypocritcal for him to now complain that some of the younger candidates beating incumbents in these primaries are more progressive and more extreme than those they are replacing. You can't have things both ways.
Avila Chevalier seems to have been especially anti-Biden in 2020 and, like other progressives, tried to defeat him by supporting Tara Reide, who claimed Biden sexually assaulted her by rubbing her thigh. That was exaggerated to a claim he raped her. As it turns out after investigation, he did neither. Harris never accused Biden of rape and never supported Tara Reide, although the right wing claimed she did. In context, Avila Chevalier's remarks are like those Somerby has been making about Trump being mentally ill, unsupported. It is to her credit that she retracted the claims after Biden won the nomination.
Tarlov focuses on her other progressive positions regarding immigrants and police. Somerby has said he agreed with Tarlov, but today he doesn't say what he agrees with her about. I think Tarlov is mischaracterizing Avila Chevalier's views, so it matters what Somerby agrees with specifically.
Tarlov objects that Avila Chevalier will become the face of the Democratic party. Of course she will, but right wingers will lie about Democrat positions if they don't find their actual views extreme enough, and there is not much that is more extreme than calling people monsters and psychopaths. Tarlov doesn't help Democrats when she joins her co-hosts in demonizing any of the primary winners. This careful attempt to cut-out the reasonable ones from Avila Chevalier, who won her district race, is ugly and not the way Democrats should be treating each other. We do not need a deeper division between progressive and moderate Democrats, so neither Somerby nor Tarlov is helping Democrats at a time when we desperately need to get rid of House Republicans, especially Trump supporters.
Tarlov complains that Avila Chevalier will be targeted, but that will make her like AOC, who is now a positive and outspoken leader coming into her own. When first elected, AOC was stigmatized just as Avila Chevalier is being (by her own party!). For Avila Chevalier to win at all, she must have gained a following as an activist and earned her place on the ticket. We Democrats should be teaching and encouraging her, not trying to help Republican gain her district's seat.
Being on Fox too much may be affecting Tarlov's views. Somerby is no friend to Democrats, so his agreement with Tarlov as she drifts rightward is no surprise.
Compagno is trying to talk like a New Yorker and she does live in NYC now, but she was born and grew up as a west coast Italian American in the Bay area, attending law school at San Francisco University. She has no clue about NYC politics, especially at the local level.
ReplyDelete