Trump-ettes, You Can’t Have It Both Ways
A funny thing happened on the way to the “Forum,” the “guy who doesn’t back down,” the “fighter,” got his nose bloodied and his sycophants didn’t care for it one bit. If that sounds harsh, then let me borrow from the “fighter’s” own words. I don’t have time for political correctness. I also don’t have time for so-called Republicans and Conservatives who want the game disingenuously skewed to their advantage. Nor do I have time for hypocrites.
This is not a screed that poses to apologize for FOX News. I have my own reasons – events that happened to me personally when I was asked to appear on The O’Reilly Factor so many years ago – for not kneeling at the FOX altar. But neither will I bow to the knee-jerk canonization of Donald Trump as the end-all-be-all for the Conservative cause in 2016. Nor will I acquiesce to the Janus-faced whining of those who don’t want to see the “guy who doesn’t back down” asked legitimate questions.
The two questions that have the “Trump-ettes’” undies in a bunch were legitimate questions. Period. Dot. In fact, they were pointed questions, the kind that we on the Right side of the aisle wish we would have seen posed to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton during any CNN or MSNBC sponsored debate of election cycles past. Yet, when hard and pointed, and legitimate questions are posed to a so-called champion of the Right his supporters cry foul? How absolutely Progressive! By that standard, Mr. Obama’s sycophants are vindicated in their calling anyone who doesn’t agree with him a racist. Do you see how duplicitous the Trump-ettes are?
Of the first question, Jonah Goldberg – who some on the Right are now attempting to label an “establishment guy,” said this:
“This was literally the stage – like the physical stage – of the next Republican convention. This was the first debate in the contest for the nomination to lead the Republican Party. Donald Trump is the frontrunner in the polls for that nomination and he has, several times in recent weeks, suggested he might take his marbles and go if he’s not the nominee. But it was unfair to ask him about it?…
“Contrary to what you might have read over the urinal at ‘Mother Jones,’ Bret Baier doesn’t work for the GOP. So even if you think it’s unfair for a Republican to expect an answer to that question…you have to have your head so far up Donald Trump’s red-velvet-lined ass you can see the glow of the nickel slot machines, to think it’s out of bounds for a journalist to ask that question.”
I concur. Not only was it a legitimate question, it was a necessary question because the debates were about nominating the Republican nominee. So, if we are not to ask the “fighter” at this forum, then where? To call the question an “attack” is the definition of disingenuous.
The second question, and the one that stirs up more controversy, was equally as legitimate because it showcased the “fighter’s” own words (illustrating his often flippant demeanor) and his reaction to being called on those words.
FOX News’ Megyn Kelly queried Mr. Trump on past diatribes that bordered on – if not crossed over to – being sexist and insulting, to the point of misogyny:
“You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs’ and ‘disgusting animals.’ Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on ‘Celebrity Apprentice’ that it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president? And how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who is likely to be the Democrat nominee, that you are part of the war on women?”
Put aside, for the moment, the absolute fact that should Mr. Trump get to the General Election main stage as the GOP nominee he most definitely will be called on his words by the Clinton campaign and it will resonate. I can guarantee that.
Mr. Trump tried to joke his way out of being confronted by his own words in referring to Rosie O’Donnell, but acquiesced to Kelly in admitting he had made comments like those about other women as well, doing so before smartly deflecting to his abhorrence for political correctness. If he would have stopped there – and if he would have at least feigned some humanistic remorse for having said such things – I think he would have remained viable. But he didn’t. Instead, he doubled down both at the end of the question by saying that perhaps he would be “not so nice” to Ms. Kelly in the future (a thoroughly childish response) and by taking the initiative to call into Don Lemon on CNN to say:
“I just don’t respect her as a journalist. I have no respect for her. I don’t think she’s very good. I think she’s highly overrated…She gets out and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions…You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever. In my opinion, she was off base.”
So, being asked about your own publicly recorded words towards others is off-base? How so? Are we to believe that other media operatives are going to refrain from going after “the fighter,” “the guy who doesn’t back down”? How incredibly naïve are the Trump-ettes to believe such lunacy?
The person that Republicans and Conservatives put forth as their nominee in 2016 must possess the intellectual prowess to navigate such questions and queries without alienating half of his/her own political party (let alone half of the electorate), doing so while not acting like a three-year old who threatens to “take his ball and go home” if he doesn’t get his way in the process. To wit, do the Trump-ettes even understand that Trump is extorting the entirety of the political Right by saying if he isn’t the nominee he will execute actions to see Hillary Clinton as the next President of the United States? How can Trump say he loves his country if he would narcissistically put his own ego ahead of keeping a dyed-in-the-wool, turn of the century Progressive from the Oval Office?
Lastly, please think about this long and hard, especially all you Trump-ettes. If a man were to call your wife, your daughter or your mother a “fat pig,” “a dog,” “a slob,” or a “disgusting animal,” would you want him leading our country? Would you even bother to refrain from giving the guy a well-deserved thrashing? If you would then your honor, dignity and morality should be called into question.
Donald Trump for the 2016 Republican Party’s nominee for President of the United States? Nope. Mr. Trump, you’re fired.
You mean Trump’s hypocrisy at using illegal immigrants unlawfully to build his rich empire than turn around and accuse them instead of himself ?
Don’t forget we had a president who abused women left and right in Bill Clinton.A guy who had woman come up to this hotel room where he exposed himself to her and said to”kiss it.” We had a present who raped Juanita Broderick and it was proven true later on. He had Monica down on her knees providing oral sex to him while he was on the phone to ambassadors to Bosnia and many other cases of abuse to women while in office. Kathleen Willy is another one..Trump said similar things to men als o on his show.It was all schtick for ratings. Now these transgender people are saying they want men to treat women like their men friends so you are to expect this kind of reaction then. When Meghyn Kelly was on Howard Stern’s show she was talking about her husband’s penis size and her breast size and various sex acts and laughing and loving it so she’s no angel either.
Jim……this is relevant how???? I appreciate your candor, I just don’t understand it. Surly you don’t want to ‘repeat history’ of the sort you cited. Clinton’s action was found deplorable to almost all Americans and excusable to few. It was wholly disrespectful to the Office of President. I cannot imagine allowing another crass and blusterous person to hold the highest office in our Country. Stern is a deliberate ‘shock jock’ for entertainment purposes only. Megan Kelly’s appearance on it has nothing whatsoever to do with the debate. She, and also Bair and Wallace all have the reputation for being aggressive interviewers. They are cheered when coming down hard on the Democrats.
This Debate was for the American people and each candidate is now a public figure. The more personal questions are ones that you can be certain the Democrat dirt diggers will throw out. Is it not better to get in front of them and allow a candidate to explain?
Trump set the tone with his undisguised ‘threat’ to take his ball and play elsewhere. One he has made several times prior to the debate. He proudly said he had contributed to the Clintons to ‘buy’ influence. What serious candidate would do that? He’s a big boy with big boy pants and wanted to play. This is a game to him, another challenge, and one less item on his bucket list…..Conservatives ‘say’ they want someone that respects the Constitution…While it wouldn’t hurt to have heads roll, is a man that within his announcement call the (our)Congress stupid and dumb the one to do it.
I referenced this article on your page because I found it insightful and more like the post you generally make.