WISHFUL THINKING FROM THE WASHINGTON POST
The Washington Post is concerned that the Trump campaign will have long-term negative repercussions for the Republican Party’s standing among women. Okay, I made that up. In reality, the Washington Post hopes the Trump campaign has short and long-term negative repercussions for the Republican Party’s standing among women.
That’s the only sense I can make out of this deeply biased article by Jenna Johnson and Karen Tumulty. It argues that because some prominent Republicans (if Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani still qualify as such) have defended Trump against allegations of sexual misconduct, and because Trump and a few of his male defenders have attacked the women making these allegations, the GOP will be irreparably damaged when it comes to its relationship with female voters.
The Post makes this argument as America is poised to elect the spouse of a former president whose sexual misconduct was excused, and whose accusers were reviled, by Democrats. Who was the reviler-in-chief? None other than Hillary Clinton, the candidate poised to win the presidency.
Johnson and Tumulty don’t see the irony. The only irony they detect is that sexism has reared its head just as the nation seems on the verge of electing its first female president. This “irony” will serve Clinton apologists at the Post and elsewhere well when they attribute attacks on Clinton’s policies to sexism.
The only reference to the events surrounding Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades is a shot at Gingrich. Noting that, during a contentious interview, Gingrich said that Megyn Kelly is “fascinated with sex,” Johnson and Tumulty observe:
Gingrich once had a fascination of his own with Bill Clinton’s sex life, as he was a driving force behind the movement to impeach Clinton following a consensual sexual relationship he had with a young former intern.
You would think, from reading this, that Clinton was impeached for his sexual relationship. In fact, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. The perjury and obstruction occurred in connection with a lawsuit by Paula Jones alleging sexual harassment by Clinton.
There was no meaningful dispute that Clinton lied under oath. Democrats pooh-poohed the lies as trivial, even thought they were stated, under oath, in a sex discrimination suit (sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination).
Yet, there was no talk about a Democratic “war on women.” Nor have female voters ever punished the Democrats or the Clintons. Far from it.
If Trump loses, it’s extremely doubtful that his response, and that of Gingrich and a few others, to the sexual misconduct allegations will have an ongoing effect on how the GOP is perceived by women. It’s not even clear that it will impact congressional races this year.
Will female voters attribute the sins of Trump and Gingrich to, say, Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, or Nikki Haley in 2020? Of course not. Will the Washington Post and other liberal conjure up new “sins” to trumpet as part of the bogus “war on women” theme? Of course they will.
No comments:
Post a Comment