An annoying headline at FiveThirtyEight.
I haven't read this article yet. I want to state up front 2 of the reasons why I am annoyed.
1. "Sex Scandal" — The current criminal charges against Trump are not a sex scandal. We absorbed a long time ago that he has indulged in extramarital sex. He's charged with falsifying records of payments to one of his sex partners in pursuit of some amorphous criminal end having to do with winning the 2016 election. The case does depend on the premise that Trump believed voters would react strongly to knowing he'd had consensual sex with a porn star. The criminal case itself isn't a sex scandal. And it's the criminal case that is happening now and that might make us wonder why it's not hurting him today.
2. "Tanked A Presidential Front-Runner" — I presume the 80s front-runner was Gary Hart. Gary Hart quit. Donald Trump will not quit. By making "sex scandal" the subject of the sentence, you act as though it's a force that is doing things to people. But these 2 men have made their own decisions, and if Gary Hart had had more of a Donald Trump mentality, he would have barreled on, said whatever he needed to say, distracted however he could, and maintained endless vitality and optimism. The man quit.
Okay, now I'll read the article. Some excerpts:
Trump’s enduring strength stems in part from his standing as a former president and in part from political polarization.... The Republican Party remains Trump’s party....
Since he never occupied the White House, Hart didn’t have a chance to become as central a figure in the Democratic Party as Trump has become for Republicans. Hart also didn’t have partisan media figures ready to defend his candidacy the way Trump does today....
Oh, yeah, the media and Republicans are always helping Trump. Ridiculous! Trump is doing as well as he is on his own crazily inexhaustible power.
[T]he fallout from these imbroglios tell us a lot about how politics and media have changed....
I'd say it's about Trump, the man, and Hart, the man. If Trump were in Hart's position — or Hart were in Trump's position — Trump would still win and Hart would lose.
पोस्ट्स
७० टिप्पण्या:
Good take…
This shit about finding the thing to say to make it go away is the current trendy pr strategist grift. It is showing up in far too many places. Y’all are gonna wreck it for everyone…
Gary Hart portrayed himself as a morally upstanding married man.DJT has been known since the Ivana days as a flawed person.Old news.Gee anyone remember "Monkey Business"?
How do you write an article about the publicizing of a politician’s peccadilloes and not mention Bill Clinton.
Gennifer Flowers we hardly knew ye!
I saw that headline yesterday and could not bring myself to read it. Too much aggravation in my life already. I was glad to see you hold them accountable this morning.
Hart also didn’t have partisan media figures ready to defend his candidacy the way Trump does today....
I'm so glad I had only just poured my coffee and it was too hot for me to drink - that would have been a very painful and messy spit-take!
So, the writer doesn't get that the "scandal" here is the decision to indict and criminally prosecute someone who aspires to be the current president's main political opponent, for an out-of-statute-of-limitations barely-if-at-all-"crime." Let's play Switch the Parties and see if the song remains the same, shall we?
Or even - what if NY had decided to do this to someone who had announced he planned to primary Biden, and had received a lot of public support for doing so? How would that have gone over?
In other words, “shamelessness” is Trump’s super-power.
Why did Hart quit? Was it because he was a quitter or because politicians could be shamed in the pre-Bill Clinton days?
Am I the only person in the US who doubts this Daniels woman's story?
Trump says she is lying. I looked for details on this supposed tryst. Daniels has been peddling this story for over half a decade and she is not shy to talk about it.
What was the name of the charity golf tournament where they supposedly met? What was the date & time? Daniels says they went from the charity golf tournament to Trump's hotel room. What was the name of the hotel? How did they get there? What was the room number? Can any witnesses place them together at the golf tournament or the hotel?
What was the sex like? Clothes on or off? Apparently all she said of the act itself is Trump did not wear a condom. What actual sex act was performed?
As far as I can tell, none of these questions has been asked of Daniels or been answered by her.
To me it seems quite a leap to go from "We know Trump had an extra marital affair with a super model" to "Trump has a fling with a hooker he picked up."
Written by someone who...heard of the story but didn't understand the context, details, and cultural changes?
Long ago I read a story where a college undergrad was asked to explain why J. Edgar Hoover remained head of the FBI for decades. The student came up with a continuity-of-function, experience, and respect story. He never knew that Hoover had the dirt on every D.C. politician so they treated him with kid gloves and let him die in office. They all hated him.
The author here needed to fill space and drooled out some inane, childish content.
I believe that Hart dared people to follow him, and they would see for themselves there’s nothing there. So, while the sex scandal itself was part of his undoing, perhaps his arrogance also played a part.
What about international influence peddling for millions using VP Biden's name - to the tune of millions and millions for Hunter, the brother and the "big guy"?
Shorter 538... "Why won't he just quit!" Just another incantation of the "How Dare He" spell about Trump.
If Gary Hart had done a Bill Clinton he would have survived.
You seem to be assuming that trump had sex with Daniel's,Ann.
Both of them deny any sex took place. There is no evidence of any sex taking place.
I don't view the payoff as evidence one way or the other. Trump spent sofa change (to him) to make the story go away. Even if false denying it would publicize and amplify it, giving it credence in many minds "where there's smoke.. Right?"
As lbj said back in the day "let's make him deny he is a pig fucker"
You should be more careful with your assumptions, Ann. Some people might call your post mis/disinformation
(did Joe Brandon fuck a Firefly girl? Let's start a rumor)
John Henry
Typical entitled democrat who made the mistake of mocking the media about the rumors and then created an indelible image by being caught on a yacht named Monkey Business.
Juanita Broaddrick's credible account of Clinton rape didn't tank his campaign.
JFK's serial infidelities were largely hidden from public scrutiny.
FDR's mistress (and handicap) was swept under the rug.
Ted Kennedy's serial filandering and manslaughter were Kennedy-splained away.
Tara Reade's rape allegation against Biden was ignored.
Barney Frank's upstairs male brothel was quaint.
Obama's life history was mostly unexamined, other than his Choom Gang confession. And so on.
On the other hand, Al Franken's gag picture, without any contact, caused him to fall on his sword, mostly because it was hoped to set a Trump withdrawl standard. Outrage can be very selective.
serious question: In the Eighties..
If a President hired a TRANSVESTITE to be surgeon general.. Would that President be FORCED to resign?
If a President hired a Sexual FREAK to be in charge of nuclear secrets.. Would Pres be FORCED to resign?
If a Pres hired a bisexual to be his Press Secretary? Forced to resign?
If that President told public schools, that they HAD TO have XY players on female sports teams?
Guess WHAT???? a Little Bit has Changed, since the Eighties
Did Hartpence (to dead name him) really quit?
Or was he allowed to officially "quit" while actually being forced out by Demmie nabobs?
And thank you for pointing out that our president emeritus is not a quitter. He has 40+ years of experience at not quitting when times get tough. It is one of his most attractive qualities. A lesseran would have retired in 2021. He certainly does not need all the bullshit thrown at him.
John Henry
Though Clinton is the obvious comparison, I think it's worth bring Reagan into the mix to explain the headline.
Hart's fall was shortly after Jimmy 'guilty of lust in my heart' Carter lost the Evangelical vote to Reagan, who was subjected to at least whispering about his status as a divorced and remarried man (IIRC the first such to be elected President). The calls for Christians/Evangelicals to discard Trump over his lack of marital scruples have been much more overt. You are accurate in noting the trouble with this tactic is that making personal moral standards a pillar of your electoral campaign is exposure of any deviance from those standards is likely to be devastating, especially when your opponent's faults are well known and discounted.
Bill Clinton happened. The Democratic Party decided that power was more important than having an upstanding, moral president, so they were willing to support a man that not only cheated on his wife constantly, but also appears to be a sexual predator. The media was all too happy to push this line of thinking. It "helped" that the culture was becoming more sexually permissive, and the media more and more in the pocket of the Democratic Party.
Per usual, the Democratic Party and its operatives expect the Republicans to play by the old rules while they ignore them.
There's also another issue with Hart. He basically dared the media to follow him around and catch him in the act, as if he had nothing to hide. So, they followed him around and caught him the act. Hart was an idiot. Again, that's another difference in the media. Back then, they had the decency to actually report scandals when Democrats were involved, and they were not willing to be played for fools. Today, they are good little lap dogs. They gave us Biden, a man who was always a self-aggrandizing, know-nothing, corrupt, lying idiot and a probable sexual predator, who is obviously now senile, and we are terrible people for noticing. They are now pro-transgender mass murderers. Who cares what they have to say?
1988 -- when Joe Biden dropped out because of the plagiarism thing. I guess that was after Gary Hart dropped out. Monkey Business. Donna Rice. A nice trip down memory lane.
There's an old line in politics that pretty much every sin or mistake is forgivable except being found with a dead girl or a live boy.
This old line is really no longer applicable. One could conjecture that in modern American politics 'being found with a live boy' will be hailed as once in the stunning and two in the brave by all the appropriate people, and the dead girl shall be celebrated as long as she was a nasty TERF.
We live in very strange times.
Isn't there an affidavit from "Stormy" stating that she And Trump did Not have sex?
Not mentioned in the article: JFK, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton
One last point
Hart's sex scandal was unambiguous. It did occur. And hart was arrogant about it daring the press to catch him ("follow me around and see what you find" or some such)
The Trump scandal is at best ambiguous with bot parties denying and no evidence.
That difference would affect any quit/stay decision
John Henry
Times have changed! Back then female voters related more with the deceived wife than the mistress. Women who cheated with married men were villains and social pariahs. Get caught with a floozy and your political career was over.
Today? The sisterhood has embraced the "Other Woman" and husbands are no longer off limits. Some sociologists have gone so far as to label the phenomenon as "mate poaching." And you can't blame feminism for this ruthless competition. The supply of high quality men has plummeted (probably because of video games and online porn) and women have turned vicious!
Good question. Ask Tara Reade.
Notice how they elide right over Bill Clinton. Clinton was raping the help inside the Oval Office (and yes, what he did was rape due to the power imbalance of him versus Monica Lewinsky.)
But on to Gary Hart ... it wasn't just the sex that tanked Hart. He literally TAUNTED the press to follow him around. He begged for scrutiny when questioned about his infidelities. Took about 3 days to get a picture of him and some skank literally on a boat named "Monkey Business."
I don't care who you are ... that there is what they call in the business "newsworthy."
The New England press (NYTimes, WaPo, etc.) of course, knew all along he was banging wh0res left and right. Like Kennedy, they suppressed that information.
Took the Miami Herald to break the story (lots of conservative Cuban readers).
As I recall, the only reason Hart got into this mess was that reporters had lightly questioned him about rumors of infidelities, and Hart angrily denied the rumors and challenged the reporters to follow him around. The Miami Herald took him up on his challenge.
That doesn't sound like something Trump would foolishly do.
Good analysis. Hart had a reputation as a righteous man, and he wasn't a fighter. Trump rose in politics in spite of not being a faithful husband, and he is a fighter.
IIRC, Hart actually told reporters that if they didn't believe him they could follow him around. It was like Biden telling people who had doubts about his competence and ability that they should just watch him, but in Hart's case reporters actually took him up on it.
Hart was around at an awkward time. In spite of Reagan (in spite of Adlai Stevenson) divorce was somehow assumed to be a disqualifier for the presidency. It was just a matter of somebody not yet challenging the assumption. Between Clinton and Trump the old taboo has probably been vanquished, at least if a politician has enough appeal and enough nerve and backbone to survive the backlash.
But of course, the strategy is to make this a sex scandal, and to keep sex with a porn star on the lips and minds of women voters from now until election day.
Points for using "imbroglio". I can't resist saying it aloud.
Are we forgetting John Edwards? I don't recall clearly, but was the affair with Rielle Hunter the cause of his demise?
Gary Hart literally dared the press to prove he was a philanderer. The challenge was accepted.
Of course, Bill Clinton put the final stake in the heart of the idea that such pecadilloes can disqualify a presidential candidate.
The reason I think Trump will win is that the historical trends will cause events to happen which will shift public support in his direction. For example there is this event of a political indictment - the first in a Presidential election. The prosecution was a first but it was completely predictable that the kind of leftys running the Dems at this point would bring political prosecutions. Now Trump is the Republican front runner.
The Dems think ballot harvesting will continue unchecked. Ballot harvesting has ended the secret vote among those dependent on the welfare state but it hasn't made the people of the big Dem cities safer or better educated. They just don't have a way to object; they're just peons now. The Dems think that will go on.
The Dems also want us to think that there will be no more events which change voters' minds out in the country. China will be inert, they think - there will be no events which show what is now only talked about: our manufacturing base in relation to our strategic needs; a weaky-wokey military; energy independence in relation to the dollar.
The Dems think if we spend money we don't have on unicorn fart projects endorsed by senile greed, we'll be so safe, we'll never need a real leader. Putin, for example, will never invade the Ukraine. China will never ...
It’s not a sex scandal, because everyone knows that Trump has had his pick of beautiful women for decades now. Over two decades ago, Trump made a cameo performance in Two Week Notice, where Hugh Grant hires, then falls in love with, Miss Congeniality (Sandra Bullock). And Trump made a pass at Bullock at a party, offering to hire her away from Grant. Did he do it for her legal abilities? Likely not. He probably didn’t know how good she was in that regards. Rather, it was very much taken by the viewers as a compliment to her looks, and giving her a chance to come onto Trump. Integral to the scene was that everyone knew that he was a notorious womanizer, and that was 22 years ago.
Here's an alternate Headline and Article:
Democrats used to say "everyone lies about sex" and its was private. WHy not today"?
Part of the reason no one cares about Trump and whoever, is that SOME Republicans have wised up. After Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones, and Biden's "me too" moments, and numerous other examples, they've finally figured out that the MSM and the Democrats do NOT care about sex scandals - when it hurts the Democrats.
They only care sex scandals when it hurts the Republicans
And the MSM has been astuondingly incurious (uncurious?) about Epstein Island and all the Democrats and Big Liberal Donors that went there.
YOu might say, well what about Al franken? Here's the thing, the D's in the Senate didn't like Al Franken. Quite rightly, they thought he was an unfunny clown. And they were afraid he'd lose re-election. They seized on "Me too" to get rid of him. And they got a better, more popular D senator in his place.
People pretended to care about such things in the '80's.
Since then, we've seen the whitewashing of the rapists Clinton and Biden, and the lionization of the rapist-enabling Hillary.
Today, no one really cares.
A type of "sex scandal" also tanked the career of Al Franken. That was just a few years ago. The Jack Ryan sex scandal ultimately lead to the election of Senator Obama. John Edwards. Lot's of examples more recent than the 1980s. Trump is just from the Bill Clinton school of sex scandals.
"The criminal case itself isn't a sex scandal. And it's the criminal case that is happening now and that might make us wonder why it's not hurting him today."
Because it's a Lavrentiy Beria prosecution and is probably not a real criminal case. I wouldn't be heartbroken if Trump were out of the 2024 picture, but the real issue is the turpitude of the Democrats. The corruption of law enforcement, federal agencies and the leftmedia is far more offensive than some chickenshit crime Trump may, or may not, have committed.
AMDG said...How do you write an article about the publicizing of a politician’s peccadilloes and not mention Bill Clinton.
Unbelievable. Un freakin believable. Except it's 538 so, yeah, believable.
"The criminal case itself isn't a sex scandal. And it's the criminal case that is happening now and that might make us wonder why it's not hurting him today."
Because it's a Lavrentiy Beria prosecution and is probably not a real criminal case. I wouldn't be heartbroken if Trump were out of the 2024 picture, but the real issue is the turpitude of the Democrats. The corruption of law enforcement, federal agencies and the leftmedia is far more offensive than some chickenshit crime Trump may, or may not, have committed.
President Trump denies having sex with "that woman". Do you have evidence that he did? She has been forced to pay him half a million dollars for filing spurious lawsuits against him and her attorney is in jail for fraud. Why do you choose to believe these two uncredited people over our former President? Says something about you, I think.
If I remember correctly, Hart challenged the media to try and out him about any vice. So they did.
CTRL-F "Bill Clinton" produces zero results in that article.
What happened since 1987 is Bill Clinton was elected president. Democrats not only nominated a man with ongoing sex scandals, but when he was involved in a sex scandal while in office, they defended him arguing "it's just sex". To be fair, some Democrats argued blowjobs aren't sex, but that nonsense is not what carried the day. The economy was relatively strong and "just sex" wasn't enough to remove a president.
In the past, a president would have resigned, but Clinton stood strong and wouldn't back down. The scandal took down the speaker of the house and his would be replacement for their own sexual affairs.
As such, when Trump ran in 2016, against Hillary, no less, the Democrats couldn't argue with a straight face that his sexual history was in any way disqualifying. Clinton opened the door for Trump.
What nasty Victorian scolds the American Left has become! Weren't they fighting against such people a mere 50 years ago?
Over time people who were elected president made old notions of what was acceptable in a president moot.
Kennedy made electing Catholics a moot issue. But they still hid the affairs.
Reagan made electing men who had divorced a moot issue.
Clinton made any form of sexual shenanigans a very moot issue - that included previous affairs (Flowers), a probable rape (Broadrick), and sexual harassment (Paula Jones).
Obama made electing minorities a moot issue. At least I hope so.
It seems Biden has made electing people who have obvious graft and corruption a moot issue (Spiro Agnew weeps). Wilson probably beat him in the issue of mental capacity.
People, who are upset about Trump's affairs, only do so because they hate Trump - not for a higher moral principle.
Nothing is as bad as getting BJ's under the Resolute Desk, and everywhere else in the Oval, or cigars being put in tight spots there as well. THAT President was CELEBRATED for that. Even though there was a credible source claiming he raped her.
Perfect example of the current for of 538 and why they make no money and are at risk of being eliminated.
They have precisely two sets of polling:
1) polling on the Dem nomination contest 6 months before the first actual primary, in the 80s (how many trash polls? How many never heard of any of the candidates? Who knows...)
2) more robust but still shitty polling of the republican primary today.
Everything else is dumb punditry with a big donut hole where Bill Clinton should be (as AMDC said).
Ann makes a good point about quitting v "being tanked". The 538 post would be better if it were titled "Why was Gary Hart a sucker?"
MMmmmm. The left has lowered the bar to the point where pedophilia is acceptable to the left.
Hart was the "new JFK" running against the Establishment candidate (Mondale).
He told the press "follow me around!" in response to questions about extra-marital affairs.
As I recall, the Monkey Business photos were published shortly after.
At that point, Hart must have realized he had no privacy and that there were people following him everywhere. A lot of people in his position would have quit too.
Hart, that was a fun one. As I recall he had a reputation for extramarital hanky-panky, and when asked about it, he responded, "You should follow me. You'd get bored."
Turns out not so much.
In 1980, people had a different view of morality.
Now, no one seems to care. Sometimes the murderers are called victims..
Sex? That’s so far down the list it does not count.
John Edwards Love Child.
Times change.
It’s not your imagination: Polling data confirm conservatives’ flip on morality in candidates
In 2011, [the Public Religion Research Institute] asked Americans whether they thought an elected official who committed an immoral act “can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life.”
Then, half of Democrats said candidates could, but only 36% of Republicans said the same.
Fast forward just five years — into the 2016 launch of Trump’s nomination as the Republican Party presidential candidate — and “things had changed substantially” . . .
“With a vulgar, thrice-married alleged adulterer at the top of the party’s ticket, the number of Republicans who said such an official could fulfill their duties nearly doubled to 70%. And by the end of Trump’s term as president, that number stood at 71%.”
This happened not in spite of but because of evangelical voters . . .
“The shift was driven by the evangelical Christians who had once pushed the party to embrace morality. While in 2011, just 30% of white evangelicals said such a candidate could fulfill their duties, that number in 2020 was 72%. Among the major religious groups, this one went from the least tolerant of such a candidate to the most tolerant.” (emphasis added)
Further, this trend affected only the Republican Party.
“Democrats, by contrast, are about where they were in 2011. While back then 49% said such a candidate could fulfill their duties, in 2020 that number stood at 47%” . . .
Trump used his own money to pay off a non-disclosure agreement to a woman who claimed that she had sex with him long before he ever ran for President. Not illegal in any way.
As far as "fraudulent" business record-keeping: as I understand it, those records are only internal bookkeeping for a wholly-Trump owned enterprise. Nothing in the actual indictment indicating how these qualify as (legally relevant) business records and no specification as to who/how they were "fraudulent."
Unless the designation of the payment as a legal expense somehow falls afoul of IRS rules, or was used fraudulently to induce detrimental reliance thereon by a third-party who would have suffered a loss, I have to wonder how this internal bookkeeping remotely approaches criminality.
Nice that they have labelled Trump a 'front runner'.
He is the de facto nominee.
Let's also not discount the coarsening of society and the breakdown of mores since 1988. For example, marriage rates are down around 33%, the internet has made porn widely available (apparently even on Twitter!), the rate of children raised in single-parent households in the US is more than three times the rate in the rest of the world (and is the highest of any country in the world), etc.
you Want Scandal? HERE is a Scandal
ActBlue Accused of Massive, Multi-State Campaign Money-Laundering Scheme
The Democrat fundraising giant ActBlue appears to be laundering millions of dollars of campaign donations through small donors in an attempt to cover up illegal contributions, according to the investigative work of O’Keefe Media Group (OMG), Election Watch, and other independent journalists.
O’Keefe.. knocked on some doors in Maryland and talked to a number of elderly Democrat donors who, according to FEC records, had made suspiciously large and frequent donations to Joe Biden and other Democrats.
“FEC data shows that some senior citizens across the U.S. have been donating thousands of times per year,” O’Keefe explained. “Some of these individuals’ names and addresses are attached to over $200,000 in contributions.”
According to O’Keefe, the records show that one donated $217,000 to ActBlue in 12,000 separate contributions over a three year period, indicting he made multiple donations per day during that time period.
By the way, in 1980, Hart sponsered the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984, becoming known as an "Atari Democrat".
We might be in a wholly different world if we had retained chip manufacturing here in America rather than outsourcing it to countries both friend and foe (and to countries wholly unconcerned with the environment).
I'm convinced the GOP hates Trump and wants nothing to do with him. I'm convinced that if the right-wing establishment in Congress had its way, they'd rather have an establishment Democrat in the White House than a demagogue outsider running as a Republican. I think if there had been a way for the RNC to deny political outsiders access to the party primaries, they would have kneecapped Donald Trump right away. I think they only reason the GOP plays along with Trump at all is because too many of their voters have made it clear that's what they want. I think if there was any way for the GOP's political establishment to get rid of Trump without sabotaging their own incumbencies, they'd do it in a heartbeat.
The payments were in 2017. The election was in 2016. Time travel? Also, Bragg is charging Trump with an election finance felony of failing to report a contribution (his $) to a campaign. But the FEC ruled already that this was not a campaign finance violation. So no crime to relate the business records to.
I didn't notice sex scandals slowing Bill Clinton down.
Bill Clinton changed everything. He demonstrated a politician can just put his head down and ignore a sex scandal.
Alleged sex scandal? Alleged "hush" money? Allegations made by a now disbarred lawyer. Payments for legal fees charged by another disbarred lawyer. Only the best, the brightest, the most trustworthy witnesses, and a shout out to Professor Ford, #MeToo.
We absorbed a long time ago that he has indulged in extramarital sex. He's charged with falsifying records of payments to one of his sex partners in pursuit of some amorphous criminal end having to do with winning the 2016 election. The case does depend on the premise that Trump believed voters would react strongly to knowing he'd had consensual sex with a porn star.
This assumes facts not in evidence. We do not "know" that he had sex with Stormy Daniels--in fact at some point she herself publicly denied it. All we know is that she tried to shake him down for money, and he paid her off to make it go away.
So let's try this as an alternative:
We absorbed a long time ago that he may have indulged in extramarital sex. He's charged with falsifying records of payments to a woman who attempted to blackmail him while he was running for President. The case does depend on the premise that Trump believed voters would react strongly to a claim (whether true or not) that he'd had consensual sex with a porn star.
I don't know. I do seem to recall a certain candidate who won two Presidential elections despite a well known issue with "bimbo eruptions."
I know that you didn't read it (neither did I), but I'm wondering whether that guy is mentioned anywhere in the article.
How sad that a constitutional law professor throttles free speech in her “salon”.
so disappointing because I thought this was a ‘real’ salon
Donald Trump assaulted E. Jean Carroll in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room'
The moment the dressing-room door is closed, he lunges at me, pushes me against the wall, hitting my head quite badly, and puts his mouth against my lips. I am so shocked I shove him back and start laughing again. He seizes both my arms and pushes me up against the wall a second time, and, as I become aware of how large he is, he holds me against the wall with his shoulder and jams his hand under my coat dress and pulls down my tights.
I am astonished by what I’m about to write: I keep laughing. The next moment, still wearing correct business attire, shirt, tie, suit jacket, overcoat, he opens the overcoat, unzips his pants, and, forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me. It turns into a colossal struggle. I am wearing a pair of sturdy black patent-leather four-inch Barneys high heels, which puts my height around six-one, and I try to stomp his foot. I try to push him off with my one free hand — for some reason, I keep holding my purse with the other — and I finally get a knee up high enough to push him out and off and I turn, open the door, and run out of the dressing room.
The whole episode lasts no more than three minutes. I do not believe he ejaculates. I don’t remember if any person or attendant is now in the lingerie department. I don’t remember if I run for the elevator or if I take the slow ride down on the escalator. As soon as I land on the main floor, I run through the store and out the door — I don’t recall which door — and find myself outside on Fifth Avenue.
And that was my last hideous man. The Donna Karan coatdress still hangs on the back of my closet door, unworn and unlaundered since that evening. And whether it’s my age, the fact that I haven’t met anyone fascinating enough over the past couple of decades to feel “the sap rising,” as Tom Wolfe put it, or if it’s the blot of the real-estate tycoon, I can’t say. But I have never had sex with anybody ever again.
Donald Trump is never involved in a sexual scandal simply because Trump supporters do not accept the term and obviously MAGA folks believe that everything that Trump does is lawful.
Earnest Prole said...
[quoting the Public Religion Research Institute] ... “The shift was driven by the evangelical Christians who had once pushed the party to embrace morality. While in 2011, just 30% of white evangelicals said such a candidate could fulfill their duties, that number in 2020 was 72%. Among the major religious groups, this one went from the least tolerant of such a candidate to the most tolerant.”
This shouldn't be terribly surprising. Christianity has a long history of teaching acceptance of temporal governing authority ('Render unto Caesar..') even when such authority is corrupt or evil. While living under a God-fearing and Christian-based authority is the best situation, it has traditionally been more important that the authority allow exercise of Christian faith than it be explicitly Christian. There is of course a whole range of opinion on the matter, especially the degree to which Christians in democratic societies should attempt to influence government policy, but it should be uncontroversial that when faced with the choice many Christians will choose a candidate who is not openly hostile to the expression of their beliefs regardless of that candidate's personal morality. It's largely Democrat projection that Christians, especially Protestants, can be induced to support a candidate like Biden or Pelosi by an outward show of religious belief. Protestants have spent centuries wrestling with how to determine if their own faith is true, and thus have plenty of tools to examine anybody who makes public claims of Christian piety.
"We'll just have to win."
Bill Clinton to Dick Morris regarding focus group poll results about Slick Willie's sexual misbehaviors.
https://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/4120-the-clintons-just-have-to-win/
Bill Clinton showed that if you persevere that you can overcome a sex scandal.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा