In his own words

Cecil Whig - - OPINION - Kath­leen Parker

— One of the most ef­fec­tive po­lit­i­cal ads of the sea­son fea­tures women re­peat­ing the many deroga­tory state­ments Don­ald Trump has made about the fairer sex.

No ed­i­to­rial com­ment is needed when a can­di­date’s own words stand alone to ex­pose his flaws, and thus to con­demn him.

Just ask Mitt Rom­ney, whose 47 per­cent re­mark ef­fec­tively ended his pres­i­den­tial as­pi­ra­tions. Say­ing that he wasn’t wor­ried about the 47 per­cent of peo­ple who are on some form of wel­fare was per­ceived as ex­pos­ing a lack of com­pas­sion for the poor.

Rom­ney’s ruin on that ac­count may not have been fair, but it was enough.

Trump, by con­trast, can say nearly any­thing and es­cape judg­ment from a ma­jor­ity of Repub­li­can pri­mary vot­ers. Hear­ing him re­fer to women as “bimbo,” “dog” or “fat pig,” — or dis­cuss his own wives’ gas­troin­testi­nal func­tions with Howard Stern — have left him suf­fi­ciently un­scathed.

It is un­der­stood that Re­pub­li­cans rarely suf­fer for crit­i­ciz­ing Hil­lary Clin­ton. “Hat­ing Hil­lary” is a chronic ob­ses­sion on the right, es­pe­cially among men for whom Trump spoke when he re­cently told MSNBC’s Joe Scar­bor­ough that it was too early in the morn­ing for him to lis­ten to Clin­ton’s “shout­ing.”

There’s no deny­ing that a woman’s raised voice is ev­ery man’s nightmare — for so many ob­vi­ous rea­sons. For sim­i­larly ob­vi­ous rea­sons, it is never politic for a man to point this out. Un­less it seems, you’re Trump. He and Scar­bor­ough were chat­ting about Trump’s re­cent com­ment that all Clin­ton had go­ing for her was the fe­male vote and ac­cused her of play­ing the “woman’s card.” Just be­ing a woman ap­par­ently is play­ing this card in Trump’s world, where he prefers that women play the man’s card. Or, as Trump might say, his “what­ever.”

Why not put a bow on that while you’re at it, eh, chap?

De­spite the daunt­ing competition, noth­ing else Trump has said has been fur­ther from the truth. That is, un­til he said it. In no time, Clin­ton’s cam­paign was of­fer­ing a pink, credit card­sized “Woman Card” to on­line donors. Trump also pro­vided Clin­ton the sort of touche mo­ment athe­ists pray for:

“Well, if fight­ing for women’s health care and paid fam­ily leave and equal pay is play­ing the woman card, then deal me in,” she said in an im­pas­sioned voice. (Trump-la­tor: Screech­ing like a wounded owl.)

Adding confetti and cham­pagne to his gift, Trump went on: “And frankly, if Hil­lary Clin­ton were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 per­cent of the vote. ... And the beau­ti­ful thing is that women don’t like her, OK?”

Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you, roared the colum­nist from her bunker. Do we hear a hal­lelu­jah? Hal­lelu­jah!

Thus herald­ing the ob­vi­ous ques­tion: What if Trump were a woman? Imag­ine a Donna Trump run­ning as a Repub­li­can who:

— Got her start with more than $1 mil­lion from her fa­ther’s busi­ness, par­layed into bil­lions via four bank­rupt­cies and var­i­ous busi­ness fail­ures.

— Wouldn’t dis­close tax re­turns and do­nated to nu­mer­ous Democrats, in­clud­ing Hil­lary Clin­ton.

— Ran a university wracked by al­le­ga­tions of fraud.

— Im­ported two of her three hus­bands from over­seas, one of them on a “model” visa, and dumped the sec­ond hus­band days be­fore their prenup­tial agree­ment could hurt her wal­let.

— Put her third hus­band on her plane, naked and hand­cuffed on a bear rug for a photo shoot she said was “classy.”

— Said her son was so hand­some she’d date him if he weren’t her son.

— Said women who had abor­tions should be pun­ished (if abor­tion were il­le­gal).

— Knew noth­ing about for­eign pol­icy or even how to pro­nounce the names of coun­tries.

— Rou­tinely cursed, called peo­ple names, de­mo­nized her op­po­nents, as well as Mex­i­cans, Mus­lims and oth­ers, and called men dogs, mo­rons and fat slobs.

If Trump were a woman, not only would he not get 5 per­cent of the vote, he’d be tarred, feath­ered, branded and rid­den out of town back­ward on a don­key. Vot­ers male and fe­male would rec­og­nize im­me­di­ately that such a woman was in­ap­pro­pri­ate, lack­ing in qual­ity and char­ac­ter, per­haps more than a lit­tle crazy — and ut­terly un­qual­i­fied to be pres­i­dent of the United States.

The only thing Trump’s got go­ing for him, one is tempted to say, is the men’s vote, which is no way to de­flect ac­cu­sa­tions of a GOP war on women. But as Trump him­self would as­sert, at least he’s keep­ing it classy.

Kath­leen Parker is a syn­di­cated colum­nist. Con­tact her at kath­leen­parker@ wash­post.com.

WASH­ING­TON

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.