Trumping Hillary

You must concede this about Donald Trump: He does keep his enemies and opponents rocking back on their heels. He does it, as the Wall street Journal’s sage James Taranto, observes, by following the very Saul Alinsky tactics that so impressed Hillary as a Wellesley undergrad.

This week he made clear that if Hillary was going to charge him with being part of the “war on women” (the successor, I take it, to her historic “vast right wing conspiracy”), he was going to attack her as an enabler and defender of a serial sexual predator -- her husband. 

Now, he is accusing Mr. Clinton’s defender in chief of being a moralistic hypocrite, applying to her rivals (including Trump) standards from which she excuses her husband. The current kerfuffle is only incidentally about Mr. Clinton at all.

It’s a textbook example of Saul Alinsky’s fourth tactical rule: “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.” (That is as true of feminism as of Christianity.)

And Trump is perfectly situated to level this attack, for precisely the reasons some Chozicks imagine otherwise. He himself is a voluptuary, not a moralist, which immunizes him through pure logic against any accusation of hypocrisy. As a practical matter, his tabloid lifestyle inoculates him against inquisitions into his private life of the sort that snared Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston during the Clinton impeachment. It all reminds us of a now-quaint anecdote in Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”:

“During a conflict with a major corporation I was confronted with a threat of public exposure of a photograph of a motel “Mr. & Mrs.” registration and photographs of my girl and myself. I said, “Go ahead and give it to the press. I think she’s beautiful and I have never claimed to be celibate. Go ahead!” That ended the threat.’

Others, knowing that the public memory is short and millennial voters deficient in history have reminded readers of how sordid and extensive Bill Clinton’s known abuse of women has been.

Taranto is right as he so often is: The Trump charge is an effective one. Even the notoriously leftwing writer, the Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus, agrees the charge is warranted:

"Trump has smeared women because of their looks. Clinton has preyed on them, and in a workplace setting where he was by far the superior. That is uncomfortable for Clinton supporters but it is unavoidably true."

Don Surber observes that Hillary, too, slandered women and adds, “Bill Clinton's return to the center stage reminds people that for a quarter-century, the media has covered up for this lecher, which further makes the case for Trump's attacks on the media.”

 At Breitbart, John Nolte twisted the knife:

Hillary Clinton and the DC Media were sure they had found the secret weapon to waltz the Lying Benghazi Bungler directly into the Oval Office: a replay of the phony War on Women issue.

It didn’t matter who won the nomination in 2016. Mitt Romney was no sexist, so the DC Media fabricated a Todd Akin to beat him to death with.

Then Donald Trump came along, a candidate who not only understands that the rules set by the DC Media are rigged to elect Democrats, but someone competent enough to serially-beat them at their own game.

On this day, Bill Cosby is finally facing justice for the longstanding allegations against him, and thanks only to Trump, so are Bill and Hillary Clinton after 20 years of being shielded by the corrupt media.

When NBC’s Savannah Guthrie tried downplaying Bill’s abuse by calling the Lewinsky scandal “alleged”, Trump made her retract that description -- after all, both parties did admit to the misconduct under oath. It was not just alleged -- the sexual relationship in the Oval Office with a young subordinate is fact. The  media aren’t dealing with the usual Republican patsies any more.

In salty language, my online friend “Ignatz Ratzkywatzky” characterized the state of play.

Memorandum has the headline "Donald Trump doesn't understand what ‘sexism’ is" from some dumb cluck at CNN.

I don't have to even read it to know that real sexism is saying certain trigger words like "HIStory". And it's refusing to admit women are paid 1% of what men are, though every reputable study that controls for factors like education, pregnancy, time in the work force etc demonstrates women make slightly more than men. And most importantly, it's not supporting a woman's right to choose to kill her baby even though ~half of those dead babies are little women.

And of course he goes on to explain that sexism is not arranging trysts with sad, lonely subordinate girls in your employ. Nor is it raping women or pouncing on them after their husband has committed suicide. Nor is it shaming and embarrassing your wife by screwing hundreds of women while married to her. And it's not even shaming and embarrassing the women who have the courage to speak out against your serial adulterer and abuser husband.

Guys like this assbite aren't afraid Trump doesn't know what real sexism is. They're afraid he and we all know what it is and for once are willing to talk about it, rather than their stupid fables.

How bad is it starting to look for Hillary? Even the New York Times concedes, that next to West Virginia, Trump’s strongest support may be in New York State

He fares best in a broad swath of the country stretching from the Gulf Coast, up the spine of the Appalachian Mountains, to upstate New York.

Mr. Trump’s best state is West Virginia, followed by New York. Eight of Mr. Trump’s 10 best congressional districts are in New York, including several on Long Island. North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana and South Carolina follow.

If Trump is the nominee and the Republicans win New York, the electoral college vote tally for Hillary looks exceedingly difficult. As Michael Walsh reports, if Trump takes New York, he can easily win

Perhaps it wasn’t such a great idea for Hillary to try to reprise the tired, ridiculous War on Women campaign theme or for her party to dump on the blue collar white base that they rode to victory so many times.

You must concede this about Donald Trump: He does keep his enemies and opponents rocking back on their heels. He does it, as the Wall street Journal’s sage James Taranto, observes, by following the very Saul Alinsky tactics that so impressed Hillary as a Wellesley undergrad.

This week he made clear that if Hillary was going to charge him with being part of the “war on women” (the successor, I take it, to her historic “vast right wing conspiracy”), he was going to attack her as an enabler and defender of a serial sexual predator -- her husband. 

Now, he is accusing Mr. Clinton’s defender in chief of being a moralistic hypocrite, applying to her rivals (including Trump) standards from which she excuses her husband. The current kerfuffle is only incidentally about Mr. Clinton at all.

It’s a textbook example of Saul Alinsky’s fourth tactical rule: “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.” (That is as true of feminism as of Christianity.)

And Trump is perfectly situated to level this attack, for precisely the reasons some Chozicks imagine otherwise. He himself is a voluptuary, not a moralist, which immunizes him through pure logic against any accusation of hypocrisy. As a practical matter, his tabloid lifestyle inoculates him against inquisitions into his private life of the sort that snared Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston during the Clinton impeachment. It all reminds us of a now-quaint anecdote in Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”:

“During a conflict with a major corporation I was confronted with a threat of public exposure of a photograph of a motel “Mr. & Mrs.” registration and photographs of my girl and myself. I said, “Go ahead and give it to the press. I think she’s beautiful and I have never claimed to be celibate. Go ahead!” That ended the threat.’

Others, knowing that the public memory is short and millennial voters deficient in history have reminded readers of how sordid and extensive Bill Clinton’s known abuse of women has been.

Taranto is right as he so often is: The Trump charge is an effective one. Even the notoriously leftwing writer, the Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus, agrees the charge is warranted:

"Trump has smeared women because of their looks. Clinton has preyed on them, and in a workplace setting where he was by far the superior. That is uncomfortable for Clinton supporters but it is unavoidably true."

Don Surber observes that Hillary, too, slandered women and adds, “Bill Clinton's return to the center stage reminds people that for a quarter-century, the media has covered up for this lecher, which further makes the case for Trump's attacks on the media.”

 At Breitbart, John Nolte twisted the knife:

Hillary Clinton and the DC Media were sure they had found the secret weapon to waltz the Lying Benghazi Bungler directly into the Oval Office: a replay of the phony War on Women issue.

It didn’t matter who won the nomination in 2016. Mitt Romney was no sexist, so the DC Media fabricated a Todd Akin to beat him to death with.

Then Donald Trump came along, a candidate who not only understands that the rules set by the DC Media are rigged to elect Democrats, but someone competent enough to serially-beat them at their own game.

On this day, Bill Cosby is finally facing justice for the longstanding allegations against him, and thanks only to Trump, so are Bill and Hillary Clinton after 20 years of being shielded by the corrupt media.

When NBC’s Savannah Guthrie tried downplaying Bill’s abuse by calling the Lewinsky scandal “alleged”, Trump made her retract that description -- after all, both parties did admit to the misconduct under oath. It was not just alleged -- the sexual relationship in the Oval Office with a young subordinate is fact. The  media aren’t dealing with the usual Republican patsies any more.

In salty language, my online friend “Ignatz Ratzkywatzky” characterized the state of play.

Memorandum has the headline "Donald Trump doesn't understand what ‘sexism’ is" from some dumb cluck at CNN.

I don't have to even read it to know that real sexism is saying certain trigger words like "HIStory". And it's refusing to admit women are paid 1% of what men are, though every reputable study that controls for factors like education, pregnancy, time in the work force etc demonstrates women make slightly more than men. And most importantly, it's not supporting a woman's right to choose to kill her baby even though ~half of those dead babies are little women.

And of course he goes on to explain that sexism is not arranging trysts with sad, lonely subordinate girls in your employ. Nor is it raping women or pouncing on them after their husband has committed suicide. Nor is it shaming and embarrassing your wife by screwing hundreds of women while married to her. And it's not even shaming and embarrassing the women who have the courage to speak out against your serial adulterer and abuser husband.

Guys like this assbite aren't afraid Trump doesn't know what real sexism is. They're afraid he and we all know what it is and for once are willing to talk about it, rather than their stupid fables.

How bad is it starting to look for Hillary? Even the New York Times concedes, that next to West Virginia, Trump’s strongest support may be in New York State

He fares best in a broad swath of the country stretching from the Gulf Coast, up the spine of the Appalachian Mountains, to upstate New York.

Mr. Trump’s best state is West Virginia, followed by New York. Eight of Mr. Trump’s 10 best congressional districts are in New York, including several on Long Island. North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana and South Carolina follow.

If Trump is the nominee and the Republicans win New York, the electoral college vote tally for Hillary looks exceedingly difficult. As Michael Walsh reports, if Trump takes New York, he can easily win

Perhaps it wasn’t such a great idea for Hillary to try to reprise the tired, ridiculous War on Women campaign theme or for her party to dump on the blue collar white base that they rode to victory so many times.