White Men Don't Want Trump To Go After White Women

Ever since the Washington Post published a video that shows Donald Trump talking about using his wealth and power to sexually assault women, Republicans have been ditching the Trump Train in droves.

The list of GOP senators, congressmen, and governors who have said they will no longer support their party's nominee for president has now grown to 32. It includes such high-profile conservatives as Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Senator John McCain of Arizona, and Mike Lee of Utah, who has actually called on Trump to drop out.

The situation is so bad that Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, the highest ranking Republican in the country, said earlier today that he's no longer going to defend Trump and will instead focus on trying save the GOP congressional majority.

Politically, of course, this all makes a lot of sense.

What Trump said on that tape from 2005 is beyond the pale, even by his standards, and if Republicans want to salvage something from the radioactive dumpster fire that this campaign has become, they probably have no choice but to disavow him.

But their crocodile tears shouldn't kid anyone.

The Republican crisis of conscience about Donald Trump is a sham, and all the disavowals in the world won't change the fact that conservatives were perfectly fine with him insulting every group possible - until he took on white women.

As Hillary Clinton pointed out at last night's debate, Trump has been denigrating different groups of people since day one of his campaign. This is just who he is, and it's what his campaign is all about.

It was smart of Hillary to point this out last night, because Republicans have had their chances to renounce Donald Trump before, and they've sat by and done nothing.

To paraphrase Pastor Niemoller's famous poem about the Holocaust, first Trump came for the Mexicans, but Republicans said nothing.

Then Trump came for the Muslims, and they said nothing.

Then he came for the disabled, and still they said nothing.

Then he came for the POWs, and still they said nothing.

Then he came for African-Americans, and again they said nothing.

Sure, some Republicans in swing states backed away from their party's nominee or called him out after one of his trademark smears, but there was no mass defection from his campaign, not until now, not until he bragged about raping attractive, white women on a tape released one month before Election Day.

So why do Republicans suddenly care that Donald Trump is a racist, a bigot, and a sexist?

Why did it take a tape from 2005 to change their minds about his campaign?

Where were they when he called Mexicans rapists?

Where were all the overdramatic statements of conservative conscience when Trump accused American Muslims of being part of some sinister fifth column?

The ugly truth is that Republicans have, until this point, been totally fine with everything Trump has said and done throughout his campaign because they thought he could win.

They've scolded him here and there, but as long as he was politically viable and had a chance to win the White House and therefore cut taxes for their billionaire donors, Republicans stuck by him despite his obvious racism, his bigotry, and his narcissism.

It was only when Trump threatened to totally destroy their standing with the one demographic that they couldn't afford to lose any more support with -- white women -- that they started jumping ship.

And if you think this is going to result in any kind of soul-searching among Republicans, then think again.

They're still the same party that wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, thinks employers should discriminate against employees who use birth control, and fought tooth and nail against a bill to stop sexual assault in the military.

It won't even occur to them to think about how someone as virulently misogynistic as Donald Trump could have emerged from their party because when it comes down to it, they're just as sexist as he is.

They see women as objects to be won over and convinced, not respected as citizens of democracy who deserve equal rights because they're people first and mothers, daughters, and sisters second.

Donald Trump in not an aberration within the party that wants forced pregnancies, vaginal ultrasounds, and has fought against equal pay and equal rights for women for the better party of 40 years, repeatedly voting against the Equal Rights Amendment. Instead, he's the logical head for their party, and the rest of America is, fortunately, beginning to figure that out.

Comments

TomDorr's picture
TomDorr 3 years 49 weeks ago
#1

Republican politicians are just saying their disapproval because they don't want to be hurt in elections.

But when it comes to male politicians, there are no political or philosophical divisions between those that "womanize". Power is power.

Even Barney Frank used his power to seduce a page, although that page was male.

Party, philosophy, sexual identity. Doesn't matter. Those in power will seek attractive female (or young male) conquests, and attractive females (and young males) will always be present in enough numbers to play this game.

Except for rape, it takes two to tango.

cccccttttt 3 years 49 weeks ago
#2

When your candidate is a serial liar and probably too ill to hold the office,

all thats left is to go after the opponent on his personal life.

As an independant thought that was a ploy owned by the Repubs.

Can now see that when it gets down and dirty, the Dems haul it out also.

ct

Hephaestus's picture
Hephaestus 3 years 49 weeks ago
#3

TomDorr - Do you imply that a victim of rape is part of a "two to tango" scenario?

timallard's picture
timallard 3 years 49 weeks ago
#4

To pull off "The Sting" if one recalls the movie the setup acting is superbe to get to the Sting and disappear.

Team Oligarch's pick is $hillary thus her opponent well chosen to lose, eh?

Drumpfster on the other hand gets to play himself, not being a Ronald Reagan needs no coaching and an obvious loose-cannon, why would Team Oligarch care, he's picked as the loser it's for show and ratings?

However, according the the Hitchhikers Guide the more improbable an event, the more likely it is to happen, why would the Guide say that?

What possibly could go wrong? ---->>> Drumpfster wins ...

The math? ... Bernie's coattails to $hillary are thin, that block went Green on bright-eyed principle along with anti 2-is-1 party results on domestic needs, shhhh (((climate changed to add to lost pensions-retirements and potholes))).

Even today if Bernie went Green it's a landslide, he loses as a write-in the current trend; legally, if you win a nomination physically stealing ballots to not be counted it's a fraudulent win.

The DOJ should see allowing that at nomination level is implying it's legal by not halting the general election, then, where fraud is proven a re-vote to get a valid vote-count for those primaries allowing voters to change their minds, then a delegate voting to also allow delegates to change their minds.

Otherwise, a general election of such nominees can be none other than fraud.

historywriter's picture
historywriter 3 years 49 weeks ago
#5

Your male naivete is showing. You have no idea.

historywriter's picture
historywriter 3 years 49 weeks ago
#6

You still reading the Hitchiker's guide to the galaxy? You might try coming into the 21st century and look at the facts.

DHBranski's picture
DHBranski 3 years 49 weeks ago
#7

That's rough. Besides, things are more complicated today. Think about it: Democrats and liberals wrote the jobless poor off as something less than human, therefore undeserving of the most basic human rights (UN's UDHR) of food and shelter. The majority of poor are white, and the majority of these are women. (We call poor people of color "disadvantaged," and still refer to poor white people as "white trash.") We know that not everyone is able to work (health, etc.), and that there aren't jobs for all, and have decided that the poor are mere "surplus population," dispensible. No question, Trump's words are ugly, but not as ugly as the consequences of the Democrats' policies or the liberals' flat indifference.

Uncle Ralph's picture
Uncle Ralph 3 years 49 weeks ago
#8

Being a toady to someone who would have no qualms about fondling your wife or daughter--maybe even in your presence--is extremely emasculating and is where some of these self-loathing single issue voter types finally get off.

trueblue313's picture
trueblue313 3 years 49 weeks ago
#9

Hillary was wrong, its not half of them but ALL of them that are deplorables!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Republicans are ignorant, evil and really make me sick!!!!!!!!!!

RFord's picture
RFord 3 years 49 weeks ago
#10

I believe Trump could use a handgun and murder a stranger on 5th Avenue by shooting them in the face (as he has said) and many of his supporters would justify it with whatever excuse Trump would come up with. They are just that loyal and stupid and I assume some of them are good people. Nothing, not even murder, will change the mind of many of trump's supporters. I'm not convinced Trump's bus talk is what convinced republican lawmakers to start abandoning him. I believe it's like the Trump boat full of republican lawmakers got a hole in it and started sinking when he tweeted about a nonexistent sex tape. They were trying to plug the hole and keep the Trump boat afloat when the boat got another hole in it when the bus talk came out. Well, the Trump boat started sinking faster as poll numbers begin to fall. That's when Republicans began to jump out of the Trump boat and swim to the safety of congress numbers as Trump was left to sink and drown as the Republicans had taken the RNC campaign fund life jackets with them. No, I don't believe Trumps horrible misogyny is causing republican politicians to pretend they are disgusted with him and for that reason they are discontinuing to supporting him. I believe they simply see that he will not win and want to divert republican campaign funds away from the presidential race to down ballot races to save republican seats in the senate, the house and other down ballot races. I believe that if Trump's poll numbers were high, say 60%, when the bus talk came out, none of the Holier Than Thou republicans that are now saying they can no longer support Trump because his horrible bus talk is offensive to women would be abandoning him. I believe for Republicans, it's not about morals, it's about money to save down ballot races since seeking a Republican presidency now is obviously a lost cause.

2950-10K's picture
2950-10K 3 years 49 weeks ago
#11

I'll try to be clear! Trump is a direct result of control and manipulation of the corp media.

Very wealthy individuals who have more wealth and power than our elected officials both own and use networks like Fox News in addition to endless extreme right wing radio broadcasts to confuse listeners/ viewers. A woman who called Thom yesterday and with great vehemence declared "I want more than anything to see Hillary locked up." is a great example of that confusion.

Becoming that twisted requires hearing endless broadcasts repeating over and over and over and over agian...Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi ,e-mails, emails, emails. It's a time tested Fascist technique.

We can bemoan all we want about Bernie not being our candidate. The right wing monopolized corpse media defeated Bernie. We no longer have our fourth branch of government, it has been seized by the Fascists.

Hillary is the Democratic candidate not because of super delegates or whatever other fraud may have been implemented, she's our candidate because the truth is no longer reaching the masses.

BTW: Paul Ryan is no different than Trump or Pence , maybe even more dangerous....the lack of truth in reporting is the only reason he has been placed in office.

Trump very likely raped a 13 year old, yet we still hear nothing about it. .....google it, the info is out there.

Comfort Myrtlebank's picture
Comfort Myrtlebank 3 years 49 weeks ago
#12

The reasons for Republican men reacting so strongly to Trump's trivialization of sexual assault of women aren't simple, but they are definitely worth looking at more closely. Do you know how, before women entered the workforce back in the 50s, we were subjugated in the sense that we provided free labor to men in the home and were treated as children all our lives basically, but, some perks came along with that? (De'Beauvoir famously called the benefits women get for performing femininity under male supremacy the "delights of passivity" and, while she argued and I'd argue they aren't worth sacrificying the goal of true liberation to, they are real, they do win you approval from men, they are easier and quicker to get than liberation, and, in some ways, they feel good, otherwise women wouldn't do them). In the 50s, when women "knew our place" more, at least according to a patriarchal world view, we were allowed to be a lot heavier physically (ie, we didn't have to starve ourselves to be considered beautiful), we were given a modicum of honor and respect for our role in the home as mothers and caregivers, and, even if that respect was paternalistic, we were treated "sweetly" for giving compliance. As women moved into the work force and asserted our indepence and power relative to men, you can see fashion trends becoming more sadistic, women having to be thinner and younger even (a young woman is more likely to be naive, after all, easier to control, less "uppity" by virtue of her lack of experience) and men's pornography of women in particular became much more violent, degrading, and contemptuous in its attitudes towards women. It's as though men have responded to our expanding freedoms in some areas of society by more ferociously "putting us back in our place" in others, particularly the realm of sex.

I think of Republican women as being more like 50s style women, in the sense that, they don't challenge traditional gender roles and they are loyal to their men. So, maybe as a result of that, they have more input and sway on Republican men on some level than Liberal women do on their males. It seems like Bill Clinton could, after all, humiliate women in such deeply degrading ways (sticking a cigar in a woman who orally services you on her knees at your command whenever you take her into a private enclave at work and simply unzip your trousers is about as far from egalitarian sex as one could get, and that's not even mentioning the assault and rape charges, which, to me, do feel credible) and yet, men on the Left did nothing, said nothing, even, in the cases of figures like Bill Maher and Chris Rock, romanticized Clinton's "exploits." It's almost as though men on the Left feel a contempt or, at least disregard for women's humanity in sex that men on the Right haven't gotten to yet (not, mind you, because they are more compassionate towards women, but because "their women" have been more compliant). Still, as women, we wait and wait for our men, that is, progressive men, those who claim to support feminism, those who claim to care about our status in society, to condemn Bill Clinton's misogyny and sexual predation of women, to show some anger towards him on our behalf. But that anger never comes, and my sneaking suspicion is that it's because most Leftist men would still rather *be* President Clinton than condemn him.

TomDorr's picture
TomDorr 3 years 49 weeks ago
#13

Hephaestus: Absolutely not. Thank you for bringing this vagueness on my part to my attention.

I meant the "takes two to tango"remark to not include rape. When I said "except for rape", I meant in cases other than rape.

I find rape to be a violent, hideous crime that has less to do with sex than power, control, and violence.

Men, or males: (" men" don't rape women) that do these things should be subject to the same treatment.

Thanx for the question.

Trump's Latest Failure Could Kill 6 million Americans

Thom plus logo Although they haven't yet publicly acknowledged it in such stark terms, it's clear now that the Trump administration has decided pursue a herd immunity strategy to deal with the coronavirus.

Trump's new White House advisor on coronavirus, Scott Atlas, has said it on numerous occasions in multiple venues, and now our Attorney General, Bill Barr, is trying to argue that lockdowns to prevent the spread of the virus are as bad as slavery. Trying to achieve herd immunity in the United States against the coronavirus, assuming it's even possible, would involve between two and 6 million Americans dying.
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Right through the worst of the Bush years and into the present, Thom Hartmann has been one of the very few voices constantly willing to tell the truth. Rank him up there with Jon Stewart, Bill Moyers, and Paul Krugman for having the sheer persistent courage of his convictions."
Bill McKibben, author of Eaarth
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann seeks out interesting subjects from such disparate outposts of curiosity that you have to wonder whether or not he uncovered them or they selected him."
Leonardo DiCaprio, actor, producer, and environmental activist
From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"Hartmann combines a remarkable piece of historical research with a brilliant literary style to tell the grand story of corporate corruption and its consequences for society with the force and readability of a great novel."
David C. Korten, author of When Corporations Rule the World and Agenda for A New Economy