Our new president-to-be is apparently as fickle and unpredictable as, say, your typical female political commentator. Perhaps Donald Trump has more “feminine” traits than people want to admit in this gender-correct world we live in. Take, for instance, Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post, who “leans” conservative. That means, of course, that she is not a fan of Barack Obama; however, she is a proponent of something called “conservative feminism,” which I admit is not an oxymoron, because feminists tend to be oppressive, tyrannical and self-serving, and conservative feminism is just another version a white supremacy. Parker—who was beside herself with grief when Sarah Palin as a vice presidential candidate proved to be an embarrassment for establishment Republicans, was equally beside herself when Trump was elected; you see, being a good “feminist” as well as right-winger, she desperately wanted to see Hillary Clinton elected, even if only “reluctantly.”
Parker recently expressed her grief on the election results in one of those “don’t-blame-us” op-eds, meaning that the media outlets it appeared on were quick to make very certain to readers that the opinion therein did not necessarily reflect the views of said outlets. It was easy to read why. It began
Dear Mr. Trump,
You won. Welcome to hell.
And to think, I thought you’d become president when hell froze over.
Talk about a disgruntled Hillary supporter. Parker wanted to know why Trump wanted the “job” when he had everything; after all, he admittedly preferred his Trump Tower office in New York to that dingy pad at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Parker, who is apparently so egotistical that she believes that everyone who doesn’t watch CNN or read the Post actually has even heard of her or cares what she says. Despite “my having done everything in my limited power to block you” and writing “column after column about why you were unfit to be president and wouldn’t do half of what you were promising,” Trump was elected. “And, of course, I was right.” If she says so.
Well, she may be “right” about Trump, who is so adverse to appearing ridiculous (see his unamused reactions to Alec Baldwin’s SNL parodies), he is even turning on his new “friend,” Vladimir Putin, by threatening to build more nuclear weapons. And one wonders if she is “unhappy” that he might not do some of things that he promised. “Maybe you and Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim can cut an immigration deal and build a succulent, spiny hedge along the southern border. And just maybe, you and China can renegotiate a trade deal — maybe swap a few resorts for Smithfield Foods, Ingram Micro, General Electric’s appliance business, to name a few of the top U.S. companies that Chinese firms now own.” She seems to have something in common with the black barista at the Starbucks located inside a Seattle QFC; rude, terse and unfriendly for no reason to a customer who exists between the no man’s land of white “privilege” and black “entitlement.”
But she was wrong about some other things, namely anything that had to do with Clinton, who in her own way was just as reprehensible a candidate; Parker and the Clintonphile media lied just as much as she did on a daily basis. Both Trump and Clinton pulled out all the stops to win the election, but for different reasons, and neither particularly commendable. Many speculate that Trump didn’t even expect to be nominated, just come in a “respectable” second; but with the possibility of actually winning proved to be too intoxicating for someone as shamelessly self-promoting. On the other hand, Clinton was equally ambitious in the accumulation of power and wealth. Having gained wealth—largely on the belief that Clinton would eventually become president and exert useful influence—all that was left was for power for its own sake, where there were no moral or ethical boundaries to contain her megalomania. Parker and the pro-Clinton media just treated this like “old news”—as if it wasn’t “relevant.” Some of us heard that “message” loud and clear.
Parker goes on to admit that she “knew” that Trump was a con man because she has the same Queens, New York DNA as he does, so she can detect his “BS.” Well, it takes one to know, as they say—meaning another bull-shitter. Parker’s Queens “DNA,” she admits, is from her paternal grandmother, another way of saying very little to non-existent. She should have stopped conning herself into believing that there was actually a chance that enough electoral votes would swing to Clinton and allow her to win, which is really the only explanation for her obnoxious, juvenile diatribe. Maybe that’s why nobody listened to her in the first place.