WHEN STORMY MET NOBBY: King explains his real concern!

TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2018

Part 2—"The integrity of our elections:" We received the news—it was inevitable—on this morning's page A2 of the New York Times (hard-copy editions only).

It was inevitable! Charles Blow's wife-trashing column, "Melania Knew," was yesterday's "most read article."

Whoever wrote today's precis put the best face on this news. According to this morning's precis, Blow's column "argu[ed] that the Stormy Daniels story is not about what Melania Trump knew." (Our emphasis.)

Oh, what the heck! Here's the full precis from today's page A2:

Monday's most read article was Charles Blow's Op-Ed arguing the Stormy Daniels story is not about what Melania Trump knew. Instead, Mr. Blow wrote, "This is about the defamation of, silencing of, and shouting down of women."

For the record, Blow reached this high-minded conclusion only after indulging himself in the sliming of the woman to whom Donald J. Trump is married. That said, the sliming of targeted politicians' wives has been a beloved Times tradition ever since Maureen Dowd first set foot on this earth.

Blow slimed Melania good! Stating the obvious, this is why so many liberals stampeded off to read his piece. He slimed Melania Trump before declaring his high-minded support of women, including his high-minded support for the admirable Stormy Daniels, who Trump is trying to silence.

Is Trump trying to silence Daniels? Yes he is, and for that reason, we think the highly disordered man ought to receive a prize.

Tomorrow, we'll detail the thinking behind that proposal. Today, let's start by briefly recalling what Blow said and did.

Blow started his column by assuring us that he doesn't care a whit about the 12-year-old sex. Well actually, he started by saying that the "ongoing saga" about "a president" and "a porn star" is almost impossibly "lewd."

What makes sex with Stephanie Clifford so impossibly "lewd?" Blow never explained that point. That said, it sounds to us like he very much does care about the sex with Clifford. But like a raft of excited colleagues, he also seems to feel that he has to insist that he doesn't.

Why is 12-year-old sex with Stephanie Clifford more "lewd" than sex with somebody else? And why should Blow care about such a matter at all? We never quite got that explanation—and Blow even proceeded to say, quite rightly, that you never know what sorts of arrangement may exist between a pair of spouses, in this case between the Trumps.

From there, Blow proceeded to say that he does by some miracle know what Melania Trump thought and knew when she married her husband. Blow doesn't know any such thing, of course, but when the children stampede about sex, all logic flies out the window.

If Melania Trump had, and has, an arrangement with her (highly disordered) husband, then why was it supposed to be wrong if her husband acted on that arrangement? And why should a fellow like Blow care about it so much?

Blow never explained this point. That said, this is what happens when the children begin to stampede about (completely consensual) sex, as the defectives have been doing for the past 31 years.

Today, the children feel obliged to say that they don't care about the sex, even as they make it prefectly clear that they do. Back in the day, it wasn't like that nearly so much. Consider Gary Hart.

Before we get to Gary Hart, let's praise MSNBC. Presumably, they don't care about the sex, and neither do their millions of liberal viewers. We'll guess that the sex just bores the corporate suits to death—but they still aired a new hour-long special last Friday night. It carried this tedious title:

Sex, Lies and Candidates

"Sex, Lies and Candidates!" Who would want to watch that?

Presumably, the corporate suits are bored out of their skulls by talk about the sex! Still, they decided to produce an hour-long special which bore that tedious name, a name which was sure to kill ratings.

The special takes us back 31 years, to 1987. Gart Hart was the young and vibrant Democratic front-runner for president. Meanwhile, people like Blow didn't feel, at least not as strongly, that they had to feign disinterest in the sex.

Back then, they very much cared about the sex where Candidate Hart was concerned! The utterly boring, hour-long special starts with the younger Tom Brokaw saying this, right on the air, back then in real time:

BROKAW (1987): This story is a 20, on a scale of one to 10!

Bo Derek had once been a ten—but this story was a 20! Allegedly, Gary Hart had a girl friend, and not only that:

Allegedly, they had engaged in consensual sex! They had "done it" together!

(As Rachel Maddow would tell us today, Gary Hart had "shtupped" her!)

Back then, there was less effort to pretend that no one cared about the sex. The Miami Herald had conducted a full-blown overnight stake-out of Hart's home in DC, with a photographer along to get the sweet sugary goods. They were trying to capture the boring details about the claim that Hart had maybe perhaps engaged in sex with a 20-something model, with someone who wasn't his wife.

At the end of the hour-long special, Ted Koppel laments the fact that Hart's career was lost to the excitement of this chase. (Hart, who was very bright, would have been a very good president, Koppel sadly opines.)

Koppel also notes the way our journalistic system changed at this point in time. From this point on, our journalists would be chasing pols in a wide array of brainless ways. Despite the unbearable boredom involved, they would even chase pols about sex—even with models or "porn stars!"

That's what Blow did yesterday while claiming to do something else. As part of the large, best-selling package, he decided to beat up on Donald Trump's wife. while posing as a high-minded feminist.

We liberals rushed to gobble this down. We liberals tend toward the prehuman, much as conservatives do.

Should Donald J. Trump, a disordered person, be able to shut Clifford up? We think he and his helpmate, Michael Cohen, should receive the nation's highest civilian honors for their ongoing attempt.

We'll explain that judgment tomorrow. For today, let's close with Colbert King, who also says he couldn't care less about all that tedious sex.

In Saturday morning's Washington Post, King started his column by saying he couldn't care less about Donald J. Trump's twelve-year-old sex acts. As we showed you yesterday, here's how his column began:

KING (3/10/18): I couldn’t care less whether in 2006 Donald Trump had a sexual affair with pornographic film actress Stephanie Clifford—known professionally as Stormy Daniels—only months after his wife, Melania, gave birth to their son, Barron.

Trump’s personal lawyer Michael D. Cohen says Trump has denied the affair. But even if it did occur, the relationship would have taken place years before the 2016 presidential election. Thus, it is a private matter between citizen Donald Trump and his wife and none of my business.

Doggone it! Even as he said he couldn't care less, it seemed he cared a whole lot! You could tell this from his instant moralizing remarks about the sex, as he dragged the candidate's wife and 12-year-old son into the mess..

King does care about the sex; few things could be more clear. That said, there's nothing automatically wrong with the fact that he cares about the sex, although we think his interest is unwise.

King does care about the sex but, in line with modern norms, he had to say he doesn't From there, he explained what he really cares about. This is what he said:

KING (continuing directly): I do care, however, if within one month of the presidential election, Republican candidate Trump’s personal lawyer Michael D. Cohen paid hush money to Clifford/Daniels to keep the affair secret. True, the porn star is not, at least to the best of my knowledge, a public official. She has no public or legal duties to discharge. A payment of hush money to her, therefore, is unlikely to be illegal.

But campaign finance laws are there to ensure the integrity of our elections and the democratic process. And I do care about those things very much. I have written reams about end runs around our election laws, primarily here in our nation’s capital. I care just as much about those provisions at the federal level.

The hush money "is unlikely to be illegal," King said, discussing a type of policy area in which he has professional expertise. Still, he said he cares about "the hush money" (less excitingly, the non-disclosure agreement) because he cares, very much, about "the integrity of our elections."

We care about that topic too! That's why we think that Michael Cohen should receive his nation's highest honors for handing Clifford that big sack of cash which she slimily accepted and spent. We think his ongoing effort to shut Clifford up should be occasion additional praise.

Tomorrow, we'll tell you why we've reached those award-winning judgments. We'll focus on the way Gennifer Flowers undermined several elections in the aftermath of all the disinterest in Gary Hart's acts of consensual sex.

By Thursday, we'll get to Nobby Brown, who may have seen where this bullshit ends. We'll claim that Nobby met Stormy a long time ago, in the metaphorical sense.

Tomorrow: When Gennifer met Howard Stern