The supposedly conservative Times of London (owned by Rupert Murdoch) has published a rather long article about the Stormy Daniels controversy. Although you’d expect a conservative newspaper to be critical of both Donald Trump and the (former) porn actress, nothing could be further from the truth. The Times clearly has a favorite in this match. And it’s not the U.S. president.
In the article, one Daniels admirer after another is quoted. We are told that she’s extremely intelligent, clever, and smart. Feisty. She has as thick a skin as anyone. Oh yeah, Stormy Daniels is one tough lady.
“She is basically using Donald Trump’s tactics and being successful with it,” says Mike South, a columnist in the adult-industry press and a friend of Clifford’s. “She’s out-Trumping Trump, if you will.”
If you weren’t one of the 22 million people who saw her appearance on CBS’s 60 Minutes, and you’re not one of her 631,000 Twitter followers, then this is her story so far.
Clifford seems to have had a special bond with him. “He said that he thought that if he cut his hair or changed it that he would lose his power and his wealth,” she told In Touch magazine in 2011. “And I laughed hysterically at him . . . He was, like, ‘You know what? You’re really smart. You’re not dumb.’ And I was like, ‘Thanks, dick. What does that mean?’ ”…
For it seems there is nothing that anyone can call Clifford that she hasn’t already been called a million times before — and for which she hasn’t already come up with the perfect response.
Here she is on 60 Minutes, dismissing the host Anderson Cooper’s charge that she’s only bringing up her alleged romp with Trump for the cash. “Yes, I’m getting more job offers now, but tell me one person who would turn down a job offer making more than they’ve been making, doing the same thing that they’ve always done?”
Here is how she responded to Trump’s narcissistic chat-up technique: “I was, like, ‘Does this normally work for you?’ And he looked very taken aback, like he didn’t really understand what I was saying. Like, I was, ‘Does, just, you know, talking about yourself normally work?’. . . I don’t think anyone’s ever spoken to him like that.”
Of course one has to wonder why the Times would be so positive about a porn actress. I mean, I’m not exactly a social conservative, but it’s rather remarkable that a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch is suddenly presenting itself as a supporter of an adult entertainer.
The reason becomes clear soon enough:
If the 45th president, who denies ever having an affair with Clifford, were to be brought down by a woman even more brazen, more lurid, more mercenary, more unapologetic and more wonderfully American than he is — only with a far more coherent moral code — well, how Trumpian that would be.
In other words, the Times wants to see Trump go down. If a porn actress might be able to make that happen, the newspaper is more than willing to serve as her biggest cheerleader.