There hasn't been any lack of fodder for this column since I began writing it at the end of last November. Sometimes I can spot the week's "winner" as early as Monday afternoon. As of late Tuesday morning, I was sure that I had what I needed.
I'm glad I didn't start writing it early.
When multiple candidates present themselves as subject matter for this column, I like to go with the most overwrought and/or ridiculous headline, which most of the time is the same thing.
As I was doing my weekday perusal of The New York Times Opinion section on Thursday, I happened upon the latest from Opinion Columnist Pamela Paul, who has been an object of my derision in the past. OK, most regular opinion writers at the Times have been mocked by me at some point in the last few years.
Ms. Paul's "episode" this week is titled "Please Let It Not Be a Woman."
So much for Fourth Wave Feminism "You go, girl!" power, huh?
Women hating women is nothing new, of course. They can whine about misogyny and the Patriarchy all they want, but the biggest roadblocks in almost every woman's path to bigger and better things are other women. The notion of a modern day sisterhood that is going to take over the world is persistent fiction.
Yeah, I know that the Left ladies are going to call me a sexist for this one but, hey, I did kick it all off with the word "Broads" in the headline.
I will pull a couple of quotes from this snit, then wrap up by talking about what a pathetic partisan ditz Pamela Paul is. Here's how she begins:
Whoever Donald Trump chooses as his running mate, please let it not be a woman.
Perhaps you think it’s beside the point to worry over this.
But before writing off the vice presidency as a distraction, remember, three years ago, his vice president stood between democracy and autocracy, after he noticed at the very last minute there was a Constitution standing in the way of Trump overturning the 2020 election.
There’s also the very real prospect that should a 78-year-old Trump be re-elected, he may not complete his term.
And there’s the reality that the pageant has already begun.
You know you're in for a fact-free emo romp whenever any of the Times's full-time smear merchants pretend to care about the United States Constitution. These are the people whose livelihoods depend upon the First Amendment but who have also been working to destroy it, after all. They've gotten worse about it since Trump first came to power, which makes any concern about the Constitution when complaining about him quite unbelievable.
Note that Paul refers to Trump's vetting of potential running mates — mostly women in this article — as a "pageant" to establish that she's a dismissive shrew when it comes to women who don't agree with her politically.
This low budget "Mean Girls" reboot continues with Ms. Paul's pettiness and lack of originality coming to the fore:
The most obvious problem is the particular women in question. There’s Representative Elise Stefanik of upstate New York (“She’s a killer,” Trump has remarked), who also accompanied Trump to New Hampshire. She was notably one of the first Republicans to endorse Trump’s second bid for re-election and has said she’d be “honored” to serve. There’s his steadfast former press secretary and the current governor of Arkansas, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who has carefully not denied that she wants the job. Kristi Noem, the second-term governor of South Dakota, who campaigned for Trump in Iowa, went so far as to say she would consider it.
You'll notice that the only "obvious problem" there is that all of the women Paul mentions are elected Republican officials, two of whom are the chief executives of their states. Were any of these women Democrats, Pamela Paul would be falling all over herself with gushing fangirl praise for them.
Rep. Stefanik and Governors Huckabee Sanders and Noem also refuse to hate Donald Trump, which is what passes for a cardinal sin over on the Godless American Left. Because that's their only real crime, the tedious Ms. Paul goes onto say that the Republican women "play into the demeaning gendered stereotypes Trump basks in, whether it’s the steely, stilettoed vixen or the no-nonsense broad."
There is nothing whatsoever "demeaning" about being no-nonsense, unless one happens to be a leftist. "No nonsense" connotes honesty and transparency, both of which are anathema to the Left.
Paul's subconscious must have let her know that there wasn't anything truly awful that she could say about the congresswoman or the two governors, which is why she threw in the "steely, stilettoed vixen" nonsense (an obvious dig on Melania Trump, who speaks more languages than Pamela Paul has heard of). She's obviously threatened by powerful women who think for themselves, so she has to attribute some bimbohood to them, even though it has no basis in reality.
I truly believe that Ms. Paul's meltdown here is the biggest cry for psychiatric medication in this series since the first one of these that I wrote. This woman is unhinged, incoherent, and oozes with jealousy.
She probably looks awful in stiletto heels too.
Click the button below to get the Morning Briefing emailed to you every weekday. Have your coffee with me, people. It’s free and it supports conservative media!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member