Why The NY Times' Article on Trump & Women Is As Disgraceful As It Is Probably Futile

I'm sick over the apparent nomination and possible election of Donald Trump to the presidency, but today's New York Times article about Trump's treatment of women is a travesty that VALIDATES people's notion about most of the American media being owned and controlled by liberals.

Even if everything in the article is fact, Trump is no Johnny-come-lately. His marriages and divorces are public knowledge, his spat with Fox's Megyn Kelly made headlines for weeks, and his generally aggressive behavior should be no surprise to anyone by now whether they are for or against him. Besides the fact that the GOP's usual objection to abortion and contraception has long since given it a bad name with many female voters, one candidate's history of alleged indiscretions with women should hardly be newsworthy. That Trump is being singled out in this way belies the fact that Bill Clinton, Gary Condit and other Democrats have had similar if not worse histories with women while in office - including John F. Kennedy, whose affairs are notorious now, and even Franklin Roosevelt, who had rendezvous with a number of women while married, including another cousin. Many such indiscretions on the part of those like Clinton and Kennedy, however, have even been turned into endearments of a sort and construed by many Democrats nowadays as nothing more than the political witch-hunting of Christian conservatives... this in spite of the fact that Clinton's impeachment was over the charge of perjury, not his sexual indiscretions, and an instance of perjury to which Clinton all but outright admitted on live television.

That said, none of it would be very noteworthy except that after news of the Washington Post getting ready to put no fewer than 20 reporters to work dissecting Trump's life, this seems to be just one example of the way in which at least two major newpapers now have taken it upon themselves to topple Trump. Candidates get slammed in papers all the time, but this is in the Politics section and includes quotes from a number of interviews, thus making it something more than just some pundit's daily or weekly commentary. Were it about an actual crime Trump had committed, it would be justifiable, as it would be if the New York Times were a more overtly bias publication like Salon or The Weekly Standard. Yet neither the publication nor its article is either of those things. The article isn't even directly relevant to matters of policy because not only has Trump been vague up to now about most of the specifics of his intended policies (except his defense of Planned Parenthood, for which even pro-abortion liberals seem loathe to give him any credit), he hasn't been elected to ANY political office and has thus had no opportunity to influence or initiate any public policy, good or bad. In short, the New York Times and Washington Post appear to be dedicated to the probably futile, yet still excessively libelous treatment of a candidate with a historically high level of support among GOP voters - including, I would think, at least a few of their own readers. Regardless of one's opinions of Trump, these national publications should be better than this, and since Democrats seem to be so obsessed with private sector accountability to the federal government, that government should condemn the very notion of the New York Times publishing articles like this and of the Washington Post even being rumored to be going to such lengths to slam a candidate chosen by "the people." Instead, President Obama is using occasions like a recent commencement speech to more or less do the same thing, albeit without mentioning Trump by name. It cannot even be justified as aid to another Democrat's campaign because I don't think he directly mentioned either Hillary or Bernie... then or on any other occasion that I am aware of.

If the political left, in particular, is serious about taking down Trump, they should know by now that the best way to do that is to shut-up, quit giving this billionaire FREE PUBLICITY, and unite behind one of their own candidates so that he or she will have a better chance of defeating Trump in the November election! If they don't, the not only does the country face a probable Trump presidency, but the Democrats could face the same kind of long-term division in their own ranks that currently threatens to send the GOP on the same path as their Whig predecessors.