Would Trump presidential downfall be real if ’16 becomes Year of the Woman?

The key to deciding whether or not likely Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump will have a credible shot at actually winning the November general election will be the degree to which women bother to assert themselves.

Will images like this wind up impacting the presidential dreams of Donald Trump?

If it turns out that large numbers of female voters are actually offended at the notion of the Trump who regards women as his playthings and nothing more wind up voting, then Trump truly has no chance of winning.

HE WILL TAKE down the Republican Party, and will wind up causing significant change to our political structure – the one that has evolved into an overly-ideological mess in recent decades.

But what if it turns out that Republican National Chairman Reince Preibus is right – that the vast majority of people aren’t all that concerned about the tales that are going to be spewed about Trump’s philandering past and hostile attitudes toward women who bother to assert themselves?

I realize that Preibus is trying to protect the Republican Party infrastructure and wants to create a perception that this is just another election like usual.

But it will really be up to the women to decide whether they care. And if it turns out that the women who do fear greatly the notion of a Trump president can’t inspire significant voter turnout come November, then perhaps it will be no one else’s fault but their own.

THE SIMPLE FACT, as I have written repeatedly, is that this election cycle is going to be a vote for “Anybody But …” It will come down to people walking into the voting booth and having to decide, “Who do I hate less?”

I’m realistic enough that for some people, the image of Hillary Clinton is one of despisement. They were the people who hated the notion of Bill Clinton as president to the point where they tried to remove him from office via impeachment and are still disgusted the majority of the nation didn’t go along with them nearly 20 years ago.

Heck, I have always suspected that their disgust for Hillary was even more intense than their dislike for Bill. They probably blame her for motivating him, and may even think Bill’s big weakness is that he can’t control her!

I don’t doubt that the kind of people who will view this election as a matter of keeping “that broad” away from the Oval Office will be the ones who won’t be bothered by what Trump thinks of Rosie O’Donnell or the fact that he bought a beauty pageant to gain access to so many women.

THAT’S PROBABLY THEIR own personal fantasy!

We’re going to have to see how this election cycle shapes up. Because I do believe that a solid female vote motivated by a despising of the image that Trump created for years through his multiple wives and girlfriends and repeated appearances on Howard Stern’s radio program is the basis for the notion that Trump can’t possibly win the presidency.

It will be more of a factor than the many Latinos who will turn out this election cycle to cast their ballots against Trump. We may actually get a record-higher Latino turnout for Clinton this time around not because we like her, but because we absolutely can’t stand that pendejo.

But while I have personal interest in increased political empowerment for the growing Latino population of this nation (one which I’m sure Trump fanatics fantasize about him shrinking), I’m honest enough to realize it’s going to be about the ladies this time around.

PERHAPS EVEN THE Latinas if they get organized in a way they never have before.

So how is this election cycle going to turn out? It will be a disgustingly low turnout. Many people will get apathetic – and only the hard-core will feel compelled.

Will there be a significant female share of the hard-core? I’m sure that would be Donald Trump’s biggest nightmare come true.

And one he and the Republican ideologue backers who will devote their time to trying to preserve their own self-interests will work hard to try to keep from becoming a reality!

  -30-

Carli Lloyd-3; Japan-2

Oh, by the way, the rest of the U.S. women’s national soccer team also managed to score a pair of goals, which gave us the end result of the United States taking its first World Cup soccer championship in 16 years by a 5-2 final score.

The new sporting hero

I have to admit that Sunday’s championship game between the United States and Japan was one of the most remarkable soccer games I ever have seen.

PARTICULARLY FOR THE play of Lloyd, a New Jersey native and midfielder for the Houston Dash of the National Women’s Soccer League when she’s not playing for the United States.

She managed to score three goals within the first 16 minutes of the match, particularly that third goal that she kicked from the middle of the field – carrying roughly 180 feet right into the goal in large part because the Japanese goal tender managed to lose her footing while trying to block the ball.

That probably will be the moment that lives on in televised sports footage for years to come.

Admittedly, this match would have been more competitive if the Team Japan of the second half had been on the pitch for the entire match. But the U.S. team was able to get overly aggressive (jumping out to a 2-0 lead within the first five minutes) early on, making it difficult for Japan to seriously come back.

ALTHOUGH I HAVE to admit they didn’t quit. There was one point when the score became 4-2 that created a feeling in the gut that perhaps some sort of miraculous comeback was in store.

So now there is a serious sporting moment that took place Sunday – with the women’s team getting its third championship (the others came in 1991 and 1999, the latter at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, Calif.) ever. Which is better than men’s squads from the United States have done – no championship ever, even though that tourney has been played since 1930.

 

Will Renee Wronecki (Miss Ill.) get her moment?

Perhaps this could give a jolt to the men’s national squads to do better when they take to the pitch in 2018 in Russia.

And you have to wonder, will anything that happens at the Miss USA pageant next Sunday short of a “wardrobe malfunction” by some unfortunate contestant come close to matching the drama of what took place today in Vancouver?

  -30-

Ashley Bond is now an afterthought

Ashley Bond is a native of suburban Streamwood who devoted a significant portion of her life to competing in pageants in hopes of bolstering her chances of success in life. Getting crowned Miss Illinois USA back in December was a sign that she had succeeded.

But now, the woman (right) who represented Illinois at the Miss USA pageant held earlier this week will only have as a claim to fame that she was in the same building when her pageant colleague, Miss California USA Carrie Prejean, put her high-heeled foot in her mouth while trying to talk about gay marriage.

THAT IS THE same Miss California who now claims she lost the Miss USA title (won by a blonde from North Carolina) solely because she expressed her honest opinion, which she claims is backed by the Bible.

Miss California (she may have a real name, but I honestly think most people just think of her as the California blonde) is trying to portray herself as some sort of victim, being penalized for using her right to free expression.

Actually, what she’s being penalized for is being obnoxious enough to think that she can speak out against others, but that no one has a right to criticize her perky self.

It all goes back to Sunday when she was questioned (admittedly, by a snotty weblog publisher who likely is reveling in the stink he managed to create) about whether gay people should have a legally legitimate ability to marry.

IF THE LADY from Southern California had merely said something along the lines of “I do not approve of gay people being married” or “I think marriage is for heterosexuals,” I think she would have managed to tick off some gay rights activists who would have created a stir for a day or two, before moving on to the new “flavor of the month” issue of concern.

But it is the fact that she persists in presenting herself as a victim that is what is most offensive to me, and it is why I am enjoying the thought of her getting dumped on by some of the pompous self-righteous types who populate celebrity-hood in Hollywood.

Her answer to the question itself on Sunday went as follows.

“We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”

FIRST OFF, WE don’t live in a land where people can choose types of marriage. Despite the actions of some states, marriage is largely defined these days as a heterosexual thing, and there are groups working to ensure it remains that way.

I also have a problem with her thought that opposition to gay marriage was “how I was raised.” That sounds too much like the talk of the old Southern segregationists, who always claimed that Jim Crow and the way of life that separated black people was just the way things were in their part of the country.

But what really ticks me off about her answer, and the reason why I finally felt compelled to write about the Miss USA competition at all, is the latter part of her answer.

That clause about, “no offense to anybody out there.”

I’M SURE SHE will claim she was just using good manners. I claim she is trying to tell people she doesn’t want to hear anyone object to her. This pageant winner thinks she has the final word on the issue.

In short, she’s telling them that she automatically pronounces their opinion wrong, and doesn’t want to hear it.

What she is going to learn is that she doesn’t, in the same way that I don’t either. I’m sure I will get vociferous responses to this commentary from people – both to tell me I’m wrong and I’m right, or that I’m boring them and can’t I find something socially relevant to write about.

Like I said, if she had merely said she objects to gay marriage, I’d defend her right to express that thought – even though I personally would think she is nothing more than a twit for believing that. (My own thoughts on the issue are that the only marriage I ought to be concerned about is one involving myself, everybody else’s is none of my business).

BUT IT IS the fact that she tried to pre-empt criticism of herself that bothers me. That irritation is compounded by her continued talk and use of the Bible to defend herself – citing those same provisions that the social conservatives always use when they want to denounce homosexuality in general.

She even went so far as to tell Fox News Channel that she now sees the question about gay marriage as “a test’ by God, to see if she would stand up for her principles on the issue.

Personally, I think God (however one perceives him) has more important things to do than to act as a beauty pageant judge, asking questions of the contestants. But she thinks she passed, as though we’re all now supposed to reward her for thinking that certain people in society have to accept her criticism and keep quiet about it.

That kind of attitude is one I find “un-American.” It bothers me to the point where I find it distracting that the beauty pageant that really amounts to little more than the Donald Trump Show (he’s the producer of the spectacle that dressed all the contestants in bathing suits that looked like skimpy lingerie) has become bogged down in this rhetoric about gay marriage.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: First, Miss California claims that she should be the “last word” on the issue (http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/04/20/miss-california-sparks-outrage-over-gay-marriage-remarks/), then she says God is testing her faith by having someone (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517228,00.html) question her. Personally, I have a hard time imagining God (or anyone else) using Perez Hilton for such a divine purpose.

I’d rather pay attention to Ashley Bond than this California controversy (http://www.missillinoisusa.com/ashley_bio.html), or even the winner from North Carolina.