Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-behind a wall and armed security) defended Congressjihadi Rashida Tlaib’s profane shot at President Donald Trump by pointing out that Tlaib’s “motherfucker” remark is “nothing worse than the President has said." She’s right, to a point. But, being Pelosi, she’s also wrong.
I think we can all agree that Trump probably uses language in private moments that would wilt onion grass. The infamous “Access Hollywood” recording leaves a lot less to the imagination than most of us would have preferred. But it’s worth noting Trump’s piggish locker-room chat was only directed at one guy, not the combined audiences of CNN, the New York Times, and anyone forced to listen to “PodSaveAmerica.”
Tlaib’s profane rant wasn’t intended for a tv tabloid talking head on a tour bus. She shouted her barbaric yawp across the rooftops of the world. Even the most ardent Trump supporters offer weak qualifications for Trump’s comments, not endorsements. not endorsements. If anyone actually appreciates Trump’s boasting, they’re keeping their heads under their MAGA hats. Meanwhile, Democrats are lining up to cheer for Tlaib, with senior citizens like Pelosi making excuses. Trump’s boorish babble led to more than just a Democrat/Media complex talking point. It also gave us a cottage industry for stupid-looking hat makers.
CNN blowhole Kirsten Powers rushed to Tlaib’s defense: "This kerfuffle over the use of a word we can't say on TV...was said actually at a private party. Someone recorded it and it was not meant to be out in public," I don't recall anyone on the left offering that defense for Trump, or even Mitt Romney during his “47 percent” misstep.
Is it different because Tlaib is a woman, a muslim, a liberal, or some combination of the three? Either we’re ok with R-rated political discourse, or we aren’t. Otherwise, we’re treating people like Tlaib like they’re incapable of keeping it PG-13. Would that be sexist, racist, oppressive, or some combination of the three?