- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Adventures In Gallantry

Adventures in gallantry: [1]

Donald Trump on Friday intimated a woman who accused him of sexually assaulting her was not attractive enough to have drawn his interest—just as a new accuser was coming forward.

The Republican nominee, spiraling at ever greater velocity into uncharted political territory with more than three weeks left in the election, showed none of the contrition he expressed last weekend for his videotaped admission that his celebrity enables him to get away with sexual assault.

Explaining that he was ignoring his own advisers, Trump seethed with contempt for the women who’ve claimed he assaulted them. But his rambling, at times incoherent, comments seemed to instantly invalidate two of his defenders’ key talking points: That he regrets past comments judging women by their looks and treats them with respect.

“Believe me, she would not be my first choice—that I can tell you,” he said at a rally in Greensboro, North Carolina, referring to Jessica Leeds, a 74-year-old woman who told The New York Times on Wednesday that Trump groped her while the two were seated together on an airplane in the early 1980s. In an interview with CNN on Thursday, Leeds said Trump touched her “wherever he could find a landing spot.”

“I kept thinking, maybe the stewardess is going to come and he’ll stop, but she never came,” she recalled of the 15-minute encounter.

Trump responded with derision, mimicking Leeds and dismissing her story. “I was with Trump in 1980. I was sitting with him on an airplane and he went after me on the plane,” the Republican presidential nominee said, using the voice he often deploys to mock people.

Read the whole thing. [1] Read it, and try to grasp that it’s being spoken by a 70-year-old man who holds the Republican nomination for President of the United States, and he’s speaking it less than a month before the election.

But wait, there’s more! He said Hillary Clinton, his opponent, is homely:

Repeat after me: a 70-year-old man. The GOP nominee for president. Said this. About his female opponent.

Now that Al Goldstein [2]is dead, is there any other elderly man so willing to be so piggish in public?

Again: by the time this is over, Trump will have indelibly stained every single person who held on to him for this last month of the election. Jeff Jacoby talks about what prominent religious and social conservatives have thrown away by embracing him. [3]

If you haven’t seen GOP activist and blogger Marybeth Glenn’s amazing tweetstorm explaining why she’s left the Republican Party over Trump’s treatment of women, here it is:

So let me get this straight: I, a conservative female, have spent years defending the Republican Party against claims of sexism. When I saw Republican men getting attacked I stood up for them. I came to their defense. I fought on their behalf. I fought on behalf of a movement I believed in.

I fought on behalf of my principles while other women told me I hated my own sex. Not only charges of sexism, but I defended @marcorubio during Go8, I fought in my state to stop the @ScottWalker recall, etc… Now some Trojan horse nationalist sexual predator invades the @GOP, eating it alive, and you cowards sit this one out? He treats women like dogs, and you go against everything I – and other female conservatives – said you were & back down like cowards.

Get this straight: We don’t need you to stand up for us, YOU needed to stand up for us for YOU. For YOUR dignity. For YOUR reputation. Jeff Sessions says that he wouldn’t “characterize” Trump’s unauthorized groping of women as “assault.”

Are you kidding me?!

Others try to rebuke his comments, yet STILL choose to vote for a sexual predator – because let’s be honest, that’s what he is. “What he said is wrong, and the way he treats women is wrong, but it’s not wrong enough for me to not vote for him.”

Thanks, cowards.

Various men in the movement are writing it off as normal, confirming every stereotype the left has thrown at them. So I’m done. I’m sooo done.

If you can’t stand up for women & unendorse this piece of human garbage, you deserve every charge of sexism thrown at you. I’m just one woman, you won’t even notice my lack of presence at rallies, fair booths, etc. You won’t really care that I’m offended by your silence, and your inability to take a stand. But one by one you’ll watch more women like me go, & you’ll watch men of ACTUAL character follow us out the door.

And what you’ll be left with are the corrupt masses that foam at the mouth every time you step outside the lines. Men who truly see women as lesser beings, & women without self-respect. And your “guiding faith” & “principles” will be attached to them as well. And when it’s all said and done, all you’ll have left is the party The Left always accused you of being.


Three more weeks.

134 Comments (Open | Close)

134 Comments To "Adventures In Gallantry"

#1 Comment By grumpy realist On October 15, 2016 @ 1:11 pm

Yeah, the number of people who complain “but why didn’t these women come forth earlier?” and then in the next sentence show EXACTLY why they didn’t come forth earlier….

This isn’t a “he said/she said” case. It’s a “he bragged of it/she said, and she said, and she said, and she said….”

How many accusers have to come forth before the excuses run dry? 50? 100? 500?

#2 Comment By Selvar On October 15, 2016 @ 1:12 pm


Republicans have traditionally won a majority of white women. That won’t be the case this time. Anywhere from 30% to 40% of whites find even implicit appeals to white identity to be utterly repulsive. Can you imagine if 30% to 40% of blacks had actively worked against the civil rights movement or had fought for the confederacy?

@M Young

Genetic similarity among whites, or among any people for that matter, does not indicate or necessitate political unity. Civil wars and family feuds have been known to happen from time to time in human history. As for affirmative action, white women are arguably the greatest beneficiaries of the practice. Romney won around 60% of the white vote. Trump won’t get that much. Electorally speaking, whites are less united than they were 4 years ago. When you say that “white identity” is rising and coalescing you are really referring to white, male, rural, (culturally) christian conservative identity. Cosmopolitan white liberals–who comprise much of the right side of the white bell curve–have their own interests and they want nothing to do with you.

#3 Comment By Selvar On October 15, 2016 @ 1:13 pm

For the record, I am a white, male, center-left liberal, who accepts race realism on purely descriptive, scientific grounds, but feels no common ground with white nationalists, social conservatives, or reactionaries who want to destroy liberal modernity. I know my comments over the years must seem a bit contradictory since I come from that perspective.

#4 Comment By Barry On October 15, 2016 @ 1:18 pm

Skip says:

“If Hillary gets freaked out and whines about Trump walking around a debate stage, how is she gonna handle Putin?”

She didn’t get freaked out and she didn’t whine – she merely kicked his *ss.

Now, tell me again how Trump would handle his biggest supporter in negotiations?

#5 Comment By collin On October 15, 2016 @ 1:23 pm

Again: by the time this is over, Trump will have indelibly stained every single person who held on to him for this last month of the election.

I don’t agree because November 9th the conservative will endlessly HRC as criminal, SJWs, BLM, illegal aliens and Samantha Bee/Jon Stewart. (Even anti-Trump conservative already blame them. This is of course if there is significant violence all bets are off. And lets us diminish this possible reality.) They will say conservatives made a mistake going in with this vulgar talking yam but it was Obama’s America that did it. And I bet the MSM lets have their say here.

In terms of relationships with minorities, I am not sure how that goes. If liberals called conservatives rascist too much (Fair point), then how do you explain his enormous popularity with most conservatives. (And yes he is popular with ~60% of US conservatives.) He got with his extreme views on the “Border Wars” and The Wall put him out front of all the other Republican nominees.

#6 Comment By KS On October 15, 2016 @ 1:47 pm

[NFR: What’s your point? I have said many times over the years, at length, that I was very wrong about that stuff, and regret it. — RD]

The point is that all these folk rationalizing Trump’s excesses likely have the same psychological processes going on that you did back then. Did you not then feel you had put aside your biases, were thinking very rationally, were deeply grounded in your ethics, and had understood your religion correctly?

So also enough of these ‘good Christians’ supporting Trump believe the same about themselves. But there is far more of the irrational, primal impulse at play than we want to acknowledge. It is a tribal impulse, I have to support the members of my tribe and find reasons to validate what they do.

#7 Comment By Annek On October 15, 2016 @ 2:22 pm


“After this election, Trump will go bankrupt again. He’s radioactive and will be shunned wherever he wants to do business.

“[NFR: Boy, is that ever true. He will have destroyed his brand. — RD]”

He’s sacrificing something that is of great value to him for the possibility of securing our nation’s future. I see very few other people (any?) in the public realm doing that.

#8 Comment By Howard On October 15, 2016 @ 2:27 pm

@B.E. Ward — I could not agree more. The coalitions that we call the Democratic and Republican Parties formed for historical reasons that are no longer relevant and have evolved into completely unnatural monstrosities. In order to give the voters a meaningful choice, they need to be broken up and re-formed — but of course, that is why they will *not* be broken up and re-formed, because the powers that be do not want to give voters that meaningful choice.

#9 Comment By Howard On October 15, 2016 @ 2:32 pm

To all who keep bringing up Bill Clinton: this has all been litigated. He was impeached for it, for heaven’s sakes!

Uh huh. And he was “proven” not guilty just like O.J. Simpson was “proven” not guilty, although the process for Clinton’s trial, in which no Democrat was willing to vote to remove the leader of his party, was more corrupt than that for O.J.

#10 Comment By thomas tucker On October 15, 2016 @ 2:44 pm

George, supporting Trump is not debasing ourselves, any more than supporting Hillary is debasing yourself. I simply think his policies will be better for the country than hers. Where’s the debasement?

#11 Comment By Liam On October 15, 2016 @ 3:34 pm

Both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump are leading edge Boomer boys who found in the early sexual revolution an ideal soil for enabling their vulpine ways with women. Bill has paid different prices for at least some of his exploitation, but he has retained devoted friendships. Donald has paid less price for his exploitation (other than alimony), but by most accounts is bereft of devoted friendships. Bill is from Arkansas; Donald from Queens. Back in the day, Donald would have been called a Dirty Old Man, but that was an obscuring euphemism.

#12 Comment By KevinS On October 15, 2016 @ 3:43 pm

Elijah writes, “For those of us who remember the Clintons, their defense of Bill’s sexual shenanigans, and the victim shaming that followed.”

Shaming like this: “These people are just, I don’t know, where he met them – where he found them…But the whole group — it’s truly an unattractive cast of characters. Linda Tripp, Lucianne Goldberg, I mean, this woman, I watch her on television. She is so bad. The whole group, Paula Jones, Lewinsky, it’s just a really unattractive group. I’m not just talking about physical.”

That, of course, is what Trump said in 1998.

#13 Comment By Gretchen On October 15, 2016 @ 4:10 pm

Trump wondered aloud why women weren’t coming forward saying the same things about President Obama. At first I thought this was a crass invitation for women to lie about encounters with the president. But as I thought about it, I wondered if he takes it so for granted that a powerful man would take advantage of that power by groping women subject to him, that he literally finds it unbelievable that Obama doesn’t do this and no such women exist. Decency, how does it work?

[NFR: I thought the same thing about him when he made that bizarre remark. — RD]

#14 Comment By Mapache On October 15, 2016 @ 4:11 pm

Playing grab ass (Trump) is a worse character trait than enabling a rapist and selling out the country (Clinton) as some commenters suggest? I don’t get it.

#15 Comment By jamie On October 15, 2016 @ 4:37 pm

[NFR: Boy, is that ever true. He will have destroyed his brand. — RD]

I expect Breitbart to rebrand as Trump News. The hotels and merchandising might be gone, but there are so many ways to turn your identity into money as long as people have heard of you, and when it come to things like ad impressions you really only need 1-2% of the country’s eyes to realize a lot of revenue. He doesn’t have a destroyed brand, he merely has a positioned brand with deep impact but limited appeal. Think Star Trek.

The charges are not credible. Period. That’s the end of it. This is Duke Lacrosse and the Rolling Stone UVA rape hoax writ large.

Cecil these two situations are not remotely comparable. The UVA rape hoax was one woman alleging one incident and one magazine reporting it. This is a dozen women alleging separate incidents over the course of decades, women who seem to otherwise have nothing in common and reported by at least four different independent news sources (unless you know something I don’t. On top of that, these are all successful people who are making these allegations under their own names, these allegations create significant liabilities for them, most of them aren’t pursuing a lawsuit at this time, they have absolutely no evident reason to be claiming this, apart from their own conscience. (Or they’re being induced, again if you know something I don’t feel free to let us all know.)

[NFR: And the crucial fact: these follow a recording on which Trump bragged that his modus operandi was *exactly* what those women allege. — RD]

#16 Comment By EliteCommInc. On October 15, 2016 @ 4:38 pm

“Donald? He denies he assaulted someone, and then immediately follows it with “she’s too ugly anyways.” He clearly thinks it’s okay for some people to assault some people, he says it flat out.

Bill hasn’t lived up to his standards but Donald has perfectly lived up to his. Trump’s conduct isn’t as big a problem for a president as his ideals.”

uhhh, gymnastics aside. Mr Trump says that said woman was not attractive enough to flirted with. I appreciate the rhetorical tour de force in using the assault, but there’s nothing in his comments that is indicative of an assault. Despite the clear braggadocio in his comments. Deliberately misinterpreting the comment by ignoring both nonverbal consent and the verbal reference to “allowing” is to advance a false narrative.

Furthermore, Mr. Trump has already made it clear in his apologies for the matter. So he condones nothing. As you are suggesting.

#17 Comment By RR On October 15, 2016 @ 6:06 pm

quote: “I’d really like an answer to this. What should Hillary have done? She loved her husband, and was devastated to find out that he cheated on her. What should she have done?”

During the course of her campaign last fall, Hillary said that all women who make allegations of assault should be taken seriously. That’s what she should have done in the 1970s and 1980s with her husbands’ accusers instead of smearing them (“bimbo eruptions” and “nuts and sluts”). Of course, that might have meant the end of her political career as she would have become the wife or even ex-wife of a sexual predator who would not have been elected president in 1992. Hillary deserves a share in the blame for Bill’s sexual harassment and rape because she helped cover for him.

#18 Comment By jamie On October 15, 2016 @ 6:15 pm

[4], having had their stories reported in the NY Times, the Guardian, CNN, BuzzFeed, local Seattle TV, the Palm Beach Post, the Washington Post, and in Ivana Trump’s case, a legal deposition.

One of them had a press conference with Gloria Allred, the others either came to the press after the second debate or did so after previous incidents in 2016. This list doesn’t count the 13 year old.

Quite the octopus.

#19 Comment By Noah172 On October 15, 2016 @ 8:33 pm

Selvar wrote:

Republicans have traditionally won a majority of white women

Not in 1992 or 1996. Only barely in 2000 and 2008.

That won’t be the case this time

Trump is lagging with college-grad white women, but he is leading with non-grad white women. A plurality for him among all white women is certainly possible.

Can you imagine if 30% to 40% of blacks had actively worked against the civil rights movement or had fought for the confederacy?

The blacks started voting Democratic in the 1930s, when most segregationist politicians were Democrats, including Vice-President Garner and House Speaker Bankhead. President Roosevelt helped kill an anti-lynching bill during this time, and the blacks voting overwhelmingly for him again and again anyway.

#20 Comment By Noah172 On October 15, 2016 @ 8:46 pm

jamie wrote:

Actually it’s 15 named accusers so far

Most to all of whom have credibility issues. Quantity =/= truth.

having had their stories reported in the NY Times, the Guardian, CNN, BuzzFeed, local Seattle TV, the Palm Beach Post, the Washington Post, and in Ivana Trump’s case, a legal deposition

“Reported” =/= “true”. The Duke lacrosse hoax was widely reported, as were the lurid tales of Satanic child abuse at day care centers in the 1980s (a now textbook example of a moral panic). And the very link you provide quotes Ivana as denying any criminal act from her ex-husband. (People do often make overheated accusations in bitter divorces.)

One of them had a press conference with Gloria Allred

A notorious gadfly as well as a DNC delegate. The accuser happened to write Trump’s people just a few months ago praising him and begging him to make an appearance at her restaurant.

This list doesn’t count the 13 year old

Whose identity has never been revealed even to a judge, who has never appeared in the flesh to anyone but her lawyers (so they claim), who would be 35 now and not covered by any laws shielding minors’ identities, whose case was originated with a Jerry Springer producer, and whose case has been dismissed more than once before.

#21 Comment By Gretchen On October 15, 2016 @ 9:27 pm

RR: All these allegations were taken seriously. They were thoroughly investigated, and Bill Clinton was impeached for them. It that’s your standard, that’s what happened.
Hillary was not the source of “bimbo eruptions” and “nuts and sluts”. And even if she was, so what? How understanding are you going to be of the guy who slept with your wife? Do we get to demand that you be kind and understanding of that guy? I’m guessing you’d have some pretty strong words about him.
He was not a sexual predator. He was an unfaithful husband. She was not an enabler. She was a betrayed wife who defended her husband and kept her marriage together. Isn’t that what conservatives demand?

#22 Comment By grumpy realist On October 15, 2016 @ 9:35 pm

Plus when one of your defenses against groping is from a British lunatic who is notorious for making up stories and lying under oath and the other is someone who was fired from the family business you’re not doing very well.

This solidifies my major worry about Trump: a complete inability to admit that he is wrong and to apologize. He always has to double-down, to go even further–even if from a strategic point it makes no sense.

Hope you like dying in a nuclear exchange this idiot starts by accident.

#23 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On October 15, 2016 @ 10:47 pm

Trump is truly a miracle worker: Rod and Gretchen in full agreement. Seriously, congratulations to both of them for telling the truth in harmony.

It is noteworthy that the Obamas have been a paragon of family values, although, one might still vote for a different candidate out of commitment to a different set of policies.

It does not follow that a shameless narcissist and predator could still be a really good president because I think he might support policies I support, that is, if he means what he said last Thursday. Character matters. Good character is not dispositive in and of itself. Bad character is an ominous warning sign.

#24 Comment By Chris 1 On October 16, 2016 @ 1:51 am

I wondered if he takes it so for granted that a powerful man would take advantage of that power by groping women subject to him, that he literally finds it unbelievable that Obama doesn’t do this and no such women exist.

This is also the liar’s problem, that they come to believe that everone is as mendacious as they are. The key to most moral failings is not that others are decieved, but that we decieve ourselves about the nature of things.

#25 Comment By M_Young On October 16, 2016 @ 3:36 am

“As for affirmative action, white women are arguably the greatest beneficiaries of the practice. ”

Sure…ask Barbara Grutter or Abigail Fisher.

“Romney won around 60% of the white vote. Trump won’t get that much. Electorally speaking, whites are less united than they were 4 years ago.”

We’ll see. But one election is pretty much a blip. Long term whites are coalescing. And very very soon, your smart ‘cosmopolitan’ whites are going to follow. It’s already happening — ever hear of ‘hipster racism’? Have you noticed that every single white Democrat in California, other than Brown and the (meaningless) Lt. Governor lost to a POC? And it makes a difference in policy; already things that matter to white Dems, like local environmental policies, are being brushed aside for the interests of immigrants/’minorities’. Sooner, rather than latter, all but the weepiest whites are going to get the message.

#26 Comment By Gretchen On October 16, 2016 @ 5:52 am

RR: The allegations were taken seriously. Bill Clinton was impeached because of them, for heaven’s sakes! How much more seriously do you want than the entire House of Representatives convening to consider them? A national election was held when these allegations were being considered. That said, there have been no new allegations for the last 20 years, and the person against whom these allegations were made is not running for anything, unless you consider the role that traditionally has involved picking out the White House china to be one that needs extreme vetting. It requires serious mental gymnastics to consider the wronged wife guilty because of things her husband did 20 or 30 years ago. Some cultures consider infidelity a good reason to kill one’s spouse. You think that saying nasty things about the person your spouse cheated with is reprehensible? Really?

#27 Comment By Gretchen On October 16, 2016 @ 5:54 am

Thomas Tucker – what are these policies Trump has that you consider preferable to Clinton’s? I’m not aware that he has any, beyond assuring us that it’s all going to be awesome.

#28 Comment By Liam On October 16, 2016 @ 8:06 am


To understand black votes for FDR, you have to go back to 1928, which was the beginning of the GOP Southern Strategy pivot (then because of Prohibition and anti-Catholicism/Semitism). All but a relatively handful of southern blacks couldn’t vote in 1928 or through World War II and beyond.

#29 Comment By Nora On October 16, 2016 @ 8:47 am

[NFR: It’s not “feminist theory”; it’s common decency. In the culture in which I was raised, a man did not do those things, and if he did, he was thought to be less of a man, a real lout. — RD]

Although we disagree on many things, Mr. Dreher, this is one reason I continue to read your work. You are a true gentleman.

And I’d like to take this opportunity to point out that it was the increasing rudeness of right wing radio and TV that helped create the political correctness movement.

It was a push back against the insults and name calling. If we could just rise above that, I believe the PC thing would die. But Trump has taken name calling and mocking to a whole new level and now those who share those tendencies feel validated in expressing things out loud that polite society has sought to teach us was unacceptable to say to other human beings.

It is quite a setback for rational discourse and debate, which we very much need. How do I reach across the divide to my republican family to try to remind them that we really have more in common than not, when every other phrase is a snide Fox sound bite? When they call me names?

I am at a loss.

#30 Comment By JonF On October 16, 2016 @ 4:06 pm

Re: Long term whites are coalescing.

As the original poster said the evidence for this is zero.
The only thing you can really say is that white people who live outside major cities (including their major suburbs) and/or do not have college degrees are coalescing. And there are not enough of them to matter above the state level (and only in some states do matter even there). Their differences with their better educated, more adaptable brethren are opening into a vast gulf. Their way forward is to make alliances with non-white people in similar circumstances– that would give them a majority and one they could use to further their interests. Racial consciousness is standing in their way– and being manipulated by the elites to prevent such a coalition from truly upending the neo-liberal order.

#31 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On October 16, 2016 @ 4:56 pm

To understand black votes for FDR, you have to go back to 1928, which was the beginning of the GOP Southern Strategy pivot

That’s true, Hoover was pushing for a “lily-white” southern Republican party, and nothern urban machines were happy to have black ward heelers in black wards. But you also have to factor in black disillusionment with Roosevelt as early as 1938, black support for Thomas Dewey (who resolutely endorsed the “Double V” campaign for victory over fascism abroad and racism at home), and 39 percent of the black vote going for Eisenhower and Nixon in 1956. (Black votes may even have tipped Kentucky and Tennessee into the GOP column). Roosevelt wasn’t the end of the line… Goldwater in 1964 was.

Long term whites are coalescing.

In your dreams, M_Young. “White people” don’t constitute a constituency with much of anything in common. Neither do “black people” once we get over a few pathologies that have made them feel like the paradigm for the joke about “what if you think people are out to get you and they really are?”

#32 Comment By David J. White On October 16, 2016 @ 5:03 pm

And I’d like to take this opportunity to point out that it was the increasing rudeness of right wing radio and TV that helped create the political correctness movement.

I remember starting to hear about political correctness in a big way in the 80s, before “right wing radio and TV” really took off.

#33 Comment By connecticut farmer On October 16, 2016 @ 5:41 pm

Ms. Glenn’s protestations are entirely valid and impossible to disagree with.

Left unsaid, however, is where she intends to go. Hillary Clinton? If not Hillary Clinton, who then? That’s the problem.

Here’s hoping for a multi-party system. Frankly, this system we have stinks!

#34 Comment By Nyte On October 17, 2016 @ 2:25 am

“And I’d like to take this opportunity to point out that it was the increasing rudeness of right wing radio and TV that helped create the political correctness movement.”


probably not and probably not at all. Political correctness was born out of academic inclusion of what used to be called disenfranchised groups. Most notably white women. Blacks were primarily concerned about getting in and out of school to get a job to feed their families like everyone else.

They had neither the time nor the inclination to get their emotional needs met. Affirative action largely designed to redress the barring of blacks from education and other government opportunities, was undermined when organizations realized that they could get around the black and native american indictment by including women as oppose to the target groups, especially blacks, corporate america followed suit. So of course white men hired white women.

What the sixties, seventies white women brought with them were their grievances. Good grief, does sensitivity training sound like a black grievance — not until the late 1990’s — the “white male . . .” was the chip white women brought to the workplace. Political correctness is born out of white feminist studies.

It was the APA’s loaded agenda that sealed the deal.