To be more specific, the war on conservative women.
Because I have dared to write supportive opinion columns on Donald Trump, I was featured along with two other female commentators in a Post story that stated that I have “achieved cable-news stardom after converting” into a Donald Trump supporter, that I, along with the others, “have made defending the real estate mogul their niche and in the process made themselves hot commodities.”
In other words, it couldn’t possibly be about issues. How could a woman take a positive view of Trump in mainstream media commentary? There has to be an ulterior motive, right? It has to be about becoming a cable TV “star.”
Post writer Callum Borchers says I read it wrong. “The premise is that commentators such as yourself who support Trump are more in demand because you’re hard to find,” he wrote in an email. “Scarcity leads to popularity.”
I didn’t read it wrong, Callum. You got it wrong.
To underscore your premise — which you set out to prove from the outset — you stated that I was an “occasional guest” on CNN, Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network “before getting behind Trump,” appearing just 15 times on those cable outlets between August 2014 and mid-February this year. After what he calls my “conversion” to Trump, the Post reporter says I was much, much more “in-demand.”
The plain fact is that I’ve been invited as a Herald opinion columnist and host on Boston Herald Radio by national TV and radio shows at least 100 times over the past few years, long before writing columns backing Trump and his positions this February.
Take December 2015. I appeared on Fox News, Fox Business and CNN four times in one week alone, including commentary for The O’Reilly Factor — the No. 1 rated show on cable. That was months before my Trump “conversion.” And, I might add, all of my national TV and radio appearances have been unpaid.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good attack piece, though. Was The Washington Post demeaning and belittling three female commentators in its hit piece on Kayleigh McEnany, Scottie Nell Hughes and me? Take a look at some gems from the avalanche of misogynistic comments the Post let stand on its website beneath Borchers’ piece:
“Triplet Barbies? All plastic, big bazooms and a hollow head.”
“Strumpetes. Blond, giggly, silly nonsense.”
“World’s oldest profession.”
“It’s a shame watching young, beautiful women…have no principles whatsoever.”
“Freaks. Did Trump promise them all free plastic surgery.”
“Maybe they were drawn to his impassioned stance on hairspray.”
Does The Washington Post have an agenda here? Take a look at some of the headlines that were posted on its website around the Borchers’ piece:
“Playboy to President? Trump’s Crude Sex Talk Collides With White House Bid.”
“Playboy Trump and The Double Standard.”
“Donald Trump’s Delegate Ineptitude Stumbles Into White Nationalism.”
I’m sure that the two dozen reporters assigned by the paper to investigate Trump for articles and a book will be fair and balanced. That’s a high bar, I know, but let’s hope they will at least be something the Borchers’ piece was not: Accurate.