The New York Post published nude photos of Melania Trump from 1996 today. I won’t provide a link, but they’re easy to find and quite NSFW. My question is why would a conservative newspaper who endorsed Trump and is owned by Rupert Murdoch do something that probably won’t sit well with the GOP base? Is this something orchestrated with Trump to change the conversation? Or is the post OK with embarrassing them as long as it’s profitable?
In a world where Michelle Obama is critiqued for baring her shoulders, I find it unlikely that most Republicans (particularly evangelicals) would find these type of photos appropriate or switch to Trump because, “Yay, boobs!”. But I also find it odd that the Post would go after their own guy. Am I crazy, or is this really strange?
There’s an old saying, “I don’t care what they say about me, just make sure they spell my name right!”[sup]*[/sup] (Or “there’s no such thing as bad publicity.”) I’ve never particularly liked that idea, but as the years go by I have more trouble saying it’s wrong; and this election in particular. It gets the Trump name out there, and that seems to be all Trump needs. And before we all have a chance to mull this over and decide whether it’s good, bad, or indifferent, Trump’s name will be in the news for something else. His ability to make us eat this stuff up faster than we can chew it is one of the secrets of his campaign.
I’ve seen a few variations on the same phrase, and several attributions. Can’t chase down exactly which one is correct.
Donald is quoted by the Post as saying, “Melania was one of the most successful models and she did many photo shoots, including for covers and major magazines. This was a picture taken for a European magazine prior to my knowing Melania. In Europe, pictures like this are very fashionable and common.”
Is claiming his wife has European values really something that plays well with his supporters? Not to mention, the GOP literally opposed pornography in their platform. For the record, I don’t have a problem with her posing nude, but if Donald is in on it, this seems like a miscalculation.
The photographer of the 1995 nude pictures is a bit of a character and dabbled in politics 2 years ago. The NY Post gave him his own short profile, possibly owing to his his generosity. The Trump campaign doesn’t seem perturbed, suggesting they had received advanced notice. Trump himself hasn’t commented on Twitter yet. If he doesn’t have a meltdown, he was probably involved in some way IMHO.
This will have zero impact on the campaign. The voters who support Donald Trump do so for complex reasons that are difficult to rationalize, but what is clear is that they long ago decided that Donald need not be the candidate of moral purity.
From what I can tell, it seems to have fizzled very quickly anyways. Maybe it will get more traction on a weekday, but on Sunday I saw tongue-clucking about how shameful it was for the paper to do that…for about an hour, then everyone moved back to the Khans and Ukraine.
Besides it was not realy news – OK so these were “different” in that they were more straight out FFN, but it was already pretty much a known point that she had done racy “glamour” skin shoots in ther modeling days.
And I can’t help but wonder if Happy Lendervedder may not have a point, and the Post may be trying to whip up some fauxrage.
No, but you know there will be *some people who will not be able to resist playing the “hypocrite” card() against the RW over this (“Well, Mr. Conservative Rightwinger, does SHE represent YOUR family values? Huh? Huh?”), and there you will have the targets for the likes of the Post to throw it right back as a liberal double-standard (“Gee we thought YOU believed women could do what they want with their bodies… guess you meant only liberal women”).
(*I should hope most people have realized that the Hypocrite Card has precious little effect left)
Meanwhile, a number of commentators left and right will be at their bunks