CSotD: Maligning Melania
Skip to comments
There’s an abundance of cartoons going around based on Melania Trump’s statement in which she denied a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and called for public testimony from his victims.
Huck satirizes her famous green raincoat to ask a central question, and it’s obvious from the other cartoonists that their answer is “No.”
I wish it were that simple, but, to borrow an old phrase about ghosts, I don’t believe in them, but, then again, I don’t disbelieve in them, either.
First, we can dismiss those who make fun of her accent. In a country where 75% of the people speak only English, it’s foolish to criticize someone for speaking more than one language, however poorly or well.
Henry Kissinger spoke English with an accent decades after he’d immigrated here, but, then again, I met a woman once with a strong Ontario accent, but English was her third of eight languages. Accents tell you nothing.
It’s equally foolish to say that, because she was photographed at parties with Epstein and his GF, she was deeply involved with them. Maybe yes, maybe no, but — not to deny that Trump and Epstein were buddies — she says Palm Beach and NYC were party places:
I have never been friends with Epstein. Donald and I were invited to the same parties as Epstein from time to time, since overlapping in social circles is common in New York City and Palm Beach.
There are likely thousands of pictures of Epstein at parties with casual acquaintances and an equal number of photos of Melania with people she hardly knew. People take pictures at parties, and it means very little without context.
I like de Adder’s take, though I think I’m seeing it differently than he intended. The fact that she’s surrounded by lies doesn’t make her part of the cabal.
I haven’t seen Jeff Bezos’ movie, but from reviews I gather it depicts her as vain and shallow, not dishonest. Granted, it wasn’t a DA Pennebaker documentary, but she’s generally come across elsewhere as decorative rather than as someone who’s in on the scam.
Bramhall presents the most intriguing commentary, and if you want to add a completely made-up rumor to go with it, consider that Barron turned 20 on March 20, which could have turned her mind to his becoming 21. I have long wondered if there were some kind of pre-nup linking her to her only son.
No proof of that, but something seems to have caused her to break ranks. I’d note that she was reportedly upset when Trump won the first time, and has declined to live in Washington during his second administration.
I’d say she’s less than a stone’s throw from Ohman’s description of her, whatever touched off this sudden public declaration. We’ve seen her flashes of anger or contempt from time to time, such as slapping away his hand as he attempted to hold hers.
Bess Truman similarly refused to live at the White House, and Melania is also not the only First Lady to remain in the shadows. Jackie Kennedy set a fashion for First Ladies to step forward, but some have been more reluctant than others. Pat Nixon was a wraith, others served either eagerly or with an air of obligation.
The big “However” is this: Her call for Congress to interview Epstein’s victims under oath, whether it happens or not, brings the matter back to the forefront. Some victims shun the spotlight, others are eager to see America finally have to confront what happened to them.
But what Melania said was that “Each and every woman should have her day to tell her story in public, if she wishes,” and “if she wishes” is a critical part of that demand.
We shall see, but dragging the Epstein matter back to center stage seems valuable, whatever she may have known about it at the time.
Asked and Answered
Still speaking of women’s voices, here’s an interesting pairing from a couple of Australian cartoonists this morning. From the family lore we’re heard from Mary Trump, Katauskas is not only on firm ground in calling Trump a temperamental toddler, but this may be a pretty accurate portrait of the president as a young hooligan.
On the other hand, while little kids aren’t as self-aware as Herbert paints them, I hope they’re not being brought up to emulate Dear Leader. Though, if they are, this would be a good time to buy stock in military schools, because Trump’s is hardly the only mother in the world with a breaking point.
Meanwhile, back at the White House, Dear Leader has found a way to offset his tax cuts and still wage war on whoever has annoyed him this week.
There may be some political logic to shifting health care and day care back to the states, but if it were expected to work, we’d obviously see federal taxes decrease as they stop being responsible for such things. Instead, Dear Leader is not only using that money to blow other countries up, but he’s asking for even more money while he shifts social program funding into warmongering.
I can’t guarantee this, since whoever posted it didn’t give a source, but it seems to match up with what I’ve seen before, and while there may be quibbles to be quibbled, the main point is that we’ve got a lot of states that really need that federal funding, and a lot of them seem to be places where folks don’t necessarily have a lot of spare change to spend on increased state taxes.
You should also bear in mind that the reason the federal government has been funding social programs is because some states refuse to do so. Quality of health care and availability of child care may not specifically line up with who pays how much taxes, but I’d guess without looking that living in a “donor state” is generally good and, while some “welfare states” seem to care about such things, the low points in our nation are found in them.
In case you were going to ask, here’s the breakdown from the 2024 presidential elections.
I didn’t say it was surprising.
Mike Peterson has posted his "Comic Strip of the Day" column every day since 2010. His opinions are his own, but we welcome comments either agreeing or in opposition.
Comments 9
Comments are closed.