Louisiana Republicans groping for response to Trump’s admitted sexual assaults

By Robert Mann

The presidential nominee each Louisiana Republican leader has endorsed was exposed on Friday afternoon bragging about committing sexual assault.

As first reported by the Washington Post,

Donald Trump bragged in vulgar terms about kissing, groping and trying to have sex with women during a 2005 conversation caught on a hot microphone — saying that “when you’re a star, they let you do it” . . .

“I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it,” Trump is heard saying. It was unclear when the events he was describing took place. The tape was recorded several months after he married his third wife, Melania.

“Whoa,” another voice said.

“I did try and f— her. She was married,” Trump says.

So, how did GOP members of the Louisiana congressional delegation and those running for U.S. Senate respond to the latest shocking news about Trump? Pretty much the way they’ve responded to every other disgusting revelation: Mostly, they ignored it, undoubtedly hoping you and I will forget that they have endorsed Trump and are too cowardly to withdraw their support.

These men — and they are all men — never wavered in their support of Trump after he mocked a disabled journalist. They stood by Trump when he attacked war hero and former POW Sen. John McCain for being “captured” in Vietnam. They stayed with him when he insulted, repeatedly, the Gold Star parents of a dead soldier. They stuck with Trump after he made racist remarks about Mexicans and demanded a total ban on Muslim immigration.

They never expressed concern about Trump’s long history of misogyny. And when the news broke last weekend that Trump lost $916 million in a single year (1995) and probably didn’t pay income taxes for 15 years, they said nothing.

So why would anyone think that these men would be outraged over Trump’s latest outrage? They’ve tolerated him for this long, so why should anything change?

Even as the Republican governor of Utah and a handful of U.S senators and representatives called for Trump to step down as the GOP nominee (it’s not going to happen), Louisiana’s delegation stands by Trump.

As of Saturday morning, only two prominent Louisiana Republicans — Sen. Bill Cassidy and Rep. Charles Boustany (also a candidate for U.S. Senate) — felt enough indignation to condemn Trump’s lewd comments and his disgusting behavior. 

But they did so quietly on Twitter. They issued no formal statements and neither revoked his endorsement of the nominee who admitted on tape that he often committed sexual assault and got away with it. [Late morning Saturday, after this post was published, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise said in a statement: “Women deserve to be treated with respect. Period. Considering the nature of his comments, Donald should make a direct apology.” It doesn’t appear that Scalise withdrew his endorsement of Trump.]


Meanwhile, Republican Senate candidate David Duke defended Trump on Twitter.


I’ve been saying for months that the time was fast approaching when Republicans will get no credit for finally denouncing Trump (if they ever do).

While Sens. David Vitter and Bill Cassidy and Reps. Charles Boustany, Garret Graves, Steve Scalise, John Fleming and Ralph Abraham should renounce Trump and withdraw their endorsement of him, the record will show that, instead, these men passed up countless opportunities to do so.

That is to their everlasting shame and disgrace, regardless of what they do today or next week.

In addition the congressional delegation, each Republican running to replace David Vitter in the U.S. Senate should be asked if he continues to support Trump.

If they remain with Trump, they are guilty of supporting for president a racist, a bigot, a misogynistic and, now, an admitted sexual predator.

One day, their grandchildren will ask them where they stood on Trump. Based on what they have demonstrated so far, they can only hang their heads in shame.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Louisiana Republicans groping for response to Trump’s admitted sexual assaults

  1. earthmother says:

    Donald Trump’s well-publicized serial adultery, corrupt and dishonest business practices, public lusting after his own daughter, ugly and hateful comments about anyone and everyone not himself, have been well known for years and certainly have received a lot of press since he has been running for president. I have said repeatedly on a number of comment boards that anyone who supports such a person is not a truly moral person – their support tells us everything we need to know about THEIR character.

    And, now, from two of the people who have set themselves up as the arbiters of morality and family values, on the latest revelation of Trump’s amoral, sociopathic and possibly criminal behavior and values:

    “I’ve listened to the tape, my view is that people of faith are voting on issues like who will protect unborn life, defend religious freedom, create jobs, and oppose the Iran nuclear deal,” Ralph Reed, the chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition and a member of Trump’s religious advisory board, said in a statement. “I think a 10-year-old tape of a private conversation with a TV talk show host ranks pretty low on their hierarchy of concerns.”

    Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, another Trump supporter, told BuzzFeed he isn’t concerned with sharing “values” with the GOP nominee.

    “My personal support for Donald Trump has never been based upon shared values, it is based upon shared concerns about issues such as: justices on the Supreme Court that ignore the constitution, America’s continued vulnerability to Islamic terrorists and the systematic attack on religious liberty that we’ve seen in the last 7 1/2 years,” he said in an email.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. jechoisir says:



  3. Linda K Rewerts says:

    That was bob Mann’s headline

    Sent from my iPhone


  4. Jimbaux says:

    These GOP leaders are revealing that the Republican Party has become a white identity party. They don’t much protest the repeated disparagement of and threats of harm to Mexicans, Muslims, and black people, but, now, talking about groping white women is unacceptable?


  5. jechoisir says:

    No, Mr. Winham, I just found all this partisan self-righteousness and (feigned?) shock at Trump’s remarks boring. Were you surprised he would talk this way? I was not. Nor was I shocked at Ms. Clinton’s defiance of law or that she regarded anyone who voted for Trump part of a basket of “deplorables,” or that she told Wall Street bankers one thing and listed another position in her platform or—-well, enough. We have two terrible choices for president. Eight years of Obama’s care of the country has left us racially divided again, angry that the President who cannot work with Congress or anyone else issues edicts with the force of law, frustrated by unflagging attacks on law enforcement agencies, incredulous at the New Speak that calls an Islamic jihadist murder spree “workplace violence,” and generally alienated from what has been government. Disgust with the Far Left in the past eight years or more is a reasonable response.

    Some remember we work through parties, and they rightfully fear another Far Left regime. Why should people vote for a party that defines being religious as the basic most deplorable trait? that refuses to acknowledge the terrorism we have experienced is Islamic? that we are fat and happy in a new economy when we know that’s a lie? when Obamacare has blown up in our faces and left us far poorer than before? when we believe the nation should adhere to the intentions of the written Constitution or alter them through the means it provides and the Left believes we do that through rewriting it from the bench? Why should people vote for a party that gave birth to Isis and through weakness and vacillation has given Russia the power to add Syria to its satellites and state openly that it is revising its policy about staying out of Vietnam?

    Now, had the writer explored Tony Perkins’ reasoning, for instance, he might have had a thoughtful column on his hands. Should we vote for a party or a candidate? Have we become a tyranny instead of a Republic in the last 8 years? Or are we a Republic that historically has worked through political parties? As someone who wants to take the coward’s way out and not vote, I find uncomfortable food for thought in Perkins’s reasoning. I found none anyplace else in the article, however. It brought no new insight, caused no one to think, just recited the party line. A Ho Hummer.


    • rtmannjr says:

      Thanks for devoting so much time and effort to commenting on a post you find so boring. I hope they all disinterest you this much.


      Liked by 2 people

    • Fredster says:

      angry that the President who cannot work with Congress

      Right. A Congress where the Senate Republican leader said it would be his mission to make sure Obama was a one term President. Statements like that don’t really show there was any attempt at “working” with the President.


      • jechoisir says:

        Oh, Fredster, you are shocked that the opposing party actually opposed the disastrous policies of B.O. How’s that for a system of government, eh? I understand how you must feel. But your guy showed them and us, didn’t he? Wouldn’t let anybody, even your guys, near the White House (Do you think it galled him to live in the White House?). Listened to no one but the girls around him.

        And to what end? Even Bill Clinton calls Obamacare a bust. Because he was just playing Bluff with that red line, Russia this week told him it intends to stay in Syria until it decides to leave–and it does not intend to leave. Only 2 days ago Mr. Putin announced Russia was reconsidering its agreement about staying out of Cuba and Vietnam. Your Big Boy said nothing about that, did he?

        But he expressed outrage that the ex-KGB guy was hacking into Hillary’s emails and letting Americans know what she was promising folks in Brazil and Argentina and on Wall Street—-her goal was open borders, one big hemispheric economic unit, etc etc etc, as Yul Brynner said in “The King and I.” Not what she was telling voters. Outrage, mind you! Even said he might respond, using government power. That one almost shocked me. But then I remembered: it was in defense of a good cause, his cause. I wonder if his toe turns under when it approaches THAT red line.

        On the homefront, we are replaying the sixties race wars, sans raison; police are afraid to use even a billy stick against a black male for fear of having the wrath of the Obama Justice Department (“justice”—what a funny word) come down on them. His Singularity goes to memorials for law enforcement officers killed by black-lives-matterists and preaches sermons about police overreaching. He smacks gum at international summits, takes selfies at funereal events, and generally gives the finger to The Deplorables with their bibles and their guns who try to teach their children Western manners that show respect to others. Each morning now, American citizens turn on their radios or television sets to see if there has been another Isis attack, blowing infidel women and children to smithereens. And if the Green Bay Packers’ defensive line entered a Ladies restroom, the designated users would be afraid to protest.

        No, Fredster, no one should have expected him to rise to the demands of the office he held. What kind of guy would he be if he had invited Republicans and Democrats to his place for a drink or a cup of coffee and chat? Not a community organizer, that’s for sure. And so here with are— having to choose between a federal criminal and a sleezy Queens real estate guy. You’re right, Fredster, as Mr. Obama has reminded us for 8 years, ‘Not His Fault.’ Just keep saying that, ‘lest a thoughtful question try to enter your head. Being a Lefist is not partisan; Being a Leftist is not partisan…….


      • Fredster says:

        @jechoisir I have no idea what you’re babbling about but feel free to keep babbling.


  6. jechoisir says:

    Oh, and Mr. Winham, that headline? Really?


    • Stephen Winham says:

      I thought the headline was appropriate wordplay.

      No matter how I feel about Clinton, I am compelled to vote for her because I consider Trump unfit to lead this country and not on sexual morality grounds, but rather because of his incompetence, impetuosity, and what I perceive to be psychopathy. These things make him more dangerous than Clinton by geometric proportions. To vote for him as a protest vote against Clinton is, in my opinion, a very, very serious mistake.

      I could not agree more with your statements about this latest thing being no surprise. I have opined elsewhere that anybody who found this (or anything else Trump has done or will do) surprising has to have been a coma for a long time.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. jechoisir says:

    For the record, there is a difference between “disinteresting” and “uninteresting.” One is good; the other, bad. A disinterested person is a non-partisan (has no vested interest) in the matter at hand. This post was not disinterested. I was, I hope.


    • martybankson says:

      For a more accurate record, the primary definition of “disinterest” as a verb in the sentence Mr. Mann uses it does, in fact, mean “divest of interest or concern” which can mean “render uninteresting”. And your expression of jadedness early on would point to the conclusion that you were uninterested rather than neutral on the topic. Comparing the adjectives “disinteresting” and “uninteresting” are unrelated to the use of the word as a verb. How you came to assign normative values “good” and “bad” to either is curious, as well.
      But claiming that your post (the longest) was “disinterested” (in the non-partisan sense) is quite a stretch.


      • jechoisir says:

        Mr. Bankston, you boys cannot even admit to a clear error. And what amusing contortions you make to support obvious error. I have taught the English language and literature for 150 years, written for scholarly and popular publications all that time, edited two magazines and untold amount of copy that requires varying stylesheets. I assure you this: you misunderstood what you read at dictionary.com, which I see you quote. (You need to check the word “interest” in order to understand that, I suppose.) I have before me the OED and both the original and Todd’s 1828 revised version of Dr. Samuel Johnson’s “English Dictionary” and several current style guides. “Disinterested,” the form most often used for the past 180 years at least, means “impartial,” “unbiased”—not based in a special interest that would distort one’s opinion.

        Now, to your contortions. The verb “disinterest” is indeed related to the adjective derived from it! “Disinterested” is the past participle of that verb. That’s what happens when you don’t know what you’re talking about, sir.

        You’re right about the normative nature of “disinterestness”: it is only good if one is seeking to discern or make clear truth. If one is pedaling a party, partisan line, it is bad.

        Mr. Winham used an interesting phrase: “I think,” indicating what he was saying was his opinion and acknowledging a certain humility and respect for the possibility of error. That is a phrase you ought to remember should you again launch into lexicography. From old Strunk & White down to the present day, handbooks for good writing list “disinterested” and “uninterested” as words commonly confused by young or inexperienced writers.


      • Stephen Winham says:

        Should Garrison Keillor happen upon this site, he would be so proud – seriously.

        Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.