NYMag‘s The Cut, December 6, 2017:
… When Chris Cuomo questioned [Kellyanne] Conway about Trump’s endorsement of Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore, who has been accused of sexual misconduct by eight women, she defended him by saying, “The president has tremendous moral standards.”….
anyone else notice how Kellyanne Conway went AWOL after news of Wolff book broke. the entire mess has been left to Sarah Sanddrs to clean up–she's failing miserably
— Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) January 6, 2018
Every unmothered child needs a nanny, or a team of them — none more so than a 70-year-old child who refuses to mature beyond the nursery. Who better to understand this than British GQ, whose authorized Fire and Fury excerpt focuses on two of the Trump campaign’s most high-profile women — “How Donald Trump’s White House team handles his giant ego”:
… Not long after the Trump team’s arrival to the White House, the Correspondents’ Dinner became a cause for worry. On a winter afternoon in Kellyanne Conway’s upstairs West Wing office, Conway and director of strategic communications Hope Hicks engaged in a pained discussion about what to do.
The central problem was that the president was neither inclined to make fun of himself, nor particularly funny himself – at least not, in Conway’s description, “in that kind of humorous way”.
George W Bush had famously tried to resist the Correspondents’ Dinner and suffered greatly at it, but he had prepped extensively and every year he pulled out an acceptable performance. But neither woman, confiding their concerns around the table in Conway’s office to a journalist they regarded as sympathetic, thought Trump had a realistic chance of making the dinner anything like a success.
“He doesn’t appreciate cruel humour,” said Conway. “His style is more old-fashioned,” said Hicks.
Both women, clearly seeing the Correspondents’ Dinner as an intractable problem, kept characterising the event as “unfair”, which, more generally, is how they characterised the media’s view of Trump. “He’s unfairly portrayed.” “They don’t give him the benefit of the doubt.” “He’s just not treated the way other presidents have been treated.”
The burden here for Conway and Hicks was their understanding that the president did not see the media’s lack of regard for him as part of a political divide on which he stood on a particular side. Instead, he perceived it as a deep personal attack on him: for entirely unfair reasons, ad hominem reasons, the media just did not like him. Ridiculed him. Cruelly. Why?…