Posted on 09/12/2020 6:16:36 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot
PBS NEWSHOUR ....
(snip)
BROOKS: First, the hubris to think, you could be the president and talk to Bob Woodward and not get hurt by it. Donald Trump walked right into this.Two, the extreme cynicism of not only bumbling around in February and March, because you didn't know how serious the pandemic was, but the confirmation that you did know, and you still thought you could talk it down, as if you can talk down a force of nature, and that this — you wouldn't end up getting caught.
So, there's just a level of cynicism that's been revealed, more than just incompetence.
And then, finally — and, to me, this is most revealing, I guess — is the idea that, if you had told the American people the truth, they would have panicked.
It betrays a disregard and a condescension toward the American people which is totally ridiculous.
And so I do think there's new stuff here, as there was last week in the Jeffrey Goldberg piece about what he said about the war dead. There's just a continued display of mischaracter, of poor character, immoral character.
As for whether it will hurt, .... And the thing I would like to emphasize is that a lot of voters have given up on politics. They're what we call low-information voters. And the emphasis there is on low. They have written off politics. They're not paying attention to any of this. They will probably never hear of the Bob Woodward revelations. And so we have a race that is locked in stasis.
But the bad thing for Donald Trump is, he's only got a few weeks left, and this was yet another week of crisis and scandal that he was not catching up.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Their is little to be gained gum flapping at China and Russia. Obama talked tough and carried a small stick. So China and Russia took what they wanted.
President Trunps knows that none of this nonsense will hurt him.
That being said why give this scum any time?
Apparently Brooks doesn't.
Part of Trump’s 2016 strategy was to block out any coverage of Hillary and he often did it with comments that caused him negative press. I think he believes any press is good.
Fearless is another word that comes to mind.
I don’t like David Brooks or PBS - but he’s right on this. Trump should not have talked to Woodward.
I disagree.
President Trump is doing a great job at exposing the bias in the media. There is nothing in Woodward’s book that a) we did not know, and b) will hurt President Trump.
It will however erode any credibility left of Woodward.
President Trump is playing the long game. He is (in my opinion) thinking not of today, not of the election and not even his next term. He is thinking of America 20, 30 and perhaps even longer in the future.
The left have managed to bend our culture so much because they have kept their bias and agenda hidden. Their hate for President Trump has forced them to throw caution to the wind and expose themselves for the world to see.
The pendulum has gone as far left as it could and it has begun swinging to the right, the left knows this and they are afraid that their influence is coming to an end.
Fifty years from now few will know who Woodward was while President Trump will be remembered for as long as we have a Republic.
Can we complete defund NPR, PBS, other taxpayer funded propaganda (i.e., DNC mouth piece) machines?
*************
This should be a litmus test for any Republican running for national office. If elected, they must demonstrate their commitment and actions to defund this left wing propaganda outlet by any means necessary. No excuses, delays or dodging. Do it or you’re gone.
OTOH, now there's headlines everywhere about General Mattis and Dan Coates plotting a coup. Seems to me that's a net gain for the Donald.
Guess what Brooks, nobody cares about that interview. Chew on that one for awhile.
Nothing you gotcha clowns do will persuade anyone to not vote or vote for that drooling moron Biden.
I'm not a mind-reader, nor do I know Trump personally. So what I'm about to present is a guess.
Bernstein was going to write a book about Trump. The man obviously had a contract with a publisher to write a book about Trump. So, it was going to happen no matter what the President did. Without input from Trump, the book would have been written based on "informed sources."
By agreeing to be interviewed for the book, Trump took some control over the narrative. (Not all of it.) If Bernstein wrote something that was not in the interview that was inflammatory, Trump can shoot back with "I didn't tell you that, and it's not true." (Assuming falsehood, which is a safe bet in a witch hunt.)
That's grounds for libel, if the statement rises to the threshold for libel of well-known figures. By providing material, Trump has more solid grounds to build a libel case that will stand up in court. "You had ample opportunity to ask me."
Bernstein was going to write what Bernstein was going to write. The interviews give Trump leverage, leverage that can be applied before November 3.
I don’t think he thought he would not get hurt by talking to Woodward, he hust knew if he didn’t Woodward would just make things up and attribute it to anonymous sources. He just figured he might have a little more control.
Buffoon number 2, Brooks, meet, buffoon number 1, Woodward.
Talked with Woodward? Where? In the Oval office? Was it recorded? Has ANYTHING said/recorded been twisted into a falsehood, or taken out of context?
If so... nail ‘em
I agree & was thinking the same thing. So where was someone to say......don’t do this!!!
I have an update bulletin for Brooks:
PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT GET HURT BY IDIOT WOODWARD.
End of report.
Wouldn't that be Trump?
When is Joe Biden going to give a real interview?
Define “real”.
I agree with your comment. I read the replies to your post and understand the other views but there are several negatives that to me outweigh any benefit of Trump granting Woodward access to him:
1) Despite his Watergate fame, Woodward is NOT a journalist. He is a disgustingly biased partisan and a political hack of the lowest order. Why give some low life political enemy like him an opportunity to attack you? No good can come of it.
2) Trump should have known (and perhaps did) that Woodward would produce a hit piece on him just before the election. Ignoring this risk to himself, and to the shaky Repubs running for national office, was naive.
3) If Trump thought he could charm or persuade Woodward he was dead wrong.
4) There are rumors that Lindsey Graham arranged the interviews. This alone was reason not to do it.
5) Woodward’s hit piece WILL be used as fodder for debate questions. Count on it.
6) This interview handed some talking points to Biden who has nothing else to talk about. It might not change many people’s votes but this could be a tight race and Biden needs to motivate his supporters far more than Trump does. Not a game changer, but it benefits Biden at a critical time, which was Woodward’s intention all along.
7) Lastly, the timely release of Woodward’s book is just another bullet in a fusillade of pre-election hit pieces. Why give your enemy more shots at you?
The only upside to the interview that I can see is that it enabled Trump to get his own words on the record as opposed to allowing Woodward free reign to write whatever propaganda he wanted without regard to any actual recorded dialogue.
I strongly support Trump and donate to him regularly. However, I don’t see him as some infallible leader whose every move is perfect. His ego is often the cause of his mistakes and, as you said, it sometimes blinds him to the obvious. JMHO
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.