Replies

I don’t like David Brooks or PBS - but he’s right on this. Trump should not have talked to Woodward. I heard he gave him EIGHTEEN interviews for the book? What’s the point of doing that? These DNC stenographer hacks are THE ENEMY. Their goal is to DESTROY TRUMP. Why he continues to give these people interviews, clicks, book royalties is beyond me. I like Trump but his self-centeredness blinds him to the obvious sometimes.

[I like Trump but his self-centeredness blinds him to the obvious sometimes.]

Trump’s blind spot is that he thinks he can sell sand to Arabs and ice to Eskimos. That’s why he keeps referring to Putin and Xi with terms like “friend” and so on, despite their fairly hostile acts, as well as his sanctions on them. It’s as if he’s completely internalized Norman Vincent Peale’s The Power of Positive Thinking, and tuned out all the negative possibilities.

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.

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