Letters to the Editor: Are the media falling into Donald Trump’s trap again?
To the editor: Columnist Nicholas Goldberg makes a solid case for why former President Trump’s return to the Oval Office would do much more harm than putting Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in there. But Goldberg is playing right into the ex-president’s hands: Above all, Trump wants to see his name continually dominate headlines, even in op-ed articles that berate him.
An overarching consideration drove Trump to declare his candidacy some 24 months before the next election: His status as a candidate serves to unnerve prosecutors everywhere who might otherwise file charges against him.
Narcissistic as he is, Trump knows that his prospects for regaining the presidency are dim. Once opinion polls unequivocally confirm that he is doomed to lose, he will bow out. Trump disdains being deemed a loser — whether in polling booths or in courtrooms.
Dennis Alston, Atwater, Calif.
..
To the editor: It is strange that Goldberg, who has been so critical of Trump for the past seven years, has now turned his focus to DeSantis, a possible Republican candidate for president in 2024, going so far as to imply that he may be even “more dangerous†than the former president.
It would be helpful if Goldberg, a liberal, would write more about President Biden, since polls show that Democrats don’t want him to run again, citing age and competence as important factors.
This is quite a quandary for the Democratic Party, since Vice President Kamala Harris has even lower approval ratings than the president.
Janet Polak, Beverly Hills
..
To the editor: Considering some of the attention-seeking actions that DeSantis has taken in Florida, the choice between him and Trump is really between bad and worse.
Goldberg thinks that Trump would be more dangerous. Why? Because the damage that he did to our country while he was president is “unparalleled.†But he is a known quantity now, and people are perhaps wiser about his potential danger, while DeSantis has not yet revealed his full potential for malevolence.
While I don’t quite agree with Goldberg, I am so relieved that he has raised this question and that other critics have weighed in on this fraught choice.
Lynn Lorenz, Newport Beach
