Readers React: Stormy Daniels is more articulate than our president
To the editor: Really?! Articles about the “Stormy Daniels” interview in every section of the paper (except Sports). With all that’s going on in the world, I cannot understand why this woman and her sleazy story are worthy of so much ink. We all knew (those who voted for him and those who didn’t) who Donald Trump was and who he wasn’t well before he was elected. These stories are not news. They are salacious yellow journalism.
Shame on Stormy Daniels for selling her self-respect to the highest bidder. Shame on Anderson Cooper for wasting his time and talent interviewing her. Shame on “60 Minutes” for capitalizing on this circus. Shame on 21.3 million people who couldn’t find anything better to do than to watch it. And shame on the Los Angeles Times for over-reporting the story — four times!
Janice Blake, Manhattan Beach
To the editor: For me, the most striking takeaway from Stormy Daniels’ interview on “60 Minutes” was her verbal communication skills vis-á-vis the president’s. She was plain-spoken, yet clear, concise and articulate. Her word choices were apt, accurate and illustrative. She came across as self-aware and genuine. None of the repeated superlative adjectives that he habitually inserts because he seems unable to access a wider vocabulary. None of the tangled syntax and run-on sentences that characterize the rhetoric of our current leader. Sad.
Robert Huber, Yorba Linda
To the editor: There is a famous line in a Sherlock Holmes story where his first insight into a particularly baffling case is that the dog of the manor didn’t bark when someone stole in and killed someone in the middle of the night. That scenario always comes to mind when something usual and ordinary doesn’t happen.
In this case, President Trump is humiliated by porn star Stormy Daniels on national TV and, instead of attacking his accuser in a tweet or series of tweets, he goes completely silent. And people said he had no impulse control.
Len Gardner, Dana Point
To the editor: Op-ed writer Joshua C. Kendall notes (“JFK may have been a worse philanderer than Trump. Does it matter?” March 25) how, in President Kennedy’s day, the mostly male press ignored lecherous behavior of powerful men; that insulated presidents of both parties from public censure and political pratfalls.
Thus, the press corps’ indifference emboldened Kennedy and others to indulge in serial philandering. That all changed by the mid-1990s, when the GOP, abetted by a media feeding frenzy, pushed President Clinton to impeachment proceedings over his dalliances.
Glenda Martel, Los Angeles
To the editor: Survival of the political elite in America is more dependent than ever on the short memories of voters. It seems like only yesterday when congressional Republicans were standing on their tallest “family values” podiums screaming for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, a minor league womanizer by today’s standards.
Flash forward to today, and congressional Republicans are now led by a major league womanizer. The word “impeachment” is no longer in their dictionary and they seem poised to enshrine President Trump as “Stud of the Year.” It would be difficult to find American voters who are surprised by anything this president does or by the hypocrisy of Republican politicians who faithfully stand by their man.
A small group of courageous Florida teenagers actually pose a much greater threat to President Trump’s Republican administration. Their march on Washington is much more than a shot across the bow to political leaders. These remarkable teens, supported by millions of “Me Too” women, are on a path that could finally end politics as usual in our democracy.
Alston Jones, Boise, Idaho
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.