Unfortunately it is the press which largely defines the campaigns for president and as we all know, the American media leans sharply left so we the people are often barraged with propaganda rather than reality. As an example, a populous newspaper, USA Today, signed a Jihad against Donald Trump posting negative page one headlines day after day.
Sometimes Mr. Trump deserves the headlines but there's little balance in that paper. Now it is certainly true that most voters do not rely on the media to make decisions but some uninformed Americans are swayed by what they believe is popular opinion. So tonight I want to give everyday folks a voice commenting on the Trump campaign itself. Which has taken some hits over the Khan controversy.
We begin with Marcus Smith who lives in Hagatna, Guam. And he writes, "Mr. O, Kirsten Powers is correct, stating that you were overgenerous to Trump regarding his Muslim comments. This proves you are endorsing him."
False, Marcus, we endorsed no one. Never have. I clearly told Kirsten that context is important when launching critical arguments. And the press rarely provides context. For example, when speaking about Muslim women, Trump raised the inequality argument which is certainly valid when discussing Islam. Is it not? While that cannot be applied to Mrs. Khan herself, because we don't know her circumstance, that was a Trump mistake, we must be sensitive to Mrs. Khan. Because of a great loss. But the general point was mentioned by me to provide context.
James Love writes from Norman, Oklahoma. "So we are down to a choice between someone who does stupid things and lies about them as opposed to someone who says stupid things and tries to justify them."
It's kind of dark, James. Both candidates are human beings with all the downside that goes long with that. So the question is, for everyone, who's better to run the country?
Patrick Neuman checks in from Manchester, New Hampshire. "O'Reilly, you dropped the ball when Trump said he was viciously attacked by Mr. Khan. Hillary Clinton was also attacked by dozens of people at the RNC and didn't respond."
First, I clearly pointed out how Mrs. Clinton handled the Pat Smith broad side. Right? Didn't I do that?
Second, there is a style difference between Clinton and Trump. He confronts, she is far more measured. That will be interesting to see how it plays out in the debates. That's a key.
Carol Rollo, Pensacola, Florida. "O'Reilly, after last night's interview with Trump, I finally realize what is wrong with him, he lacks wisdom."
Not really fair, Carol. The man is new to the political game and it's under intense scrutiny. Obviously anyone in that position will make mistakes. It is how fast that Trump learns from his mistakes that will make or break his campaign.
Gina Mendoza writes, from Miramar, Florida. "The Democrats are baiting Trump hoping he'll explode. Why can't anyone in his campaign tell him that?"
Well, I'm sure they have told him that. And Trump knows it as well. He is a shrewd man. But it is discipline that defines how any candidate reacts. Discipline will be the key to this election. And Hillary Clinton is very disciplined candidate. So, summing up, the American voter is paying attention as you saw from the letters. And I believe we're all trying to vote responsibly. Not maybe not all of this but most of us. But emotion rules the race, and that's a good thing. And that's “The Memo”.