MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Anonymous Tell-Alls in The New York Times Are More of a Threat to the Republic Than Trump

The president may well be unprincipled, ignorant, and awful, but he was elected fair and square.

Nick GillespieNick GillespieThe New York Times has just taken what it calls the "rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay" by a "a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us." Why the secrecy and urgency? "We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers." The author, we're told, would lose his (her?) job if he/she went public.

Please. An identifiable, high-level person quitting on principle might actually command respect and change some minds. But venting that the president is an idiot and throwing a link to a Times piece on Bob Woodward's new anti-Trump book, Fear, is hardly a profile in courage. The anonymity of the author will only work to harden Trump loyalists and members of the so-called resistance. So much for transcending partisanship among the shrinking numbers of Americans who call themselves Democrats or Republicans (Gallup's latest numbers put self-identified independents at 43 percent of the electorate, compared to 28 percent for the GOP and 27 percent for the Democrats).

In a nutshell, the op-ed complains that Donald Trump is "amoral" and "not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making." Many in the White House, we're told, are actively working to subvert the president's agenda on certain issues, although the op-ed is weirdly filled with qualified praise, such as the claim that "many of [the administration's] policies have already made America safer and more prosperous." Still, the author argues, Trump is an idiot who is prevented from enacting all of his own policies by the unsung "adults in the room" who have created a "two-track presidency."

In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

"There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first," writes the author, wrapping in treacly clichés of patriotism the bald fact that a duly elected president is being undermined by his own staff.

Exactly the same sort of thing, albeit in softer form, could be said about any White House. There are always factions and cross-currents. How many members of George W. Bush's administration, for instance, really gave a shit about their boss' desire after re-election to enact immigration and Social Security reform? Zero. The Obama White House was riven by differences over health-care plans and foreign-policy disputes as well. Read any history of the Reagan years, and you'll find that it was amazing that anything ever got done given all the in-fighting. Bill Clinton actually had officials resign over policy differences. It's patently absurd to elevate frictions within the Trump White House to an existential threat to the Republic. In fact, it's the sort of overstatement that is worthy of, well, Donald Trump, who just doesn't do nuance.

Which isn't to say that the author's reading of the Trump White House sounds wrong, especially in light of the revelations reportedly contained in Woodward's book. Among other things, Woodward, whose credibility is hardly above reproach, says that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis dismissed Trump's command to assassinate Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and instead prepared a "more measured" response involving bombing Syria. Woodward asserts that Mattis told colleagues that "the president acted like—and had the understanding of—a 'fifth or sixth grader.'" Mattis has denied using such language or whatevering the president, saying, "This is a uniquely Washington brand of literature, and [Woodward's] anonymous sources do not lend credibility."

Neither does the Times' decision to publish an anonymous White House official.

There is no question that Trump was a uniquely unqualified candidate to run for president, and he seems to have virtually no expertise in anything other than Twitter trolling. He clearly understands nothing about trade deficits, for instance, and his policies clearly don't add up to anything particularly coherent (then again, they didn't on the campaign trail, either). He is not a traditional Republican, but since when is that an impeachable offense? The author genuflects to John McCain, a well-respected public figure but also one whose incoherent and grandiose economic, social, and foreign policy positions were hardly worth emulating, and concludes:

Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.

With all due respect: What the fuck does that even mean?

Few outlets have been more stridently #NeverTrump than The New York Times, a fair stand-in for the legacy media that have nothing but contempt for Donald Trump and sympathy for Hillary Clinton (it was her time!) and a broad Democratic agenda of more-active government. The anonymous op-ed can only be read in that light and thus discounted.

Despite the hand waving about breaking "free of the tribalism trap," this op-ed is clearly in the service of the anti-Trump resistance. The real liberation is to break free of both Trump loyalism and Trump Derangement Syndrome, which both put the president at the white-hot center of every goddamn minute of every goddamn day. As even the anonymous author of the op-ed will grant, good things have come out of the Trump White House. So have many bad things, especially on the immigration and trade fronts. That doesn't make Trump uniquely awful; it simply means he's the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

From a libertarian perspective, the best course of action is not to elevate Trump to Satan or Saturn but to acknowledge that he is a mixed bag. In this, he's perhaps more like Bill Clinton than anyone wants to admit. The major successes of the Clinton years—welfare reform, balanced budgets, capital-gains tax cuts, acknowledgment that the "era of Big Government was over"—came not out of one faction winning but out of the tension among various factions.

If there is a problem to be solved, it's not a president who, like his predecessors, refuses to cut the size, scope, and spending of government. It's Congress, which has abdicated its constitutional role of writing legislation. And it's government at all levels, which seeks to control and regulate the hell out of social and economic innovation in the name of some imaginary greater good. There are midterms afoot, so it's easy to understand why people in the dying Republican and Democratic parties are desperate to view everything through partisan lenses. But the rest of us, especially libertarians, are free of such blinders and would do well to remember that independence means, first and foremost, not making everything about politics.

Photo Credit: Nick Gillespie

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Left ± Right > Hihn||

    Gillespie is pissed and spitting hot burning fire from his keyboard. Why doesn't he write like this more often?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yeah, this reads like awesome, drunk hate fucking. Good stuff.

  • Alcibiades||

    Agree, Nick is on fire here.
    Great column.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    The Jacket has had it up to HERE with this shit.

    Awesome stuff. He should get het up more often.

  • Alcibiades||

    It's not just very well written, the analysis and commentary is right on the money.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    No no, this the actual Nick talking. The Jacket is in a state of torpor, having recently fed, and Nick has been able to reclaim some autonomy for a bit. Go Nick!

  • Fooseven||

    Nick came back to show everyone how it's done

  • Cynical Asshole||

  • JoeBlow123||

    Yeah honestly it would be nice to see more like this. Tell everyone to go fuck themselves with their retardation about everything that has been going on for about the last two years.

  • Microaggressor||

    the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people.

    This is the sentence that triggered Nick. If there's one thing he hates, it's being called a conservative.

  • TLBD||

    This is the Gillespie I know and love. This magazine was so much better when he was editor in chief.

  • newshutz||

    Still not nearly as good as when Postrel was in charge.

  • Page 7||

    Agreed. I loved this column. Spot on, well written and effective.

  • SIV||

    High level? You mean it's not Mrs. Robbie Soave down at the Department of the Interior?

  • Jerryskids||

    You know goddamn well it was Sir Humphrey Applebee.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Yes, mini.....me!

  • buybuydandavis||

    "There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first"

    They're choosing to subvert self government.

    They're betraying a public trust.

    Too many people play by those rules, and none of our institutions function.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Deep State gonna Deep State

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Wouldn't this be more shallow state since they're all apparently his own appointees?

  • Moo Cow||

    He hires the best people!!!

  • Sevo||

    "apparently"
    Of course!
    'Some say...'

  • Azathoth!!||

    Anonymously stating that your foes forces are riddled with your supporters is an old, old tactic.

    It's used to sow discord and division.

    The FNM created a series of stories that indicated that Trump wanted 'loyalty oaths' and that he demanded strict adherence to his ideas. They wrote about this for months. So long, in fact, that they began to believe it.

    They forgot that it was a narrative they created--in much the same way they forgot that they created the narrative that had Trump's evangelical supporters thinking that he was a Christian, family values candidate.

    And so they are now attacking the false narratives they built--completely unaware that no one cares and, worse for them, no one believes them.

    We all KNOW that Trump is a boorish asshole who gets things we like done occasionally because they benefit him. We're aware of his many failings.

    And we still think, with all that, that he's better than anything you have to offer

  • Rorschach||

    How do we even know this "senior official" is real? This whole "disclosure" could be a total fabrication some prankster at the NYT wrote up over lunch, and then decided to try actually publishing to see how far the hoax would get. It's not as if anybody can be sued for libel if this anonymous "senior official" proves to be about as real as that National Guard document about George W. Bush's military service that some douchebag typed up on Microsoft Word and then sent to Dan Rather from a local Kinko's back in 2004.

  • JesseAz||

    Senior official doesn't necessarily mean political appointees. Many are career bureaucrats.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Are we sure these sources are actually Trump staffers and not, you know........... no one?

  • Wise Old Fool||

    Deep state. What a bunch of made up rigamarole.

  • DarrenM||

    Well, they know the voters are all stupid and can't really be allowed any say in what gets done. However, those voters also need to be mollified by catchy slogans and superficial policies that don't actually do anything, at least until they can figure out how to get rid of those pesky obstacles to the benign rule by our betters like the Constitution and other quaint artifacts of a bygone era.

  • perlchpr||

    These people are arrogating to themselves the powers of the Office of the Presidency.

    I suspect that's quite illegal.

  • ThomasD||

    Bad law deserves to be broken.

    But this is beyond illegal. It is ultimately destructive of exactly that which they purport to protect.

    We live in a representative republic. The people elect individuals to fill certain roles in government. Those elected persons then hire assistants to carry out their directions.

    Subverting that system is not only unethical, it can be counterproductive. If you, as a hired hand, do things counter to your boss' designs, and it turns out well (per the judgement of the voters) then your boss is the one who gets the credit. Better that the wishes of the elected official be faithfully executed, so that the voters may rightly pass judgement.

  • fafalone||

    They swear to uphold the constitution and protect the United States, they don't pledge personal loyalty to the executive. If the President is unhappy with their service, he has the power to dismiss. If he's so egregiously incompetent he doesn't know his own agenda is not being executed, it's very hard to argue a patriot would carry out orders that even the presidents own cabinet think will severely harm US interests. From all enemies, foreign and domestic. There's no asterisk and footnote saying 'unless POTUS'.

  • JesseAz||

    You're aware if the constitution directing the powers of the president and not random bureaucrats right? What a dumb argument.

  • ThomasD||

    "They swear to uphold the constitution and protect the United States"

    You know for a fact the author of this piece swore such an oath?

    Because, when I worked for the Feds I sure didn't.

    And most don't.

    And, given that this person is hiding his true goals, and true actions just how the Hell could any President know he has a traitor in his midst?

    That you think it possible for the chief executive of any major organization, never mind one the size of the Federal leviathian, to be so omniscient says you truly have no idea what you are talking about.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    I know I'm old fashioned, and I know this kind of shit goes back in our republic farther than any of us really care to imagine, but I find it disgusting regardless of who is in the WH. Subversion is a rat hole. If the author (if indeed he exists) of this POS article is indeed a man of principle then let him stand up, say his name and walk out the door. But no, he'd rather be a cockroach in the woodwork.

  • SIV||

    Chugga-chugga-chugga-chugga...Woo! Woo!

    Nick's on the Trump Train.

    MAGA

  • Just Say'n||

    You must be a parody. This is epically silly

  • SIV||

    I criticize Nick a lot. I'm just complimenting him for being "fair and balanced" in this post. I'm guessing the Trump- traitor's appeal to "Free Minds and Free Markets" must have been a bit unsettling for the World's Oldest Millennial

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Citizen X hasn't been around to mock him lately. So he's unchained.

  • Left ± Right > Hihn||

  • Dan S.||

    That sounds like a bunch of yelling, with no melody. So try this.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    SIV Unchained is a story that frankly doesn't need to be told. If you know the story of Odysseus, you've heard it. Specifically, I am refering to the episode when Odyseuss' ship sailed by the Island of Sirens. Except, in this case, it wasn't a ship and it wasn't an island.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Was it this island?

  • Just Say'n||

    How bad has Reason become that Gillespie is the sensible writer

  • JesseAz||

    Soave already took Gillespie off the cocktail invite chains.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So much this.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    He's the best writer they have currently on board. If you fucking hate Reason magazine why are you even reading the articles? Why not go back over to Breitbart.

  • Fancylad||

    Postrel nostalgia, plus the fact that it still purports to be libertarian?

  • Juice||

    elected fair and square

    Irrelevant?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    It's a lie as far as the Disorganized Opposition sees it, so it bears repeating often.

  • Dan S.||

    Elected to be the President as that official's role is defined in the Constitution, not to be a fu**er who rules the country however he wants, Constitution be damned. (Just as a certain German was elected to be the Chancellor, not to be the Fu**er who ruled the country however the hell he wanted. :-)) Yes, we have processes in place that will (eventually) stop or reverse unconstitutional or illegal acts by the President, but only after destructive and distracting battles. (And only when physically possible, which wouldn't be the case with an assassination.) There's nothing wrong with gently steering the President back toward actions that he can legally take. Or even towards ones that make some kind of sense.

  • Azathoth!!||

    You...um....can't bring yourself to write 'fuhrer'?

    Or do you think you're being clever in letting the reader decide whether to put 'hr' or 'ck' there?

    And you are completely wrong in thinking that Trump has taken a single action that he wasn't legally allowed to take.

    Every executive action that has been halted by leftist courts has be completely legal--it has been the halting based on the feelings of judges that is not legal.

    But you are too partisan to ever see any of that.

  • Teddy Pump||

    100% CORRECT!

  • Teddy Pump||

    Citizens may not like Trump or even hate him, but the facts are that his predecessor was a lot more like a lawless Dick-Tator who used the Constitution like toilet paper over & over & over!

  • Juice||

    Trump Delusion Syndrome

    Is this a new thing or a fuck up?

  • Wise Old Fool||

    It's been a saying for at least a year, where the fuck have you been? It's people losing all reason when they hear the name Trump and it happens on both sides: Cons sucking him off no matter what he does and Dems freaking out and ripping out their hair in frustration after every tweet.

  • commentator||

    Read that post again. Slowly. Word by word.

    The term is Trump Derangement Syndrome. Nick already fixed the typo.

  • Restoras||

    Paging Zuri Davis, Zuri Davis - this is what you should have written.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    NBC News was jizzing all over themselves, reporting this as the lead story. I think they're helping Trump more than hurting him.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    The left in general and Dems in particular will never understand this. They get no benefit from this kind of action. Those who support Trump will strengthen in their support. Those who hate Trump will attract no new acolytes. Many in the middle will be repelled and feel compelled to "support" Trump if only to protest what this insider asshole is doing. As for me and others who didn't vote Trump in 2016 and won't vote Trump in 2020 it won't much matter. So what are we left with? A big elitist leftist circle jerk so they can all hoist a glass at their cocktail parties and congratulate themselves.

  • Sevo||

    The Po-Mo red lines are so '90s.

  • lap83||

    Or 80s even.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Well done, Gillespie. Not going to pick any nits at all; I'm too delighted there's still an adult in the room.

    Please have a patient conversation with the interns. Please.

  • perlchpr||

    And the rest of the writers too, while you're talking.

  • Sevo||

    "In a nutshell, the op-ed complains that Donald Trump is "amoral" and "not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.""

    Say what you will about the National Socialists....
    Or for that matter the Clintons: Makes them money? We're on it! Rent that Lincoln bedroom! Sell that political access! Fence that WH furniture!
    It's a shame we don't have someone with 'principles' in the WH.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    I know! We do now! That's for sure.

  • VinniUSMC||

    You really need to up your game.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Anonymous Tell-Alls in The New York Times Are More a Threat To the Republic than Trump"

    The threat of Donald Trump justifies . . . everything. Because it isn't just about Donald Trump. It's also about the white, blue collar, deplorable Americans who support him.

    They need to be hated, and they have to be stopped. And they have to stop thinking that the elitists who run our government should care about them and what they care about.

    That's what this is about.

  • DrMom||

    Well said - so tp the many educated middle and upper middle class women who support him must be hated - or ignored

  • ThomasD||

    Agreed, this was not about any sort of breakout. This was hardening of the lines.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Wait a sec...have I been misled? I thought libertarians were just especially bitchy conservatives like me? Have I been wrong all these years?

  • JesseAz||

    You've been wrong since you chose the wrong number of chromosomes.

  • Brian||

    We don't accept undesirable political outcomes with the same quiet dignity and contentment that the left does.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Yeah, I know. Like when I get into a fight with a Leftist and fucking pwn his ass by saying that Nazis were socialists because they had the word Socialist in their name. Talk about taking ownership.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Needs more MAGA.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    MAGA!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You really need to pay attention to OBL more. He's got more innate talent, but I know you're trying. Your participation trophy says so! But how are we going to get back to the sensible policies of mandatory health insurance and living wages when you can't even handle the basics?

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    I don't understand what you're getting at. I'm just trying to manually fellate Trump like the rest of you guys. Am I doing it wrong?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    *sigh* Look at least throw in a Hitler or NAZI reference. At this rate you'll have to settle for Yale instead of Harvard unless that 23AndMe comes through with the dark horse giant aboriginal pygmy on your pop-pop's side. Surely you can do some ASCII art white supremacy sign. If you need help, just ask the Mexican Jew mastermind behind the Kavanaugh fraud.

    You're making Rev. Kirkland cry. How can you be so heartless?

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Ok, i'll Try it out. Obama was just like Hitler and his attempts to confiscate guns were just like the first thing Nazis, who were really commies, did. Republicans are the only thing standing between us and communistic totalitarianism in the form of mandated health insurance and crypto-fascist EPA regulation. Better?

  • Brian||

    One thing that might help is if you could project earnestly.

    OBL sounds like an overly-sincere progressive who takes himself too seriously to realize how silly he sounds, even though that's the point of the gag. It comes off almost genuine. It often claims a victim of Poe's law.

    You're just shrieking hysterical projections over and over again. You couldn't pass a Touring test.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    I think we're not communicating well, Brian. I'm here to shriek my love for Donald Trump, of course. What are you getting at?

  • Oli||

    Yea, sorry to say this, but you're not a good parody account. Maybe try drawing instead?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No, no. See you're not supposed to *say* Hitler, you're supposed to give the secret Qanon code to show that you're part of the white supremacy. Now I'm afraid you're going to have to settle for your victim's studies degree online, and how will you be able to save the turtles then?

  • Azathoth!!||

    OBL is humorous because his posts sound so earnest.

    You can't do that. You don't really understand the position you're trying to lampoon. You come across as a leftist trying to sound like what leftists believe people on the right think.

    It's sad....

  • ThomasD||

    OBL is much better, but in defense of LTAL, OBL has it easier. We all live in a society where the left practically owns the popular culture, so it is much easier to know and understand their thought patterns. Whereas getting a true and accurate picture of the right (not the caricature LTAL so often falls into) takes real effort.

    What is most surprising is, given all that, the so 'open minded' left still cannot effectively satirize itself.

    But religions are like that.

  • MasterThief||

    I'd actually like to see a right-wing parody on par with OBL here. I'd guess that whoever OBL is that he is at least vaguely right leaning but exposed to all the same leftist bs that we all are. LTAL comes across as a leftist's twisted view of the right and for that reason can't forward a viewpoint that anyone besides the indoctrinated left would be fooled by. If LTAL wanted to become believable, then mimicking John or lc1789 would be the way to go. I'd view both of them as Republicans with a strong libertarian streak and do think they do more Trump cheerleading than necessary

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    It's kind of like the tiresome dialogue Aaron Sorkij writes for conservative characters. He just doesn't understand who he's writing about.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Yes. Next stupid question.

  • Left ± Right > Hihn||

    If the flesh between a woman's asshole and vagina is removed, does she constantly have an UTI? Does she shit out her vagina? Can she have kids?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    This is a real medical condition that happens.

  • Left ± Right > Hihn||

    Yeah, but I don't want that on my search history, so spill the beans.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    You got a potential Bingwhacking situation there. BUCS, what sayest thou?

  • perlchpr||

    Yes. It's called a "fistula". It does indeed lead to fecal matter in the vagina, and not merely urinary tract infections, but all sorts of fairly horrible systemic issues. Pregnancy and birth are still possible, though of course the potential for complications is significantly increased from the added stresses of infections in the relevant organs.

    It's not really a "stupid" question, I don't think, but it is pretty non sequitur for this article.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Is there some kind of prosthesis available to correct the problem?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Obama was not amoral? Bush 43 was not amoral? Hell, Clintons, both of them, have shown for decades how seldom the little people's morality applies to them.

    #StillWIthHim
    #InternsToo
    $ChildrenToo

    And how many books did Mr Prima Donna Woodward write about all those clowns?

    Yeah, his opinion really matters to me.

  • gclancy51||

    He wrote lots of books on all presidents dating back to Nixon in fact. Perhaps you can check him out before you look like you don't know what you're talking about?

  • JesseAz||

    Did you see the wapo call from Woodward? Woodward seemed less than half interested in actually interviewing trump, not even attempting to schedule a sit down through official means. Woodward sat down with other presidents.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Woodward asked several administration officials for an interview with the president. The Trump White House refrained from arranging an interview, then lied about it.

    Yahoos blame Woodward.

  • JesseAz||

    Kirkland, I know you're fucking dumb... But you don't ask random officials for a sit down. He has a damn secretary.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    He asked at least two people in the White House communications office, you bigoted, statist rube.

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|9.5.18 @ 10:40PM|#
    "He asked at least two people in the White House communications office, you bigoted, statist rube."

    Oh! Oh! TWO PEOPLE you miserable asshole.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Pres. Trump also acknowledged that Sen. Graham had conveyed the interview request directly to Pres. Trump.

    Trump's handlers blocked a Woodward interview much as they are blocking a Mueller interview.

    They're just trying to protect the lying, boorish, vainglorious, bigoted bastard from himself.

  • JesseAz||

    And not once his actual secretary who schedule his appointments dumbass. Woodward admits this in the phone call.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Why is Bob Woodward owed a goddamn thing? Arty, just because you jerk yourself off to the progtard pablum he pukes in your mouth doesn't make him special. Presidents deny interviews all the time. Could be scheduling, travel, or maybe he just doesn't like Woodward.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    You seem to have some knowledge of them. How deep did he dig? Does he, for instance, mention Obama's friendship with that pastor? Or say much bad about Obama's wars and meddling?

    I frankly doubt it, but then, I didn't know he'd written books about other President's, so maybe there's something more useful in them than the crap which appears to be in this book.

  • JesseAz||

    He acts put as much blame for the discord post ACA on Obama as he did Republicans. He dared bringing up the fact that Obama shut out the GOP from both ACA and stimulus discussions when rahm telling them to fuck off and Obama telling them he had the votes so didn't care.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Well well well. Maybe I need to do some reading.

    Thanks.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I think W. Is a fairly moral man. Unfortunately he has a number of varyingly bad ideas that lead to some bad decisions. The consequences of which were awful.

  • Rockabilly||

    #NeverFuckingHillaryTheFuckingBitch!!!

  • Just Say'n||

    It's over. Let it go. She will never be president

  • ||

    Tough talk given it's her turn in 2020.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I wonder if they will still make an effort to install Chelsea in acongressional seat somewhere. I still hear rumors, and I'm sure there are several districts in in NY where they are dumb enough to vote for her.

  • Rockabilly||

    I must keep on saying that until her last breathe

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The president may well be unprincipled, ignorant, and awful, but he was, well, elected fair and square.

    *ahem*

  • Left ± Right > Hihn||

    u fkd dat lnk doe

  • KPapazyan47||

    My biggest issue, besides the multiple valid points brought up here, is the anonymity.
    They should've let people know who they are and what their position is in the administration.
    Are they some low-level secretary or assistant, or are they closer to the Cabinet in the hierarchy?
    How much power and access do they have, and through this, how seriously should they be taken?

    Additionally, if they are truthful in what is said in the piece, why not resign and then publicly air what they know?
    It seems likely that would have much greater value and be more of a stand on principle than some nameless Op-Ed.
    You'd think if someone had such strong views they would be willing to stand by them.
    Other info makes it seem unlikely they are lying, but it is almost cowardly in a way.

  • Eddy||

    "They should've let people know who they are and what their position is in the administration."

    Like Vigano.

  • KPapazyan47||

    Sorry to say I don't understand the reference.

    And I didn't say it because I don't believe them.
    I do, I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I do for the most part
    My point was only that it would've been more powerful for them to put their name on it.

  • perlchpr||

    Carlo Vigano is a big name Catholic Archibishop who publicly called out Pope Frankie for sitting on his mass kiddie diddling problem.

    I believe Eddy is suggesting that Vigano is an example to be followed.

  • Eddy||

    If he's telling the truth.

  • Just Say'n||

    Well your criticism of Vigano puts you in agreement with the NYT.

  • Eddy||

    I'm not criticizing him.

  • Eddy||

    (see below)

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    The author probably wants to remain anonymous because they work at the New York Times.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    People who rely on their gullibility and ignorance rather than on the reputations and records of The New York Times and Bob Woodward deserve what they get.

    Which is the disdain of their betters and the backhand of the market.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Nothing says integrity like Walter Duranty and Jayson Blair.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Some losers cling to the imperfections of their betters to fuel delusions of adequacy.

  • Sevo||

    "Some losers cling to the imperfections of their betters to fuel delusions of adequacy."

    We've noticed you do, asshole.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Arty, when you make such ridiculous statements I begin to wonder if you too are a parody account.

  • kevrob||

    If that person followed that course, he or she would be doomed to seek to do honest work the rest of their days. Power junkies contemplating being cut off from political jobs for telling the truth would be reticent to give up anonymity.

  • Aloysious||

    With all due respect: What the fuck does that even mean?

    It means Sen. John Fuckface McCain is still a fuckhead.

  • Left ± Right > Hihn||

    Hey, I have met many, many honorable Fuckfaces in my life. I will not let you drag that family's name through the mud by associating them with John McCain!

  • Aloysious||

    I apologize to all the Fuckfaces that my insensitive microaggression othered. Fuck you from the bottom of my cold, black heart.

    Hey, Red Tony. Since you are turning your name into a Hihnquation, how about something like Hihnocrat - Hihnpublican = Hihnero.

  • newshutz||

    Is Hihnero the guy that fiddled while climate change burned Chicago?

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    If there's anything that gets me more hot under the collar than thinking about KKKlinton it's knowing that the NYTimes is publishing a story obtained from one of the President's trusted officials. We need to do something about those libel laws and even the 1st Amendment, which is being abused. Not the 2nd though... it's fantastic as we all know

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Meh........still need improvement.

  • Alcibiades||

    What brave partisan hacks those NYT reporters are.

  • Fooseven||

    Honestly, they seem to expect the benefit of the doubt when they have almost no credibility anymore. The whole thing could just be fan fiction from any one of their editors. At least the tabloids make up shit that's entertaining. "Beyonce assistant tells all - she only bathes in coors light!"

  • Eddy||

    "Well," Beyonce said in rejoinder, "at least I don't *drink* the stuff, that would be weird."

  • Echospinner||

    One more reason why I would vote for her if she was in politics.

  • Eddy||

    To be fair, I made that up. I have to be careful about this stuff.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Amd she does have nice tits.

  • Eddy||

    An article in Foreign Affairs (by a Guardian writer) explains the "culture wars" behind the latest Catholic Church controversy:

    "Viganò's letter...(i)n terms of U.S. politics...pits the right-wing firebrand Steve Bannon against the Democratic upstart Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It is a battle for the soul of the Catholic Church in the United States, between the conservative culture warriors in one camp and the pastoralists in the other. It has potentially global implications about the way in which the leadership of the church and the way it tackles migration, the environment, sexuality, and capitalism. The hammering of the right-wing Catholic media on this scandal is reminiscent of the way the Fox News axis worked on the Benghazi attack and its aftermath, Hillary Clinton's emails, and Whitewater in the past....

    "(Francis) is pragmatic about sexuality, like his flock. He has a visceral, Argentine distrust of U.S. capitalism and a passion for the environment: His big encyclical on that subject, Laudato Sí, is far to the left of acceptable opinion in Washington. He obviously loathes Donald Trump and everything he represents.

    "Against this is a well-financed network of Catholic conservatives with their own television stations, websites, and think tanks."

  • Eddy||

    Technically, I still don't know if Vigano is telling the truth, but I know that if he's not, the Pope would have the documents and the testimony to prove him wrong, but has kept quiet. We also know that the pope can put Vigano on trial for defaming him, but doesn't seem to have ordered such a trial (is he afraid that it will end up like the trial of Zola?).

  • Eddy||

    I also know that Mark ("Deep Throat") Felt was a crook with potential careerist motives, but that didn't mean he was wrong about Watergate.

  • DiegoF||

    If Viganò is revealed to have been lying out of some ideological agenda, he will have made an enormous muddle out of everything to put it mildly. No one will have credibility in the Church anymore; there will be no good guys to believe or have faith in for anyone of any persuasion. He'll have done only great damage, and made future reform efforts that much harder. He'll probably be remembered as one of the worst villains of this critical moment in history.

  • Eddy||

    There's a paradox because for someone to know anything interesting about Vatican shenanigans, they have to be a highly-placed official, which generally means being corrupt or careerist.

    If he's telling the truth, he wouldn't necessarily be a "good guy" any more than Felt, an intriguer who was convicted (though later pardoned) for civil-liberties violations. He'd be a guy who knew what lines of inquiry, if the media pursued them, would be fruitful.

    Of course, the key phrase is "if the media pursued them."

  • DiegoF||

    This fool author is a dinosaur. He'll find himself increasingly isolated in terms of anyone having much of an interest in defending Francis. If anything else comes out, the Left will drop him like yesterday's garbage and swear they barely even heard of the guy.

    Even before this latest spate of news, as I'd mentioned, the world had changed a lot since Francis took office. Religion, and the Catholic Church in particular, has continued to hemorrhage support--and even further remnants of its influence, in those countries where people had long stopped going to Mass anyway--outside Africa. The Left no longer feels it has much use for the Pope's moral authority anymore, and has come to the point where it is far less patient in indulging the Pope's policy of official mealymouthedness as constituting "progress" for the Church in areas like gays and women. It won't cut it anymore; expectations are higher. Why do they need an old guy in a funny hat leading a declining religion with a genuine rape-culture problem that still is not gay or women friendly to denounce national borders or global warming, when all sorts of far less problematic and more respected people do? "Pragmatic"? Please; have you heard his position on gender transitions for toddlers?

  • DiegoF||

    ...Plus what remains of observant Catholics have had the antiestablishmentarian culture that Traditionalism has nurtured over the past half century seep into their mainstream. And the secular world is nurturing a new brand of cultural conservatism that is not centered around religious piety at all.

    In short: Precious few people are interested in coming to the Pope's defense anymore.

  • Eddy||

    The New York Times and Reuters had stories in the "beleaguered progressive pope vs. right-wing troglodytes" vein.

    Of course, people are reacting to the Times and Reuters the way you describe with the Church and religion.

  • Just Say'n||

    The Church's future is in Africa and Asia, rather than in Europe. Any person who takes the faith seriously should be pleased by that.

  • Eddy||

    This is not a hopeful sign, then.

    "India cardinal says bishops of Asia are behind Pope Francis '100 percent...

    "Cardinal Oswald Gracias (Bishop of Bombay), the president of both the Catholic Bishops' Conference of India and the Federation of Asian Bishops' Conferences, told Crux "the Church in Asia is solidly behind the Holy Father."...

    ""I know Archbishop Viganò personally, and His Excellency has been effective and respected in both the Curia and Washington. I am surprised at his approach of going public," Gracias told Crux.

    ""I am very disappointed, this is not the way, and not the approach, it has not helped. There are many holes in [Viganò's] testimony, and there has been a clever play with words: Words are ambiguously used," the Indian cardinal said....

    ""I am most certain, the Holy Father has drawn his own conclusions about this dossier and we are glad that the Vicar of Christ has chosen not to respond," said Gracias."

  • Eddy||

    This doesn't really speak well for Card. Gracias' commitment to transparency - and he claims other Asian bishops are behind him, though of course there aren't quotes in the article from other Asian bishops.

  • Eddy||

    It sounds like a Mafia boss angry that a colleague has violated the code of "omerta."

  • Just Say'n||

    Yes. The bureaucratic tone taken by bishops is disturbing. Protecting the hierarchy before the faithful

  • DiegoF||

    Absolutely. They had better get used to coming to terms with it. It's an Africo-Asian religion with historical roots in Europe. That is its future. Get used to it.

    They should have made Arinze pope in the first place when they had the chance. He is a hardass intellectual like Ratzinger, but at the same time cute and cuddly like JP2 or the Dalai Lama, perfect for the current age. I don't know anyone who didn't want him. Now everyone is gaga over Sarah, who of course unfortunately is not very cuddly.

    Meanwhile hopefully His Holiness will resist the urge to fuck over the millions of loyal Chinese who have sacrificed so much. The PRC has so little respect for him and his resolve and negotiating position that they are shamelessly and openly further entrenching the Patriotic Catholics as a party puppet organ. I have seldom seen anything like it in all of modern statecraft. Normally you would expect at least a token gesture of easing up while you negotiate, if only to let your adversary preserve a little dignity.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yes. The Church should not compromise on the underground Chinese Catholic. Of course the Chinese were disingenuous in negotiations

  • Kivlor||

    Absolutely. They had better get used to coming to terms with it. It's an Africo-Asian religion with historical roots in Europe. That is its future. Get used to it.

    A look at the demographics trends in the aggregate does not bear this out. The atheists aren't having kids, and they aren't really winning converts from traditionalist families. In another generation a new population of the faithful will emerge, as they actually have children, and their children are holding on to the faith.

  • Brian||

    'In a nutshell, the op-ed complains that Donald Trump is "amoral" and "not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making."'

    What's wrong with utilitarianism?

  • DiegoF||

    In a nutshell, the op-ed complains that Donald Trump is "amoral" and "not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making."

    Shame on the Islamophobic New York Times!

  • Eddy||

    Ooh, I missed that, it's like dog-whistles and white-supremacist gang signs, only apparent to those with the genius to connect the dots. /sarc

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Well who dropped a nickel in Gillespie's slot tonight? I don't know if I care for his blatant normalization of pure evil, but it might be the open acknowledgement of bias at the Times that sticks most in my craw.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    This is pretty obviously a fake, probably written by someone in the NYT. It's not like the left has an aversion to lying.

    The author claims that they want to push forward the president's agenda. So why are they publishing something like this right before an election? Handing the House over to the Dems is not going to help the president's agenda.

  • Tony||

    The fish rots from the Trump, it seems.

  • Left ± Right > Hihn||

    ...was that a logical thought at some point, Past Me?

  • Tony||

    I'm on an aquatic theme this thread.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    He said the problem is top-down.

  • SimonP||

    It's about Pence, dummy.

  • Tony||

    Right before an election extends to at least 297 days into a year now, so it's hard to avoid.

  • Rockabilly||

    FUCK the Times those fucking war fucking mongers had that series on Saddam's WMD.

    Gave fucking Bush a nod to invade.

    No Fucking WMDs

    Fuck you Times ass hat ass holes fuck you may you fucking rot you pieces of fucking shit.

    Your fucking paper also celebrated ANTIFA.

    Your paper is printed in BLOOD

    Fuck you and all your fucking readers who believe your fucking lies!!!!

  • Left ± Right > Hihn||

    James Hetfield, is that you?

  • Rockabilly||

    I have no idea who he is.

    I'm Rockabilly and I'm fucking angry, so angry I aint gonna take it anymore.

    Fuck the New York fucking Times!!!

  • Tony||

    Trump's a mixed bag like a box jellyfish is a mixed bag. I bet it doesn't want to raise your taxes either!

  • Just Say'n||

    Swedish Fish are so much better

  • damikesc||

    Or, as the Swedish call them, just fish.

  • PTSD||

    I'm surprised so many people were fans of this. I like Nick and think the article is fine, but the breathless title is ridiculous. There is absolutely no threat to the republic by anybody who speaks out about his/her boss, especially when that boss is the president of the United States. More information, even anonymous information, is always better than less information. Does Nick honestly think that all of the information flowing around Washington should be accounted for and used only if it can be properly cited? That's idiotic. This kind of anonymous information peddling has been going on for hundreds of years, and it's very useful.

    I was actually reassured that there are people like Anonymous in the administration. I've always had the feeling that guys like Kelly and McMuffin took their positions solely to make sure the train didn't go too far off the rails, and they secretly hate Trump's guts. And the "elected fair and square" card is bullshit. Just like everything else in life, I'd trust 100 Americans who have pledged to uphold the constitution over any one of my elected officials. It's kind of like the relationship between noncommissioned officers and the officer corps in the military. Most of the time in combat, NCOs are running interference on their officers -- dragging their feet on bad decisions, etc. -- just to make sure their people don't pay too high a price for their officer's ineptitude. Is it wrong? Maybe. But it's the right kind of wrong.

  • Sevo||

    PTSD|9.5.18 @ 8:49PM|#
    "...More information, even anonymous information, is always better than less information. Does Nick honestly think that all of the information flowing around Washington should be accounted for and used only if it can be properly cited?"

    It help establishing it as "information" instead of made-up bullshit; do you think more made-up bullshit helps?
    Absent some sort of cite, this has equal possibilities of being either one, so, absent a cite, it can be safely ignored as presumptive made-up bullshit.
    But, hey, it's the NYT, so made-up bullshit is the order of the day!

  • PTSD||

    As Nick points out, this is almost certainly not made up bullshit. In fact, there is nobody -- really, nobody -- who is claiming that the picture presented both in that Op-Ed piece and the Woodward book is totally off the mark. People might quibble about whether Trump is a "moron" or a "fucktard" or a "urine bather," but there is almost universal consensus that he is one (or all) of these things. And let's be clear: by consensus, I mean by the people *in his own cabinet,* not among randoms on the street. The only people who do not have this opinion of him are those who 1) are his family members, 2) don't know him or 3) don't work with him (i.e., the people on boards like this). Everybody else who has had even a fleeting acquaintance with the man has said that he's pretty much a stupid douchebag. So, there appears to be no misinformation here, at least in the broad sense.

    Now, there's nothing wrong with being a stupid douchebag. But when you're somebody's boss, and you're a stupid douchebag, you don't get a pass. People will talk. That's what's going on here.

  • Sevo||

    PTSD|9.5.18 @ 10:18PM|#
    "As Nick points out, this is almost certainly not made up bullshit."

    As I point out, Nick's assertion is irrelevant, and you are an imbecilic douchebag.
    Seek help:
    "Treating the Six Known Symptoms of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome'"
    https://drrichswier.com/2017/01/29/treating-the-
    six-symptoms-of-trump-derangement-syndrome/

    And fuck off.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    there is almost universal consensus that he is one (or all) of these things. And let's be clear: by consensus, I mean by the people *in his own cabinet,* not among randoms on the street. The only people who do not have this opinion of him are those who 1) are his family members, 2) don't know him or 3) don't work with him (i.e., the people on boards like this). Everybody else who has had even a fleeting acquaintance with the man has said that he's pretty much a stupid douchebag.

    You're speaking in some serious absolutes, and claiming some pretty juicy inside knowledge here.

    Which cabinet members have stated that he is one of those things? With more evidence than "geriatric coasting on fame from the early 70s says so."

    How extensively have you interviewed or researched the opinions of "everybody else who has had a fleeting acquaintance" with Trump to justify that statement?

  • SimonP||

    Trump supporters, being tribalists, don't understand the idea of being committed to ideals that transcend the tribe. Not even so-called libertarians here can really be counted on to be much in favor of cherished ideals like "free speech," once it's turned against Trump - as Nick so helpfully demonstrates.

    Personally, what I find interesting about the op-ed is that it may be a way of signaling that a 25th Amendment solution is in the offing. Think about what Republican leadership in Congress is doing. They've convinced Trump to hold off on firing Sessions, Rosenstein, and Mueller until after the election. Meanwhile his inner sanctum is flashing red lights that things are not normal, and Pence is acting more presidential all the time, the counterpoint to Trump's incoherent ramblings.

    Trump's being led into a trap of his own making. After the election, if GOP hold Congress, Trump will fire the DOJ team and his cabinet will have cause to remove him. The GOP in Congress will approve, and spend the next two years with Pence promoting the GOP agenda. Pence auditions for 2020 and we're off to the races.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "Not even so-called libertarians here can really be counted on to be much in favor of cherished ideals like "free speech," once it's turned against Trump - as Nick so helpfully demonstrates."

    MOST COMMENTATORS HERE ARE NOT TRUMP FANS BY ANY MEANS. I do not know which windmill you are attacking here champ, but I suggest not inventing fake narratives to knock down.

  • SimonP||

    Believe what you like, buddy. This place is teeming with Trump supporters.

  • Sevo||

    SimonP|9.6.18 @ 12:08AM|#
    "Believe what you like, buddy. This place is teeming with Trump supporters."

    Yes, I really support Gorsuch, DeVose, tax cuts, regulation reduction, so that makes me a "Trump supporter" to imbecilic TDS losers like you.
    Fuck off, scumbag.

  • JesseAz||

    Simon thinks anyone who doesnt believe trump is Satan himself is a supporter.

  • Sevo||

    SimonP|9.5.18 @ 9:42PM|#
    "Trump supporters, being tribalists, don't understand the idea of being committed to ideals that transcend the tribe. Not even so-called libertarians here can really be counted on to be much in favor of cherished ideals like "free speech," once it's turned against Trump - as Nick so helpfully demonstrates."

    Imbecilic lefty losers assume some random, brain-dead assertion is equal to an argument.
    Simon? Stuff it up your ass; you are not bright enough to write a cook-book.

  • SimonP||

    I'll cop to making a bare assertion, rather than an argument.

    Is that all?

  • Sevo||

    SimonP|9.6.18 @ 12:09AM|#
    "I'll cop to making a bare assertion, rather than an argument.
    Is that all?"

    Yes, it means you are an imbecilic lefty posting assertions.
    Is that all?

  • JoeBlow123||

    "More information, even anonymous information, is always better than less information."

    Baloney. A lot of "information" is just pure propaganda or perhaps ourtright lies (like that dossier on Trump) and when it is disguised as unbiased reporting or truth it tars the waters of conversation in the Republic. Reporters have a job to speak truth and only report verifiable information and by regularly publishing stupendously wrong information cited to anonymous sources is along the same vein as the Jacobin bullshit artists like Marat inciting the general public to violence by crafting elaborate horeseshit propaganda.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Reporters have a job to speak truth and only report verifiable information

    Ah, I see the source of your confusion. These people are not reporters, they work for the New York Times.

  • Echospinner||

    "dragging their feet on bad decisions, etc. -- just to make sure their people don't pay too high a price for their officer's ineptitude. Is it wrong? "

    Happens all the time and not just in the military. Who hasn't been in a situation where the boss orders something stupid and the staff just works around it or stalls and it never gets done? Or even covered for the boss to keep things going.

    What is different is with these leaks this is now an internal revolt. I have been there a few times as well in work situations. Hard to predict what will happen.

  • Horny Lizard||

    What does Nick expect of the newspaper here? Suppress the story? What are you afraid of Nick? Why does knowing that Trump is so disliked and distrusted by the people he hires so threatening to you? It's good that we have such insights into these dens of power. The Republicans control every branch of govt and most state govts and we should hold them to account as best as we can.

  • ShotgunJimbo||

    "The Republicans control every branch of govt and most state govts and we should hold them to account as best as we can."

    Very much this.

    It continually cracks me up the stories I see from the lemmings that "Obama had a government machine behind him, power-overwhelming and unchecked" and "Trump is going Rambo-style against the evil govt machine who are all evil bad lefty dems"...Obama got reality checked HARD by an elected republican govt for 6 years (honestly, many of those check were for the best)

    Trump is in power right now with majorities in every branch, soon the judiciary too. And he didn't accomplish a fraction of what he promised. He is surrounded by yes-men and his congress filled with guys like Nunez who meets with his people in the white house and then releases "new info def not from the white house".

    Please spare me the sob stories of "the bad bad deep state libs are holding him back"...get fucking real. He has an army of spineless R's in congress, in the majortiy, at his back.

    He is showing us on the national stage why most of his businesses failed, and why he turned a fortune of an inheritance into less money (in today's dollars). He is a bad leader, a bad "deal-maker", and proving daily that he is a joke. We are just seeing more and more that the actual intelligent people around him (including military generals) think he is a child on a tantrum, and out of his depth.

  • Just Say'n||

    Doesn't the fact that he has unified government and has accomplished nearly nothing, as you state, suggest that there already is a check on his authority.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "Please spare me the sob stories of "the bad bad deep state libs are holding him back"...get fucking real. He has an army of spineless R's in congress, in the majortiy, at his back."

    Maybe you missed the part in the article that rightly calls out Congress for neglecting their role to actually legislate and lead the Republic. Then again you probably did not even read the article so what does it matter.

    Most people here are not Trump fans from what I can tell despite a myriad of different outlook. That does not, however, mean we are too dense to recognize thinly disguised propaganda for what it is and to call it out when we see it.

  • JesseAz||

    So you're too fucking stupid to understand the fear of an unelected bureaucracy? That's the whole point. The elected head is being undermined by those who are not elected.

  • Echospinner||

    Don't you think it is the responsibility of the leader? These are all people appointed by the president. If they are doing all this stuff it reflects on his ability to manage and select his own staff.

    I think PTSD made a good point about officers and NCOs in the military. Sometimes the NCO just takes over if the officer is incompetent and the squad makes it through. Not exactly right or wrong. Difficult to judge for me and we see everything the unreliable lens of the media.

  • JesseAz||

    Senior administration official does not mean political appointee.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    What does Nick expect of the newspaper here? Suppress the story?

    Suppress what story? It's an opinion piece, not a news story. It's not even CLAIMED to be a news story, which is why they published it as an op-ed.

    And do you seriously believe that the NYT would have published a disgruntled Obama administration official's "anonymous op-ed" right before a midterm election?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    It is an opinion article that constitutes news.

  • Eddy||

    So anyway, what's all this talk of a Deep State? Sounds like a paranoid fantasy to me! /sarc

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    In this case it's the Shallow State. Trump's own hires.

  • Azathoth!!||

    As far as anyone knows, Jeff, someone at the Times made up the whole thing.

    There's absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

  • Tony||

    Bitching about anonymity, please. The person thinks he's standing between Trump and the end of the world, so he probably thinks it's a good idea to stay in his job. "Be noble and resign." Also, please. How brave telling other people to be noble. Lots of us work for assholes but we still need a job.

    The big cynics here are the ones who would dump Trump like the albatross he is the moment he stopped serving as a pulse-bearing stenographer for the evil Republican agenda. Anonymous has more of a claim to nobility than any Republican in Congress (who's not retiring or dead).

  • Sevo||

    "The person thinks he's standing between Trump and the end of the world, so he probably thinks it's a good idea to stay in his job"

    You assume facts not in evidence.

  • Tony||

    Not as often as you.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, for pete's sake.....

  • Tony||

    Is the swearing necessary Sevo?

  • Sevo||

    Oh, for pete's sake.

  • JesseAz||

    Oswald thought he was righteous as well fucktard.

  • SIV||

    I'm just glad he missed Ted Walker. Not sure how he did at only 30m. Maybe the Carcano was not sighted in or maybe he really was a patsy.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    You seem to be forgetting that this person claims to be working to advance the Republican agenda. As a leftist you should want him to resign, shouldn't you?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Nick Gillespie's daft, impractical observations remind everyone why disaffected malcontents are relegated to the irrelevant, inconsequential fringe.

  • Left ± Right > Hihn||

    You really don't own a mirror.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Or read Hemingway.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    My preferences have animated American progress throughout my lifetime.

    The preferences of the Nick Gillespies and Donald Trumps have been roadkill along the liberal-libertarian alliance's path of improvement.

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|9.5.18 @ 10:47PM|#
    "My preferences have animated American progress throughout my lifetime."
    You're full of shit.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    And you are free to regard American progress as shitty, you bigoted rube.

  • posmoo||

    wow, you're really proud your chick with dick fetish went mainstream and is now celebrated on such intellectual heavyweights as buzzfeed.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    You go, MR. President

    Donald J. Trump

    @realDonaldTrump
    TREASON?
    3:15 PM - Sep 5

    Great President or Greatest President?

  • DrMom||

    This is the first time I have registered on any website to post a comment, but when I read this piece, I had to respond. You clearly stated what I was thinking. Please, please submit this to the increasingly impotent and banal NYT. The editorial staff should gladly print your piece - if only to have some credibility and interest added to the page.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Ok, seriously, the last sentence... it's the funniest thing i've Ever read here. Thank you and welcome fellow Trump traveller! You're in the right place.

  • Tony||

    I made it to the bottom of this bitch fest and it's nothing but whataboutism?

    The op-ed piece could be fairly described as a lament that the president isn't acting like a libertarian. Given that libertarians will never have any real power, what more could you possibly want than people working at high levels in the White House to push a president in a libertarian direction--and to prevent his worst authoritarian impulses?

    Why are people praising this piece? Because they think the failing NYT should slobber all over Trump's cock in the name of a free press and libertarian principle?

  • ShotgunJimbo||

    The majority of the comments here aren't from libertarians. They are from your garden-variety angry trump lemmings.

    We have Fox news on all day at work and most of what I see here is the standard talking points. "...but none of x, y, or z, bother me that much...its the anonymity!" has basically been said all day by the trump surrogate pundits all day on TV. They are just marching like good lemmings.

  • SimonP||

    Yeah, it's the cowardice! This person should come out and endure all the death threats that Trump nation would lob at him/her, if they want to criticize Trump!

  • Sevo||

    SimonP|9.5.18 @ 9:33PM|#
    "Yeah, it's the cowardice! This person should come out and endure all the death threats that Trump nation would lob at him/her, if they want to criticize Trump!"

    Where did he touch you, Simon?
    I mean that's a pretty serious case of whining.
    Let's be honest here; you're full of shit.

  • ShotgunJimbo||

    get this puss the fuck out of here. The cliff is that way lemming, just keep walking toward it. No need to change course, just keep following the others

  • Sevo||

    ShotgunJimbo|9.5.18 @ 11:29PM|#
    "get this puss the fuck out of here. The cliff is that way lemming, just keep walking toward it. No need to change course, just keep following the others"

    You should post while you're still capable of upright motion. Stuff like this just proves your alcoholism is out of control.
    Oh, and fuck off.

  • JoeBlow123||

    It is a good think we have our fearless ShotgunJimbo to attack our windmills for us then since us mindless lemmings spoon fed on Fox News are too dumb to do it.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    God Tony! Libertarian principle *is* to slobber all over Trump's cock. Geesch, you're dumb.

  • Tony||

    Close your eyes and think of Mama Russia.

  • Sevo||

    Don't say I never helped you; here's a way to save a lot of money:
    https://www.amazon.com/Archie-McPhee-Tin-Foil-
    Humans/dp/B07CXZBRW5/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8
    &qid=1536200236&sr=8-2&keywords=tin+foil+hats

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    For fuck's sake, Sevo. Not again. If you study html really hard, someday you may reach the legendary link posting skills of SugarFree.

  • Sevo||

    Chipper Morning Baculum|9.5.18 @ 10:52PM|#
    "For fuck's sake, Sevo. Not again. If you study html really hard, someday you may reach the legendary link posting skills of SugarFree."

    Stuff it up your ass.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    It won't fit, the url is too long.

  • Sevo||

    No, you are too stooopid to figure it out.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|9.5.18 @ 9:22PM|#
    "I made it to the bottom of this bitch fest and it's nothing but whataboutism?"

    You need to learn to read if that's what you drew out of the comments.
    Let's make it clear:
    Even if it was true, the same charges seem applicable to most of the recent occupants of that office, so it fails as "news" except to those with TDS.
    And then, there isn't a shred of evidence it is true.
    So you fail twice; learn to read.

  • Tony||

    Yes, there isn't a shred of evidence for the ridiculous claim that every recent president is on the same level of crazy as Trump.

  • Sevo||

    "Yes, there isn't a shred of evidence for the ridiculous claim that every recent president is on the same level of crazy as Trump."

    There isn't a shred of evidence that Trump is crazy; just plenty of evidence that shitbags like you hate the guy. Seek help:
    "Treating the Six Known Symptoms of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome'"
    https://drrichswier.com/2017/01/29/treating-the
    -six-symptoms-of-trump-derangement-syndrome/

  • Tony||

    I'm a good liberal. I don't hate him. I want top-notch taxpayer-funded medical attention for him.

  • Sevo||

    "I'm a good liberal. I don't hate him."

    As a good liberal, you have, shall we say, an aversion to the truth.
    You're a fucking liar; you have earned the rep for your nearly constant inability to post anything honest.

  • Tony||

    Yes, yes, it's not you who are crazy, it's everyone else.

  • Sevo||

    "Yes, yes, it's not you who are crazy, it's everyone else."

    When you can't come up with what a 3rd-grade kid would see as obvious dishonesty, you always post some irrelevancy. Stupid enough to think it applies or stupid enough to hope no one notices?
    It's called 'non-responsive'.

  • JesseAz||

    Tony, the only difference between you and Lee Harvey Oswald is that you're an anti gun pussy.

  • Tony||

    I can think of a couple other.

    And the pussy is the one who thinks risking his children accidentally blowing their heads off is worth the possibility that an intruder will enter your home and you will be able to get the jump on him. But lots of pussies have delusions of machismo.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|9.5.18 @ 10:44PM|#
    "I can think of a couple other."

    I doubt it. You can and will lie about others, but no thought will be involved.
    Go away.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Hannity just put on a sketchy-credentialed "doctor" who opined that Trump has the sounded mind of any president ever, 'scientifically speaking.'

    I am thankful my children and grandchildren get to compete economically with Trump fans.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|9.5.18 @ 10:51PM|#
    "Hannity just put on a sketchy-credentialed "doctor" who opined that Trump has the sounded mind of any president ever, 'scientifically speaking.'"
    I'm sure Hannity appreciates an audience of imbecilic assholes

    "I am thankful my children and grandchildren get to compete economically with Trump fans."
    Me too. With a parent like you, it will be amusing to watch them crash and burn.

    "Carry on, clingers."
    Keep it up, asshole.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Red Herring Bingo.

  • JesseAz||

    Wait... You think libertarians are just fine with subverting elected government? You're a fucking moron Tony.

  • Tony||

    Yes. I do. They've been telling me precisely that for years. You hate democracy.

    Which, I suppose, is what explains your defense of Trump's installment.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|9.6.18 @ 12:11AM|#
    "Yes. I do. They've been telling me precisely that for years."

    Shitbag, you just made sure your rep as a lying piece of shit is secure.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Only hypocrites have reason to complain about "whataboutism".

  • SimonP||

    I mean, that's one way to read it, I suppose.

    A more astute observer might ask what it is, exactly, about the Trump administration that inspires this kind of barrage of insider accounts insulting the man's intelligence and competence. Have previous administrations been riven by interfactional infighting? No doubt. Have they resulted in this kind of expose? Well, no.

    You try to wave it off as "TDS," but this just begs the question. You assume that everything's normal and that the only explanation for those who believe otherwise is an inexplicable irrationality. But maybe that's not it?

    Woodward's account and the NYTimes op-ed are plausible precisely because they are continuous with everything we have seen Trump say and do publicly. He does, in fact, reverse his positions without explanation or warning. He has, in fact, pushed for drastic military and diplomatic action before walking back. He does not, in fact, have any appreciable grasp of anything that's happened in the world since about the late eighties. His foreign policy does, in fact, operate on separate tracks.

  • Tony||

    It's not Trump who's crazy, it's everyone in the world who owns a TV and at least one functioning eyeball.

  • Sevo||

    "It's not Trump who's crazy, it's everyone in the world who owns a TV and at least one functioning eyeball."

    It helps to be equipped with a brain cell, so you lose yet again.

  • Tony||

    Even the Terry Schiavo-Americans can tell he's a nutbar.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|9.5.18 @ 10:02PM|#
    "Even the Terry Schiavo-Americans can tell he's a nutbar."

    A "nutbar"; can we assume that means they don't like him too?
    You're amusing at times, but never enlightening; come back when you have an adult comment to make.

  • JesseAz||

    Leave your bubble of ignorance Tony.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    He has, in fact, pushed for drastic military and diplomatic action before walking back.

    #RedLine

    He does not, in fact, have any appreciable grasp of anything that's happened in the world since about the late eighties.

    #Russia

  • Sevo||

    "A more astute observer might ask what it is, exactly, about the Trump administration that inspires this kind of barrage of insider accounts insulting the man's intelligence and competence. Have previous administrations been riven by interfactional infighting? No doubt. Have they resulted in this kind of expose? Well, no.
    You try to wave it off as "TDS," but this just begs the question."

    No, it answers it.
    The press, on 11/17/16, remembered they were to be an adversary to the person holding that office, and in this case, the rabid application of that position results in such anonymous bullshit as "A PERSON IN THE ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T LIKE TRUMP!!!!!!!!!"
    Valerie Jarrett, more or less, second in command to Obo, was widely despised within his administration for what seem very similar claims or character; crickets from the press.
    Ditto HRC in the Clinton administration; same hard-hitting coverage...
    This is "news" for one reason only; Trump won. Absent him, this would have been properly ignored as so much hearsay, at best.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "A more astute observer might ask what it is, exactly, about the Trump administration that inspires this kind of barrage of insider accounts insulting the man's intelligence and competence. "

    24/7 news cycle? Social media? A declining press shifting gears towards a more explicitly partisan focus in order to boost circulation among the true believers? Most press types live in big cities and subscribe to team blue and have been tipping the scale for ages?

    The boorishness of Trump assuredly helps, but lets not act like this is some new phenomena or that changes in the print cycle/technology do not contribute.

  • SimonP||

    None of the phenomena you cite began with Trump. Indeed, they more than helped the Trump we now have come into being. At the same time, anti-Trump tell-alls have been a longstanding feature of his... call it... "career." Even from back in the days when print was king.

    I mean, we knew this would happen. Trump sat at the top of a private corporation that somehow didn't collapse on itself. Yet Trump himself is an ignoramus. So now we know how that all happened - he was surrounded by hard-working, smart people that did their best to control his impulses and ignore his worst instincts. When he came in, we were told that he would develop a team of rivals and exult in their butting heads over policy issues. Anyone with half a brain could have told you it would devolve into palace intrigue as, indeed, it has.

    Now - the fun thing about the Woodward flap is that the scoops on how Trump's team is responding to it are coming out almost as fast as the tidbits from the book. It couldn't have been a day or two afterwards that the WaPo was citing sources wondering what the big deal is - nothing in the book should strike anyone as actual news. Meanwhile Sanders is telling us that the most successful first two years of a presidency ever couldn't have come out of all that chaos. Never mind that we, uh, saw that chaos ourselves on Twitter...

  • Sevo||

    Oh, boy! Lefty fucking ignoramus proves it:

    SimonP|9.6.18 @ 12:17AM|#
    None of the phenomena you cite began with Trump. Indeed, they more than helped the Trump we now have come into being."
    Again, as a lefty fucking ignoramus, you seem to think that assertions = arguments. The don't; they prove your bias.

    "At the same time, anti-Trump tell-alls have been a longstanding feature of his... call it... "career." Even from back in the days when print was king."
    Oh, OH! Public person has tattle tales! Imagine my surprise!

    "I mean, we knew this would happen. Trump sat at the top of a private corporation that somehow didn't collapse on itself. Yet Trump himself is an ignoramus. So now we know how that all happened - he was surrounded by hard-working, smart people that did their best to control his impulses and ignore his worst instincts. When he came in, we were told that he would develop a team of rivals and exult in their butting heads over policy issues. Anyone with half a brain could have told you it would devolve into palace intrigue as, indeed, it has."
    Again, as a lefty fucking ignoramus, you seem to think that assertions = arguments. The don't; they prove your bias

  • Sevo||

    Cont'd:

    "Now - the fun thing about the Woodward flap is that the scoops on how Trump's team is responding to it are coming out almost as fast as the tidbits from the book. It couldn't have been a day or two afterwards that the WaPo was citing sources wondering what the big deal is - nothing in the book should strike anyone as actual news. Meanwhile Sanders is telling us that the most successful first two years of a presidency ever couldn't have come out of all that chaos. Never mind that we, uh, saw that chaos ourselves on Twitter..."
    Now the fun thing is a fucking lefty ignoramus casting about, grasping one straw after the other, hoping that, as a loser, s/he might somehow have a point other than TDS.
    Pathetic.

  • TLBD||

    A more astute observer might ask what it is, exactly, about the Trump administration that inspires this kind of barrage of insider accounts insulting the man's intelligence and competence.

    An astute observer understands that it is about money and power. Trump may be brash, but to the average American, his policies do not affect us in negative ways. There is nothing that significantly separates him from any other president on policy that affects the average American.

    His enemies are the moneyed and the powerful; those who have used the US Government as their personal piggy bank, those who use the military for their sick fantasies and self-enrichment. His brashness makes it easy for them to gang up and attack him, problem for them, though, is they end up looking more unhinged to the average American than what they try to portray Trump as.

    And that is why I support Trump. His enemies are the enemies of liberty, even if Trump himself isn't the greatest ally. If he does nothing but vanquish his foes, liberty will be better than it was before Trump.

  • PTSD||

    Trump's enemies are the moneyed and powerful? He is the moneyed and powerful. As are all his cabinet officials, aides, donors, beneficiaries, etc. I don't disagree with you that the ruling class (both parties) have been using the government as a piggy bank, but to paint Trump as though he's somehow better just isn't supported by the evidence. They're all corrupt and worthless.

  • Rob Misek||

    The question is, do you want to know your bus driver is a lunatic, or not?

  • Sevo||

    "The question is, do you want to know your bus driver is a lunatic, or not?"

    Yes, and only a lunatic would find such anonymous bullshit to be of help in answering that question.

  • Rob Misek||

    Seriously, long ago I lost track of who is the latest liar.

    I'm just glad to be witnessing all the hypocrisy from all sides.

    There is NO establishment with ANY credibility and I think that's great.

    Rebuilding credibility is going to take trust, and trust requires truth. So carry on with the downward spiral till we hit rock bottom.

    The longer Trumps in office the better.

  • Sevo||

    "Seriously, long ago I lost track of who is the latest liar."
    And yet:

    "The longer Trumps in office the better."

    I think anyone can see how you've 'lost track'.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Haha interesting take. Not sure I want to hit rock bottom though, I am too young for that crap.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The people who support Trump are just going to be left behind, again, to stew in the concentrated dysfunction of the depleted human residue that remains in our depleted backwaters.

    Deal with it, goobers.

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|9.5.18 @ 10:52PM|#
    "The people who support Trump are just going to be left behind, again, to stew in the concentrated dysfunction of the depleted human residue that remains in our depleted backwaters.
    Deal with it, goobers."

    Nearly two years ago our annoying asshole lost, bleeving all along, as bleevers do, that the savior of the lefty world will win.
    And then, 'satan' was elected instead!
    Poor, poor bleever! Deal with it.
    Oh, and stuff it up your ass.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I deal with it by living in a great house in a fine community; watching my children use their advanced degrees to succeed; watching my country continue to progress (generally in line with my preferences); spending time with my first grandchild and awaiting others; enjoying the several benefits of a strong education, three strong careers, and a strong marriage; volunteering to improve my community; and knowing that I built a fine life (despite a shambling hometown and lousy parents) on education, reason, tolerance, science, liberty, effort, skill, and the greatness of America.

    How about you?

  • lap83||

    Thinking Trump is rock bottom = late capitalism

  • Conchfritters||

    I want my bus driver to have a lightning bolt tattooed on his forehead. I'm in a hurry, and want him or her to get me to work on time.

  • DiegoF||

    Awesome piece by the way--and the accompanying video version is even better. Nice to know that even at the Beltway-press cocktail parties, every cosmo has his breaking point.

  • Just Say'n||

    The Fonz

  • SIV||

    With AIDS

  • SDN||

    What this NYT article is doing is convincing the people who elected President Trump that elections, or indeed any of the so-called "legal process", are effectively useless, as the Ruling Class will ignore or overrule it. That leaves only the extra-legal process.

    We might not win that conflict. But the Ruling Class and its' supporters and patsies will lose it.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Trump might also be a particularly vain and petty leader who inspires little loyalty and thus encourages these types of shenanigans. I am sure we have all worked for bosses where many employees would love to throw them right under the bus at the first opportunity.

    But yes, good points though. Those in charge should stop sending these signals and stop being petty.

  • PTSD||

    This is completely wrong. This is not a battle between the "Ruling Class" and "the disenfranchised people." It's not even a war between Republicans and Democrats. It's a war among ruling class Republicans--Trump vs Bush all over again. Basically, the old republicans got their asses handed to them during the last election and are about to lose their hold on power. As a result, they are doing all they can behind the scenes to push Trump out of power. This is why we are being treated to the rare spectacle where Republicans control all three branches of government yet are on the verge of total chaos because they are incessantly infighting. Does anybody really believe this anonymous author or any of the other top leakers in this government are Democrats? No way. They're all old GOP lifers.

    Meanwhile, Democrats are completely impotent, so all they can do in pour fuel on the flames.

  • KevinP||

    Exactly. If elections can be overturned, then elections will be overturned. And remember which side has all the guns.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Because the only two options are voting and guns. Got it!

  • Sevo||

    "Because the only two options are voting and guns. Got it!"

    Lefties seem to favor the later; I'd rather not.

  • SimonP||

    Remember which side has all the money.

  • Azathoth!!||

    The same side that has the guns!

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    The military and federal law enforcement, which are both heavily controlled by Obama holdovers.

    But yeah, hold onto that fantasy about a bunch of guys running around with ARs defeating a 21st century military, or even a single National Park Police tank for that matter.

  • TLBD||

    18 years later in Afghanistan....

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    The Deep State mechanations to overthrow an elected government who won despite massive voter fraud committed by Democrats and the Mexican government represent a mortal threat. Yes, newspapers are protected by the First Amendment, but with those protections come the responsibilities to vet stories that may involve national security— which this story about how Trump is an unhinged boss clearly falls under.

    If we don't curtail the arrogant use of power wielded by the editors of the New York Times backed up by the Obama Administration we clearly face an existential crisis to the democratic framework that is underpinned by the temperate administration of Donald Trump. As we all know Lenin once said that a lie is a lie, but tell enough lies and they'll become statistics. Isn't that what we're facing here with the publishing of an unsigned article, by a public servant, serving under Donald Trump, probably in the White House? I see a faint wisp of fascism from this article by the NYTimes and so does Glem Greenwald— and that's how I know i'm Right. MAGA everyone... MAGA.

  • Brian||

    That's somewhat better, but I think I can give you a little bit of direction here.

    Work on six succinctness. Tried to distill this down to the pier his expression of your message. Where are you going with this? The election of 2016? Deep state paranoia? "Fake News"? A ridiculous president? The Soviet Union? You're bouncing all around like a kid with ADHD. No one can follow you long enough to laugh.

    Here: try this direction: Think of a exaggerated, yet subtle, distilled John. That's what you should be doing right now.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    I don't understand. I'm not "doing" anything— only striving to praise Donald Trump with the wisdom and succinctness (your word, not mine) of Jordan Petersen. Where I have failed this noble goal probably depends on the chip Obama placed in my head— and it's frequency, of course!

  • JoeBlow123||

    Ughh, it would be one thing if you were clever but this is satire like I would expect from Honey Boo Boo.

  • NashTiger||

    This is by far your best work. I give it a B

  • JWatts||

    Sorry but the Lenin reference tanks it. I give it a C-.

  • Echospinner||

    Whatever we think Trump himself will believe that he is surrounded by traitors and has already tweeted thusly. He will act on his suspicions.

    The night of the long knives is about to begin.

  • Tony||

    $50 says they're short, stumpy knives this time.

  • PTSD||

    To fit Donald's hands.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Grab em by the scabbard.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Do you mean The Night Of The Short Fingers?

  • Echospinner||

    So it shall be named.

  • SimonP||

    Remember this, though: Trump can't fire the Vice President.

  • Sevo||

    SimonP|9.6.18 @ 12:22AM|#
    "Remember this, though: Trump can't fire the Vice President."

    OH! OH! Look! Lefty ignoramus makes, uh, well, gee, some.. sort.. of..........
    Please come back when you have a point adults might find interesting.

  • PTSD||

    So, who wrote this thing? My money is on Jared.

  • Tony||

    The bookie have Pence(!). The word "lodestar" tipped them off. He's the only one who uses it, and he uses it frequently.

  • SimonP||

    And lookie here! The VP happens to be one of the ones who gets to vote on a 25th Amendment removal!

  • Sevo||

    SimonP|9.6.18 @ 12:21AM|#
    "And lookie here! The VP happens to be one of the ones who gets to vote on a 25th Amendment removal!"

    And lookie here! Lefty ignoramus finds out there is a Constitution! And is still a loser.

  • Echospinner||

    The guy who brings the diet cokes and makes the late night runs to McDonalds. He knows everything.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well, I'm of two minds about this.

    On the one hand, the president ought to have advisors that are loyal to him in some way. They are only there at the pleasure of the boss, after all.

    On the other hand, I have always believed that a person's higher obligations is to his/her own conscience, regardless of what the law or the society or one's boss might say.

    So it's hard for me to find *too much* fault with people sticking up for their own conscience even if their actions undermine what the president might want. Yes, some fault is warranted. But if you were put in that position, honestly, what would you do? Would you really just turn into a complete toady and yes-man? If so, how long do you think you could keep up that act?

  • Sevo||

    You are assuming facts not in evidence.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Senior White House officials aren't "put in that position". They take the job voluntarily and can leave at any time.

  • ThomasD||

    You would trust a conscience that thinks it entirely acceptable to hide one's true intentions from their employer?

    Dishonesty in pursuit of a higher good. That speaks volumes about you Jeff.

    ...

    If you don't like your boss, or the company you serve then the only conscionable actions are to address those persons directly or to resign.

  • Ron||

    The scariest part of the nytimes article is the deep state admitting to be the deep state and activly subverting an elected president. That is what is bad and even madcow admitted such. If they can do this to Trump and be succesful what will stop them and who is to say they haven't been doing this at least since they assainated Patton

  • Sevo||

    "...since they assainated Patton"
    You're full of shit.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    I heard they melted the steel of his helicopter with burning jet fuel, then faked a landing.

  • Michael Cook||

    Well, Gen. George Patton wasl a special case. I rather think this was an early case of MI6 showing its Cambridge commie deep roots, but not in a necessarily bad way, because Patton was shooting off his mouth in a manner likely to cause immediate war with Russia.

    At any rate, Patton was either in his staff car, which is in the museum at Fort Knox, or in a 3/4 ton Dodge truck that post-war would be called the power wagon when it collided with something. He hit his head and died in bed a few days later.

  • Sevo||

    So we have the standard TDS crowd, whining that this must absolutely be true, since we all know he's already guilty of being Trump, and therefore the TDS crowd is certain he must be impeached, since we all know he's already guilty of being Trump!
    Now, I doubt anyone can argue that he isn't a thin-skinned blowhard, but that is pretty much irrelevant:
    1) DeVos
    2) Gorsuch
    3) Ajit Pai, end net price fixing
    4) Major reduction in the growth of regulations
    5) Dow +30% (maybe more by now)
    6) Unemployment at 3.9%
    7) The US Manufacturing Index soared to a 33 year high
    8) Got repeal of the national medical insurance mandate.
    9) Withdrawal from Paris climate agreement.
    10) Not sure about the tax reform; any "reform" that leaves me subisdizing Musk's customers is not what I hoped for. Let Musk run a company for once.
    11) In the waning days of 2017, the Trump administration pulled its support for the $13 billion Hudson Tunnel project.

  • Sevo||

    12) More than 16,000 jobs have been cut from the federal leviathan
    Cont'd
    13) Still MIGHT have a deal to de-nuke NK.
    14) Took the US out of that pathetic excuse for a UN 'civil rights' org, which was more than happy to allow women to be caned.
    And finally:
    14) Still making lefties steppin and fetchin like their pants is on fire and their asses are catchin'
    To repeat, I did not vote for the guy; he's a blow-hard and a loose cannon, but by accident or design, he's doing better than any POTUS I can remember.
    Negative:
    WIH makes him think tariffs are anything worth pursuing?
    So, lefty TDS victims, stuff the entire goody-bag up your ass, and I hope it is fatal.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    I chalk it up to the heroin injection of corporate money being repatriated and reaction to the corporate tax cuts. But it's a one time thing -- that wad's been blown now. Would have been a great opportunity to cut spending and reduce the deficit without causing too much hurting, but we know how that goes.

  • Anti-Fasciitis||

    Be careful about tying Trump's star to economic stats. They are likely to go south soon and then you're up a crick.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Nah. They'll just press forward mindlessly, bleating about immigration and Jesus and darkies and guns and the good old days.

  • JWatts||

    Partisans never care about the actual stats. The Economic stats under Obama were completely mediocre, but get trumpeted all the time as if they were great. Usually by the incredible cherry picking of starting with the depth of the recession in 2009 and treating it all as growth.

    The fact is, most Presidents don't have a direct effect on the economy and it's damn hard to tease out the causations from second order effects.

  • fafalone||

    1) Good
    2) Best case scenario for (R), (and yes I do think better than Garland would have been)
    3) Only acceptable *after* ISPs aren't an effective monopoly or duopoly; rescinded now it results in higher prices for worse service. Highly anti-free market position to those not ignorant of how the internet is run.
    4) Good in general; but not all regulations are bad.
    5-7) In what statistics do you see an inflection point ? These are post-recovery trends.
    8) With no viable replacement plan, so costs just go up. Such freedom yay.
    9) Stupid.
    10) Understating just how awful it was. No concomitant cut in government spending so we tack on a fortune to the deficit just to give massive tax breaks to those least in need of them.
    11) The most needed infrastructure project in the whole country that would benefit the most people. But they're liberals mostly so fuck em I guess right?
    12) If this was part of reducing spending it would be good, but since all money saved really just goes to bigger .mil, so what.
    13) LOL. He got nothing but the same vague assurances and tiny irrelevent concessions in exchange for NK's massive PR win and hard military concessions.
    14) Because he wants less freedom in the first world, not as a principled stand on support for rights violations in the 3rd world.
    15*) Yeah, but I don't see any reason why nearly half the electorate voting in an incompetent, ignorant, dishonest, corrupt, egomaniacal orange buffoon best known for a TV reality show as POTUS.

  • XM||

    The democrats are going hard left, and I mean HARD. Their socialist candidates are starting to unseat moderate incumbents. And while they really hate Trump, they haven't made free trade or NAFTA a centerpiece of their campaign. In terms of economic policy, the democrat party was always Trumpian. An open borders society is the best libertarians might get out of the radical left, but in a society of dwindling economic and personal freedom, that will be a moot point.

    Just listen to the kind of nonsense their socialist candidates want to impose on the country. Bernie wants a 100% tax on companies to fund employee welfare. All the trendy new stars of the party (Cortez, Gillum) want medicare for all, even though they can't name a funding source even if their mothers' lives depended on it. They have the worst qualities of Trump but none of his good sides. They won't say mean thing about Mexicans and want open borders, so that's a plus for some libertarians - I guess.

    The "resistance" isn't interested in stopping bad Trump policy. They want to fundamentally change American society and are aided and adored by the MSM and big corporations. That's one of the main distinctions between them and the tea party.

  • Joe Bright||

    Republic?

    SMH.

    Gone, 157 years ago.

  • Michael Cook||

    Way back in the 1980's I was kinda pseudo syndicated and sold a modicum of op-ed columns to major newspapers around the country, including a piece The New York Times used Nov. 1, 1989 (other columns in the L.A. Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Denver Post, The Plain Dealer, and on down the chain to the Arkansas Gazette in Little Rock during the period the Clintons were there.)

    I was hopeful the New York Times exposure might lead to something, but other than a couple national radio talk show invites it never really did. Even talking to those people I never felt comfortable and it went back to something in the mid-1970's, when Pol Pot was leading the Cambodian genocide.

    At the time the ed board of the NYT chose to blame that bloody aberration on B-52s carpet bombing rural Cambodian villages trying to destroy the Ho Chi Minh trail, thus driving young villagers insane so that they took up AK-47s and went on a rampage.

    Now I had been quite up close and personal with B-52 carpet bombing in my own Vietnam experience, but as an explanation for the Cambodian genocide it was far fetched. Probably no more than three villages were anywhere near the targeted trail and the Cambodian leaders of the butchery had joined the Indochina Communist Party when they were off in France decades earlier learning to be extremely radical and ideologically bitter.

    Who has been bombing New York lately?

  • Longtobefree||

    Trump, of course

  • Gilbert Martin||

    How do we know that the op-ed was actually written by anyone in the Trump administration at all?

    On the say of the New York Times?

    That producer of fish wrap has no credibility on any subject.

  • Longtobefree||

    We know that it was not written by anyone in the Trump administration because it was published in the New York Times.

  • perlchpr||

    There is no question that Trump was a uniquely unqualified candidate to run for president

    Bullshit. There are lots of people who are just as unqualified for the job of President as the current office holder, including the last motherfucker to sit in the chair, and the bitch he beat out to get there.

  • Longtobefree||

    He is a citizen of the United States of America. (like it or not)
    He was over 35 years old.
    He was/is fully qualified. (citation: Constitution of the United States of America)

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Indeed.

    There is nothing unique at all about Trump's unfitness for the office.

  • Longtobefree||

    First, the NYT cannot be believed about anything it prints, including the date at the top of the page.
    Second, no anonymous source can be believed.
    End of story.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    First, the NYT cannot be believed about anything it prints, including the date at the top of the page.

    You mean like this NY Times story?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03.....flags.html

  • Azathoth!!||

    EXACTLY like that story.

    What a great illustration of the NYT perfidy.

    Even the headline.

    Wow. On the nose.

    The NYT will lie until it's blue in the face to protect leftist power.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The New York Times' record and reputation against Longtobefree's gullibility and stale thinking.

    Tough call . . . for disaffected losers.

  • Michael Cook||

    My latest issue of the NRA magazine has an insightful little POTUS story. Actually, it is a photo story on two absolutely gorgeous presentation model Remington 1860-Army model revolvers, elaborately engraved with ivory carvings of the handsome face of U.S. Grant on the handles of both pistols. At least, the carver made the man buried in Grant's tomb appear particularly handsome.

    The guns (in a magnificent case) were a gift to the president from a man who had been a cotton dealer in Memphis during the war. Recall that the South produced cotton, but the North refused to buy it because of the belligerent state of affairs and the Confederacy refused to sell it.

    Consequently, by 1863 the price of cotton in Yankee states was 20X pre-war levels, while in the South Jefferson Davis was sending around units to burn cotton in the fields so that it would not be smuggled North.

    Then in 1863 General Grant took Vicksburg and the mighty Mississippi river opened from New Orleans to Memphis. Illegal or not, there was an awful lot of precious cotton ready to go by barge in the dead of night as market forces called. . .

  • 1440 minutes||

    All presidents defy the constitution, and some have done terrible things, but none to my knowledge have been as openly corrupt in such a variety of ways, including efforts to end protests, collect emoulements, destroy a free press, politicize the DOJ, bully private citizens and private companies, end investigations of himself, and on and on -- all in the name of advancing his personal interests over those of our country. Of course, it will be far worse if we find that Trump is subservient to a foreign government.

    I disagree that the subverters are worse than Trump. Wrong, probably, but worse, no.

  • Stilgar||

    If the anonymous author believes they can do more 'good' from within than by divulging their name, that is their choice to make and a reasonable one.

    Unlike the typical infighting within an administration, most of the complaints revolve around the President himself and, we are told, his apparent inability to handle the job (insert your choice of reasons as to why he is unable). That is entirely different than any situation I am aware of for the past 100 years. Even with Reagan at the end it was a questino of 'is he falling asleep on the job?' not whether an impulsive action will cause serious harm to the republic.

  • TxJack 112||

    I really love the notion of accusing someone of being "uniquely unqualified to be President". Please tell me what qualified Obama? He was a community organizer who ran for the Illinois state senate and was elected. Almost immediately, he began to campaign to become a US Senator from Illinois. Once elected to the US Senate, he immediately began to campaign for the WH. If you look at his "record", 89% of the time he voted PRESENT. Likewise, look at the record of Hillary Clinton. The only legislation she ever introduced as a Senator was three bills naming parks in NYC. As Sec of State, there is no single act of note. The only thing she did as Sec of State was fly around the world a lot and get her face on TV. Trump is not a politician. However, I would argue that building a multi billion dollar empire is an accomplishment that qualifies one more to be President than simply being a smooth talking politician who has never accomplished anything other than be elected.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There is no question that Trump was a uniquely unqualified candidate to run for president and he seems to have virtually no expertise in anything other than Twitter trolling. He clearly understands nothing about trade deficits, for instance, and his policies clearly don't add up to anything particularly coherent (then again, they didn't on the campaign trail, either).

    Yet somehow Trump manages to rollback government, gets good judges nominated and then confirmed, prevents military hawks from expanding military excursions, gets World leaders to jump....

    To some people, Its all random how that happens.

  • WarrenPeese||

    Trump has several similar characteristics to Clinton, except Clinton wasn't mentally and psychologically unfit for the job. If his senior officials are that concerned, then there's a 25th Amendment solution.

  • damikesc||

    Cannot figure out why some are concerned about the Deep State.

  • JRuss||

    Trump Tweet's TREASON? How about "It takes one to know one" ? The best was when he was standing in front of the Sheriff's whining about "fake news" and then immediately turns and lies about his miserable poll ratings to solidly confirm he's a helpless pathological proven serial liar. Oh, and please don't disturb the disturbed while he is disintegrating.

  • Michael Cook||

    You can't lie about poll ratings. Polls themselves are the creations most often of folks intending to manipulate rather than honestly inform. Even if that were not so, people being polled lie to questioners because they are annoyed or intimidated by the process.

  • Heraclitus||

    This is just more of the same apologetics that that everyone right of the center is spewing. Yes, it is cowardly to write the op-ed anonymously, but seriously, how many more people need to come forward and tell us Trump is a walking, amoral disaster before his supporters publicly demand he resign? It's like a big game of transparent prisoner's dilemma. Everyone on the right is afraid to say it because if they are the only one to do so they will get burned, but if they ALL say it in unison Trump will be gone in a heartbeat. At least with Woodward's book and this op-ed we know what they are thinking. Now if they would just suck it up and tell him to resign we can all move on.

    And please stop with the , "but Clinton....". Nope, that's a different league. And as they used to say during the Obama administration, stop bringing up the past.

  • SMcBride||

    What has changed for you since he's been in office? I mean things that have personally affected you that weren't already in place by previous administrations.

  • ThomasD||

    Shorter Heraclitus: Principals over Principles!

  • Michael Cook||

    The original Heraclitus was famous for saying that you can't step in the same river twice. Today's Democrats are stepping in a river of bovine excrement repeatedly with their Fake News ecstasies, phony Russia probe that was initiated completely by creative evidence collusion between DOJ insiders and Clinton campaign supporters, and general TDS paroxysms. The august New York Times--all the news that's fit to flush.

  • Michael Cook||

    On the creative evidence bit I just alleged, that will be popping up in courts eventually regards both the infamous dossier and how naïve 24-yr-old Papadapolous got mugged, rolled, and bagged by the nastiest Democrat operatives in and out of government service in American history. And this young man's tragic story doesn't even compare to what happened to Carter Page. The total story of the frame up of Michael Flynn I pray can come out eventually as well.

    If Dante Alighieri had known of modern Democrats, he would have been obliged to imagine a new sub-level in Hades just for them.

  • Freelancelot||

    "If Dante Alighieri had known of modern Democrats, he would have been obliged to imagine a new sub-level in Hades just for them."

    Amen.

  • John B. Egan||

    Seriously? Releasing an op-ed from an insider which lays out that Trump is extremely dangerous to our nation and not tuned in... is WORSE than the damage this wannabe dictator is enacting right now, and the potential for much worse later? Sorry. That's nonsense. We are supposed to be a free and open society. To hear Reason argue against that is mind-boggling. In fact, it rails against our 1st Amendment and our founders' beliefs.

    I find the quality of articles in Reason to be getting worse as time goes on. Why is that?

  • Freelancelot||

    Yes, Johnny Be Egotrippin'. Seriously.

    Incidentally, the "op-ed", if it's even real, is treason.

  • Fred G. Sanford||

    No it isn't. You have no clue what treason is.

  • Freelancelot||

    AWESOME piece of writing, Nick! That was inspired!

  • Fmontyr||

    I agree with the comment of John B. Egan. "I find the quality of articles in Reason to be getting worse as time goes on. Why is that?"

  • Flaco||

    "Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people."

    That's from the anonymous NYT essay. Whoever wrote it is a Reason reader. "Free minds and free markets" is not an otherwise commonly used phrase.

  • Voxpo||

    One of my least favorite headlines in the 25 or so years I've been reading Reason.

    Anonymous op-eds are "more a threat to the Republic" than siding with Putin regarding election interference?
    More than the POTUS's ongoing campaign to label the press the enemy of the people?
    More than him using his office to profess admiration for dictatorial powers?
    More than him promoting fictions about millions voting illegally?
    More than the steady stream of lies issuing from the Oval Office? (examples: https://bit.ly/2mLdAZY)
    I could go on.

    This seems like a wrongheaded effort to seem cool and neutral. One foot in the sewer is not something worth striving for. Better to stay on dry ground, even if people you don't agree with are also there.

    "Since the Enlightenment, anonymous speech has been an integral component of social change, exemplified by Cato's Letters, the Federalist Papers, and indeed the Anti-Federalist Papers."
    https://bit.ly/2LZIxnr

  • WillPaine||

    Nothing fair and square about the coup the electoral college enacted; as apparently there are at least some who are involved in "guiding" Mr. Trump. Revealing ID at this point would be more problematic than it is. Democracy, and the rule of law are unfolding; I quote: "You thought the campaign was weird, wait until you see the impeachment" Will Paine 01/20/2017
    The guidance most important now is to the door.
    A mixed bag? You are insane sir. Please wake up before your kids hate you.

  • renewableguy||

    The president may well be unprincipled, ignorant, and awful, but he was, well, elected fair and square.


    Ummmmmm no. Trump cheated. Colluded with Russians. And broke the law.

  • vaginamerican||

    I love it when the left eats its own. By the way, while we're distracted by all this BS, let's this not get passed: Oxford professor counted 93 penises in Bayeux Tapestry, and confirmed William the Conqueror's horse has the largest. http://lol.yt/4c

  • Fred G. Sanford||

    Freedom of the press is a greater threat to the country than a president who thinks he can compel production of the identity of an anonymous source on the grounds the source committed "treason"? Seriously?

  • Fmontyr||

    Nick Gillespie is wrong from the get-go. He said, "...but he was, well, elected fair and square." Nick, you have no factual basis to make that statement! His campaign and he may have well conspired with the Russians to have the election go in his favor. So I will counter your ridiculous statement with mine, Trump is an illegitimate president.

  • mchughjj||

    " It's patently absurd to elevate frictions within the Trump White House to an existential threat to the Republic."

    I disagree with this, Nick. We've not had anything like this. Having someone who's determined to take down everyone in his path is an existential threat. The "deep state" is a myth...our current President is not.

  • Michael Cook||

    The Deep State is an absolute reality. The Obama administration unleashed the DOJ to work directly with supporters of the Clinton campaign to fabricate a case for the Russia Probe. The express purpose of that "investigation" was to over-turn an election result that Democrats did not like.

    Stop repeating the bald faced lie that the Deep State is a myth. Such denials only show you to be a fool or the worst type of liar. If you have the decency to wish to stop embarrassing yourself, read Gregg Jarrett's: The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump, or

    Liars, Leakers, and Liberals, the Case Against the Anti-Trump by Judge Jeanine Pirro, or about a dozen similar books flying out by new authors because more info is flooding out daily to prove the case that the Deep State was extremely real, did extremely bad things, continues to do them, and will be facing a spectacular day of reckoning sooner rather than later.

  • PTSD||

    Lots of folks are pointing to this op-ed piece as the clearest evidence that there is a "deep state" that is conspiring against Trump. After all, here we see senior aides that are undermining the president, seemingly at every turn. Some people have even claimed Anonymous is a traitor because s/he's betraying the boss.

    What people seem to have forgotten is that in our system of government, senior level officials -- those 1000 or so that are confirmed by Congress -- do not swear an oath to their boss. They swear an oath to the constitution. So, I really see no conflict here at all. By appointing those officials to office as he is empowered to do through the appointments clause of the constitution, Trump has exercised his elected prerogative over personnel matters. It's not our fault that he's too fucking stupid to pick good people (or pick people who can pick good people for him). Once those people are in office, they don't have any loyalty to the president at all. And they shouldn't. They are sworn to uphold the constitution, not the president.

  • PTSD||

    Lots of folks are pointing to this op-ed piece as the clearest evidence that there is a "deep state" that is conspiring against Trump. After all, here we see senior aides that are undermining the president, seemingly at every turn. Some people have even claimed Anonymous is a traitor because s/he's betraying the boss.

    What people seem to have forgotten is that in our system of government, senior level officials -- those 1000 or so that are confirmed by Congress -- do not swear an oath to their boss. They swear an oath to the constitution. So, I really see no conflict here at all. By appointing those officials to office as he is empowered to do through the appointments clause of the constitution, Trump has exercised his elected prerogative over personnel matters. It's not our fault that he's too fucking stupid to pick good people (or pick people who can pick good people for him). Once those people are in office, they don't have any loyalty to the president at all. And they shouldn't. They are sworn to uphold the constitution, not the president.

  • PTSD||

    And I don't think there is anything undemocratic about this. The people elected Trump. Trump hired his staff. Trump fucked that up. And now his staff is doing what it wants. That's exactly how it's supposed to work. When we elect somebody, we can't (unfortunately) guarantee that the elected official is going to be competent. The reason we're seeing so much of this infighting is not -- as some have claimed -- because Trump is some existential threat to the ruling class. We're seeing infighting because he is undisciplined and ignorant. So, he has hired people in an undisciplined and ignorant manner. No surprises here.

  • Michael Cook||

    And to think, the New York Times once ran an op-ed column I wrote (Nov !, 1989) I was so proud of that for so long.

  • Michael Cook||

    You know, it is kind of like finding out that your widowed mother has been writing letters to a serial killer in prison and intends to marry him.

  • mchughjj||

    LOL. Could I please not read these things? Obama is not President, and Hillary isn't either. Get your news from better sources.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "Few outlets have been more stridently #NeverTrump than The New York Times, a fair stand-in for the legacy media that have nothing but contempt for Donald Trump and sympathy for Hillary Clinton (it was her time!) and a broad Democratic agenda of more-active government. The anonymous op-ed can only be read in that light and thus discounted."

    Why waste all those words when you could have just as easily said, "We don't like the messenger, so the message must be flawed."

  • wearingit||

    Preach.

  • wearingit||

    What a day when we're comparing anonymous op-eds and the president and wondering which one is more damaging to the republic.

    Maybe the real point is the situation is completely fucked, no matter which is "worse."

  • ||

    "...the situation..." is a political paradigm based on violence first, reason only as a distraction to cover the violence.

  • mtrueman||

    'The president may well be unprincipled, ignorant, and awful, but he was elected fair and square.'

    Both candidates claimed the election was rigged, ie not fair or square.

  • WJack||

    The Times, aka the nation's leading propaganda pump, cannot get over the fact that Trump defeated about a dozen professional politicians to win the presidency.

    Could it be that he was the smartest person running?

  • ||

    When the political paradigm is based on a moral monopoly on force, that force will expand into every facet of life. It can't be avoided, as much as we voluntaryists would like to just ignore politics. But the problem is the majority. They don't see the expansion as bad until it affects them adversely personally, and even then they don't blame the concept of big brother (the nanny state). They focus on their specific gripe or a specific politician. They don't see the big picture. They want to be ruled and have nothing bad happen. Yet being ruled by force is bad on the net and can never be justified morally or practically.

    Once that is realized, a new paradigm of voluntary politics can be implemented. The initiation of force can be rejected as immoral, no matter what. And we the people will be left to run our own lives, to self-govern, to act like adults instead of the immature child-like subjects of govt. they are now.

  • Michael Cook||

    Who knows how the death struggle between Trump and the TDS Democrats/Mainstream Media/Deep State seditionists will turn out? Sometimes I wake up at night trembling with the fearsome comprehension that I live in a grand old nation which started out as a heckuva good idea, but maybe Obama was right after all. Maybe the USA never was nothing that special among nations. . .

    I am forced down that dismal trail of tears by men like Mueller, his strong-arm legal accomplice Andrew Weisman, Rosenstein, McCabe, Comey, Strzok, Bruce Ohr, and all the rest (with particular special mention to some FISA court judges who give an entirely new meaning to the term feckless, irresponsible, political-hack, suck-up rubber stampers.)

    The tiny glimmers of hope in this hideous mess, this shameful historical aberration? Callers on talk radio and bloggers here and elsewhere who truly get it. Who see right through all the left wing distractions, odious untruths, and dense word smog with eyes like a circling cast of hawks.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online