[johnu]

 awm, on 2018-September-06, 02:09, said:

But each new source saying the same thing is covered as if it’s breaking news. Is there anyone left who believes we have a “normal” president and will be as shocked and surprised to hear otherwise as the news media claims to be?

There is at least one

Hannity Guest: Science Proves Dennison Is The ‘Most Sound-Minded’ President Ever

[hrothgar]

 kenberg, on 2018-September-05, 20:04, said:

I see this as a serious lapse of judgment on the part of the Times, I think they will catch heat for it from people other than the Trumpies, I believe they will come to regret this.

I expect that you are right.

Regardless of what I think of Trump, he can not and should not tolerate a situation in which his own political appointees are deliberate sabotaging his administration.

He needs to know who wrote this.
I believe that he would be justified in taking action against the Times to force disclosure of the author.

with this said and done, the contents of this piece are terrifying

The type of tactics that the author claims to be employing only work if the executive is suffering from dementia or is, in some other way, mentally unfit for office. Hiding documents that are ready to be signed because the President will almost immediately forget that he issued an order about leaving NAFTA or instituting a policy of government sanctioned assassination or who knows what else is terrifying.

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2018-September-06, 02:26, said:

Ken, his name is James Bennet. www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/opinion/editorialboard.html

I think you are completely wrong about this. That a member of the cabinet wants to say these things publicly is newsworthy enough. It was irresponsible (among other things) to write this op-ed, but it was an obvious decision to publish it.

I will be interested to see how this plays out. For example, I often, not always but often, watch Shields/Brooks on the Friday PBS Newshour. Brooks is a conservative, or at least what once was considered conservative. He also works for the Times. And he also thinks for himself. I would expect him to not like the anonymous editorial. I expect that many people who are by no means Trump supporters will find fault with the Times on this, pretty much for the reasons I gave. Of course even if that should happen it doesn't follow that I am right.

Winston brought up Fear, as support for this but I see it the other way around. For one thing, Fear is signed. For another, it is filled with specifics. The anonymous piece? "But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable." Who on his national security team? All of them? It was unanimous? And these were the exactly right actions that had to be taken to hold Moscow accountable? Who said that?

I could have written this piece. It would have been just as informative.

I would like factual claims to be specific and I would like them to be checked. If this is not possible then I want a reporter to say "this I have checked, this other thing I have been unable to confirm." Of course the editorial page is a place for opinions but it should not be a place for someone to anonymously file a generalized grievance.

Anyway, so I see it. We will see if I am the only one. Trumpie thoughts about the failing New York Times are not things I would consider as agreeing with me.

[Winstonm]

I don't get the negative reaction to the decision made by the Times to publish. I strongly agree that the author is a slimeball who should be outed and ousted. Times is doing what papers do.

[cherdano]

Ken: in my view the news in this op-ed isn't the specific claims made in this op-ed. The news is that *a member of Trump's cabinet* (the writer clearly implies that they were part of the 25th amendmendment discussions) wants to make this public statement. This alone is newsworthy enough, even if several of the specific stories told in there were wrong.

But if you want to know more about the Times' decision-making process, you can ask questions here:
https://www.nytimes....ords=auddevgate

[Winstonm]

After thinking some on this, I have come to the conclusion that there are at least two unknowns that are critical to the importance of the op-ed and decision to publish: first, how high up the food chain is the author, and second, what purpose is served?

[barmar]

 ldrews, on 2018-September-05, 15:52, said:

Have you watched the SC confirmation hearings! The Democrat protesters, many invited by Democrat Senators, have turned the hearings into a protest circus. Kavenaugh's children had to be escorted to safety. 30 or so protestors were arrested. Witnesses attesting that protestors were being paid to protest by money holders just outside the hearing room. One of the Democratic invitees actually physically accosted Kavenaugh.

Kavenaugh looks like he will be confirmed by about a 55/45 vote. And Kavenaugh probably will have a long memory of this treatment, and he will be on the Supreme Court for decades. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

Kavanaugh knew full well what he was getting himself into (they've even given him practice with a mock hearing, including protesters), and can hardly be surprised by what's going on during the hearings. While I may not agree with his politics, from all accounts he's a good man, and I can't believe that he will allow this to affect how he votes when he gets onto the Court. I think he'll vote to repeal Roe v. Wade because he feels it's bad law, not because of the protesting this week.

[barmar]

 kenberg, on 2018-September-05, 20:04, said:

I am ok, or at least I see it as regrettable but necessary, for a reporter to cite unnamed sources. But then the reporter, in signing the piece, is taking some responsibility for the content. He is saying, or should be saying, I have checked enough of this, and my experience with this person is such, that I believe what he is saying is credible. As this piece was done, who is taking responsibility? Dao? Maybe, but really it's more than a little amorphous.

Were you similarly bothered by Deep Throat remaining anonymous for decades?

Also, this is not a case of a reporter with an unnamed source. This was an Op-Ed, not a news report -- the author is the anonymous source themselves. Different standards apply -- they're expressing their opinion. It's essentially just a Letter to the Editor, but given a bit more prominence.

Obviously if Trump found out who did this, he would fire him on the spot (even a less despicable boss would do so), and maybe the staffer should have been willing to accept this result as the consequence of bringing the truth to light. OTOH, perhaps we need people like this behind the scenes.

[hrothgar]

 barmar, on 2018-September-06, 08:55, said:

Obviously if Trump found out who did this, he would fire him on the spot (even a less despicable boss would do so), and maybe the staffer should have been willing to accept this result as the consequence of bringing the truth to light. OTOH, perhaps we need people like this behind the scenes.

The staffer should have gone public to begin with (and done so before their little game of sabotage)

[ldrews]

 cherdano, on 2018-September-05, 18:29, said:

Ok let's make a bet. If Kavanaugh gets confirmed with 53 or more votes, you win. 52 votes or less, or if he doesn't get confirmed, I win. 20 Bridgebase Dollars?

Why make a bet? He will be confirmed or he won't. We will see in a few days. I don't have a dog in this fight.

[ldrews]

 johnu, on 2018-September-05, 19:27, said:

You have no problem putting stupid words in your own mouth

Such a witty reply. I am impressed.

[cherdano]

 ldrews, on 2018-September-06, 09:57, said:

Why make a bet? He will be confirmed or he won't. We will see in a few days. I don't have a dog in this fight.

I am just offering you free money as you believe that the will be confirmed with 55 votes.
Or maybe you are sometimes writing stuff you don't quite believe, just because it will get a reaction from others? Aka trolling?

[johnu]

 cherdano, on 2018-September-06, 06:58, said:

Ken: in my view the news in this op-ed isn't the specific claims made in this op-ed. The news is that *a member of Trump's cabinet* (the writer clearly implies that they were part of the 25th amendmendment discussions) wants to make this public statement. This alone is newsworthy enough, even if several of the specific stories told in there were wrong.

As a clarification, the Vice President is also part of the 25th amendment machinery. Also, the VP can't be fired by Dennison but could be kicked off the ticket in 2020.

[Winstonm]

FWIW - The Dennison Cabinet

Quote

Administrator of the Small Business Administration Linda E. McMahon

Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats

Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Gina Haspel

Director of the Office of Management and Budget Mick Mulvaney

Representative of the United States to the United Nations Nikki R. Haley

Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue

Secretary of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis

Secretary of Education Elisabeth Prince DeVos

Secretary of Energy James Richard Perry

Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar

Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Benjamin S. Carson, Sr.

Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke

Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo

Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao

Secretary of the Treasury Steven T. Mnuchin

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert Wilkie

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer

Vice President Michael R. Pence

White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly

The weird thing about the NYT op-ed is that I can not see any upside for the author - so what was the point?

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2018-September-06, 08:55, said:

Were you similarly bothered by Deep Throat remaining anonymous for decades?

Also, this is not a case of a reporter with an unnamed source. This was an Op-Ed, not a news report -- the author is the anonymous source themselves. Different standards apply -- they're expressing their opinion. It's essentially just a Letter to the Editor, but given a bit more prominence.

Obviously if Trump found out who did this, he would fire him on the spot (even a less despicable boss would do so), and maybe the staffer should have been willing to accept this result as the consequence of bringing the truth to light. OTOH, perhaps we need people like this behind the scenes.

Let me take on the Deep Throat analogy.As with Winston't allusion to Rear, it illustrates a point. Maybe it doesn't support my point, but it illustrates it.
DT met secretly with Woodward and Bernstein, giving them information and guidance. Then W and B followed up on this, check the information, and published a signed account of what they believe happened. W and B made assertions based on research and took responsibility ofr what they said. that is very different from what happened with the anon piece.

Now let me take a couple of comments from others:

 Winstonm, on 2018-September-06, 06:44, said:

I don't get the negative reaction to the decision made by the Times to publish. I strongly agree that the author is a slimeball who should be outed and ousted. Times is doing what papers do.

and

 cherdano, on 2018-September-06, 06:58, said:

Ken: in my view the news in this op-ed isn't the specific claims made in this op-ed. The news is that *a member of Trump's cabinet* (the writer clearly implies that they were part of the 25th amendmendment discussions) wants to make this public statement. This alone is newsworthy enough, even if several of the specific stories told in there were wrong.

But if you want to know more about the Times' decision-making process, you can ask questions here:
https://www.nytimes....ords=auddevgate

I am not sure I agree that the author is a slimeball and I am uncertain if some of the specific stories are wrong. But let's go with that possibility for a moment. Then we have the NYT lending its editorial page to a slimeball who doesn't even get his facts straight. I am not sure "this is what papers do" Sounds more like something Trump would say. And we have a cabinet member who is a slimeball who can't get his facts straight? We are in deep stuff.

And now to

 hrothgar, on 2018-September-06, 06:17, said:

I expect that you are right.

Regardless of what I think of Trump, he can not and should not tolerate a situation in which his own political appointees are deliberate sabotaging his administration.

He needs to know who wrote this.
I believe that he would be justified in taking action against the Times to force disclosure of the author.

with this said and done, the contents of this piece are terrifying

The type of tactics that the author claims to be employing only work if the executive is suffering from dementia or is, in some other way, mentally unfit for office. Hiding documents that are ready to be signed because the President will almost immediately forget that he issued an order about leaving NAFTA or instituting a policy of government sanctioned assassination or who knows what else is terrifying.

Indeed. This occurred to me as well. The way to deal with Trump is to take things off his desk, trusting he will forget that they were there, or forget they even existed? Where the hell are we?
Let's compare it with the Saturday Night Massacre. Richardson did not just go about as usual trusting that Nixon would forget that he had told him to fire Cox. Richardson resigned. This is a response I can admire. But writing some anonymous piece about heroic efforts to get around a president? This approach cannot work over the long run, it just can't, and blabbing about it doesn't help matters.

I suppose this could be seen as an argument for why the NYT should publish it, since, to the extent it can be regarded as truth, it shows that the whole operation, not just the oval office, is riddled with idiocy.

We cannot have a presidency where aides are hiding things hoping he will forget. This speaks very badly not only of the president but also of them ..

[barmar]

 ldrews, on 2018-September-06, 09:57, said:

Why make a bet? He will be confirmed or he won't. We will see in a few days. I don't have a dog in this fight.

No one doubts that he'll be confirmed. As with American football, we bet on the point spread.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2018-September-06, 13:28, said:

Let me take on the Deep Throat analogy.As with Winston't allusion to Rear, it illustrates a point. Maybe it doesn't support my point, but it illustrates it.
DT met secretly with Woodward and Bernstein, giving them information and guidance. Then W and B followed up on this, check the information, and published a signed account of what they believe happened. W and B made assertions based on research and took responsibility ofr what they said. that is very different from what happened with the anon piece.

Now let me take a couple of comments from others:


and

I am not sure I agree that the author is a slimeball and I am uncertain if some of the specific stories are wrong. But let's go with that possibility for a moment. Then we have the NYT lending its editorial page to a slimeball who doesn't even get his facts straight. I am not sure "this is what papers do" Sounds more like something Trump would say. And we have a cabinet member who is a slimeball who can't get his facts straight? We are in deep stuff.

And now to


Indeed. This occurred to me as well. The way to deal with Trump is to take things off his desk, trusting he will forget that they were there, or forget they even existed? Where the hell are we?
Let's compare it with the Saturday Night Massacre. Richardson did not just go about as usual trusting that Nixon would forget that he had told him to fire Cox. Richardson resigned. This is a response I can admire. But writing some anonymous piece about heroic efforts to get around a president? This approach cannot work over the long run, it just can't, and blabbing about it doesn't help matters.

I suppose this could be seen as an argument for why the NYT should publish it, since, to the extent it can be regarded as truth, it shows that the whole operation, not just the oval office, is riddled with idiocy.

We cannot have a presidency where aides are hiding things hoping he will forget. This speaks very badly not only of the president but also of them ..

Ken,

It seems to me that you neglect the critical issue that the Times published this as an op-ed, meaning it is opinion. As far as I am concerned, the Times has no responsibility to fact-check the claims made by the author - only that the author is who and what he says he is. If the author is truly a high-level member of this administration, his opinions about what is happening inside the White House to subvert the administration is relevant.

The NYT was put in a tough position - but when the smoke clears, and provided the op-ed is factual, would the nation be better or worse off not knowing its contents?

[cherdano]

Let me try again.

Quote

I am not sure I agree that the author is a slimeball and I am uncertain if some of the specific stories are wrong. But let's go with that possibility for a moment. Then we have the NYT lending its editorial page to a slimeball who doesn't even get his facts straight. I am not sure "this is what papers do" Sounds more like something Trump would say. And we have a cabinet member who is a slimeball who can't get his facts straight? We are in deep stuff.

If Lebron James thinks that Luke Walton is a god-awful terrible really bad coach, then *the fact that Lebron James thinks so* is news-worthy whether he is right or not. (In case you are wondering, yes Luke Walton is Lebron James' coach. And Lebron James is the best basketball player world-wide.) If he wants to go on a podcast to rant about Luke Walton, that would be silly on his part, but no podcast host would stop him from doing so.

If Trump cabinet officials talk among each other as if they are staging a coup in order to prevent the president from doing what he wants to do, because they think he is an insane ill-tempered immoral idiot, and if one of them wants to shout this out to the world, then that is newsworthy, whether Trump is an insane ill-tempered immoral douche-bag or not.

The NY times should publish a story when it's newsworthy. This one clearly was. It's not the NY times who made this "slimeball who doesn't get his facts straight" a cabinet member.

[ldrews]

 cherdano, on 2018-September-06, 10:38, said:

I am just offering you free money as you believe that the will be confirmed with 55 votes.
Or maybe you are sometimes writing stuff you don't quite believe, just because it will get a reaction from others? Aka trolling?

Do you think that the confirmation of a qualified jurist to the SC merits a reaction? You would think that having a competent jurist would be cause for celebration.

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2018-September-06, 16:11, said:

Do you think that the confirmation of a qualified jurist to the SC merits a reaction? You would think that having a competent jurist would be cause for celebration.

There is documented evidence that he has lied under oath

Regardless of his academic pedigree, he shouldn't get an appointment