monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Surely, America and Americans are better than this.

This bit of William Burroughs seems quite pertinent now.

what bothers me is that your source can't distinguish between egotism and narcissism

camlok: Surely, America and Americans are better than this.

hightor: Where'd you come up with that far-fetched idea?

Don't be surprised if you see me posting this ad nauseum.

You could have thought a wee bit more you know.

The New York Times’s Opinion desk published an Op-Ed by an anonymous senior official in the Trump administration on Wednesday. By Friday, nearly 23,000 readers had submitted questions to us about the vetting process and our thinking behind publishing the essay.

Our Op-Ed editor, James Dao, has responded to a selection of the questions, which have been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.

[... ... ...]

Would you ever reveal your source?
Under what conditions would The New York Times be forced to disclose the source of the Op-Ed?

— Stephanie Genkin, Brooklyn, N.Y.

Stephanie:

It is difficult to imagine a situation where The Times could be forced to disclose the author’s identity. The First Amendment clearly protects the author’s right to publish an essay criticizing the president, and absolutely nothing in the Op-Ed involves criminal behavior. We intend to do everything in our power to protect the identity of the writer and have great confidence that the government cannot legally force us to reveal it.

— Jim Dao

[... ... ...]

Did you consider the effect this piece might have?
To what extent did The Times consider the effect that publication of the piece would have in bolstering conspiracy theories about the “deep state” or QAnon, etc.?

— James Apps, Berlin

James:

We did not take that into consideration. It is difficult to ever know what reportage might feed into a conspiracy theory. But the essay included a passage that indicates the author suspected the piece might be viewed as part of a “deep state” theory: “This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.”

— Jim Dao

“This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.”

President Trump’s budget chief, Mick Mulvaney, expressed confidence to Republican donors on Saturday that the party would overcome a Democratic “movement of hate” in November, but he acknowledged Republicans could lose races where they have nominated candidates who are not seen as “likable” enough, like Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.

Speaking at a closed-door meeting in New York City alongside Ronna McDaniel, the Republican National Committee chairwoman, Mr. Mulvaney insisted that Democrats and the media were exaggerating the political threat facing Republicans this fall: “They want you to think there’s a blue wave when there’s not,” he said, according to an audio recording of his remarks that was obtained by The New York Times from a person at the meeting.

But Mr. Mulvaney, who leads both the Office of Management and Budget and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, conceded that Republicans had nominated poor candidates in places and might struggle to defend a huge number of open House seats where Republican incumbents decided not to run for re-election.

He pointed to the Senate races in Texas and Florida as examples where candidate quality could be decisive.

In Florida, Republicans have nominated Gov. Rick Scott to challenge Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat, and polls show the race is close. In Texas, Mr. Cruz holds a modest polling lead over Representative Beto O’Rourke, a Democrat who has raised enormous amounts of money online.

“There’s a very real possibility we will win a race for Senate in Florida and lose a race in Texas for Senate, O.K.?” Mr. Mulvaney said. “I don’t think it’s likely, but it’s a possibility. How likable is a candidate? That still counts.”

And Mr. Mulvaney alluded to last year’s special election for Senate in Alabama and suggested that Mr. Trump remained bewildered at his party’s defeat there. The Democratic nominee, Doug Jones, prevailed in a stunning upset over the Republican, Roy Moore, a polarizing former judge who was accused of once preying on teenage girls.

“The president asks me all the time, ‘Why did Roy Moore lose?’” Mr. Mulvaney said. “That’s easy. He was a terrible candidate.”

Spokesmen for both Mr. Mulvaney and Ms. McDaniel did not immediately comment on their remarks.

Ms. McDaniel, too, noted that Republicans were facing political headwinds in some respects, though like Mr. Mulvaney she offered an upbeat prognosis over all. She said Democratic voters appeared to have more energy than Republicans at this point, but said Republicans had a formidable and well-financed voter-turnout machine to compensate.

“It does cost, right now, more money to engage our voters, to get them knowledge of the election,” Ms. McDaniel said. “They have their energy. We have our infrastructure.”

Democrats, Mr. Mulvaney argued, had so far failed to mobilize voters the way Republicans did that year. He said Democrats did not have a unifying issue for their campaigns, the way Republicans harnessed opposition to the Affordable Care Act in 2010.

“It’s hard to draw people into a movement of hate,” Mr. Mulvaney said, adding: “I don’t think I have seen, yet, people who used to be Republican or people who have never voted before or haven’t voted in a long time, showing up at these events.”

But Mr. Mulvaney nodded to the reality that House Republicans are on defense across a large stretch of the political map, because of an exodus of longtime lawmakers from the chamber.

“I don’t know how many seats we’ve got this year, but there’s got to be, how many?” Mr. Mulvaney said. “Twenty? Thirty? Forty?”

The NYT or the author has no authority that makes their claims worth listening to.

Didn't they interview a WH insider, cj?