On Saturday, columnist Gail Collins, one of the attendees at the meeting (which also included editor-in-chief Dean Baquet), floated a bit of speculation in her column:There's a lot of off-the-record stuff out there. It informs the material that is written and released. We get processed news, and it's very frustrating, because we don't trust those who are filtering the raw material. Now, we shouldn't trust those who are giving the off-the-record interviews either. Trump speaks to us and Trump speaks to the NYT. I presume he's sort of lying all the time. I presume that about all politicians.
The most optimistic analysis of Trump as a presidential candidate is that he just doesn’t believe in positions, except the ones you adopt for strategic purposes when you’re making a deal. So you obviously can’t explain how you’re going to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, because it’s going to be the first bid in some future monster negotiation session.Sources familiar with the recording and transcript — which have reached near-mythical status at the Times — tell me that the second sentence is a bit more than speculation. It reflects, instead, something Trump said about the flexibility of his hardline anti-immigration stance.
The NYT got what it got out of him, under the conditions of off-the-recordness. We get what we get out of the NYT, under the conditions of its interest in maintaining the capacity to assure sources that it will keep its promises. And we presume the NYT is biased in various ways and that it's selecting and skewing what it's giving us. Right now, it's under pressure to release more than it normally would, and the argument is that the impending nomination of Donald Trump presents a special case and the usual rules do not apply.
As for that "second sentence" — "So you obviously can’t explain how you’re going to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, because it’s going to be the first bid in some future monster negotiation session" — it reinforces what intelligent observers already assume and feel we've more or less heard in Trump's public statements.
Yes, Trump opponents would love to have the behind-the-scenes quote. We'd love to hear the way Trump would phrase it in secrecy as he tries to con NYT editors into seeing him as a reasonable, trustworthy candidate.
And yeah, I wrote "con" in that last sentence. It sprang to mind as the right word. I was not — not consciously — thinking of Rubio's new stock insult for Trump: "con man."
For the record, I assume politics involves conning. There must be conning. And we must be cunning about conning. He who says the other guy is a con man is also a con man. It's all a con. Now, everybody grow up. Quick, please. Because it is Super Tuesday.
Posts
78 comments:
"As for that "second sentence" — "So you obviously can’t explain how you’re going to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, because it’s going to be the first bid in some future monster negotiation session" — it reinforces what intelligent observers already assume and feel we've more or less heard in Trump's public statements."
Yes, Trump's public plan is a call for what everybody calls "amnesty".
We are in a full out class war at the moment. Guess which side the people who staff the New York Times are going to come down on.
That said, I agree with the professor, its like the old joke, how do you know a politician is lying?
Trump is a practiced con artist.
View everything about Trump's campaign through the con artist lens and it makes sense.
"People believe what they want to believe." David O. Russell, screenwriter of "American Hustle."
All the liars and con men are standing in a circle calling each other liars and con men. It's funny. Not really, but waddayagonnado, walk around depressed every day.
LALLALALQALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA
David Begley said...
Trump is a practiced con artist.
Respectfully, not snarkily, you missed the point.
Trump is playing the NYT like a fiddle.
I'd settle for deporting Hillary.
I smell Ted Cruz pulling a McCarthy type secret evidence assertion type of dirty trick. These always come 24 hours before the vote day, too late to be proved false, and confidently asserted by a Truth Teller who is so Christian that you cannot see he is lying again and again.
It must be a Canadian thing.
The dirt on Trump is going to be a mile high.
The dirt on Hillary is a mile high, but she is protected from it by her media.
Does anyone think that the NYT would release anything about Hillary that was off the record?
It reflects, instead, something Trump said about the flexibility of his hardline anti-immigration stance.
This is undoubtedly true. Had we let Bush negotiate with Saddam without the need to undercut him driven by paranoid fear, the Gulf War needn't have happened. The trouble is that stage whispers don't work in a democracy.
If that is all they have, it is nothing. Most of us understand that it is not possible to round up 11 million and send them home. But while negotiating, why not start at what would be an 'ideal' situation for your side? send all the illegals home, problem solved. I think he expects that by taking a hardline like that, there would be self-deportations and fewer people crossing the border.
My main interest in voting today in Georgia's primary is to cast an anti-Trump vote, I would like for it to be different, would like to have a candidate in mind that I want to support, but like many voters I've found that isn't the case.
The problem is that with the complexity of the state-by-state delegate system, I don't even know how to achieve my goal. Does anyone want to try to make the case for which candidate would best achieve my goal? Note that I'm not asking for arguments on the merits of candidates.
From what I can tell, I would want both Cruz and Rubio to earn at least 20% of the vote here (otherwise Trump splits the delegates with only one of them.) Then there are also district by district allocations....and I can't seem to find polling data to figure out which of those two non-Trump candidates most needs my help. It certainly seems that there is more enthusiasm in my district for Cruz than for Rubio, but if Rubio has no chance anyway of winning my district then it makes no sense to support him on that basis so I need to know how he's doing overall in my state (again, polling data seems sparse, especially recent pols.)
Leaving aside the strategic angle, I'm more inclined to vote Rubio but want to make sure if I vote that way that it doesn't give more advantage to Trump. Anyone care to make a case one way or the other?
This requires intelligent thought. Trump is primarily accused over and over of planning to be a fascist dictator who plans to rule without Congress.
But then Trump may have been caught in an off the record conversation in which he admits he will not be a fascist dictator who rules without Congress. And his epidermis was showing too.
The only thing surprising to me is that even today we keep seeing articles to the effect of "this new bombshell may be the thing that breaks Trump!" No new bombshell will break Trump. No potentially racist statement from him, no scandal from his past, no recent flip-flop, no unhinged outburst--none of it will make a difference. Trump thrives on attention, and every one of these flurries of media attention only feed the beast. The only thing that would ever stop him is boredom.
His fans by this point are aware of every reason his opponents detest him. They don't care, and are not going to start to care. The only questions now are:
1) Will people get bored of him? (Unlikely, but old hat is old hat)
2) Will enough of his opponents overcome their disgust with him to support him over Hillary? Harder to tell. Every cycle when the GOP primary hits its nasty level (and the GOP primaries are a level of nastiness the Dems never reach) we hear "I'll never support that guy!" but a lot of people stick with their party's nominee by the end. But this cycle the disgust a lot of GOP-leaners feel seems particularly deep. And the odiousness of Hillary makes it a harder choice for them.
3) Will any other factors sway the election between now and November? A recession is possible (we should get numbers after next month), a terror attack as well, and the Hillary revelations seem to be dripping along.
I have no doubt Trump is going to backtrack on his immigration promises and claim it as a successful deal. But his fans seem to know this too, and trust that whatever he gets them is the best they can hope for. This is a matter of trust in the person, and they've decided this man is trustworthy. No news can change that.
Cruz, in all seriousness, demands to know when Trump disavowed his Mafia partners.
And the beat goes on.
The way you know Donald Trump's reputation is his endorsement by Brian France and several star NASCAR drivers yesterday.
Those men have to run an honest organization and tell the truth at 230 MPH.
Why would anyone, a Republican especially, trust the New York Times to honor "off-the-record"? It would be stupid, and Trump isn't stupid. He'll milk this for all he can, trash the NYT for not honoring their word, the NYT will release Trump's quotes with a lot of fanfare, and what he said will be a giant nothing-burger. But he'll have some great free publicity, the Times will be discredited for his supporters, at least, and the Trump train will gain more speed.
"So you obviously can’t explain how you’re going to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, because it’s going to be the first bid in some future monster negotiation session."
They think this hurts Trump? It's completely obvious that this has to happen. I doubt that many of Trump's supporters on immigration or any other issue are for him because he's taking a non negotiable purist position. Trump isn't a purist nor is he a strict ideological conservative. People are drawn to his energy, and the sense that he will act rather than talk, move forward rather than stalemate.
A lot of people seem to be misunderstanding the nature (and the breadth and complexity) of his appeal. This happens when you filter things through stereotypes.
There's something bad about HALF-leaking it.
"traditionalguy said...
The way you know Donald Trump's reputation is his endorsement by Brian France and several star NASCAR drivers yesterday.
Those men have to run an honest organization and tell the truth at 230 MPH."
Nowhere near that fast.
The formality of the primaries ends today. Even though Trump was identified as the nominee back in August, the weeping and gnashing of teeth goes on. Seeing the media have nothing yet everything to do with Trump's success is just hot fudge on the sundae.
tim in vermont,
"Had we let Bush negotiate with Saddam without the need to undercut him driven by paranoid fear, the Gulf War needn't have happened. The trouble is that stage whispers don't work in a democracy."
Nixon and Kissinger called this "doublespeak" and employed it across the board on everything from the peace talks with North Vietnam to the SALT talks with Russia. In Detente and Confrontation, Ray Garthoff (who was one of the SALT negotiators) claims that it contributed to the US getting less than what it could have from SALT (Kissinger felt Garthoff was taking too narrow a view and that SALT was just a litmus test to gauge Soviet "revolutionary" behavior). Over the years, many Russian, Chinese and North Vietnamese diplomats have acknowledged that it was difficult for them to know what the US position really was since the US officials articulating the "official line" were frequently countermanded in private by their own leaders.
It's a bit too complex for me to know whether it was "good" or "bad."
The electorate knows that in this election race Trump has been leading the campaign to resist massive illegal immigration.
Therefore, all these slimy efforts to discredit him don't effect his growing popularity.
"They think this hurts Trump?"
They assume all Trump supporters are ignorant racists and xenophobes. They do this because they like the way it makes them feel about themselves, virtuous and superior.
Most Trump supporters just want the folks who make the laws to obey the laws and enforce them equally and fairly. At the NYT this is known as extremism.
"off the record" is a misunderestimated concept.
To people who think they have power, it means "you didn't hear this from me" and "don't quote me".
To journalists, it means "here's something stinky-good" and "don't quote me if you want to keep using me, but go ahead and quote me if it's so stinky-good that it'll boost your career".
To the general public, it means "oooooh, this might be important".
To editors, it means "bullshit".
This is not the world of Deep Throat and Mark Felt, and it never was.
Trump is Trump and glories in it, in fact, that is largely what he runs on; to accuse him of being Trump and expect the voters to think this is something bad makes no sense.
And then they try to do a bad imitation of Trump, but still want us to take their word for whatever; that they are honest men and not flim-flam artists like him.
PM317 gets it. Trump is not a fool and knows full well he cannot, could not, deport 12 million people. It is a marker, a rhetorical gesture, that puts on notice those on each side of the border that business as usual is over. That means stay home to those in the south and behave to those here already. As to "amnesty" I expect Trump intends a long list of hurdles that will have to be jumped to earn a green card and finally citizenship. Learn English. Pay fine. Wait five, ten, years to get in line.
Trump may have been trying to explain to the geniuses at the NYT how you do not begin negotiating by asking, a la BHO, for small things.
AllenS - you asked "Does anyone think that the NYT would release anything about Hillary that was off the record?"
The answer is "yes, when she tells them to leak it as an off-the-record quote."
FTR: Bill Elliott, who endorsed Trump yesterday, did a 212.809 lap at Talledega qualifying in 1987. And the lap speed includes the curves. The straight a ways are 230 or more.
Kind of reminds you of Oscar Levant's quip about Hollywood: "Beneath all that fake Hollywood tinsel, there is real tinsel!"
This time around the voters may just prefer the guy with the real tinsel on top.
Glad you got to this. Sorry for the re-post: Gail Collins on that already infamous "secret" "off-the-record" session at the NYT: "The most optimistic analysis of Trump as a presidential candidate is that he just doesn’t believe in positions, except the ones you adopt for strategic purposes when you’re making a deal. So you obviously can’t explain how you’re going to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, because it’s going to be the first bid in some future monster negotiation session." Prediction: the outcome of the negotiations will be: 1. Congress agrees to downpayment on bigger wall; 2. expedited procedures to expel criminal aliens; 3. authority for Prez to negotiate Mexican contribution in some fashion; 4. and, gosh darn it, they talked him into it, art of the deal and all that, Trump "reluctantly" agrees to give up on general expulsion, accepts gradual legalization for "good ones" instead. Gang of 535 goes along with the deal.
The surprising thing about this election is not Trump but the number of easy marks. Example: "As to "amnesty" I expect Trump intends a long list of hurdles . . ."
Was the claim that the Rs could not win an election without pandering to the Hispanic voters over immigration a con? R voters like Hannity badly wanted to win after Romney's defeat. Were they 'conned' by the GOPe into believing that the only way to win was to do what the oligarchs wanted?
The MSM is always willing to withhold material that harms the Left.
See (or dont see) the hidden LAT Video tape of the Rashid Khalidi going away Celebration in 2003 featuring Obama, Ayers, and Dohrn.
The New York Times still exists because of Carlos Slim. I think the newspaper has gotten itself into the awkward position of pleasing its largest shareholder at the expense of its integrity.
The choice between either granting amnesty or deporting 12 Million illegals is a false one.
The derivative argument that because you can't deport 12 Million illegals, therefore you must accept some form of amnesty is also fallacious.
Enforce the law, right now. Stop the hordes from entering - and deport the easy cases, like felons or gang members.
That would be a good start.
Ted Cruz has the best understanding of the mass media of any candidate: if you're a Republican, never forget that they hate, loathe and detest you, and will do anything in their power to f**k you. I hope Trump is at least savvy enough to understand that the NYT will gleefully reveal anything it thinks will hurt him as long as he is running as a Republican. He probably knows this - he's dealt with them and their type, in buddy-buddy fashion, for many years.
Most Trump supporters just want the folks who make the laws to obey the laws and enforce them equally and fairly. At the NYT this is known as extremism.
Precisely. The non-elite middle-class has discovered that the government has been weaponized for use against them. That was the lesson learned when from the IRS/Lois Lerner scandal (a "phony" scandal according to the NYT.)
Many of the Trump "he said that?!" controversies I've looked into don't pan out. They say he said something, then release the video, and I see him meaning something else. So color me skeptical that they are representing what he was saying accurately. The cynic in me says the half-leaking is just a way to say Trump said something while suppressing the video that would let us see what he was actually saying.
Hey it's not the Rashid Khalidi tape so this will come out at the appropriate time. By appropriate, I mean the time most likely to help the Dowager Empress of Chappaqua.
@BAG: "therefore you must accept some form of amnesty" Correct: you "must" not. But Trump does.
Of course, he can change his mind tomorrow. No one can put any faith in any statement about what he "does" think or "will" do.
@RW: "The non-elite middle-class has discovered that the government has been weaponized for use against them. That was the lesson learned when from the IRS/Lois Lerner scandal (a "phony" scandal according to the NYT.)" The IRS scandal did not weaponize government against "the non-elite middle-class." Much of what the government does favors the "non-elite middle class." Most income growth in the middle quintile since the 1970s is due to cash and in-kind transfers.
Original Mike to AA: "As for that "second sentence" — "So you obviously can’t explain how you’re going to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, because it’s going to be the first bid in some future monster negotiation session" — it reinforces what intelligent observers already assume and feel we've more or less heard in Trump's public statements."
Yes, Trump's public plan is a call for what everybody calls "amnesty".
O-Mike, if the Republicans had at any time in the last decade deigned to engage in the "tough negotiation" part of their job on "immigration reform", they wouldn't be where they are now. Instead, they were going to give yet another amnesty in exchange for absolutely nothing. The vague and easily-sidestepped "enforcement" provisions thrown in as a sop for the rubes only helped to finish off their vanishing credibility on the issue. Only the rube-iest of rubes has yet to figure out that this absolute failure to negotiate and compromise rather than submit rests with the simple fact that the GOPe wants "open borders now, open borders tomorrow, open borders forever" (and Rubio is their boy).
I noticed earlier that the Amanda-level dumb subset of anti-Trumpers around here have latched onto an "it's an amnesty! so, see, it's no different from what you'd get with Rubio on immigration!" trope, and are re-bleating it at every opportunity. I'll resist interpreting your short remark that way, since you're certainly not a member of that subset.
This is extremely damaging! Extremely damaging -- for the eleven Republican primary voters who give a flying fuck about what the New York Times thinks about anything.
This says it all
"...Rubio, on Fox: Trump is a con man. Bret Baier: What state are you winning? Rubio: I didn't say he wasn't a good con man. ......."
@Mike
Most income growth in the middle quintile since the 1970s is due to cash and in-kind transfers.
Which is a bad thing.
Just because the government is buying votes doesn't meant that it isn't also stifling dissent.
I imagine Hugo Chavez's supporters did quite well, for a short time.
Sorry, my previous remark should have been addressed to @Sebastian.
David: They think this hurts Trump? It's completely obvious that this has to happen. I doubt that many of Trump's supporters on immigration or any other issue are for him because he's taking a non negotiable purist position.
But if you're an off-the-deep-end type of anti-Trumper, you have to believe exactly that about Trump supporters, because otherwise your cherished beliefs about them wouldn't make any sense.
Much of what the government does favors the "non-elite middle class."
And a lot of what it does, does not. Immigration policy, for example. Perhaps "Most income growth in the middle quintile since the 1970s" wouldn't be "due to cash and in-kind transfers" if we had trade and immigration policies that favored the non-elite middle-class or for that matter, the poor and working classes.
@Angelyne- I'm an anti-Trumper but I have no "cherished beliefs" about Trump supporters. I simply don't understand what they see in him.
Were they 'conned' by the GOPe into believing that the only way to win was to do what the oligarchs wanted?
It is well known that the oligarchs throw the best parties, and they get a return on investment by funding people to look after their interests full time. They control both parties. How else to explain that Hillary has a lock on the Democratic nomination?
Is it just me, or is there another MSM Bernie Blackout going on? Is the guy on vacation or something?
Bernie Sanders doesn't want to win. Why should anyone waste time covering him. He wanted to push the Dems into more progressive positions and he's helped do that. Now he can go back to the Senate until he dies.
@RW: I see. So more vote-buying and entitlements and transfers for the non-elite middle-class, whose income tax burden has also dropped, is how you operationalize "weaponization" of government against that group. Got it.
Of course, insofar as immigration has produced disadvantageous competition for the "non-elite middle class" (big debate in the literature) that came mainly from legal immigration, only parts of which (special-skills visas etc.) Trump addresses on his website. From his statements thus far, it is not clear he understands current immigration law or has any particular notion about how to change it.
I knew that reporters and news media in general were self serving freaks. But for reporters to divulge "off the record" comments is beyond the pale. They are liars and cheats.
He may not deport millions, but he will close, or at least, watch the borders.
Hillary will admit Democrat's future voters to replace current voters who are, at long last, wise up to Democrat's con.
Wow, so we all are just skating right over the "sitting on" part, huh? Why do we suppose they're sitting on it now? Could it be because they want to wait until Trump is the Republican nominee, and then try to crush him in the general, ensuring the election of the Democrat? Nahhhhhhh. Not the paper of record. They wouldn't be partisan like that.
Speaking of which, I wonder if this is the year the objective, neutral, professional, unbiased New York Times finally endorses a Republican for president for the first time since 1956?
Since you have the blog you have the con (so to speak), Professor.
Keep a vigilant watch.
@RW: I see. So more vote-buying and entitlements and transfers for the non-elite middle-class, whose income tax burden has also dropped, is how you operationalize "weaponization" of government against that group. Got it.
Uh, no. And no honest reading of my comments could lead any reasonable person to conclude that.
So, no point in having a discussion with a interlocutor who purposely mis-characterizes my arguments.
CStanley: @Angelyne- I'm an anti-Trumper but I have no "cherished beliefs" about Trump supporters. I simply don't understand what they see in him.
They you're not the off-the-deep-end type of anti-Trumper that I specified, are you?
You're normal. I don't see what people see in some other candidates, either.
Looks like the "negotiations" I predicted have already begun:
Here's Trump on Fox:
“Would it be negotiable about the 11 million?” Hannity pressed. “Maybe let some people stay if they register in a period of time?”
“I would say this,” Trump added, “we will work out some system that’s fair, but we either have a country or we don’t. We need a border. We need a wall.”
Some of Trump's comments are boo worthy and some deserve a big hand of applause. What I most want to cheer for in Donald Trump is his put down of the media. Cruz does it in a more articulate and literate way, but Trump is more pugnacious and contemptuous. If the Times betrays his trust, they will more likely muddy their own reputation than that of Trump. Plus they will give Trump another applause line in his comments about the media. I don't see how the Times wins this round.
Trump is either a double agent or The New York Times has been conned. They believe what they want to believe.
There is already ambiguity in trumps position even if you totally buy that he would deport everyone. He and his son both articulated that as soon as everyone was deported he'd then create an expedited process to allow "the good immigrants" to come back. Legally. Is that legally as guest workers? Or legally as citizens? Regardless, it's amnesty.
I do like how the Times doesn't want to reveal the information. Why would they sit on it except that they want to have Trump get further in the election, take out the other republicans and then spring it.
Or, they think that him saying it's just a negotiation tactic to express the most extreme position on his end which he would then move away from in the negotiation actually makes him seem less like a racist. And they don't want that.
If that's the case it might actually work agains the times. If he's the nominee the deems will say you hate Mexicans blah blah blah. Then trump himself could say" there's a tape out there where I discussed my strategy and the times has it but doesn't want to release it where I articulated that I have more flexibility and am not just hating Mexicans. And rather than telling the people they want to use it to destroy me."
Of course if he does have flexibility his supporters who want him to stick it to the man might become disillusioned since he might then be saying that he is flexible on amnesty.
@jr: "if he does have flexibility his supporters who want him to stick it to the man might become disillusioned since he might then be saying that he is flexible on amnesty." "if"? "might then"?
“I would say this,” Trump added, “we will work out some system that’s fair, but we either have a country or we don’t. We need a border. We need a wall.”
Sounds good to me.
Trump may or may not do this or that. But we know exactly what Hillary will do. This isn't remotely difficult.
"Trump is playing the NYT like a fiddle."
A). Trump is playing the NYT like a fiddle, or
B). Trump is playing you like a fiddle, or
C). Trump isn't very smart
Looks like we are destined to find out which.
Sebastian wrote:
@jr: "if he does have flexibility his supporters who want him to stick it to the man might become disillusioned since he might then be saying that he is flexible on amnesty." "if"? "might then"?
well, no one outside of they NYT has heard the tape. So trumpbots can always lie to themselves and pretend like it isn't true. But, if he wins, they are going to be the ones hardest hit. Partly because those who told them to simply listen to what he's saying will be rubbing their nose in sh*t 24/7.
In 1988, George Bush said this: "Read my lips. No new taxes." It was a blunt promise. He broke it.
In 1992, my father, who only votes for Republicans, voted for Bill Clinton. Why? He was mad that Bush lied to him.
In 2000, I wanted to vote for a Democrat. I asked John Edwards, a "moderate" Democrat, what he thought about partial-birth abortion. He said, "I'm appalled by it." I voted for him.
When he cast the deciding vote, in favor of partial-birth abortion, I sent him an anguished e-mail, asking for an explanation. He sent me back an e-mail about how "difficult" his decision was.
I have not voted for a Democrat since then. It's been 16 years.
You mean he's not going to get Mexico to pay for the wall? We'll I'm shocked that this would be just an opening bid in a negotiation.
AA: I presume he's sort of lying all the time. I presume that about all politicians.
This view seems more common among Democrats than the GOP. When campaigner Obama distanced himself from supporting gay marriage, most Dem's assumed he thought otherwise, and were not surprised when he later embraced it.
There is supposedly a GOP contingent of Trump fans who are tired of being misled by the GOP. And yet they support a man who constantly "uses strategic ambiguity" (to use the most charitable term), basically misleading them on everything. Maybe they have now come around to the Democrat point of view on the necessity of lying, but if they have, why are they still angry with the GOP? Or if not, why are they supporting Trump?
The next time a New York Times reporter claims immunity from having to divulge a source, or something told to him/her in confidence, stick them in jail.
Fritz, how typical of a Trump sympathizer to wish to hobble the noble press. Who are, after all only trying to make us think what is right and proper.
Seriously, though, fair point. I never understood the legal reasoning behind special privileges for journalists, who have really lost all importance - sorry, that's just the realities of advertising and no-printing-presses-required babel blogging.
The press is now (again) owned by rich patrons - the corrupt fascist looter Carlos Slim in case of the NYT.
Perhaps the LA Times can follow the example and finally release the Obama tapes they have been hiding?
Post a Comment