Jon and Stephen tackle the ludicrous theater of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate hearings and the New York Times’ self-owning anonymous op-ed. The intro/outro song is “Loved Ones” by Starflyer 59. Stephen’s song of the week is “Here It Comes (The Road) Let’s Go” by Spiritualized and Jon’s song of the week is “Business Man” by FEWS. To listen to all the music featured on The Conservatarians, subscribe to our Spotify playlist!

Subscribe to The Conservatarians in iTunes (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

Podcast listeners: Now become a Ricochet member for only $2.50 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 16 comments.

  1. Thatcher

    Since neither of you voted for him, I don’t think either of you are qualified to even begin to understand why people voted for Trump, particularly as you lump us all together as if we are one sadly mistaken group. Stephen Miller, you obviously consider us to be the deplorables, but thank you for at least acknowledging that he is a legally elected president and recognizing the absurdity of the NY Times op-ed. May I remind you gentlemen that, according to the Wall Street Journal, 88% of Republicans still support this president? Lastly, what in the world did you expect him to do during the McCain funeral that the family had not invited him to? Sit out on the front steps of the White House, wave an Arizona flag and cry? Give me a break. 

    • #1
    • September 7, 2018 at 4:27 pm
    • 5 likes
  2. Coolidge

    I wonder if the op-ed isnt complete fiction. They gaslight Trump into looking for a mole that isnt there, and watch the comic relief as Trump disrupts his own administration. Maybe ends up firing some random by-standers who fail their polygraphs. I would bet this is the NYT having fun on Trump.

    If you wanna see the democrat meltdown get meltier, wait 2 months, see what happens when the republicans hold onto the house (maybe by a narrower margin) and improve their hold on the senate. Democrats will just loose their crap. They’ll claim they won the election because more people voted for democrats, but got fewer seats.

    • #2
    • September 8, 2018 at 4:44 am
    • 2 likes
  3. Member

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):
    Since neither of you voted for him, I don’t think either of you are qualified to even begin to understand why people voted for Trump, particularly as you lump us all together as if we are one sadly mistaken group. Stephen Miller, you obviously consider us to be the deplorables,

    I have long admired you but you just went up in my estimation. I admit I am a deplorable, much better than wearing a pussy hat.

    • #3
    • September 8, 2018 at 8:21 am
    • 3 likes
  4. Coolidge

    I really think the op ed is the work of a democrat or journalist (but I repeat myself) who wanted to bait Trump into even stupider comments and actions. I hope it doesn’t work.

    • #4
    • September 8, 2018 at 9:09 am
    • 1 like
  5. Member

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    . . .

    Lastly, what in the world did you expect him to do during the McCain funeral that the family had not invited him to? Sit out on the front steps of the White House, wave an Arizona flag and cry? Give me a break.

    I think that Miller tried to make this point, but remains unable to see the point, because he still talks about the “open display of publicly disrespecting McCain” (at about 55:12). He was attributing this idea to the anonymous editorial writing, but he didn’t explain how utterly silly this view is.

    Either McCain, or his family who was in charge of his funeral, chose public disrespect of the President as McCain’s final act. From what I’ve read, this was the decision of McCain himself, but whoever was responsible, it was utterly reprehensible. It was petty, small, pathetic, and vindictive.

    Miller and Gabriel are smart guys. I cannot understand how they are unable to see this point of view.

    • #5
    • September 8, 2018 at 9:44 am
    • 1 like
  6. Member

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):

    I really think the op ed is the work of a democrat or journalist (but I repeat myself) who wanted to bait Trump into even stupider comments and actions. I hope it doesn’t work.

    Julia…doesn’t it seem unlikely that the NYT would risk a misrepresentation of the source?

    • #6
    • September 8, 2018 at 9:55 am
    • 2 likes
  7. Member

    David Bryan (View Comment):
    doesn’t it seem unlikely that the NYT would risk a misrepresentation of the source?

    NYT is notorious for misrepresenting just about everything they print. I wouldn’t put this past being written by Sarah Jeong, can’t give you an exact link because of COC.

    This from <https://www.zerohedge.com/&gt;

    “On Wednesday the paper announced the addition of Sarah Jeong to their editorial board as the “newest in a fab group of recent additions.” As the Daily Callers Amber Athey notes, Jeong previously wrote for the Verge and authored a book about online harassment and free speech titled “The Internet of Garbage.””

     

    • #7
    • September 8, 2018 at 11:15 am
    • 1 like
  8. Coolidge

    David Bryan (View Comment):

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):

    I really think the op ed is the work of a democrat or journalist (but I repeat myself) who wanted to bait Trump into even stupider comments and actions. I hope it doesn’t work.

    Julia…doesn’t it seem unlikely that the NYT would risk a misrepresentation of the source?

    Probably not but the NYTs doesn’t have the best track record. Remember Jason Blair?

    • #8
    • September 8, 2018 at 11:20 am
    • 4 likes
  9. Member

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):

    David Bryan (View Comment):

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):

    I really think the op ed is the work of a democrat or journalist (but I repeat myself) who wanted to bait Trump into even stupider comments and actions. I hope it doesn’t work.

    Julia…doesn’t it seem unlikely that the NYT would risk a misrepresentation of the source?

    Probably not but the NYTs doesn’t have the best track record. Remember Jason Blair?

    Oh, yes…I do remember Blair. But Blair wrote his fictional “news” without the approval or knowledge of NYT management. It seems like the Times’ knowingly fabricating this piece from an imaginary White House official could destroy the NYT. 

    • #9
    • September 8, 2018 at 12:14 pm
    • 2 likes
  10. Coolidge

    David Bryan (View Comment):
    It seems like the Times’ knowingly fabricating this piece from an imaginary White House official could destroy the NYT. 

    I don’t think so. CBS is still alive and well after this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-ousts-4-for-bush-guard-story-10-01-2005/ They believe pretty much anything is justified to save us from Republicans and Trump in particular.

    • #10
    • September 8, 2018 at 12:27 pm
    • 5 likes
  11. Coolidge

    David Bryan (View Comment):

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):

    David Bryan (View Comment):

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):

    I really think the op ed is the work of a democrat or journalist (but I repeat myself) who wanted to bait Trump into even stupider comments and actions. I hope it doesn’t work.

    Julia…doesn’t it seem unlikely that the NYT would risk a misrepresentation of the source?

    Probably not but the NYTs doesn’t have the best track record. Remember Jason Blair?

    Oh, yes…I do remember Blair. But Blair wrote his fictional “news” without the approval or knowledge of NYT management. It seems like the Times’ knowingly fabricating this piece from an imaginary White House official could destroy the NYT.

    I dont think so. They’d fire some intern who was going to be laid off anyway. Say they got snookered by the “intermediary” and claim it was an error in judgement.

    They’ll be just fine. They can print whatever they like with impunity, their is (almost) no consequences for them.

    • #11
    • September 8, 2018 at 1:06 pm
    • 2 likes
  12. Coolidge

    Interesting conversation with an FBI linguist that help track down the Unibomber from his writings.

    He makes the interesting point that none of the allegations in the anonymous op-ed are new. All have appeared in print before (either in books or news articles) which I take to mean that he’s suggesting that the op-ed is fiction. You’d think that if someone where really to risk their career in this reckless manner they’d at least have something new to add to the public debate.

    • #12
    • September 8, 2018 at 2:26 pm
    • 4 likes
  13. Coolidge

    David Bryan (View Comment):

    I really think the op ed is the work of a democrat or journalist (but I repeat myself) who wanted to bait Trump into even stupider comments and actions. I hope it doesn’t work.

    Julia…doesn’t it seem unlikely that the NYT would risk a misrepresentation of the source?

    I feel like the essay is a summary of hearsay by some mid-level hack. That then gets punched up by the NYT staff. After it has been run through the grinder so many times it is nothing better than a fictional account by the NYT, but they can legally say it was by a “senior official”.

    • #13
    • September 8, 2018 at 4:56 pm
    • 1 like
  14. Coolidge

    Some of the thinking here is muddled, but the guys made one very good point:

    If the author of that New York Times op-ed were really someone trying underhandedly to save the country from Donald Trump‘s excesses, then he would never, ever have published an op-ed giving away the game. 

    On the more muddled side of the scale, the guys say that the op-ed will confirm Donald Trump and his supporters in their belief that there is a Deep State that wants to destroy him.

    The guys don’t seem to grasp that the op-ed, if it isn’t an outright hoax, is actual evidence that there really is a Deep State that wants to destroy Trump.

    • #14
    • September 9, 2018 at 11:11 pm
    • 2 likes
  15. Coolidge

    Taras (View Comment):
    The guys don’t seem to grasp that the op-ed, if it isn’t an outright hoax, is actual evidence that there really is a Deep State that wants to destroy Trump.

    There are many, many people who would like to get rid of Trump for some excellent reasons. I’d much prefer Pence.

    • #15
    • September 10, 2018 at 8:03 am
    • Like
  16. Coolidge

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    The guys don’t seem to grasp that the op-ed, if it isn’t an outright hoax, is actual evidence that there really is a Deep State that wants to destroy Trump.

    There are many, many people who would like to get rid of Trump for some excellent reasons. I’d much prefer Pence.

    I think of what’s happening as Seven Days in May in reverse. Instead of conservative military men striving to remove a liberal President they consider dangerous, it’s liberal lawyers trying to remove a conservative.

    You will note that certain anti-Trumpers and others, who insist there is no Deep State, always use straw-man arguments — as if the Federal employees working to undermine Trump all have to be consciously working together.

    Not sure Pence can do the job. What’s happening is that moderate and patriotic Democrats (like Trump himself) are trying to move into the Republican Party, leaving behind the America-hating socialists who have taken over the Democratic Party.

    The danger is, conservative purists may block the formation of this kind of patriotic coalition, permitting the far-left Democrats to come to power. This is exactly what happened in Chile when the Marxist Allende was elected with only 37% of the popular vote, because the anti-Marxist vote was split between two candidates.

    • #16
    • September 10, 2018 at 9:21 am
    • 1 like