"Politicians, including the president-elect, shouldn’t publicly attack intelligence agencies simply because those agencies reach disagreeable conclusions. No, the U.S. intelligence community isn’t perfect. Yes, there have been times when intelligence was not just flawed, but politicized. But it is unprecedented for the president-elect of the United States to cast aspersions on intelligence conclusions before he’s seen the evidence."
"No good can come of this development. It places pressure on eager-to-please bureaucrats to tell the incoming president what he wants to hear. It antagonizes hostile bureaucrats, incentivizing conflict between the Oval Office and our intelligence agencies. And in so doing, it makes the already-difficult job of obtaining and evaluating intelligence that much harder at a time when the stakes are extraordinarily high."
"This is the 'new c[uck]servatism': Elicit a reaction. There’s no follow-up. There’s no design. And truth is unimportant. The new 'c[uck]servatism' promoted by Trump and his most ardent imitators is a teenage slapfight with no general purpose other than to deliberately offend, thereby making yourself appear more powerful."
"Conservatives in Congress and conservative activists have to be ready to push back when Trump's agenda is not a conservative agenda. Congress runs a risk if they choose to rubber-stamp all of Trump's policies, leaving themselves open to primary challenges that have hurt the GOP in the past. Trump has hinted at a $1 trillion stimulus package and tariffs on imports. A GOP controlled Congress wouldn’t dare give a Democrats a trillion dollar stimulus package nor would they entertain any thoughts of implementing tariffs on domestic imports if a Democrat president asked Congress to do it. So why should they if a 'Republican' is in office?