MARTIN: I know, I know, I know. 
 
 CORKER: So but, what I am saying. But obviously, what happens, the thing that is different, if I’m running in a Republican primary, you know obviously you end up being constrained. But, I just, if you could, I’m not asking any different than I have the entire 10 years and eight months that I have been in office. You know, and one of the reasons, the main reason was the statement that I made. You know, I told people, I didn’t intend to serve more than two terms, that’s been a really big drag on me. 
 
 But in addition to that, the other part of our statement was true that the next 15 months we believe to be the most important time of our service and to be constrained by looking over your shoulder with some winger running against you, you know, let’s face it that impedes your ability to serve. So I just — again, I haven’t like changed course I just don’t have the worry. 
 
 I actually can continue over the next 15 months being the same senator that I’ve been. So, sure, I mean the president concerns me. I mean there’s no question. And, I like him. O.K., I enjoyed playing golf with him, you know, he’s a very courteous kind person. It’s not that I dislike him. 
 
 MARTIN: Right. 
 
 CORKER: I know for a fact that every single day at the White House it’s a situation of trying to contain him. 
 
 MARTIN: Yeah. 
 
 CORKER: Look, you know that. It’s not like — 
 
 MARTIN: Yes, you’re right. 
 
 CORKER: I mean, you’ve talked to enough people to know that that’s just a fact. So, thankfully we’ve got some very good people there. At least today, we’ve got some very good people there and they have been able to push back against his worst instincts. 
 
 MARTIN: Yeah. 
 
 CORKER: But yes, I mean, you know, yes. He concerns me. I mean he would have to concern anyone who cares about our nation. But a lot people that — Let me put it this way, I think that — So I’ll just stop there. Sure, I mean, do I want him to be successful? Absolutely. 
 
 MARTIN: Let me just — 
 
 CORKER: Have we worked with him. Are you still here? 
 
 MARTIN: Yes, sir. I’m here, I’m here. Yes, sir. I’m here, I can hear you. ||||| ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 Man of the hour! Bob Corker, retiring Republican senator from Tennessee and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has been earning Twitter plaudits for his sorties against President Trump. He has called the president a toddler on Twitter (134,000 retweets and counting!) and told The New York Times that the president's instability might well put America "on the path to World War III." 
 
 In the scripted kabuki theater of American politics, the respected Republican statesman who calls out the president of his own party as reckless or extreme is a stock character, who must always receive loud calls of adulation from the chorus of the press. Bravo! 
 
 But why is it, exactly, that anyone should respect Bob Corker's opinion about the president? Should it be more, or less, respected than his endorsement of that same irresponsible toddler for the presidency? His campaign-era praise for the foreign policy thinking of the man who he now warns risks World War III? His jockeying for a spot on the ticket with the toddler? His dismissal of those who, within the Republican Party, were saying exactly the same things, you know, back when something could have been done about it? 
 
 There has been a very strong correlation between Bob Corker's public comments on Donald Trump and Bob Corker's perceived short-term interests, and his new about-face is no exception. He only started "uncorking" (get it?) about Trump once he decided not to run for re-election in a state that Trump carried by 25 points. He has calibrated his retirement announcement to encourage speculation about a 2020 bid, for which his recent comments are clearly useful in positioning him as an establishment primary challenge to Trump. What is it, exactly, that anyone should respect here? 
 
 For the record, I am not engaging in "whataboutism." I absolutely agree with Corker that the president of the United States behaves like a toddler and in other ways that are grave and alarming. The difference is that I haven't spent the past year obfuscating about that for political gain. 
 
 It's worth expressing some moral outrage about that. Corker was an instrumental part of a Republican establishment that foreswore every opportunity to stop Trump during the campaign for the sake of short-term political gain: refusing to unite behind an anti-Trump candidate, quashing dissent in the run-up to the convention, sucking away the oxygen that might have enabled a non-quixotic third-party conservative bid, comforting themselves with notions that the GOP could "run the country from Congress" and so it was okay to put a "toddler" in charge of America's nuclear arsenal. Edmund Burke was right: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. The Bob Corkers of the world bear more responsibility for Donald Trump's election than the Stephen Bannons and Sean Hannitys. Corker's "toddler" comment is damning — but less so for Trump (it's not exactly a scoop) than for Corker himself. If Trump is such a toddler, why did Corker enable his rise in the first place? 
 
 But there is also an important, even fundamental, political point, here. As Talleyrand, that French geopolitical master whom foreign policy hands should be able to quote, would say, "C'est pire qu'un crime, c'est une faute." ("It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder.") It is well-understood that the United States, and the West in general, is in the grips of a populist insurgency that often has noxious ideas and even more often lacks the competence to turn even its good ideas into policy. It is less well-understood that a main driver of this insurgency's strength is the intellectual and even, arguably, moral bankruptcy of too many in our governing elites, who often speak the language of the common good but seem to believe in little more than that the common good always intersects with their own class interest and that they have a natural right to rule. Bob Corker's sudden rediscovery of principle right at the moment when it stops being risky politically is a darkly comical symbol of this contemptible attitude. 
 
 Donald Trump became president at least in part because large swathes of Republican voters feel screwed by their party, and they feel this way because they are, well, correct. During his Senate tenure, Bob Corker's notable stances on economic policy include voting for Wall Street bailouts, support for a flat tax, and attacks on Social Security and Medicare. 
 
 Fixing a problem requires first understanding it. Trump's personal behavior is contemptible and alarming, but the reason why someone like Trump could get into the White House in the first place, and the way to prevent a new Trump once this one is out one way or another, is to understand how and why the establishment that enabled his rise and the rise of his movement failed. There has been no hint that Bob Corker or those of his establishment ilk understand any of this, or plan to do anything about it other than continue to behave like the stereotype of the kind of establishment Republican that drove a once-proud party (and thence, the world) into the hands of a fool. 
 
 Trump's obvious psychological unfitness for his office, important though it is, is also a convenient way to distract from the fundamental failures of the Republican establishment that made him possible. But on this subject Bob Corker has been utterly silent. I would rather hand the nuclear button to Bob Corker than Donald Trump, but if the difference between a toddler and a man is that the latter is capable to self-reflect and then take responsibility for his own actions, then the difference between these two becomes blurred. 
 
 Bob Corker isn't an opponent of Donald Trump. He is his enabler. ||||| Republicans woke up Columbus Day morning to the sights and sounds of the wheels coming off their midterm-election bus and their legislative jalopy. First came a widely publicized war of words between President Trump and the prominent Republican senator, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker. Then came a Bloomberg News story by Jennifer Jacobs and Bill Allison laying out Steve Bannon’s intention to back challengers to most of the GOP senators seeking re-election next year. 
 
 The Trump-Corker contretemps began last week when the Tennessee lawmaker, who had been a top contender to be Trump’s running mate as well as secretary of State, took an obvious shot at the president when he told reporters that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, and White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly “are those people that help separate our country from chaos.” Corker amplified his criticism on Fox News Sunday, charging that Trump was treating his office like “a reality show,” with reckless threats toward other countries that could set the nation “on the path to World War III.” 
 
 The tweet wars then began in earnest. Trump fired back that Corker “didn’t have the guts” to run for re-election, and Corker reponded by saying, “It’s a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning.” After adding that the former reality television star was “like he’s doing ‘The Apprentice’ or something,” Corker concluded that “he concerns me,” and it should “concern anyone who cares about our nation.” 
 
 In a New York Times interview later Sunday, this in a phone call with Jonathan Martin and Mark Landler, Corker said that “I know for a fact that every single day at the White House, it’s a situation of trying to contain him.” Trump fired up his twitter gatling gun and wrote that “Bob Corker gave us the Iran Deal, & that’s about it. We need HealthCare, we need Tax Cuts/Reform, we need people that can get the job done!” 
 
 While Trump has been highly critical of the Republican-led Congress in general, and the Senate Republican leadership in particular, for their failure to repeal and replace Obamacare, his exchange with Corker went to a darker place. Corker did what a lot of Republican leaders have been tempted to do — question the president’s maturity and stability, and speculate how that might affect his performance as commander-in-chief. 
 
 Over the last year Trump has singled out for criticism two endangered GOP incumbents up for re-election this year, Jeff Flake of Arizona and Dean Heller of Nevada. He also has engaged in an on-going feud with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. If Trump is to get anything done legislatively without having to depend on Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, he must have the support of Corker, McConnell, Flake, and Heller. The opportunities to align with Schumer and Pelosi are likely to be few and far between. 
 
 Citing three sources “familiar with his plans,” the Bloomberg News article reported that Bannon “plans to support as many as 15 Republican Senate candidates in 2018, including several challengers to incumbents. He’ll support only candidates who agree to two conditions: They will vote against McConnell as majority leader, and they will vote to end senators’ ability to block legislation by filibustering. Bloomberg went on to say that only Senator Ted Cruz of Texas is safe because he’s considered sufficiently conservative and seen to be moving toward the more populist approach Bannon favors. 
 
 Bannon has already scored a victory in Alabama by successfully backing former state Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore against a Luther Strange, a senator appointed by the GOP establishment. The Bloomberg piece reported that Bannon was targeting incumbents Flake, Heller, Nebraska’s Deb Fischer, Wyoming’s John Barrasso, and Utah’s Orrin Hatch, and the New York Times reported on Sunday that another Bannon favorite, Erik Prince, founder of the controversial security firm Blackwater, was considering a challenge to Barrasso. In the event that Sen. John McCain leaves office early — he is undergoing treatment for a virulent form of brain cancer — Bannon has indicated a preference for Paul Gosar, a state representative and tea party activist. In the race to replace Corker, Bannon intends to support Rep. Marsha Blackburn. 
 
 Almost any conversation with congressional Republicans starts and ends with the need to cut taxes, now that tax reform no longer seems possible. Having failed to pass any legislation of real significance this year, and with a president who carries little weight on Capitol Hill, Republicans desperately need to put some points on the board. They are banking on passing a tax cut that’s meaningful, that voters can see, feel, and touch. If they pass something insufficiently large, the political payoff will be commensurately small. 
 
 With 25 Democratic Senate seats up next year, ten in states Trump carried, five in states the former real estate developer won by 19 points or more, this should be a year for the GOP to expand its current narrow 52-48 majority. Under different circumstances, the GOP could hope to boost their Senate numbers by four to seven seats, perhaps even reaching the magic 60-seat Senate super-majority level that could break filibusters on party line votes. But given their current disarray, Republicans will need to fight hard to gain any new seats, and losing one or two of their own seats would put their majority in jeopardy. 
 
 The stakes are even higher in the House where their majority status is in real danger. The party needs to sublimate its divisions, get mainstream Republicans to the polls, and persuade the Trump base to cast ballot for non-Trump Republicans. That’s a tall order. And it’s why last week’s news reduced the odds of the GOP retaining its majority from a good bet to even money. 
 
 Correction: An earlier version of this story erroneously characterized Erik Prince’s political plans. He is considering a run against John Barrasso of Wyoming. ||||| The Failing @ nytimes set Liddle' Bob Corker up by recording his conversation. Was made to sound a fool, and that's what I am dealing with! ||||| Donald Trump’s weekend Twitter spat with Tennessee Senator Bob Corker is a familiar story: The President is a Party of One for whom personal loyalty is the only test. He isn’t going to change, so the meaningful question is how Republicans should navigate his periodic explosions to help the country and maintain their majorities in Congress. 
 
 Mr. Trump unleashed his tirade because he is still sore that Mr. Corker said this summer that the President hadn’t shown the stability or competence to be successful. The two later had... ||||| Sen. Bob Corker, the retiring Republican chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, has engaged in a heated back-and-forth with Trump for days now, including in an interview with The New York Times where he said that he feared Trump was steering the nation "on the path to World War III." 
 
 The President, a politician whose mantra has long been to hit back harder than someone hits him, is now treating Corker like he did his primary opponents: By giving him a nickname. 
 
 "The Failing @nytimes set Liddle' Bob Corker up by recording his conversation," Trump tweeted on Tuesday. "Was made to sound a fool, and that's what I am dealing with!" 
 
 "So have at it," Corker told the reporter. "I understand we're on the record. I don't like normally talking to you on the record -- I'm kidding you -- but I will." 
 
 Asked about Corker's comments, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters, "Sen. Corker is certainly entitled to his own opinion, but he's not entitled to his own facts." 
 
 "The facts certainly don't lie, the President has certainly been very successful," she continued. 
 
 Asked if Corker should resign, Sanders said that decision is not for the White House to make. "I think that's a decision for Sen. Corker and the people of Tennessee," Sanders said. 
 
 Trump continued his feud with Corker during a Tuesday meeting with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, pushing back on the senator's statement that Trump is putting the United States on a path toward World War III. 
 
 "We were on the wrong path before. All you have to do is take a look," he said when asked if Corker was right. "Now we're on the right path." 
 
 Trump labeling Corker "liddle" is a throwback to the 2016 campaign, when he gave Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, then a presidential candidate himself, the same moniker. 
 
 "I'm the writer," Trump told New York magazine in 2016. "Let me start with Little Marco. He just looked like Little Marco to me. And it's not Little. It's Liddle. L-I-D-D-L-E. And it's not L-Y-I-N-G Ted Cruz. It's L-Y-I-N apostrophe. Ted's a liar, so that was easy." 
 
 The feud between Corker and Trump had escalated this weekend when the President tweeted that the outgoing senator "begged" for his endorsement before declining to run for re-election. 
 
 "He also wanted to be Secretary of State, I said 'NO THANKS.' He is also largely responsible for the horrendous Iran Deal," Trump tweeted. "Hence, I would fully expect Corker to be a negative voice and stand in the way of our great agenda. Didn't have the guts to run!" 
 
 Todd Womack, Corker's chief of staff, denied the claim later in the day. 
 
 "The President called Senator Corker on Monday afternoon and asked him to reconsider his decision not to seek re-election and reaffirmed that he would have endorsed him, as he has said many times," Womack said in a statement. 
 
 Corker, in the New York Times interview, said that Trump is acting "like he's doing 'The Apprentice' or something," and added that he could set the nation "on the path to World War III." 
 
 The comment comes a week after Corker jabbed Trump, stating that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Defense Secretary James Mattis and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly "help separate our country from chaos." 
 
 The clash between Corker and Trump highlights fraying relations between the President and the men and women in Congress who the White House needs to deliver on the agenda Trump ran on. Trump has yet to score a signature legislative victory, a black mark on his record given his party controls both the Senate and House. 
 
 Trump said Tuesday that he didn't think his feud with Corker would imperil his tax cut plan. 
 
 "I don't think so. I don't think so at all," he said. "I think we are well on our way." 
 
 Corker's comments have already infuriated Trump's base. Steve Bannon, Trump's former chief strategist who was let go from the White House earlier this year, called on the senator to resign in response. ||||| Should I have outed the people who said these things—or should the countless other press people who have heard similar views? No: Reporters do have to keep confidences, and I conveyed the substance of this case as best I could during the Trump Time Capsule series through the election. Moreover, it’s not clear that “concerns�? like these would have changed anyone’s mind. During the campaign, most of Trump’s fallen rivals blasted him in exceptional terms—before truckling to support him against Hillary Clinton. One of the most remarkable illustrations was Senator Ted Cruz’s extended denunciation of Trump as a “pathological liar�? just before Trump clinched the nomination. Of course Cruz turned around to support him in the general election and has cast nearly all his Senate votes (94 percent) in alignment with Trump. Meanwhile, it’s not even the lead news of the week that Trump’s own secretary of state has half-heartedly non-denied Stephanie Ruhle’s report on NBC that he called Trump a “fucking moron.�? 
 
 Now that Bob Corker, one-time supporter of Trump, has taken the commendable step of going public, what’s next? 
 
 * * * 
 
 For reporters, there is a logical extension from the opening Corker has given. Get Mitch McConnell, get Paul Ryan, get John Thune and John Barrasso and John Cornyn, get Kevin McCarthy, get every Republican in a position of responsibility to answer: Do you agree with your colleague that Donald Trump is a danger to the country and the world? Who’s right here: Your comrade who is the veteran chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee? Or a president who can’t stop tweet-threatening “Little Rocket Man�?? And what about Corker’s claim that the White House is a daily battleground to keep the incumbent under control? Are you going to call one of your own a liar? Or is he right about Trump? 
 
 They won’t answer. Knowing how not to answer comes as second nature. More smoothly than Rex Tillerson, they will decline to get into the “silly stuff.�? But they should be put on the spot and made to take a stand. Especially the ones who will either face the voters soon—or who are deciding, as Corker did recently, whether that’s even worth it. 
 
 (To be clear: every reporter already knows these are the questions to ask, and overall the resilience of the press is one of the heartening aspects of this disheartening era. I’m just spelling out what to look for as day breaks and senators get within reporters’ range.) 
 
 For congressional Republicans, this is your moment in history’s eye. One of your colleagues, who has chosen not to run for office again, and who also was the object of one of Trump’s intemperate attacks this morning, has decided that he might as well tell the truth. It turns out that this is often the right way to go! As the (slightly altered) line from Mark Twain put it, by telling the truth you will gratify some people and astonish the rest. Perhaps Corker’s motivations are not the purest or most glorious. He was nice to Trump last year, when Corker was in the mentioning-cloud as a possible secretary of state, and he was part of the “respectable�? Republicans who disastrous enabled Trump. Corker’s retorts today followed personal attacks from Trump. Still, he’s doing more than his colleagues have. And Corker has moved toward a better place for himself in the annals of Senate history than he would have had only 24 hours ago.
– President Trump's feud with Republican Sen. Bob Corker is apparently still on, based on the new nickname the president bestowed upon Corker Tuesday morning. "The Failing @nytimes set Liddle' Bob Corker up by recording his conversation," Trump tweeted. "Was made to sound a fool, and that's what I am dealing with!" Trump was referring to the interview Corker gave to the New York Times in which the senator likened the Trump White House to a "reality show" and suggested that reckless comments from the president could lead to World War III. Developments: Audio, transcript: The Times released excerpts from the interview, as well as audio here. It's not clear what Trump meant in saying that the newspaper set up Corker, but the transcript makes clear that Corker knew he was on the record, notes CNN. He also knew the call was being recorded, telling the reporter that his staff was recording it, "and I hope you are, too." GOP trouble: At the National Journal, political analyst Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report writes that Trump went to a "darker place" in his Corker criticism, and he now thinks the GOP majority is in jeopardy not only in the Senate but in the House. "The party needs to sublimate its divisions, get mainstream Republicans to the polls, and persuade the Trump base to cast ballot for non-Trump Republicans," he writes. "That's a tall order. And it's why last week's news reduced the odds of the GOP retaining its majority from a good bet to even money." Ulterior motives? Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry of the Week calls Corker a hypocrite for his sudden public turn on the president and suggests that the retiring senator is positioning himself to be an "establishment" primary challenger to the president in the 2020 election. Now what? James Fallows at the Atlantic writes that if Corker truly believes Trump might blunder his way into World War III, he has an obligation to "do something about it" by providing a crucial check on Trump's actions through his position as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. "Talk is better than nothing, but action is what counts." WSJ weighs in: The conservative editorial page of the Wall Street Journal thinks Corker spoke the truth about the president's "lack of discipline, short fuse, narcissism and habit of treating even foreign heads of state as if they are Rosie O'Donnell," and it hopes other top Republicans follow Corker's lead because it might actually help. Little reaction: NBC News rounds up reaction from top Republicans to Corker's statements about the president and finds "silence or a shrug." A typical sentiment, from Marco Rubio: "You'll have to ask Sen. Corker what led him to make that statement. I haven't made that statement." Trump's new criticism comes just a week before a Senate vote important to Trump's tax plan, notes the New York Times.