ADVERTISEMENT

Senior Trump administrator pens anonymous op ed to NYT

Does Trump really represent a threat to the overall health of the Republic as the op-ed states?

By stating this, isn't the author exaggerating his importance as a resistor? Wow look at me, I am sticking my neck out to save the Republic.

Having said that, I would like to believe the administration does have a good many people willing to stand up to Trump and perform their duties with the interests of the country foremost in their minds.

Finally, how important are presidents anyway to the health of the Republic except in matters of using our military power? The Republic was great when Trump took office and will continue to be great in spite of him.
I cheer your optimism, but the question shouldn't be "Does Trump really represent a threat to the overall health of the Republic as the op-ed states?" Whether Trump truly is such a threat is the ultimate question, and it may be impossible to know the answer before he does something catastrophic.

The more important question should be, "Is Trump so erratic, self-contradictory and hateful that reasonable people can believe Trump to be such a threat?" I cannot imagine any other President has personally created so much chaos, uneasiness and inefficiency in his office. Trump is motivated solely by ego, power and revenge and publicly brags about how non-Presidential he is. He's doing nothing to lead by example or instill confidence that the needs of the population as a whole will be met by his administration.

In contrast Nixon, for all his wrongdoing, respected the government and played by most of the rules. Trump is far worse.
 
However, as the Washington Post points out, the rationale the Times gave for keeping the author’s name a secret is the likelihood that identification would lose the person his or her job. Pence cannot be fired, only impeached.

Further, an unnamed White House official who frequently leaks to media outlets told Axios in May that he or she is very attentive to the verbal mannerisms of White House coworkers, the better to leave red herrings in leaked quotes.

“To cover my tracks, I usually pay attention to other staffers’ idioms and use that in my background quotes,” the official told Axios. “That throws the scent off me.”​

Words and phrases dropped by one guy are often picked up by others here on the Water Cooler. Far more interesting would be an analysis of the person's writing style compared to other public documents or speeches. This op-ed doesn't sound like Pence to me at all.
 
Does Trump really represent a threat to the overall health of the Republic as the op-ed states?

By stating this, isn't the author exaggerating his importance as a resistor? Wow look at me, I am sticking my neck out to save the Republic.

Having said that, I would like to believe the administration does have a good many people willing to stand up to Trump and perform their duties with the interests of the country foremost in their minds.

Finally, how important are presidents anyway to the health of the Republic except in matters of using our military power? The Republic was great when Trump took office and will continue to be great in spite of him.
Trump has already severely damaged the overall health of the Republic, hoot. Been on another planet since the election?
 
Adam Serwer has this right:

The biggest open secret in Washington is that Donald Trump is unfit to be president. His staff knows it. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell knows it. House Speaker Paul Ryan knows it. Everyone who works for the president, including his attorneys, knows it. But they all want something, whether it’s upper-income tax cuts, starving the social safety net, or solidifying a right-wing federal judiciary. The Constitution provides for the removal of a president who is dangerously unfit, but those who have the power to remove him will not do so not out of respect for democracy, but because Trump is a means to get what they want. The officials who enable the Trump administration to maintain some veneer of normalcy, rather than resigning and loudly proclaiming that the president is unfit, are not “resisters.” They are enablers.
The same is true of Trump’s supporters. They could get tax cuts and right wing judges from Mike Pence. But still Republicans stand with Trump, giving him an 85 percent job approval rating and spouting unhinged nonsense about Deep State conspiracies within law enforcement and intelligence. Feh.
 
Adam Serwer has this right:

The biggest open secret in Washington is that Donald Trump is unfit to be president. His staff knows it. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell knows it. House Speaker Paul Ryan knows it. Everyone who works for the president, including his attorneys, knows it. But they all want something, whether it’s upper-income tax cuts, starving the social safety net, or solidifying a right-wing federal judiciary. The Constitution provides for the removal of a president who is dangerously unfit, but those who have the power to remove him will not do so not out of respect for democracy, but because Trump is a means to get what they want. The officials who enable the Trump administration to maintain some veneer of normalcy, rather than resigning and loudly proclaiming that the president is unfit, are not “resisters.” They are enablers.
The same is true of Trump’s supporters. They could get tax cuts and right wing judges from Mike Pence. But still Republicans stand with Trump, giving him an 85 percent job approval rating and spouting unhinged nonsense about Deep State conspiracies within law enforcement and intelligence. Feh.
Serwer omits the most critical factor imo. Yes, they all want something, but even more, they're afraid of losing Trump's supporters in the next election. They're not Pence supporters. That's the only leverage Trump really has.
 
My money is on Pence.

I’m thinking McGann. He checks all the boxes, and would know who agrees with him. He is the very definition of a life long pub who would’ve appalled by much of what Trump has done/continues to do.

Plus, he’s on the way out anyway. And he’s already spilled his guts to Mueller’s team, so he effectively cemented his positions prior to this being released.

And let’s not forget that McGann (or someone connected to him) has leaked stories that always depict him as a hero. It’s happened multiple times- which fits with the mindset of this author.

I also think he’s far from alone, and he basically took one for the team.

Only, the practical effect of this is that this person just made it MUCH worse for those he will soon leave behind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
Serwer omits the most critical factor imo. Yes, they all want something, but even more, they're afraid of losing Trump's supporters in the next election. They're not Pence supporters. That's the only leverage Trump really has.

That’s what I don’t understand. I guess the rabid Trump supporters could just not vote after he’s gone- but theydamn sure aren’t doing to vote for a democrat. They’ve been brain washed into believing that the left is not only wrong, but evil.

My initial reaction to this was to say “good for the writer- the writer is exposing the biggest hidden secret out there”. But now, after reflection, it’s a act of cowardice. That isn’t about preserving the county, but rather is about preserving the Reagan Republican Party. And it’s just going to make things much, mich worse for those that are “silent babysitters”.

If the person/people were serious about this stance, they’d all stand up together against the administration.

Again, if the cabinet did discuss the 25th amendment, they should’ve confronted Trump as a group and demanded that he stop the BS (with clear examples of what he shouldn’t do and what he had already done that was out of bounds), or they would all walk out/resign as a group.

If that had happened, he would’ve either been effectively neutered from the inside, or he would’ve been exposed much, much earlier than now (vs now, after he’s done lots more damage).

In other words, the only way to deal with a bully is to punch them in the face. If you cater to them, their behavior only gets worse. As we’ve seen with Trump.

And, by doing this the way it’s been done, it’s only going to make things worse- for the country. The president will only become more unhinged, and focused on vengeance. Because that’s who he is.

Where’s John Dean when you need him? At least Woodward is still around.
 
That’s what I don’t understand. I guess the rabid Trump supporters could just not vote after he’s gone- but theydamn sure aren’t doing to vote for a democrat. They’ve been brain washed into believing that the left is not only wrong, but evil.

My initial reaction to this was to say “good for the writer- the writer is exposing the biggest hidden secret out there”. But now, after reflection, it’s a act of cowardice. That isn’t about preserving the county, but rather is about preserving the Reagan Republican Party. And it’s just going to make things much, mich worse for those that are “silent babysitters”.

If the person/people were serious about this stance, they’d all stand up together against the administration.

Again, if the cabinet did discuss the 25th amendment, they should’ve confronted Trump as a group and demanded that he stop the BS (with clear examples of what he shouldn’t do and what he had already done that was out of bounds), or they would all walk out/resign as a group.

If that had happened, he would’ve either been effectively neutered from the inside, or he would’ve been exposed much, much earlier than now (vs now, after he’s done lots more damage).

In other words, the only way to deal with a bully is to punch them in the face. If you cater to them, their behavior only gets worse. As we’ve seen with Trump.

And, by doing this the way it’s been done, it’s only going to make things worse- for the country. The president will only become more unhinged, and focused on vengeance. Because that’s who he is.

Where’s John Dean when you need him? At least Woodward is still around.
All the liberals complaining about this don't seem to have understood the op-ed too well. The author makes it clear he's not trying to oust Trump. He likes Trump's policies by and large. He just doesn't want Trump to do anything radically insane and that's his message. He's not saying what all you liberals are wanting him to be saying. He's not a journalist and he's not a liberal.
 
All the liberals complaining about this don't seem to have understood the op-ed too well. The author makes it clear he's not trying to oust Trump. He likes Trump's policies by and large. He just doesn't want Trump to do anything radically insane and that's his message. He's not saying what all you liberals are wanting him to be saying. He's not a journalist and he's not a liberal.

???

Being liberal has zero to do with what he did. I don’t even see where you could get that out of what I typed. Where did I mention “liberal”?

You’re missing what some of us are saying. Your description of the author’s piece is largely accurate. However, I’m explaining why it’s chicken chit. And strictly self serving- because they know what kind of disaster they have enabled, and allowed to grow.

Those who stand by and don’t speak out about Trump attacking many of the foundations of our country are allowing it to happen. And all in the name of getting some policies they like- it’s like they really don’t care what happens to the country, as long as they get what they want.

The above seems to be your stance also. Correct?

Side note- Never mind that if Pence were in charge, you’d get even more of what you want, without enabling such a danger to our country. I’d MUCH rather have Pence in charge, even though I’d greatly disagree with his policy objectives. He was duly elected as VP, and that’s the way our system works.

At least this is coming out in the open now. Hopefully the next time someone will actually stand up while disclosing who they actually are.

In sum, country over party. This was ALL about justifying this person’s acquiescence, and protecting the Republican Party that existed before Trump hijacked it.

This ain’t about party vs party anymore. With Trump it hasn’t ever been about that. It was clear to anyone paying attention that he was brutally unfit for office- and that’s what the objections centered on. It’s obvious that policy disagreements would be there- but Trump is dangerously unfit. This is strictly about standing up to perhaps the gravest threat to this country since the civil war. Party ain’t got a damn thing to do with any of this. Many of us on the left really didn’t like Clinton- it’s on the record. But we damn sure knew that he wasn’t fit for office. And I’m sorry you couldn’t see that then- the right wing media bubble did everything in its power to normalize Trump and his egregious behavior. All in the name of getting some policies through, and getting some judges on the court.

My point was that the writer of the article failed miserably if he was actually trying to defend anything other than himself and those like him in the administration.

I’m having a hard time understanding the disconnect here. It’s almost as if the reflex to defend being a pub takes precedence over rational thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
???

Being liberal has zero to do with what he did. I don’t even see where you could get that out of what I typed. Where did I mention “liberal”?

You’re missing what some of us are saying. Your description of the author’s piece is largely accurate. However, I’m explaining why it’s chicken chit. And strictly self serving- because they know what kind of disaster they have enabled, and allowed to grow.

Those who stand by and don’t speak out about Trump attacking many of the foundations of our country are allowing it to happen. And all in the name of getting some policies they like- it’s like they really don’t care what happens to the country, as long as they get what they want.

The above seems to be your stance also. Correct?

Side note- Never mind that if Pence were in charge, you’d get even more of what you want, without enabling such a danger to our country. I’d MUCH rather have Pence in charge, even though I’d greatly disagree with his policy objectives. He was duly elected as VP, and that’s the way our system works.

At least this is coming out in the open now. Hopefully the next time someone will actually stand up while disclosing who they actually are.

In sum, country over party. This was ALL about justifying this person’s acquiescence, and protecting the Republican Party that existed before Trump hijacked it.

This ain’t about party vs party anymore. With Trump it hasn’t ever been about that. It was clear to anyone paying attention that he was brutally unfit for office- and that’s what the objections centered on. It’s obvious that policy disagreements would be there- but Trump is dangerously unfit. This is strictly about standing up to perhaps the gravest threat to this country since the civil war. Party ain’t got a damn thing to do with any of this. Many of us on the left really didn’t like Clinton- it’s on the record. But we damn sure knew that he wasn’t fit for office. And I’m sorry you couldn’t see that then- the right wing media bubble did everything in its power to normalize Trump and his egregious behavior. All in the name of getting some policies through, and getting some judges on the court.

My point was that the writer of the article failed miserably if he was actually trying to defend anything other than himself and those like him in the administration.

I’m having a hard time understanding the disconnect here. It’s almost as if the reflex to defend being a pub takes precedence over rational thought.
I don't think the author agrees with "what kind of disaster they have enabled, and allowed to grow." That's a liberal POV. From the author's POV, Trump could create a disaster but so far hasn't, largely because they've prevented him from doing so.
 
Where’s John Dean when you need him? At least Woodward is still around.
Dean was no hero. He tried to keep things under wraps until he found himself in jeopardy. Then and only then did he come clean.
 
I don't think the author agrees with "what kind of disaster they have enabled, and allowed to grow." That's a liberal POV. From the author's POV, Trump could create a disaster but so far hasn't, largely because they've prevented him from doing so.

Yes. I get that.

I don’t think the author is being honest about how bad it has been, is and how bad it’ll be moving forward.

That’s all I’m saying.

In other words, he’s got a very deluded viewpoint about the situation. And evivisons himself as a hero- when in reality, he’s one of the enablers. It’s almost as if everyone knows there’s a fire starting in the living room, they pretend like it’s not there. And then when he curtains catch on fire and spread the fire to the ceiling, someone then calls the department. Point being, had everyone around him banded together in the beginning, or close to that time, they could’ve banded together to let him know that he can’t do what he had been doing, now that he is president. If multiple cabinet members threatened to walk, it would be been hard for him to recover.

Instead, everybody tiptoed around it- and he did more and more damage. And now that he’s doing some things they don’t like politically (tariffs) and threatening institutions (threatening the DOJ, attacking media outlets, going after private companies, disparaging the intelligence agencies), they are finally willing to say something. Kind of.

Saw an article that called him “sheep throat”. Thought that was funny, and appropriate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
In other words, he’s got a very deluded viewpoint about the situation. And evivisons himself as a hero- when in reality, he’s one of the enablers. It’s almost as if everyone knows there’s a fire starting in the living room, they pretend like it’s not there.
It's more like letting a disturbed kid start fires in his bedroom, and they keep putting them out and not doing anything about the kid. One of these days they won't be able to keep the whole house from going up in flames.
 
Trump has already severely damaged the overall health of the Republic, hoot. Been on another planet since the election?

Futie, give me some specific examples. Heck, I might change my mind.

By the way, some folks think Indiana is on another planet o_O.
 
1. Based on the text, the op-ed writer was one of the early appointees.
2. He's probably not military because the text seems civilian.
3. He's not one of Trump's own guys from the past.
4. He's a good writer. (Maybe they all are.)
5. He's a straight-up conservative with credentials.
6. He believes in "ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright." He's against "
anti-trade and anti-democratic." He's for "effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more."
7. Chances are he's written texts that are in the public domain and it wouldn't be too hard to recognize his writing style if you're familiar with his earlier texts.
Keep in mind that the Op Ed has been edited. How much? It's really hard to tell. However, I am certain that a great deal of effort was used to throw a reader off track when he/she tries to determine who wrote it. To me, the piece seems to me to be written by a person who might have been in the entertainment industry at some time in the past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: futueteipsum
The coverage now is more concerned with the Whodunit and the ethics questions than the content. <sigh>
 
Stable Genius could not pronounce anonymous tonight at his hate rally.
 


lol.gif
lol.gif
lol.gif
lol.gif
 

Hard to think of anyone fitting that description.
lol.gif
lol.gif
You know how one can basically let Microsoft Word write for you? I bet if one does that, they would be judged as an older, conservative, male. That is how I would keep my anonymity.

Though I think Jeffrey Toobin had a point. He was asked what was the worst thing that could happen to the author. His reply, "He signs a very fat book deal".

I would not be surprised if the person wants found out, after a suitably long media frenzy.
 
You know how one can basically let Microsoft Word write for you? I bet if one does that, they would be judged as an older, conservative, male. That is how I would keep my anonymity.

Though I think Jeffrey Toobin had a point. He was asked what was the worst thing that could happen to the author. His reply, "He signs a very fat book deal".

I would not be surprised if the person wants found out, after a suitably long media frenzy.

Not as easy as it seems:

 
I'm guessing speech writer
I'm not guessing anything. Unless and until the writer is identified and puts their name on the piece, I'm considering it nothing at all.

The piece doesn't exist without an author. Its a massive unidentified lie until someone proves they wrote it and its entirely true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01
The Hill has a long list of senior officials denying having written the op-ed. Coats is included. COuld be a relatively fast process of elimination.
How funny is it that they have a long list of possible suspects? So they know there’s a long list of people in the WH that think all these horrible things about Trump and are willing to betray him? Nothing but the best people....lol. And for Mr. Know iT All Trump, he hired all these people. Imagine that...a horrible person, a horrible judge of character.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT