Amazing opinion piece in NY Times

unicorn33 said:

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

What I don't get, why would the author feel the need to write this in the first place.

 Guilt?
Second thoughts?
Fed up?

Fed up - Coats.  

unicorn33 said:

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

What I don't get, why would the author feel the need to write this in the first place.

 Guilt?
Second thoughts?
Fed up?

 Insurance policy.

After the White House "burns down", the author will be saying, "I was telling everyone there about the oily rags and stacks of old newspapers, but they didn't listen to me."

nohero said:

unicorn33 said:

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

What I don't get, why would the author feel the need to write this in the first place.

 Guilt?
Second thoughts?
Fed up?

 Insurance policy.
After the White House "burns down", the author will be saying, "I was telling everyone there about the oily rags and stacks of old newspapers, but they didn't listen to me."

Definitely, it's a hedge.

Trump goes down, then author says I told you so.

Trump doesn't go down, author says I was loyal to the conservative agenda.

I wonder if some sort of linguistic analysis could be done on the piece, comparing the writing to known examples of writing from various WH officials? Unless the article is heavily edited.

Factotum said:
I wonder if some sort of linguistic analysis could be done on the piece, comparing the writing to known examples of writing from various WH officials? Unless the article is heavily edited.

 I like the Pence-Lodestar Theory.

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

What I don't get, why would the author feel the need to write this in the first place.

I trust the Times wouldn't publish this unless a verifiable and reliable source came forward. 

It could be a ploy by the administration's insiders. It reinforces Trump's reputation as an outsider working against entrenched DC forces to save the nation. It could also be setting up the firing of someone prominent although that's risky since presumably the Times could say that person wasn't their source.

If everything in the op-ed is true, I stand by my original idea that it's an effort to distance the party from Trump to mitigate the possible blue wave in November. 

https://slate.com/culture/2018/09/i-am-part-of-the-police-department-inside-this-bank-robbery.html

"...the author stole the words right out of their mouths."

President Trump is not just seething about Bob Woodward. He’s deeply suspicious of much of the government he oversees — from the hordes of folks inside agencies, right up to some of the senior-most political appointees and even some handpicked aides inside his own White House, officials tell Axios.

The big picture: He should be paranoid. In the hours after the New York Times published the anonymous Op-Ed from "a senior official in the Trump administration" trashing the president ("I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration"), two senior administration officials reached out to Axios to say the author stole the words right out of their mouths.

"I find the reaction to the NYT op-ed fascinating — that people seem so shocked that there is a resistance from the inside," one senior official said. "A lot of us [were] wishing we’d been the writer, I suspect ... I hope he [Trump] knows — maybe he does? — that there are dozens and dozens of us."

Why it matters: Several senior White House officials have described their roles to us as saving America and the world from this president. 

• A good number of current White House officials have privately admitted to us they consider Trump unstable, and at times dangerously slow.
• But the really deep concern and contempt, from our experience, has been at the agencies — and particularly in the foreign policy arena.

For some time last year, Trump even carried with him a handwritten list of people suspected to be leakers undermining his agenda.

• "He would basically be like, 'We’ve gotta get rid of them. The snakes are everywhere but we’re getting rid of them,'" said a source close to Trump.
• Trump would often ask staff whom they thought could be trusted. He often asks the people who work for him what they think about their colleagues, which can be not only be uncomfortable but confusing to Trump: Rival staffers shoot at each other and Trump is left not knowing who to believe.

Officials describe an increasingly conspiracy-minded president:

• "When he was super frustrated about the leaks, he would rail about the 'snakes' in the White House," said a source who has discussed administration leakers with the president.
• "Especially early on, when we would be in Roosevelt Room meetings, he would sit down at the table, and get to talking, then turn around to see who was sitting along the walls behind him."
• "One day, after one of those meetings, he said, 'Everything that just happened is going to leak. I don’t know any of those people in the room.' ... He was very paranoid about this."

The Times Op-Ed reinforces everything Trump instinctively believes:

• That a "Deep State" exists. It's trying to undermine him and — in the case of Jeff Sessions’ Justice Department, in Trump’s mind — is trying to overthrow his presidency.
• The Bob Woodward book, Trump believes, exposes that leakers are everywhere — and gunning for him. 

Be smart: "People talk about the loyalists leaving," the source close to Trump tells us. "What it really means is [that there'll be] fewer and fewer people who Trump knows who they really are. So imagine how paranoid you must be if that is your view of the world."

axios

Hopeful, as so many are, that this is the beginning of the end.

My vote: Coats

I guess I am in the minority as I don't think this person is a coward or an a--hole. For those of you who work in the corporate space, if a new CEO comes in and you don't necessarily believe s/he was the best choice, do you resign? If s/he does things you disagree with, do you just walk out? I would be horrified if everyone working in Washington thought that Trump was inspiring and just what the country needs, or if the State Department, FBI and CIA were empty because everyone left in protest.

I get it - there's something admirable in saying, "I'm out of here" and making that public. But the reality is that Trump is there and isn't going anywhere, and most senior Republicans in Congress are doing absolutely nothing to push back against him. I'm glad to know that there are people working against him even if it's behind the cloak of anonymity.

hmm:

Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats issued public denials

Kelly?

apple44 said:
I'm glad to know that there are people working against him even if it's behind the cloak of anonymity.

 Maybe this is the exact reaction the op-ed was designed to elicit. Everyone across the political spectrum who is anxious about Trump breathes a little sigh of relief. 

Maybe a handful of more liberal Democrats decide it's not quite as critical to get out and vote for the mainstream party candidates running for the House and Senate.

Maybe a handful of people, who usually don't vote, don't bother to vote at all, because they're not as concerned about Trump wreaking havoc on the country and world. I think this is a voting bloc that Republicans need to worry about. If they come out to vote it's probably not to support the Trump agenda.

Maybe some discouraged Republican voters are more likely to get out to vote in November, when they might have stayed home because of the negativity Trump has brought to their party.

It's a small percentage of each of those voter profiles that might be affected. But look across hundreds of races with millions of votes to be cast. If the entire electorate takes a collective sigh of relief about Trump it only serves to benefit the GOP and might swing a few right races their way.

One other problem I have with this person is this: if they have these noble motivations about protecting the country and world from an unstable and unfit leader why in the world would they take a big stick and whack the side of a hornets' nest? 

mrincredible said:
One other problem I have with this person is this: if they have these noble motivations about protecting the country and world from an unstable and unfit leader why in the world would they take a big stick and whack the side of a hornets' nest? 

 This !!!

I guess it's better than nothing, which is what the Congress does.

jamie said:
hmm:

Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats issued public denials

Kelly?

It has to be someone close to Trump and Pence since they used Lodestar in their OP. Kelly's name has been banter around previously of being replaced. Perhaps he had a 'come to Jesus moment' at McCain's memorial and funeral.

GL2 said:
I guess it's better than nothing, which is what the Congress does.

 I could argue this was worse than nothing. Keep your head down and keep doing this. Take notes, make recordings and make millions on a book and speaking tour later.

We can all speculate, but I agree with:

mrincredible said:

I trust the Times wouldn't publish this unless a verifiable and reliable source came forward. 

 I stand by my original idea that it's an effort to distance the party from Trump to mitigate the possible blue wave in November. 

 Now as to the following the problem for Republican Congressional Candidates in swing Districts is that they can be questioned about this Op-Ed and whether they agree or disagree. It's up to their Democratic Opponents and voters to put them on the spot about Trump. It makes it far more difficult for a Republican candidate to avoid the issue of Trump.

"Mr. Republican candidate, According to the NY Times there are a group of high officials in the White House who think Trump is unstable and who are working against him. What is your opinion, and , at the very least do you think Congress should investigate to determine whether the allegations are true and/or whether their is a 'secret cabal' in the WH undermining the President".

How long before one of the Freedom Caucus types demands an investigation of the "Cabal"?

mrincredible said:

 Maybe this is the exact reaction the op-ed was designed to elicit. Everyone across the political spectrum who is anxious about Trump breathes a little sigh of relief. 
Maybe a handful of more liberal Democrats decide it's not quite as critical to get out and vote for the mainstream party candidates running for the House and Senate.
Maybe a handful of people, who usually don't vote, don't bother to vote at all, because they're not as concerned about Trump wreaking havoc on the country and world. I think this is a voting bloc that Republicans need to worry about. If they come out to vote it's probably not to support the Trump agenda.
Maybe some discouraged Republican voters are more likely to get out to vote in November, when they might have stayed home because of the negativity Trump has brought to their party.
It's a small percentage of each of those voter profiles that might be affected. But look across hundreds of races with millions of votes to be cast. If the entire electorate takes a collective sigh of relief about Trump it only serves to benefit the GOP and might swing a few right races their way.
One other problem I have with this person is this: if they have these noble motivations about protecting the country and world from an unstable and unfit leader why in the world would they take a big stick and whack the side of a hornets' nest? 

I would think that if Pence, Kelly or a cabinet member came to the NYT and basically said we're trying to thwart Trump, that's a story they would publish, naming the person. I'm guessing this is more of a deputy- or assistant secretary level in some department or agency.

apple44 said:
I would think that if Pence, Kelly or a cabinet member came to the NYT and basically said we're trying to thwart Trump, that's a story they would publish, naming the person. I'm guessing this is more of a deputy- or assistant secretary level in some department or agency.

 I disagree. I do not think they would accept an anonymous Op-Ed from a lower official.

I suppose we'll see whenever the person is revealed. A deputy secretary or assistant secretary is still a senior person with real responsibility, and that person wouldn't come forward without a commitment to his/her name being withheld.

dave23 said:

Factotum said:
I wonder if some sort of linguistic analysis could be done on the piece, comparing the writing to known examples of writing from various WH officials? Unless the article is heavily edited.

 I like the Pence-Lodestar Theory.

 Pence? Only one word, thin evidence.  Wasn't Joe Klein outed as the author of Primary Colors through the use of some sort of linguistic analysis software?

Factotum said:

dave23 said:

Factotum said:
I wonder if some sort of linguistic analysis could be done on the piece, comparing the writing to known examples of writing from various WH officials? Unless the article is heavily edited.

 I like the Pence-Lodestar Theory.

 Pence? Only one word, thin evidence.  Wasn't Joe Klein outed as the author of Primary Colors through the use of some sort of linguistic analysis software?

 It would be funny. And he could position himself as being the one that god put in place to save the republic.

ETA: Who the NYT considers a "senior administration official" may not even be a person commonly known to the public.

Place your bets...

Dan Coats, Mike Pence and Kirstjen Nielsen were among the favorites on Thursday among political gamblers taking an online stab at predicting which senior Trump administration official authored a scathing anonymous column in the New York Times. 
Coats, the director of national intelligence, was seen as having an 18 percent chance of being the writer who said senior officials are part of a "quiet resistance" in the administration, according to PredictIt.org, an online market for betting on political events. 

Vice President Pence was listed in second place with a 12 percent chance, while Homeland Security secretary Nielsen came in third with 10 percent. Players can also bet "no" for each choice. The "no" bets will win if the author is not identified by the end of this year.

The market was slowly attracting participants and the top rankings were expected to fluctuate as it picked up steam, said a spokeswoman for PredictIt, Brandi Travis.
"We had so many traders asking us if there's a market on this," Travis said. "It was definitely something that was in high demand. I think it's going to get a lot of action in terms of trades." 

Coats and Pence, along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary James Mattis, have denied writing the article which was published on Wednesday and sent shockwaves through Washington. 

Reuters

LOL - Rand Paul is calling for lie detector tests in the WH to uncover the rat.

How anyone can think that feckless sack of sh!t Mike Pence wrote this is beyond me.

How anyone can think that the author is not a cowardly sack of sh!t is also beyond me.

And if the current Trump administration is an example of us being "protected" by him and his ilk, please, don't do us any more favors. You've failed at protection. Just resign and go away. 

drummerboy said:
LOL - Rand Paul is calling for lie detector tests in the WH to uncover the rat.

I figured this demand would come from the big cheese himself (Velveeta?).

We need a Venn diagram of (1) conservatives who scream about defending free speech and (2) conservatives demanding the author be outed and fired in disgrace.

drummerboy said:
Just resign and go away. 

To what end? To be replaced by someone who is more closely aligned with Trump and his agenda?

I don't think staying is cowardly DB, on a very modest scale, people who operate within the animal advocacy world, often stay in sad places and observe horrible things. They do their best to make change, take pictures, pass out information and request anonymity.

They get labeled apologists or enablers and often only their friends know what they are up to. Plenty of those debates occurred right here on MOL.

We will always need whistle blowers.

Morganna said:
I don't think staying is cowardly DB, on a very modest scale, people who operate within the animal advocacy world, often stay in sad places and observe horrible things. They do their best to make change, take pictures, pass out information and request anonymity.
They get labeled apologists or enablers and often only their friends know what they are up to. Plenty of those debates occurred right here on MOL.
We will always need whistle blowers.

 what about police, teachers, firefighters, public interest lawyers, peace corps workers, social workers, who remain in difficult situations to try to make them better?

As far as I can read it, any Dem holding this op-ed up as something of material import that bodes ill for this bizarre administration is either desperate for something— anything— to cling to, or hopelessly shortsighted.  Or both. 

peaceinourtime said:

Morganna said:
I don't think staying is cowardly DB, on a very modest scale, people who operate within the animal advocacy world, often stay in sad places and observe horrible things. They do their best to make change, take pictures, pass out information and request anonymity.
They get labeled apologists or enablers and often only their friends know what they are up to. Plenty of those debates occurred right here on MOL.
We will always need whistle blowers.

 what about police, teachers, firefighters, public interest lawyers, peace corps workers, social workers, who remain in difficult situations to try to make them better?

 Absolutely true.