A bombshell went off not long ago via the Failing New York Times. It’s an anonymous op-ed written by a “senior Trump administration official.” The guessing game has already begun but I’ll get to that at the end of this instant analysis post. This is the money quote as far as I’m concerned:
Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.
I don’t know about you but this is this first I’ve heard that administration insiders explored the possibility of a 25th Amendment solution to the Trump problem. They have opted instead for a silent coup, which is almost as frightening as the president* who scares them shitless.
The title of the piece nearly sent me through the ceiling. (I still may have to pick the odd piece of plaster out of my hair.) It took a lot of nerve to call it I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration. The author is part of the problem. Instead of attempting to maintain their future job prospects or political viability, they should reveal their identity and resign. If there is indeed a cabal within the administration, there should be mass resignations. This is strategic political thinking, not patriotism. We need patriots now more than ever.
As to the writer’s identity. I think it’s more likely than not a politician. The author seems eager to establish their conservative bona fides by stressing free trade and foreign policy hawkishness. A friend of mine thinks the author could be a woman and their guess was Nikki Haley. If she spent more time in Washington, I’d agree but the author is someone with frequent access to the West Wing.
One of the more obvious suspects is Director of National Intelligence and former Indiana Senator, Dan Coats. Coats has been repeatedly been cut-off at the legs by Trump. He should have resigned long ago. If it’s you Mr. Coats, please step forward.
The weirdest possibility is Mike Pence. The op-ed’s author used the word lodestar and expressed admiration for John McCain. A guy named Dan Bloom has done some quick linguistic research and has noted that Pence has frequently used the word lodestar in speeches. He’s an unlikely candidate after spending every day since he was put on the ticket with his head up Trump’s ample rump.
In the end, it does not matter who this cowardly conservative is. If they believe that Donald Trump is mentally unstable and temperamentally incapable of doing the job, they should stand up and say so.
I’m going to give a frequent First Draft reader the last word or is that tweet. Anyway, I concur with my distinguished friend from North Carolina:
https://twitter.com/LexAlexander/status/1037462943305277442
The shit is really about to hit the fan. This makes the Woodward book look like pissing in the wind.
Pretty good instant analysis. Any thoughts on the New York Times aiding and abetting this anonymous twaddle? I know the Times still enjoys a great deal of credibility in some quarters, and laying their reputation on the line to cover for an anonymous insider seems to be a very big gamble, because the writer’s identity will surely come out.
That aside, the writer also signs on as a supporter of Trump’s policies. Unmentioned by the author are some of the more odious policies, like breaking up refugee families, kidnapping their children, torturing those same children, and flying the parents back to their home countries without their children while their applications for asylum are still being adjudicated. Yeah, this is a nice wholesome administration that’s just hit a bump or two in the road because of the president’s occasional erratic behavior.
I’m with gratuitous! The author is clearly onboard with almost all of the policies, and resists only the idiocy and insanity. Let’s call him “Ted Cruz in the West Wing”.
Now, it turns out to be Dan Coats, I’ll retract my scorn, but otherwise: this fucker’s just another GrOPer thug, and unhappy that his Don is unable to lead the Family the way it oughta be led. That’s ALL.
The author’s interests seemed heavily focused on foreign policy. An argument for Coats. As to the NYT, I think they made the right call. It’s first hand confirmation of accounts by Woodward, Omarosa, and Woolf. Sounds like a bad 70’s power trio.
Brilliant! The high point of my day at 8:15 pm
FWIW, Rachel Maddow thinks the NY Times added that headline and not the anonymous op-ed author.
That makes sense. I wrote this in 35 minutes, which makes it genuine instant analysis.