The OLD base; in other words, people who were ideological Republicans prior to the Tea Party and all the populist and religious nonsense took over, not people who voted Republican merely because it was closest to their far-right nonsense.
Assuming the letter is at it seems, I think the intended audience is Congress. The goal would be draw more attention to the severity of the situation and hopefully goad them into taking some action, whether that means simply not supporting his ever move, or something more severe.
I think the editorial was a trial balloon, to see how people would react if the 25th was invoked.
It seems to me, the editorial was mostly received with cries of “Well, get on with it, already!” I’m not sure that was the reaction they were hoping for. The author seems to feel that his actions are just and righteous. I’m not sure that he might have been looking for permission to continue keeping quiet, rather than permission to call in the men in the little white coats.
I suspect that Donald telling the crowd that it will be their fault if he gets impeached wasn’t prompted by the overall lack of outrage over this letter. Donald’s cultists are unhappy about the letter, but they didn’t take to the streets over it.
Do you remember this story from back in May? White House Leaker Covers Tracks by Impersonating Co-workers
That’s a possible explanation for ‘lodestar’. In fact, I think that’s the most likely explanation. It’s just such a weird word choice.
**… was **prompted.
It was? I thought it was mostly received by “That’s not what the 25th amendment is for”.
I can guarantee you we are not going to see a “25th amendment solution” to the Trump problem. Impeachment is more likely, if the Democrats take the House, but then we still are left with the fact that the Senate is unlikely to convict and remove from office. Unless, of course, Mueller comes up with some pretty crazy shit. Which I think is possible, but not probable.
I stand by my assertion that it’s a group, probably 3-4 staffers (Pence might be one of them <shrug>), and the purpose is to drive thump to doing something so crazy that either 1) no one will be able to ignore it, or 2) thump effectively removes himself from office (a stroke, suicide, fleeing the country, or being reduced to a babbling, drooling, inarticulate puddle of goo*). Pence can be sworn in, Kavanaugh confirmed, black people, Hispanics, poor people and immigrants out of luck, Pubbies happy, no one loses his/her job. Life is good.
*I know: how will we be able to tell, right?
I would not be surprised if Anonymous was plural. The more I think about it, the more I would be surprised if it was just one person. It makes a lot more sense that the NYT would feel compelled to publish this if it was not just a singular voice crying out in the wilderness.
Why not say it’s more than one person?
has there been anything like this where the author was not eventually revealed?
I remember a novel called primary colors by anonymous and after a while the author admitted he wrote it after first denying it was him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Colors_(novel)
and JK Rowling wrote a book under a pen name but she later admitted it was her
I’m skeptical it’s more than one, but if a group of 3 or 4 got together and wrote it together, but only one communicated with the NYT, then those 3 or 4 might semi-plausibly be able to declare they aren’t the authors without thinking of themselves as lying (still a lie of omission/weaseling, but I don’t think we’re talking about highly honorable people here).
That’s possible (though I don’t see what the group effort achieves). But JM’s theory was that the NYT published it because it was written by more than one person, in which case they obviously knew about it.
To what extent is the NYT vouching for the accuracy of the article?
they did not print it as news, it is printed as opinion by someone not on their staff. They are vouching for the person being an actual Trump admin person but not sure if they vouch for anything beyond that.
Possible. If, as I suspect, the goal was paranoia then I would expect the author to write again. If not, then maybe not.
There’s basically nothing in the Op-ed of a factual nature other than “there’s people in the White House trying to hamstring Trump’s stupider ideas”. Woodward’s book seems to document that pretty extensively.
Slate has a decent argument that the writer is Jon Huntsman, current ambassador to Russia.
- it matches things important to him - basic conservative policies, quality of character
- the specific mention of Russia in the op ed
- the prose matches Huntsman’s style
- similar wording to other things he has written, like “country first” and “adults in the room”
There was enough other stuff as well to sway me toward Huntsman.
Here’s a podcast interview with the Op-Ed editor for the Times, talking a little about what led to publishing it and the impact. There’s nothing too earth-shattering.
He said the initial contact was through an intermediary, but they transitioned to dealing with the individual directly, and said they did sufficient investigation to be absolutely sure the person was who they said they were.
The editor also commented that they receive a ton of op-eds from government employees, and typically they are clunky and poorly argued. But this one impressed him with its clarity and emotion.
One thing I’m a little dubious about is when the editor expressed surprise at how big a story this became. Really? :dubious:
As good a speculation as any other I’ve seen.
ISTM that as media speculation centers on this or that suspect, this will put pressure on that person to definitely confirm or deny it.
I heard that it was likely written by an older conservative white male. Really narrows it down.