The NYT Anon-OpEd: Bombshell or Dud?

Yesterday the failing New York Times published an anonymous Op-Ed by a "senior administration official" that has blown up the Internet. The statement is that Donald Trump is being undermined by members of his administration--people in his senior circle are intentionally working against him to stop him from wrecking the country.

What do we think?

Certainly Publishing This Will Make It Harder To Herd The President

The consistently and amusingly earnst Erick Erickson tweeted this:

This is almost certainly true--now anyone trying to coddle the POTUS into not running the Ship of State into an iceberg will be scrutinized for editorial writing. The Omnivore says "FUCK YOU" to the dear-friend who loves the guy: You're on the bridge with Admiral Stupid. The rest of us are stuck in steerage.

Should We Be Doing A25 Instead?

David Frum makes the case that the people doing the undermining are actually the people being "unconstitutional"--the 25th Amendment is a method for senior advisers to remove the president from office. As that's what it's for--if things are that bad, shouldn't they be doing this instead of writing "How I Saved The Republic On My Summer Vacation"?

The answer is "no." The 25th Amendment is basically designed for if the president is unconscious. The idea of trying to get a 25th-coup group together almost certainly fails at the "we ask the 3rd dude on the list and he blows the whistle" stage. This is not a situation where it works. Basically the president is too conscious and the admin, as whole, is too spineless to pull this off.

Same with impeachment: if the Republicans weren't spineless we'd have President Pence who, no matter his other flaws, is not ragingly incompetent and may be less in-bed with the Russians.

These ships--they have sailed. We're stuck with Trump.

Is It Even True?

Of course it is. When everyone who has written a book about the White House basically says the same thing and Bob Woodward's book, yet-to-be-released confirms some of it? We can be sure it's directionally true.This doesn't mean it's not overblown or whatever--but at this point? What Does It Matter??--Hillary Clinton

The worst part is: It's not even surprising.

If you voted for Trump this is what you could be pretty sure you were getting.

Is It A Ploy To Keep Republican Votes?

One of the more mystifying theories is that the piece is designed to make Republicans think they are in "good hands" with the mystery cabal. The Omnivore doubts that anyone who reads that piece will come away thinking "Wow--it's much better than I feared and there's no way the President will stop being fooled by these geniuses."

Isn't This Guy Kind of an Asshole?

It looks like he's happy to let Trump rampage as he will--with his blessing--so long as he doesn't abandon South Korea or something. Yes: the guy is pretty much an asshole. It's not that keeping the toddler from hitting the TV with a baseball bat isn't generally good for the household it's that having him pee on the couch because you really hate the color of it (rainbow stripes)--and making sure he keeps the bat so he can hit other things you, personally, care about less isn't being a responsible adult.

This doesn't make the OpEd writer look good.

Also: while it seems unlikely to The Omnivore that this guy wrote the OpEd in response to the Washington Post publishing excerpts from Woodward's The Fear--which, as noted, basically says the same thing (because the timelines likely do not mesh. The OpEd started with an intermediary reaching out to the NYT editorial office and then moved to contact with the official. This probably started before the Washington Post came out with their excerpts from The Fear--although the Sr. Official might have known he'd be represented in the book)--it is definitely a conscious move to avoid the fallout that everyone must know is coming.

Between a slew or lawsuits, the Mueller investigation, Trump's general behavior, and the various tell-all books (plus, like, the Omarosa tapes?) it seems likely that the people in a White House that is already a resume stain are looking for ways to improve their personal aftermath.

Can We Call Him 'Lodestar'?

Sr.-Admin-Hunters have fixed on the somewhat unusual term "Lodestar" used in the OpEd as an attempt to determine who the fuck even says that? It turns out Pence has used the word. Did we get him?

No. Firstly, apparently lawyers use the word fairly often. The White House is full of 'em. Secondly when writing an OpEd for the world's largest newspaper it is probable that the author will use a thesaurus to try to make it sound as good as they can. In any event, The Omnivore is happy to call the dude Lodestar.

What Now?

The Omnivore thinks a few things are likely: Trump will purge. Kim Jong Un either comforted or tweaked the president with this statement:

This, you know, in contrast to all of Trump's close aides who have said their Commander in Chief is a moron. Trump feels plagued and betrayed by his associates (apparently he is saying he can only trust his children--wait until Jared knifes him!). Trump will tighten the grip.

Trump will do something Bigly Stupid--there is no better way to show that You Ain't The Boss of Me than to do something your aides would prevent and stick to it--and make sure it really happens. The Omnivore isn't certain of this--but it sure does seem in character.

Other people will talk. This doesn't end here--now that someone has taken the first move (and going to The New York Times instead of, say, The Wall Street Journal) other people are going to need to position themselves. This means getting their versions of the story out and, possibly, "outing" rivals in the Game Of Thrones administration.

This may not be pulling the plug on the ship--but it is certainly at least a small avalanche.

Interesting times.