Why Did "Anonymous" Write That Editorial?

As presented, yes. It may have been written by someone or several someones ( a composite article) who worked in the administration on some level, but the idea that that the author was a senior official, like a cabinet member or some named adviser that we would be familiar with, is unlikely. It could even been written by the NYT editorial staff based on "anonymous sources."

However as far as the actual content, I easily believe that is a common sentiment among the GOP political appointees working in the administration. Trump didn't have a deep bench of Trumpists to hire, he ended up hiring a lot of the same sort of establishment GOP that any other Republican administration would have, and those guys HATE Trump. The hate of the never Trumper burns far brighter and hotter than that of any Democrat. It's a wonder he's gotten anything done at all.

 

I think the author is definitely a never-Trumper. I would be surprised if "he" was higher than some deputy undersecretary, or maybe a staffer for a Cabinet member.

The Times never even implied that it was written by a Cabinet member, or White House official. The typical suckers for Fake News are only reading those conclusions into what has been represented.

---------------------------------------------------------------

You have a good mind. I want you to play along with my thought experiment.

I want you, for the sake of this experiment, to assume that everything that The Times represents is true. I want you to assume that the editorial's author is presenting his, fact based, honest description of the reality.

Why, if things are working out to his satisfaction, would he go public?

I don't get it. It seems that his agenda is moving forward. This public exposé of his agenda seems detrimental to its advancement, to me. Why bugger it up?

 

In that respect it is a nuke.

 

Bingo, just a scheduled attack from the dnc and their allies rhe msm.

 

It is just to create distrust among the Trump supporters, and to boister any independents voters who might be on the fence. The whole thing is make up "fake news" like most stuff against Trump. Just Trumped up lie thinly disguised as truth

 

For money and a possible future CNN or MSNBC permanent time slot. Don't think exclusively NYT; think also DNC. Perhaps both agreed to pony up some big bucks -- in relative terms -- for the hit piece. The point is that you are speculating -- and there's nothing wrong with that -- but speculation sans facts means that just about anything that holds together from the standpoint of logic, also works.

What it all boils down to, however, is probably money or career enhancement, or a combination of both. Think loyal member of 'the swamp' and go from there.

 

It is lies and corruption that follows the democrat/liberal mantras. If a liberal or a democrats could tell the truth and win, they would lie anyways. "Anonymous" my asss, it is fake news created by the NYTs and others. It is the democratic way.

 

Yep. There are a lot of possible reasons for the editorial to have been written and published.

What I haven't seen, is somebody come up with a reason that doesn't depend on, at least, some part of it being A LIE.

 

What better way to make people question themselves, then to portray the POTUS as nothing more than a 'face' to someone else's machinations?

The timing with Woodward's book is telling.... IMO, the release of this writing is propaganda, the writer, if there is one, had no purpose in exposing themselves in this way.

 

Morgan Freeman probably wrote it

 

OK, now I'm going to hear it in Freeman's voice, damn you.....

 

Wow that didn't take long. I was wondering when someone was going to respond with that lol!

 

considering the content of the opinion expressed, its pretty damn clear why they wrote it.

 

Great! Please do go on.

 

In fact, I see the timing directly linked. The day before, media was buzzing about insiders and their contempt for their boss. the following day, an OPED is released reinforcing the book's content.

 

Based on what I know of never Trumpers, their view seems to be that whatever good Trump is doing (tax cuts/deregulation/North Korea) is far overshadowed by the bad he (as they perceive it) is doing: Mainly trade, immigration, and a general uncouthness, which frequently sends them to the fainting coach. George Will, I remember saying prior to the election, felt that it was imperative that Hillary win in a 50 state blow out, in order to preserve the "reputation" of the GOP and to slap down those working class miscreants who were
concerned about trivial matters like jobs.

So nothing good that Trump does is worth what the feel is the damage he is inflicting on the party long term. I think the never Trumpers are hilariously wrong about this, as they've been wrong about everything, but there are probably more inside-the-beltway Republicans who buy it than don't.

 

Yes to all that, but it doesn't speak to my question.

If we are to believe that the author is 100% truthful, how do we explain the obvious contradiction he displays by having gone public?

How can he claim tha he is satisfied with the results, while undercutting the person driving those same results? Wouldn't it have been better for him to have just remained silent?

 

OK. That makes a kind of sense.

I'm taking your post like this:

The author likes what has been accomplished, but would rather give it all back and go back to the era of 'managed decline', plus he just hates Trump.

 

I think that's basically it.

 

To keep a constant flow of negative hysteria permeating everyone’s brains 24/7. Since you can’t acuse making **** up as racism or sexism, there’s no consequence for non stop hatred to keep people angry and insane

They just want to keep the TDS flowing.

 

Another reason why "anonymous" wrote that letter.

The president’s leadership style is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective. The Times.

Trump is nuts.



Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump


3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico. When I left the Island, AFTER the storm had hit, they had anywhere from 6 to 18 deaths. As time went by it did not go up by much. Then, a long time later, they started to report really large numbers, like 3000...

5:37 AM - Sep 13, 2018



Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump


.....This was done by the Democrats in order to make me look as bad as possible when I was successfully raising Billions of Dollars to help rebuild Puerto Rico. If a person died for any reason, like old age, just add them onto the list. Bad politics. I love Puerto Rico!

5:49 AM - Sep 13, 2018

He gave no reason for doubting the independent report, commissioned by the Puerto Rican government and conducted by George Washington University's Milken Institute of Public Health. He provided no evidence that the Democrats were behind the report.

"People in Puerto Rico don't deserve to have their pain questioned," Ricardo Rosselló, Puerto Rico's governor, said.

Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., tweeted: "You're right, Mr. President. The Hurricane didn't kill 3,000 people. Your botched response did."

A spokesman for Ron DeSantis, the Republican candidate, told Orlando-area TV station WFTV that he had "no reason to doubt the number of 2,975 deaths in Puerto Rico."

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., tweeted that "these days even tragedy becomes political."

House Speaker Paul Ryan told reporters he has "no reason to dispute those numbers. Those are just the facts of what happened."

Florida's Republican Gov. Rick Scott said, "I disagree with @POTUS-- an independent study said thousands were lost and Gov. Rosselló agreed. I've been to Puerto Rico 7 times & saw devastation firsthand."

This whopper is so bad even his base won't believe it. That's pretty bad.

And the idiot says this while another devastating hurricane is barreling into North and South Carolina. Honestly, how stupid can you be?

The president’s leadership style is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

 

I can't read the writer's mind.

I see you did not question anything in my post. It serves as a clue as to the writer's intentions. Trump has no idea what he is doing, and my post indicated that.

 

These Trump supporters wanted nothing to do with the above post. They rant about TDS and criticize those who tell the truth about Trump. However, when it comes to that truth, they avoid it and attack the critics.

 

Of what possible interest could there be in the fact that the most powerful man on the planet is wholly unfit for the office he holds. I mean big deal, right?

 

Oh...