Slashdot Mirror
White House Says Anonymous 'Coward' Behind New York Times Op-Ed Should Resign (freerepublic.com)
Earlier today, The New York Times published an op-ed from an anonymous staffer in the Trump administration, who has "vowed to thwart parts of [President Trump's] agenda and his worst inclinations," citing the president's amorality. The staffer writes: "We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous. But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic. That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump's more misguided impulses until he is out of office." An anonymous [coward] shares the response from the White House: White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders ripped the anonymous senior White House staffer who wrote an op-ed for The New York Times slamming President Trump's conduct. "The individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive, rather than support, the duly elected President of the United States," she said in a statement. "He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people. This coward should do the right thing and resign," she added. Trump himself called the op-ed's author "gutless." He tweeted: "Does the so-called 'Senior Administration Official' really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!"
The New York Times op-ed page editor Jim Dao described the process behind publishing the op-ed, telling CNN that the official contacted him "through an intermediary." He said that the New York Times also spoke with the anonymous individual but there are only a "very small number of people within the Times who know this person's identity." Dao didn't provide a gender for the person, but the author was described in a New York Times tweet as a "he" earlier Wednesday. [The Times later said that the tweet was a mistake and that it "was drafted by someone who is not aware of the author's identity."] Furthermore, Dao "said there was no special effort to disguise the person's writing style, for example by rewriting the piece in some fashion," reports CNN. "'There's editing in everything we do,' he said, but it's based on making the person's views 'clearer' and adhering to style standards."
A separate CNN article highlights 12 senior Trump administration officials who may be behind the op-ed.
The New York Times op-ed page editor Jim Dao described the process behind publishing the op-ed, telling CNN that the official contacted him "through an intermediary." He said that the New York Times also spoke with the anonymous individual but there are only a "very small number of people within the Times who know this person's identity." Dao didn't provide a gender for the person, but the author was described in a New York Times tweet as a "he" earlier Wednesday. [The Times later said that the tweet was a mistake and that it "was drafted by someone who is not aware of the author's identity."] Furthermore, Dao "said there was no special effort to disguise the person's writing style, for example by rewriting the piece in some fashion," reports CNN. "'There's editing in everything we do,' he said, but it's based on making the person's views 'clearer' and adhering to style standards."
A separate CNN article highlights 12 senior Trump administration officials who may be behind the op-ed.
I'm all for the "stuff that matters" part, but this is political minutiae.
A manifesto of a conspiracy of deep-state moles in the White House, allegedly composed of or including multiple Trump appointees, sabotaging the policies and decisions of the duly-elected President of the U.S., rather than implementing them? Reported by the New York Times, who claims to know the author and the work is genuine?
Sounds like "news for nerds, stuff that matters" to me. Because it matters to me, and my nerd credentials are some of the strongest here.
They might not like his decisions. But he IS the President. And a large part of what he was elected for was to clean out ("drain") the running-roughshod-over-the-citizens bureaucrats.
If the citizens can't bring the government to heel by electing their preferred executive and representatives, it's no longer a republic - it's an out-of-control tyranny. With the soapbox and the ballot box no longer functioning, you're on the verge of a civil war. If we go there, and our "democratic institutions" suffer or die, it will be the fault of the oh-so-self-righteous cabal claiming to be working to "preserve" them.
(I'm reminded of a Vietnam era quote: "We had to burn the village in order to save it.")
A little hint: To be effective at negotiation (especially when heading off a nuclear World War, but also down the scale to trade negotiations, promoting legislation, or exerting control over an entrenched bureaucracy), a President has to be competent at brinksmanship. That includes looking "crazy enough to do it" when he threatens something bad for his opposite number's interests.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Um, I think you are referring to the electoral college, because the people of America by a majority voted for a different candidate. But the electoral college doesn't always reflect the will of the people and it was not designed to do so. Being a republic or not is unrelated to this issue.
To be fair though, the candidates presumably campaigned with the assumption of winning the electoral college vote and not to win the majority vote. So Hillary lost fair and square according to the agreed upon rules, even if it did not agree with will of the people of America.