Holy #^@%!

[edwardmurphy]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opin ... tance.html

[Philip]

From the outside looking in, knowing the mentality of Trump, some of this doesn't surprise me. But as for the accuracy of it, I have a major suspicion: Why the NY Times???!!! This writer asserts to be of conservative bent. If he is legitimate and wants credibility, he made a very poor choice in what vehicle to release it to! There are plenty of respected conservative sources that would have released it. The NYT's credibility has long been in a free fall. The writer's choice of the Times also makes me suspect his values.

[Kurieuo]

Omarosa was left out as the source.

[edwardmurphy]

Seriously, Phil? A high ranking member of the Trump Administration writes an op ed saying that Trump's own appointees - conservative Republicans all - have so little faith in him that they've literally conspired to stage a soft coup, and your response is "Meh, it's the Times"...?

[RickD]

Unless the anonymous person comes forward, this just sounds like someone trying to stir up discord.

[PaulSacramento]

Treason?

LOL:

https://www.breitbart.com/big-governmen ... ate-op-ed/

[Philip]

Ed: Seriously, Phil? A high ranking member of the Trump Administration writes an op ed saying that Trump's own appointees - conservative Republicans all - have so little faith in him that they've literally conspired to stage a soft coup, and your response is "Meh, it's the Times"...?

NO! First place, you have no idea who wrote this nor their rank in the White House (https://townhall.com/columnists/phelimm ... s-n2516340) - that is, IF they work there. ANYONE can write and claim anything. Ya gotta admit going to the NYT would be extremely suspicious and unlikely for a conservative, as next to none of us think it nowadays has credibility or trustworthiness. The writer CLAIMS there are many like him working against Trump. It's also right on the tail of the release of Woodward's book espousing anonymous sources (hmmm - a possible pattern / coordination?) Now, despite my suspicions, as a conservative myself, I know that many conservatives dislike many traits of Trump, while simultaneously appreciating many of his initiatives and stances - while also hating his negatives and obvious boneheaded words and impulsiveness. So, if this had been released differently, to a more trustworthy source, I'd put more stock in it. No, I don't believe it per what we NOW know. But anyone who has read some of my broadsides at things about Trump I greatly detest should realize that I also don't doubt there are many frustrations and power struggles going on behind the scenes chaos in the Trump White House. If fact, such fireworks have long been characteristic of past presidential administrations.

But, Ed, I sure hope you don't decide the truth of things based upon unknowable things and anonymous sources - no matter how badly you might hope they are true?

[edwardmurphy]

But, Ed, I sure hope you don't decide the truth of things based upon unknowable things and anonymous sources - no matter how badly you might hope they are true?

Phil, the thing that makes this story so insane isn't the stuff that the official is saying. None of that is new information. The remarkable part is the source. The call is coming from inside the house. That's beyond crazy.

And sure, it's possible that the Times is overstating the person's seniority. It seems unlikely that they'd take that kind of an insane gamble, being that they're one of the most highly regarded news organizations in the nation, that this is a huge, unprecedented story, and that the writer's identity is likely to come out, but I suppose it's possible.

What I think is more likely is that the op ed was, in fact, written by a well-placed member of the most dysfunctional Administration in the history of our country. What I can't come up with is why.

If this person is truly staying there because he/she feels compelled to protect the nation from the President then this op ed doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The most likely outcome is Trump purging his Administration, and that would likely be the end of the secret coalition the author claims to be a part of.

So maybe the goal is actually to bring the Donald down. Maybe they just want to make him look so incompetent and impotent that he becomes such a drain on the GOP that jettisoning him makes sense. This person is a mainstream Republican, so they probably like the idea of a stable, boring Republican President. Mike Pence fits that bill. But if that's the case then why not pursue the 25th Amendment option? Perhaps there aren't enough votes. Maybe they're anticipating a Blue Wave and a Democratic House and thinking that impeachment is as good a path to President Pence as any. If that's the case then choosing Sideshow Don's hometown paper is actually pretty sharp. That will drive The Donald bonkers.

Anyway, I'm not gullible. I'm just living in a moment of political lunacy and trying to come to grips with it.

[PaulSacramento]

How is your economy going by the way?
I saw that trump's approval rate is fine.

[edwardmurphy]

The economy is a question mark.

On the one hand, the Wall Street boom that started under Obama has continued under Trump, spurred on, no doubt, by the tax cuts. On the other hand, the vast majority of the new wealth being created by that boom still goes straight to the top of the pyramid. Meantime, real hourly wages (meaning wage increases adjusted for inflation) are still flat, which indicates that the tax cut that's great for the wealthy hasn't done that much for the rest of us.

Meanwhile the federal deficit has continued to grow, and the Republican plan to offset the deficit by counting on sustained unrealistic economic growth hasn't really panned out. New jobs are being created, but most of them aren't very good. I just heard the new jobs report this afternoon, and while we gained about 200,000 jobs overall, we lost nearly 20,000 manufacturing jobs. Those are the jobs that Trump's tariffs are supposed to protect and expand, so that's worrisome.

And finally, there are indications that we're coming up on a recession. A recent one is that apparently Warren Buffet has made a big move toward short term bonds, which can be quickly converted to cash, which is what you want to be holding if the market makes a major correction. You might not like Buffet's politics, but it's hard to question his business acumen. The guy pretty much prints his own money, and has been for a long damned time.

Add it all up and the economy hasn't changed much since Obama. All of the things that were bad - wealth inequality, stagnant wages, large deficits, loss of manufacturing jobs, and the like - are still bad, but some of the things that were good - environmental protections, affordable healthcare, the social safety net, and so forth - are under siege or already gone. Things are better than ever in the boardrooms and country clubs, but life on Main Street is about the same as it's been for a long while, or maybe a bit worse.

Here's a Forbes article from a few weeks back, in case you'd like to hear it from a conservative source.

As for the poll numbers, they're about where they've always been. The current RCP Trump Job Performane poll average is 41.6, but it'll take a couple of weeks to see if the NYT Op Ed and the new Woodward book have any impact. Either way, if you think consistent double-digit disapproval is "fine" then yeah, I guess it's still fine.

On the other hand, according to the RCP Direction of the Country poll average, only 39% of Americans like the direction we're going. Granted, there are all kinds of possible explanations for that number, but it still bodes poorly for the ruling party. And Democrats are up 8 points on Republicans on a generic ballot. Considering that we're as close to being at peace as we ever get and the economy is doing pretty well, those are some shockingly low approval numbers for Trump and the GOP.

Anyway, we'll see where we are in a couple of months.