Impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective

[_Some Schmo]

It’ll be an historic legacy, but not for any good reasons.

Yes.

It's clear he's a child. Anyone observing him objectively must realize, this is not a functional person (as opposed to functioning).

[_huckelberry]

Ineffective? geez, the past 2 years of legislative, judicial, and executive successes disagree....but hey,

Not only all that wow but it appears Trump has set Subgenius's hair on fire. Its a conflagration.

[_honorentheos]

The editorial seems enormously counter-productive to its stated aims, which leads me to believe the author is engaging in post-admin ass-covering or is a tremendous idiot him/herself.

I've been thinking about this since the editorial was posted. The author seems to be a traditional establishment conservative who describes the successes of the administration as the tax reform, deregulation, and judicial overhaul. Their concerns with Trump include his not being a true conservative in addition to the dangerous aspects of his hair trigger ego driven mindset. They claim there was some discussion over invoking the 25th amendment but choosing to contain Trump.

With this background, their stated aim was to let the American people understand there were adults in the White House. One can't help but consider this in light of the upcoming election.

Given all this, the author seems like someone who would regret losing control of Congress. But it's hard for me to see how the editorial serves that purpose. Is it possible the intent is to give Democrats a little bit of a lift to eventually see Trump impeached? But leaving Pence as President? Is it a play for 2020? Or is there really no strategic aim to it?

[_canpakes]

The editorial seems enormously counter-productive to its stated aims, which leads me to believe the author is engaging in post-admin ass-covering or is a tremendous idiot him/herself.

I've been thinking about this since the editorial was posted. The author seems to be a traditional establishment conservative who describes the successes of the administration as the tax reform, deregulation, and judicial overhaul. Their concerns with Trump include his not being a true conservative in addition to the dangerous aspects of his hair trigger ego driven mindset. They claim there was some discussion over invoking the 25th amendment but choosing to contain Trump.

With this background, their stated aim was to let the American people understand there were adults in the White House. One can't help but consider this in light of the upcoming election.

Given all this, the author seems like someone who would regret losing control of Congress. But it's hard for me to see how the editorial serves that purpose. Is it possible the intent is to give Democrats a little bit of a lift to eventually see Trump impeached? But leaving Pence as President? Is it a play for 2020? Or is there really no strategic aim to it?

Gotta call BS on this editorial. Looks like a simple ploy by someone to keep their job in November by making claims that will simply reinforce the attitudes of Democrats while being simultaneously ignored by Republicans. Democratic and Republican voters won’t vote any differently and Republican legislators really don’t give a rat’s ass who’s at the helm at this point as long as that person claims to be a Republican. Gotta keep the Base toeing the line.

[_honorentheos]

Modern elections are mostly won or lost by turnout rather than ideological conversions. In that light, it's hard to see what the intent here might be, but one option is to pacify concerned establishment Republicans that a threat to Trump isn't a threat to the party. Either way, I don't think it's an attempt to create a paper trail for the future but who knows.

[_canpakes]

... one option is to pacify concerned establishment Republicans that a threat to Trump isn't a threat to the party.

Agreed. There are probably a couple of hundred or so Republicans who might actually consider not voting Republican come this election or in 2020, and any serious content of the editorial is meant solely for them. It might make a difference in one local downstream race somewhere. Otherwise why would this person approach the Times to print this instead of an arguably conservative outlet? ; )

[_Some Schmo]

Given all this, the author seems like someone who would regret losing control of Congress. But it's hard for me to see how the editorial serves that purpose. Is it possible the intent is to give Democrats a little bit of a lift to eventually see Trump impeached? But leaving Pence as President? Is it a play for 2020? Or is there really no strategic aim to it?

My first impression was that is was written by someone/people who don't want their association with this administration to tarnish their reputation after it's over. I haven't quite moved past that impression.

ETA: Jon Meacham speculated that it was someone who attended the McCain funeral and was moved to start standing up for the country. I love listening to Jon for his optimism, but that sounds a little too high minded, given the outcome.

[_EAllusion]

The editorial seems enormously counter-productive to its stated aims, which leads me to believe the author is engaging in post-admin ass-covering or is a tremendous idiot him/herself.

I've been thinking about this since the editorial was posted. The author seems to be a traditional establishment conservative who describes the successes of the administration as the tax reform, deregulation, and judicial overhaul. Their concerns with Trump include his not being a true conservative in addition to the dangerous aspects of his hair trigger ego driven mindset. They claim there was some discussion over invoking the 25th amendment but choosing to contain Trump.

With this background, their stated aim was to let the American people understand there were adults in the White House. One can't help but consider this in light of the upcoming election.

Given all this, the author seems like someone who would regret losing control of Congress. But it's hard for me to see how the editorial serves that purpose. Is it possible the intent is to give Democrats a little bit of a lift to eventually see Trump impeached? But leaving Pence as President? Is it a play for 2020? Or is there really no strategic aim to it?

The thing is, everything in the editorial is already widely reported as what's occurring inside the White House. It's vague enough that no new information is contained inside of it besides a slight bit of additional confirmation that an anonymous official is saying it is all true in their own words. But if the goal is to thwart and contain Trump's base instincts, this editorial is just going to make him more paranoid and unwilling to listen to people who might be trying to contain him. As a result, it harms efforts to contain him. And what's gained out of that? Basically nothing, it seems.

I saw someone speculating it was written by someone looking to encourage Trump to do an admin purge. While I'm not into that conspiracy idea, I 100% agree that it might as well be. Again, to me it looks like someone trying to salvage their reputation at some point in the future or someone who didn't think this through at all.

[_honorentheos]

Consider:

The Democrats take the House this November, possibly the Senate but since that's so unlikely let's leave it at the House. I'd bet the markets drop the next day because Wall Street hates uncertainty and their profit predictions aren't going to be helped by an attempt to push back against Trump's regulatory whitewashing. Suppose the Mueller investigation proves to be enough that the House impeaches Trump, which would still take the bulk of the time between the 2018 election and the 2020 presidential primaries. Whether or not the Senate then acts on the impeachment probably rests on what Mueller finds. The odds of an economic setback have gone up both just due to time and due to reactions by markets and the Fed. That's the backdrop political strategists have to be looking at for 2020.

In that context, if there was a successful impeachment of Trump I would almost guarantee the result will be bad for Democrats in 2020. Why? Because the country's economic pain will be blamed on Democrats taking the Congress, setting back the hot economy Trump had set in motion which prevented the Tax Reform law from benefiting everyone (that will be the spin) and the Democrats will be painted as having snubbed the will of the people or the democratic process...all while putting Pence in position to lead the revolution to take back Washington for the people.

I don't think anyone with an R by their name is benefited from seeing Trump removed by Republicans. Not the way the Republican primaries have been going and they know that. Intentional or not, the politics line up behind this being the best move for conservatives. The op ed author is more concerned about Trump being an anti-free trade, non-Christian (read as amoral in the editorial perhaps?) demagogue who is barely able to be contained from starting shooting wars with North Korea or Syria, is heating up a trade war with China while alienating our European allies, and cozying up to Russia than his being really a threat to the average citizen. But by being in office he allows the neocons around him to more or less move blocks around where they want them if not make wholesale changes to implement their conservative vision.

All of that leads me to think the editorial is opaque in it's intentions but I don't think it's a coup for liberals in any way, shape or form. It's intended audience is on the right.

[_EAllusion]

Nah. When economic times are bad, the public blames whomever is president and by extension their party regardless of whether that president has any blame to share for it. It's totally irrational, and a byproduct of the fact that people vote based on a vague sense of how they perceive things to be going. Or, rather, enough swing voters do that we might as well be electing a Fisher King.

PR efforts to blame Democrats won't work. That would take a "But her emails!" level of complicity in the media that is really implausible.