Good morning.
Oh my goodness, Washington is all a-titter again, this time about an op-ed written by a deeply concerned official and published anonymously by The New York Times. Despite the temptation to nod in agreement with the protected source, the thought of lawmakers and staffers whispering in marble nooks and crannies about who the culprit might be isn't comforting.
One can only imagine the bar scene in the nation's capital. One can picture the lights at The Watergate darkened in a spooky historical reference.
The analysis of this situation by the pundits is relentless. They actually seem a bit annoyed that they have to cover the Supreme Court hearings that would normally provide plenty of volatile fodder. They squeezed in Bob Woodward's new book the day before and now they have a Whodunit of staggering proportions. It's Shakespearean, it's Orwellian, it's never been seen before in the history of the United States.
The people being interviewed are almost exclusively Dems because the Reps continue to hide under their desks, except for Senators Corker and Flake who are calling it quits. The analysts, however, have no problem sharing their thoughts with us. Their lips are either smacking with journalistic delight or pursed in disgust, depending on which cable network they call home. Here's a sampling of their opinions and speculation:
1. The Times shouldn't be giving space to someone not gutsy enough to go public.
2. It's a man because The Times slipped and said he.
3. It's a woman because The Times slipped on purpose and said he.
4. The Times actually wrote the piece.
5. Why wouldn't a Republican go to The Wall Street Journal?
6. It's like Deep Throat but we'll find out who it is pretty quickly.
7. It's someone connected to national security rather than domestic policy.
8. It's probably a military person because John McCain was cited in the piece.
9. It's Mike Pence because the word lodestar is mentioned and Pence uses that word a lot.
10. It's someone who can write fairly well because nobody would risk having a writer who might spill the beans.
Woven into this tapestry with its loose threads and frayed edges is an explanation about how the 25th Amendment works. It was put in place, of course, to provide a process in the event a president is physically incapacitated, i.e. Wilson had a stroke and his wife ran the shop for a couple of years. There's also a provision about someone being mentally unfit to serve, but that involves the VP and the Cabinet telling Congress that the president is nuts and both the House and Senate having to vote up or down on that assessment. Not likely.
Meanwhile, the fur is flying around the West Wing. Not me, everyone within ten miles of the Oval Office says, knowing the consequences of being found out. One can envision the poor chump or chumpess growing old at Guantanamo, but this is the thing despite the tendency to get drawn into the gossipy nature of the latest shenanigans: we have a tragedy on our hands and there's a percentage of the population that refuses to acknowledge it, making it even worse.
Best regards,
Elisabeth
Comments