Lodestar, from Larry Williams

September 10, 2018 |

The word 'lodestar' was an early hint, and seemed to indicate Vice President Mike Pence, who has since claimed his innocence. Some now think this could be either the work of a speechwriter or something meant to misdirect any possible investigation.

Pence is not the only administration member who uses the word 'lodestar,' either.

As Cillian Zeal, a fellow writer at Conservative Tribune, found, sitting director of the National Economic Council Larry Kudlow once penned an article called 'Look to the Lodestars.'

This puts Kudlow as the prime suspect for many. As of the writing of this article, he has not denied the claims. With the few clues we do have, Kudlow seems to fit the bill.

George Zachar writes:

Kudlow is a New York/Wall Street guy. The op-ed writer patted himself on the back for being a part of Washington's 'steady state,' as opposed to its 'deep state.' I doubt it was Kudlow.

To me, what's significant is that the times happily validated the deplorables' contention of a willful, obstructionist GOP deep state, working against its base.

Peter Ringel writes: 

My first thought after this article came out was the following:

If I want to poison the relations and working climate of your group - I will tell you that I placed a spy in your midst. Then it does not matter if I really have a spy or not.

Also the next election seems near and the wave of banning of "multipliers" from twitter and other social media happened simultaneous.

Andy Aiken writes: 

My first thought was that the editorial was written by a NYT staff writer, making do with scraps that didn't make the final edit of Woodward's book.

What evidence has the NYT provided that their claim has more veracity than that of other opinion journals?

Let me know when they give the Pulitzer back for Walter Duranty's reportage that the purges, show trials, and famines in Stalin's USSR are fairy tales manufactured by fearful plutocrats.

Stefan Jovanovich writes:

Thx to the list, I have become fascinated with the facts of how information has actually been shared by people so they could try to answer the political economic questions that troubled/fascinated them. It has been a wonderfully encouraging study. I find, for example, that the effectiveness of the hub-spoke model for the transfer of political economic information is almost entirely an academic myth. Under that model the New York Times (and, as T. S. Eliot reminds us, once upon a time the Boston Evening Transcript) is the hub; and we the voters and Congress and (when he was a properly educated lawyer) the President were the spokes. If only. AA is right about Walter Duranty; his lies were truly awful. But, I think we can all take heart from realizing that they never persuading anyone in Congress to change their vote. You can study the budgets of the Roosevelt Administration in great detail and not find a single appropriation that sent a nickel to the Soviet Union before December 11, 1941 (the date Germany declared war on the United States).

The present nonsense from the "name" bureaucrats (fascinating how many of them are - like Joe Crowley - aging good Catholic boys with Irish ancestry) is yet another retelling of the same hub-spoke story. If you want to believe that paid-for published political opinions greatly matter - like televised speeches about "Black Lives", it is a comforting fairy tale; but it has very little relation of electoral reality.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez won her 4,138 vote margin over Joe Crowley because Thomas Manton's Queens Democrats got out of the business of winning elections once the last faint whispers of the Republican Party on Long Island died away. Her "Socialism" mattered not as a question of policy but as an indication of how effective the Sanders campaign had been in creating its own lists of precinct captains.

We have been here before.





Speak your mind

2 Comments so far

  1. marion dreyfus on September 10, 2018 1:52 pm

    Several points to keep in mind:
    With technology available to all, not least th tech-savvy millennials trolling the current presidency, feigning [perhaps] respect for their CEO, Pres.Trump, it is a simple thing to suss out writers’ frequent usage of standout words, such as, of course, the so-called telltale “lodestar.” That Kudlow used it too, once, is no guarantee of anything, as it would be highly uncharacteristic of the man who is Larry Kudlow to pen such a froard, combative piece against a man he has professed as worthy of our attention and respect. Thus, the frequency of such ideosyncratic terms as lodestar is debunked: Any high schooler could have divined that Pence, say, hit that word X-number of times. It would be, furthermore, a usage that would deflect adults into a slotted canyon of blame; a millennial would savor that. An adult over the age of normalcy and thought would not have done that word-usage search and then planted that ‘giveaway’ telltale. So-called.
    Another aspect is that the anonymous op-ed was not crafted to reveal anything much that 99% of the electorate and citizenry above room-temperature IQ already knows, from the invocation of those anti-Trump memes over and over and over in the pulpy New York Times, running tabloidized fungal pieces so regularly that it might well change its masthead to All the anti-Trump news, all the time, that’s maybe unfit to print, but we’ll do all the heavy lifting and print it anyway.”

    Not least is my observation that though the insightful brilliance-industry Rush Limbaugh acknowledges that the hit-piece recognizes and reifies the accuracy of the Deep State conspiracy Trump has been alleging all along is indeed a “Quiet coup”, I would assert, instead, that the coup is as noisy as can possibly be, with endless reams of faux fact “books” reeling out of the mouths of top Obamaesque printing shops, top tier though they are presumed to be. The noise includes the aforementioned op-ed and its sibling obloquies in WaPo and elsewhere in the seeded poisoned forest of print, but also the harangues from the paltry but peekaboo-worthy MSNBC, the once-respected CNN, the harlots of harangue across the fruited plain that can be heard in miraculous chorus all chiming the epithet and favorite memes of the day on program after program. The disspiriting choral orchestration continued with the nearly-sci-fi craziness of the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation circus a few days past, all in service, of course, to the hatreds festering in every Democrat garden, for the President and anything he touches, like a king midas in reverse.
    Silent coup?
    Not unless Krakatoa’s explosion in the early 20th century was silent. not unless the atom bomb explosions of ending WWII by Japan were silent.
    Dinesh D’Souza, right out of the gate the day Anonymous was published tweeted that he suspected the author of the op-ed was a writer at the New York Times, mascara’ed over by a light coating of persiflage about the NY Times “knowing the author” well, and the authoor being “a senior official of the Trump white House.” since there is no checking that assertion, and there are no biographical facts attending the Times little notation of justification, we cannot tell. There are approximately 2,000 persons, according to many estimates, across the tier of what might be called “top level officials” ‘at’ the White House, many actually serving out of the venue proper, but still deemed at a top official level. Most seriosu==us analysts assume it is a millennial writing, which explains why the piece ends with such a hosanna and bouquet to the deceased and well-known RINO Sen.John McCain. Senior officials, adults, would not have included such an encomium, because McCain was mercurial, quixortic, given to bluster, impetuous, changeable and many other adjectival monuments as valid for him as for the President. Perhaps more so.

    In any case, persons of my acquaintance have confided that even absent the offices of the tainted CIA and FBI, following their fatal compromised neutrality after Obama, President Trump will be able to unearth the identity of Deep State Anonymous using his own mighty prowess and sourcings.

    Luckily, nothing in the op-ed managed to shake any trees, except among the already committed antiTrumpers and dyed in the wool furies still shrieking in the void of Hillary’s unambiguous loss.

    Winning, as Obama once stentoriously intoned, has its privileges.

  2. Patrick Sullivan on September 10, 2018 2:49 pm

    Doc, I think Pence or Mnuchin
    Not Kudlow.


Resources & Links