The Donald Trump-Mitt Romney bromance began with an insult, courtesy of Trump:
“He’d buy companies, he’d close companies. He’d get rid of jobs. I’ve built a great company. I’m a much bigger businessman and have a much, much bigger net worth. I mean, my net worth is many, many, many times Mitt Romney.”
Then Trump had a change of heart: “Mitt is tough. He’s smart. He’s sharp. He’s not going to allow bad things to continue to happen to this country that we all love. So, Governor Romney, go out and get ’em. You can do it.”
And Romney swooned with delight: “I’m so honored to have his endorsement. There are some things that you just can’t imagine in your life. This is one of them.”
Mitt Romney and Donald Trump
But now the bromance is over, courtesy of a rousing, anti-Trump speech given by Romney at the University of Utah:
“Mr. Trump is directing our anger for less than noble purposes. He creates scapegoats of Muslims and Mexican immigrants, he calls for the use of torture and for killing the innocent children and family members of terrorists. He cheers assaults on protesters.
“He applauds the prospect of twisting the Constitution to limit First Amendment freedom of the press. This is the very brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss.”
So how is Trump taking all this? “I don’t know what happened to him. You can see how loyal he is.
“He was begging for my endorsement. I could have said ‘Mitt, drop to your knees.’ He would have dropped to his knees.”
Fortunately for Trump, as his bromance with Romney has ended, another has emerged–with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.
On February 26, Christie through his (political) weight behind Trump at a hastily-announced press conference in Fort Worth, Texas.
Chris Christie
Christie had not always been on such wonderful terms with the egocentric businessman. In fact, for months, the two had been rivals for the Presidency.
In a January speech before the New Hampshire primary, Christie said:
“Showtime is over. We are not electing an entertainer-in-chief. Showmanship is fun, but it is not the kind of leadership that will truly change America….
“If we are going to turn our frustration and anger with the D.C. insiders, the politicians of yesterday and the carnival barkers of today into something that will actually change American lives for the better, we must elect someone who has been tested.”
Then, without warning, Christie announced a sudden change of mind at a press conference in Fort Worth, Texas.
The previous night, Trump had been mauled by a surprisingly aggressive Marco Rubio during a CNN-hosted debate among the Presidential candidates. As a result, reporters gasped when Christie endorsed Trump and attacked Rubio:
“Part of his talking points now is to be entertaining and smile a lot now. Listen, it’s one act after another.”
Christie obviously felt it necessary to explain why he had gone from attacking Trump to promoting him:
“As a Republican I feel strongly about making sure that [Democratic front-runner] Hillary Clinton does not become president of the United states, and I believe Donald Trump is the best person–of those remaining–to do that.”
As for the attack made on Trump by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney:
“I understand the things that Gov. Romney is saying, and he’s objected to. That’s his opinion, and I respect him as I always have, and he’s welcome to his view. I just happen to disagree with the conclusion that he comes to.”
By endorsing Trump, Christie became the first major establishment figure to validate the fitness of the former “reality TV star” to serve as President.
Considering Trump’s remaining opponents, it was not hard for Christie to reach that conclusion.
Texas United States Senator Rafael Cruz is an ideologue–and totally opposed to the pragmatic approach Christie brings to politics. And Christie genuinely dislikes Rubio.
In addition, Christie believed that Ohio Governor John Kasich–a moderate by Republican standards–could never secure his party’s Presidential nomination.
Ditto for neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who apparently believed his Right-wing party would elect another black man to succeed President Obama.
As for Trump: “This was an endorsement that really meant a lot. Chris is an outstanding man with an outstanding family, and this is the one endorsement that I’m really happy to get.”
While Christie and Trump share an innate aggressiveness and willingness to bully, that is not all they share.
In Never Enough, auhor Michael D’Antonio portrays Trump as a man with an insatiable appetite for wealth, attention, power, and conquest. The same can be said of Christie.
By taking on the role of Trump’s attack dog, Christie positions himself for the same role as vice presidential nominee. Or for a position such as Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security.
For those wishing to understand the realities of American political leaders, the best insight comes in a song popularized in George Orwell’s novel, 1984:
Under the spreading chestnut tree
I sold you and you sold me:
There lie they, and here lie we
Under the spreading chestnut tree.
.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDonald_Trump&docid=oUQ97aEz8anNMM&tbnid=QsnpHu5vtl_y5M%3A&w=342&h=465&ved=0ahUKEwiz15vwz7DLAhVBWWMKHYU2CXkQxiAIAg&iact=c&ictx=1)
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
ABC NEWS, ASTROLOGY, BARACK OBAMA, BILL CLINTON, CBS NEWS, CNN, COMMUNIST CHINA, DONALD REGAN, EMPRESS ALEXANDRA, FACEBOOK, GEORGE W. BUSH, GERALD R. FORD, GRIGORY RASPUTIN, JIMMY CARTER, JOAN QUIGLEY, JODIE FOSTER, JOHN W. HINCKLEY, MERV GRIFFIN, MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, MITT ROMNEY, NANCY REAGAN, NBC NEWS, NICHOLAS II, Ronald Reagan, SOVIET UNION, SUPERSTITION, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY
NANCY REAGAN’S RASPUTIN
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on March 10, 2016 at 12:20 amNancy Reagan, widow of Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, died on March 6, at age 94, in Los Angeles, California.
She had survived her husband–who died of Alzheimer’s in 2004–by almost 12 years. Republicans–who have deified Ronald since he left the White House in 1989–rushed to pay tribute to her:
Democrats also pitched in:
The Presidency of Ronald W. Reagan consumed eight years of American history: 1981 – 1989. But its legacies continue to haunt us.
On October 21, 2014, Joan Quigley, the woman responsible for one of its most bizarre legacies–government by astrologer–passed away at age 87.
Quigley was the court astrologer to Ronald and Nancy Reagan.
Ronald and Nancy Reagan
Nancy met Quigley on “The Merve Griffin Show” in 1973. Quigley gave Nancy–and through her, Reagan himself–astrological advice during the latter’s campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1976.
That effort failed to unseat President Gerald Ford–who was defeated that November by Jimmy Carter. But four years later, in 1980, Reagan defeated Carter to become the 40th President of the United States.
On March 30, 1981, a mentally-disturbed loner named John W. Hinckley shot and critically wounded Reagan. Fixiated on actress Jodie Foster, he believed that by shooting the President he could gain her affection.
For Nancy, the assassination attempt proved a watershed.
Shortly after the shooting, Merv Griffin told her that Quigley had told him: If Nancy had called her on that fateful day, she–Quigley–could have warned that the President’s astrological charts had foretold a bad day.
From that moment on, Nancy made sure to regularly consult Quigley on virtually everything that she and the President intended to do.
When Reagan learned of Nancy’s consultations with Quigley, he warned her: Be careful, because it might look odd if it came out.
Many–if not most–of these calls from the White House to Quigley’s office in San Francisco were made on non-secure phone lines.
Joan Quigley
This meant that foreign powers–most notably the Soviet Union and Communist China–could have been privy to Reagan’s most secret intentions.
Nancy passed on Quigley’s suggestions as commands to Donald Regan, chief of the White House staff.
As a result, Regan kept a color-coded calendar on his desk to remember when the astrological signs were good for the President to speak, travel, or negotiate with foreign leaders: Green ink highlighted “good” days; red ink “bad” days; yellow ink “iffy” days.
Donald Regan, no fan of Nancy’s, chafed under such restrictions: “Obviously, this list of dangerous or forbidden dates left very little latitude for scheduling,” he later wrote.
Forced out of the White House in 1987 by Nancy, Regan struck back in a 1988 tell-all memoir: For the Record: From Wall Street to Washington.
In 1988, after her secret role in the Reagan White House was revealed, Quigley told the Associated Press that she was a “serious, scientific astrologer.”
Regan’s book revealed, for the first time, how Ronald Reagan had actually made his Presidential decisions.
All–including decisions to risk nuclear war with the Soviet Union–were based on a court astrologer’s horoscopes. Rationality and the best military intelligence available played a lesser, secondary role.
The last major world leader to turn to the supernatural for advice had been Russian Czar Nicholas II. His adviser had been Grigori Rasputin, a Siberian peasant whom Empress Alexandra believed was the only man who could save her hemophiliac son–and heir to the throne.
Grigori Rasputin
In 1990, Quigley confirmed the allegations in an autobiography, What Does Joan Say?: My Seven Years As White House Astrologer to Nancy and Ronald Reagan.
The title came from the question that Ronald Reagan asked Nancy before making important decisions–including those that could risk the destruction of the United States.
Among the successes Quigley took credit for:
Thirty-five years after he became President, Ronald Reagan remains the most popular figure among Republicans. His name is constantly invoked by Right-wing candidates, while his deliberately-crafted myth is held up as the example of Presidential greatness.
Still, a number of precedents of the Reagan administration–like government by astrologer–might lend themselves to easy abuse. Thus, voters should consider this carefully before elevating “another Reagan” to the Presidency.
Share this: