WARNING: RANK SPECULATION POST.

[No Elephants]

I have not sat with this long enough to know if I believe it myself, but what the hell? The post is properly labeled, you've been warned, I've made a total disclaimer, so here goes.

I'm thinking that Democrats were terrified that Christie might become the Republican nominee.

I hear many saying now that Christie could never have gotten the nomination anyway, because the Tea Partiers would have blocked him.

Of course, that overlooks the facts that the Teabaggers (a) ARE Republicans; and (b) are powerles without the Koch's and other moneybaggers.

In both 2008 and 2012, the Republicans picked the candidate that was SUPPOSEDLY the anti-Teabagger.

In 2008 it was McCain, who supposedly then had to struggle to keep his Senate seat because of Tea Party opposition, and who was recently given an ultimatum by his state's party. Something like, "Go right, or go home. Any of your seven homes will do. Just get the hell out of government."

In 2012, it was Romney who had run against Kennedy in 1996, claiming to be to Kennedy's left. Not the born again Catholic Newt, or the born again born again Santorum, but Romney-- a perceived moderate and a MORMON, no less. (The born again community, which makes up the party's base, is so not fond of Mormons.)

Of course, Romney's mouth was moving every time he campaigned, so we know he was lying in 1996 about being to Kennedy's left. Romney is not to anyone's left or to anyone's right. He is firmly in the camp of "I want to be the first RomneyMormon POTUS so badly."

Left of Kennedy, right of Bush, pick a spot, any spot. Just wind him up, point him in a direction that looks to him like a winning position, then stand back ad watch him do that peculiar walk of his that is somewhere between a demi-goose step and the waddle of an adult duck with a fully-loaded Depends.


That is what I think of my former Governor. From what I saw on the internets in 2012, that's what conservatives thought of him, too. They did not trust him to be true to conservative principles; and they were correcgt not to trust him. But, they wanted the candidate who was deemed likeliest to have a shot at winning the general; and everyone told them that was Romney. So, grindingly and grudgingly, he got the nom.

I think Christie might well have had the party power structure behind him, as well as the Party Moneybaggers, who, historically, have trumped the Party Teabaggerss. So, I don't believe the meme that Christie could never have gotten the nomination anyway.
And, judging from the amount of energy being focused on grinding Christie to bits, I think Democrats were worried that Christie could win. And, on top of that, what a great diversion, a golden opportunity for the future US ambassador to China to hand TPP to the Senate Majority Leader.

You know, if I were a conspiracy theorist, I might wonder: You fat cats want Democrats to fall on their swords for TPP, ala with Gramm, Leach, Bliley? Fine. Hillary's the next President and Democrats keep control of the Senate. Deal?)

But, I am more than fine with all of the above because, as I type, I wonder how many New Jersey employees and pensioners have been doing the happy dance all week. Lots of them, I hope, though it may be cold comfort.

[Enthusiast]

1. Nice editorial.

I don't see that particular conspiracy theory as much of a stretch. If it's an actual conspiracy it no longer remains a theory.

Remember, during the first 2012 presidential debate when the President said, "I believe we have much the same position on social security." Or something to that effect. Thanks, Mr. President, that's why we voted for you.

There's not a dimes worth of difference? When it comes to prosecuting Wall Street bank fraudsters, the NSA, military industrial complex largess, climate change, education and trade agreements, maybe there isn't. You know, the things that will have a real impact on our lives.

I like your take on that peculiar Romney walk. There is no way one could mistake him for a "regular guy". He is just plain weird. Did you see him dance recently? I mean, I can't dance, but geesh.

[No Elephants]

2. No, I didn't see him dance. Was he doing The Robot?

Remember when Bush danced? That dance and his hugs of Lieberman and McCain (not at the same time) are the stuff of which nightmares are made.

Speaking of my conspiracy theory: Gates did recently say Hillary would make a good President, even as he mocked the prospect of Biden being President.

I think the time may be coming when Republicans are going to break it to the far religious right that Republicans are no longer going to carry water for homophobia and anti-choice. That these are private matters for families and churches, not things that should be legislated by secular governments. If that prediction is correct, I wonder what Democrats will do then?

Speaking of Gates, did you hear his stated reason for retiring as Secretary of Defense? He said that he had begun to care about the troops too much, that he had begun to put their well being above all else. Before, he had made decisions affecting them, but from some "room" where his decision making was detached. (Let that sink in.) Caring about the well-being of the troops rendered him, in his mind, unfit to serve this country.

Caring about the troops, as opposed to what? The mission in Afghanistan? What the hell is the mission in Afghanistan, anyway? To try to make the Taliban be nicer to women when they think it's their God given duty to oppress women? To make sure we create Al Qaida Afghanistan, like we created Al Qaida Iraq?

We probably could have given every adolescent female a scholarship to an Ivy League in the US or equivalent anywhere in the world, full room and board, for a fraction of what that war cost and will continue to cost in the future things like disabled veterans' benefits. Not to mention the horrific human cost to our troops and their people. And the stain on our collective soul/psyche.

Remember when World War I was the war to end all wars? Because the casualties were so horrific that no one could contemplate a repeat? The League of Nations was supposed to be the alternative to war. Good times.

If people who ran governments were sane, World War I would have been the war to end all wars.

The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I was over 37 million. There were over 16 million deaths and 20 million wounded ranking it among the deadliest conflicts in human history.

The total number of deaths includes about 10 million military personnel and about 7 million civilians. The Entente Powers (also known as the Allies) lost about 6 million soldiers while the Central Powers lost about 4 million. At least 2 million died from diseases and 6 million went missing, presumed dead.

About two-thirds of military deaths in World War I were in battle, unlike the conflicts that took place in the 19th century when the majority of deaths were due to disease. Improvements in medicine as well as the increased lethality of military weaponry were both factors in this development. Nevertheless disease, including the Spanish flu, still caused about one third of total military deaths for all belligerents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

And I bet those numbers are on the low side.

[Enthusiast]

4. Damn, this is good.

"Caring about the troops, as opposed to what? The mission in Afghanistan? What the hell is the mission in Afghanistan, anyway? To try to make the Taliban be nicer to women when they think it's their God given duty to oppress women?"

And

"We probably could have given every adolescent female a scholarship to an Ivy League in the US or equivalent anywhere in the world, full room and board, for a fraction of what that war cost and will continue to cost in the future things like disabled veterans' benefits. Not to mention the horrific human cost to our troops and their people. And the stain on our collective soul/psyche."

Well, I could quote your entire post.

We think of the same things.

"What the hell is the mission in Afghanistan, anyway?"

Whatever it is/was, it has been the greatest waste of time, lives, treasure and effort in all of history because it has achieved absolutely nothing of value. And it will continue to achieve nothing of value if we stay there for centuries.

Maybe if we stay there long enough the Afghans will relinquish their undeveloped strategic minerals so a few already filthy rich American capitalist fat cats will have their lives further enriched.

[No Elephants]

3. P.S. The OP can read as though I meant I was fine with the Democrats and

Republicans making a deal as to how the next national election will turn out. I am not fine with that. As close as I could ever come to violence would be over something like that.