Bush Says Rumsfeld Resigning, Gates to Replace Him

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

If he cuts on Bolton after this thing with Rumsfeld the perception could be that he is abandoning his choices just because of the election- I think that is a mistake.

I think the perception would be that he is abandoning his choice because most people disagreed with the choice.

But so what if he pays attention to the result of the election and makes some changes? He's the one who took office in his second term talking about a "mandate". If he considered less than half of voters voting for him and winning by the absolute slimmest of margians a "mandate", what do you call the largest shift in political control in over a decade? THAT'S a mandate.

[Nephythys]

Hardly-

As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" — especially in the sixth year.

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call.

Hardly a mandate.

YOU want to call it a mandate- does not make it so.

On top of that the mistake would be with his own base-not the left. I have already seen anger at the resignation of Rumsfeld. Some feel that Bush lied to them- and is a traitor to the right. If he had bailed on Bolton without even trying it would have been worse.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

On top of that the mistake would be with his own base-not the left. I have already seen anger at the resignation of Rumsfeld. Some feel that Bush lied to them- and is a traitor to the right. If he had bailed on Bolton without even trying it would have been worse.

So you're advocating party before country? Appease the base, don't worry about what the electorate feels is the right direction for the country?

I wouldn't call anything a mandate. But in the context of Bush calling his re-election a mandate, what happened this week is comparatively a violent military coup.

[Not Afraid]

Bush would be stupid to not take the election results into consideration when making future choices. But, then, we ARE talking about Bush.

[Nephythys]

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

What an inciteful response. Gosh, you've convinced me that your points have merit.

[Nephythys]

Sometimes I get so sick of the way words get twisted here and the constant battle to be on the defense against a majority of people who seem to get a thrill out of doing just that-

so yeah-

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Sometimes I get so sick of the way words get twisted here and the constant battle to be on the defense against a majority of people who seem to get a thrill out of doing just that-

And sometimes I get so sick of someone just throwing up their hands simply because they want to get in a huff rather than have a discussion which clarifies their position.

So yeah, "Are you advocating party before country?"

[Nephythys]

I'm not in a huff.

Thanks

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

And sometimes I get so sick of someone just throwing up their hands simply because they want to get in a huff rather than have a discussion which clarifies their position.

So yeah, "Are you advocating party before country?"

Of course she is! That is the Rebublican platform, isn't it?