Bush Says Rumsfeld Resigning, Gates to Replace Him

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Consensus is the absence of leadership.

I've seen you toss that Thatcher quote around here more than a few times....and it's a lame one.

No, consensus is not always the absence of leadership. Sometimes there's a consensus because the way to go is so fvcking obvious to everyone.

[Nephythys]

NYTimes link

Removal of Rumsfeld dates back to summer.

...and Steele has been said to accept the offer as RNC Chairman.
Link

[Moonliner]

Bravo for Steele. Word around here (Maryland) is that the RNC position is to give him a paying job that allows him to stay in politics for another run in '08, '10 or '12. I look forward to his next run.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Bravo for Steele. Word around here (Maryland) is that the RNC position is to give him a paying job that allows him to stay in politics for another run in '08, '10 or '12. I look forward to his next run.

Ditto that.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I so desperately wish there were 3rd party candidates I could support...but there aren't.

And the fact remains, Bush couldn't get Bolton through the Republican-stacked house the first time. So it's hardly a matter of "only candidates that Democrats want".

[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.

[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.