Rumsfeld first casualty of Dem victory
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stepped down today, and will be replaced by ex-CIA director Robert Gates.
Here's what I don't get. Today was the absolute worst day to fire Rummy. A month ago, yes. Would have blunted a lot of national concerns about Iraq (and it looks like this was an election based on national ideas). If he was on shaky ground, make the move to signal that you are open to changes, get people talking about something else besides "Rumsfeld must go" and take some momentum away from a surging Dem party. At least it would have given cover to GOP candidates, they could have talked about the new plan/leadership going forward (maybe W didn't want people throwing a departed Rummy under the bus before the election - but they certainly will now anyway). A month from now, sure whatever. But the day after getting trounced? If I was a losing GOPer, I would be furious. Plus, it looks weak in the face of the election. Like W sacrificed Rummy to gain some kind of good will with Pelosi (not saying that's what he did, but Pelosi's first move was to call for Rumsfeld's job - way to agree W). I dunno, maybe W felt like the slaughter was Rumsfeld's fault, and this was his way of punishing him. Or, he may give Rummy a medal, who knows? But the timing on this was not only bad, it was weird.
Posts
5 comments:
Yeah, if I was DeWine or Burns or etc., etc., it's some salt, but it was Bush being "maybe wrong, but never in doubt", as always and until Rummy's bitter end.
What could look weaker in the face of the election than the result itself? It's a cliche, but it's true: It's the end of an era.
Keep in mind the average loss by the party in power during mid term elections is just under 30. I'm still surprised by how little the Republicans have been hurt by this "unpopular" war. The three issues that drove this result in order of impact were: 1) Republican moderates standing in way of Bush tax cuts and Bush's big spending budgets 2) Iraq war 3) perceived scandals. Without both of the first two there still would have been a swing towards Democrats, but Republicans would have held the Senate and possibly the House, but barely.
I think Rummy and Bush had agreed that if the elections go poorly he would be replaced. I agree, Rummy should have gone some time ago. Often you fire the coach even if it isn't his fault just to change the topic. But Republicans would not have fared much better without Rummy around.
I think it depends on perspective. Here's my starting point. The Dems never came up with a compelling reason to vote for them. Pelosi's agenda, from her website, http://democraticleader.house.gov/press/releases.cfm?pressReleaseID=1927 as Speaker of the House is basically, "raise the minimum wage," "be bipartisan," "be ethical," and "change the direction in Iraq." Let's review. I never heard any rally around "raise the minimum wage." Not a single voter I talked to mentioned that, and I don't remember any press around it, or any real concerted push from the Dems about it. "Be bi-partisan." Drivel, they all say it, none mean it. I think voters get that. In fact, I think most voters want gridlock and checks and balances. Again, no concerted platform pre-election around "bi-partisanship." Actually, I recall the opposite. "Be ethical." More drivel. Probably resonates with the electorate though, and has some shades of the Contract with America. But "be ethical" isn't really a platform to move the country in any direction, its more of a "duh." Finally, "change direction in Iraq." I'll get to this, but the primer is that the Dems never, ever said what their plan was.
Why did I make you read all that? It gets to my point about the "thumping" the GOP got, and your assertion that the "unpopular" war hasn't really hurt the GOP. (Nice use of parenthesis by the way. But polls back up that this is an "unpopular" war.)
Let's pretend you could somehow control for Iraq. Either it never happened, or it was a "success." What would this election have looked like. I believe that the GOP would have actually picked up seats in both the House and Senate. The perceived scandals would have hurt (I also like you're use of the adjective "perceived." Like Cunningham going to jail, Delay stepping down, Abramoff, and Foley weren't legit scandals), but I think the GOP would have recovered. Again, the Dems have offered nothing. NO-thing! So the way I see it, the GOP went from gaining seats to losing gobs of them. All the talk about a "Permanent Republican majority" was legit. The Dems offer ziltch, and mostly run bad campaigns.
So why the turn-around? It's the war, pure and simple. The Dems rode to power on the raw, undefined hope that somehow they could change things in Iraq. Look, I follow this stuff fairly closely and I honestly can'tt tell you if the Dems will push to add troops in Iraq or call for a withdrawal. Will they push for partitioning the country or build a giant wall? Who knows? Yet, they won. The vote was basically, "W, we don't like the way the war is going, and we are either so desperate for change, or so tired of the war that we'll blindly vote for someone else based on the undefined hope that change will be good."
Sure W's spending alarmed fiscal conservatives, but no one thinks the Dems will be any better. This was all about the war, and it killed the GOP. Just a massive swing based on Iraq.
As far as Rummy. If you believe W, then his fate was sealed before the election, but W didn't want to cause confusion heading into November (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/08/bush-lied-rumsfeld/). I think this makes sense. I don't think that W and Rummy agreed that if the election went bad, then Rummy would step aside and if it went well he would stay. Such a move bucks W's history as "The Decider." Plus, why would W ax Rummy after his last election? The electorate can't punish W anymore, he's done. Plus, W's never made decisions based on polling, he's tended to lead from the top. I think your explanation is possible in a first term Presidency, especially of a Clinton type. But making Rummy the sacrificial lamb after a massive defeat isn't W's style, he seems too loyal.
Tony Snow on the decision to fire Rummy, and when, http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003380071
The vote, plain and simple, was a silent scream to end the war in Iraq. We've given this administration every chance there is to find a way to win it, and they've failed.
All the voters asked for Tuesday is someone to say "stop" without sounding like he or she just said "We hate our troops." Find this Dem, and you've found our next president.
Post a Comment