SkinsHokieFan Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Alright tailgate junkies If Bush makes the move to replace Rumsefeld LAST Wednesday, does it change the election? And better yet, if this move is made in April? Lets hear it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 No, because it would have been perceived as weakness and a desperate move by Bush. Politically, he did the only thing possible, based on his platform and position. He claimed Rummy was going to be with him until the end of his turn 10 days ago. It helped mobilize the base, and if he let Rummy go, the base would have been even less mobilized then they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 would've made no difference. hard to get peoples attention when they are that disgusted with your BS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Last week, I doubt it makes a difference. In April, maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Rumsfeld wasn't the issue unless replacing him actually would have changed the situation in Iraq on the ground. Even Iraq I think was worth maybe only half of the Democratic gains. Abramoff and then Mark Foley pushed the Democrats over the top. Rumsfeld couldn't have prevented that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmcardle1982 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Who knows. My feeling is that it would have helped the Republicans. People in America are disenchanted with the policy in Iraq and this election was a referendum on that issue. I do think that it was a very classy and conciliatory move by the Bush administration to have Rummy resign. I especially like the fact that Bush admitted that the election showed that the American people want new direction in Iraq and he is willing to work with that. Good for the Republicans for handling this defeat with class. The Dems already had lawyers waiting in the wings to contest any election that they lost but I have not heard a Republican yet say that they are going to contest an election. See you in '08. :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Abramoff and then Mark Foley pushed the Democrats over the top. Rumsfeld couldn't have prevented that. yea those gaye fockers really cost them :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I think it would have helped. A lot of the races that the Dems won were won by a small amount of votes i.e. Montana, Va, and a half a dozen or so House races. I think it's possible that that small handful would have went the other way if Rummy had gone sooner. You might think that people would see it as a political ploy if it was done last week but you have to remember that half of this country is semi-retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 The real question should be - why didn't he fire him years ago, when it became obvious to all but the heaviest kool-aid addict, that what we were doing wasn't having the desired effect. Edit: Or better yet, take his resignation. And as a premptive strike against those reading this response, maybe we would have more troops over there now which we need and I believe we will soon have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 The real question should be - why didn't he fire him years ago, when it became obvious to all but the heaviest kool-aid addict, that what we were doing wasn't having the desired effect. If you think about it, who better to do the unpleasant tasks that Rummy willingly undertook...and now he will play the fall guy for the reps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 If you think about it, who better to do the unpleasant tasks that Rummy willingly undertook...and now he will play the fall guy for the reps. That sounds like Cheney or Rove type thinking. If true, it was pretty clever. I suspect it's more a question of Bush and his intense loyalty. A good trait in personal life (and I still maintain I'd rather share a beer with Bush than any other president I've seen in office) but not so much in politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Dog Night Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Might have made a slight difference in a few races, but would not have changed the overall outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmcardle1982 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 That sounds like Cheney or Rove type thinking. If true, it was pretty clever. I suspect it's more a question of Bush and his intense loyalty. A good trait in personal life (and I still maintain I'd rather share a beer with Bush than any other president I've seen in office) but not so much in politics. It smells like you would rather share a line with Bush. j/k:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 It smells like you would rather share a line with Bush. j/k:D :laugh: Maybe the right field line when he used to own the Rangers. :paranoid: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Bush is a dumbass Even Schumer was on MSNBC and said if Bush had dumped Rumsfeld last week or over the weekend the Repubs probably would have kept Congress And evidently they have been searching for his his replacement for a couple of months, so why now? Why the day AFTER the election? Why just a few days ago was Bush blabbering about confidence in Rumsfeld and a day later he's out? Savage was speculating that Bush wanted the Repubs to lose the election so he could get the liberal parts of his agenda done before he leaves Did you see Bush light up when he was asked by some reporter about immigration reform? HE made a statement to the effect that he could get that passed now that the Repubs were out. Nice. Bend over America Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.