Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Nov 8, 2006 in At TMV | 73 comments

Rumsfeld Resigns

The timing of this is quite surprising: Rumsfeld resigns. H/t to C.Stanley. I will update this post later: I am currently listening to Bush talking about yesterday’s elections. So far he sounds very good.

UPDATE 1
Bush just confirmed it: Rumsfeld has, after being Secretary of Defense for approximately six years, resigned.

UPDATE 2
Initial thoughts: Bush is dealing with yesterday’s elections in a marvelous manner. Whether one is Democrat or Republican, one has to give that to him. Most people would have thought that Rumsfeld would resign (if he would resign) a few months from now. Bush now shows that he is willing to listen to the American people (and the critics). One might say finally, but so be it. Finally or not, Bush – for now – seems to be more willing to listen to the oppostion than during any other time during his Presidency. For that he deserves respect, from Republicans as well as Democrats (and every other critique).

UPDATE 3
From CNN:

Former CIA chief Robert Gates,who headed that agency from 1991 until 1993, will be nominated to take over as defense secretary, Bush said Wednesday.

Gates is now president of Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas.

UPDATE 4
As all of you know by now, I believe that Donald Rumsfeld did a horrendous job regarding Iraq. If one person is the symbol of “State of Denial”, it is Rumsfeld.

The time has long passed that Rumsfeld should resign, but better late than never.

Today Bush is living in a new political world; one in which the Democrats have significant power. One in which – to be successful – he has to compromise. The good news? Bush seems to understand that as well. As I understand it, he was quite a good, compromising Governor of Texas: he was able to work with both sides, so I am told. Perhaps we will see that Bush now.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2006 The Moderate Voice
  • dadfad

    adfasd

  • Rambie

    Wow… I do believe that mistakes were made in the execution of the Iraq war. It’s logical to say Rumsfeld was at fault for that, but he didn’t work in a vacuum I don’t think it was all his fault.

    MvdG is also right, hopefully President Bush, and other Republicans, will work with the Dems in a bipartisan way.

  • C Stanley

    Robert Gates, who will replace Rumsfeld, is on the Baker-Hamilton Commission; a good sign, I think, that the commissions recommendations will weigh heavily into tactical changes in Iraq.

  • Bush replaced rumsfeld as basically a gift to the dems to work with him in his last two years.

    Folks should not be suprised by this. This is politics.

  • Ryan

    It is about time we get someone else in there.

    That said, you are right Michael. It is nice to see how Bush is responding to this. I hope this new attitude he seems to be putting forth continues. If the attitude from both sides continues in not just words but also actions, maybe the next two years will see some real progress made through compromise and working together.

  • Rambie

    MvdG: Bush – for now – seems to be more willing to listen to the oppostion than during any other time during his Presidency.

    Yes, just as the Dems are saying they’ll work in a bipartisan way with the Republicans. For now, it’s all just talk, so I’ll believe it when I see it.

    I’m willing to give him and the Dems the chance to prove it. Hopefully both will do as they are saying, it’ll be the best thing for this country.

  • Thanks C and MvdG…best news for a LONG time. Also, I’m glad a member of the Baker Commission is seemingly in line to take the position.

  • Elrod

    Good news. I don’t hate George W. Bush because he’s George W. Bush. I can’t stand him because of what he’s done to the country. If he’s going to change his ways a bit for the benefit of the country, then I applaud him. Kudos to him for realizing that the American people have spoken. This was the first, real, consequence of the Democratic victory. And it came before the final votes were tallied. This is why it was so important to vote for the Democrat this year.

  • Dale J. Thomas hit it on the head. Saying that, I find it sad that others heap respect on Bush for listening to the American public for the first time in six years. Sigh. A great leader, no a good leader, listens to his constituency at all times and not just selectively when face-to-face with no other choice. It’s too late. Too many people have suffered. Too many people have died because their leader did not listen and did not even attempt to respond to their wishes. Too late is not good enough for the leader of the free world.

  • Doctor Gonzo

    I believed Bush when he said after 9/11 that he would unite the country instead of dividing it. We all see how that worked.

    I will believe this change of heart when I see it. I don’t think I am going to see it. Compromising with Democrats goes against everything Bush and Cheney and Rove have stood for since being elected.

  • Kim Ritter

    Yes, just as the Dems are saying they’ll work in a bipartisan way with the Republicans. For now, it’s all just talk, so I’ll believe it when I see it.

    I think they feel the same way about working with Bush, Rambie, but they have no choice. They ran on trying to get a new direction for this mess, so everyone will have to play nice. Also, the Dems fought to hard for the win to lose it in ’08. I think they know if they act only as obstructionists, they will go out as suddenly as they came in. Voters are tired of the partisanship, especially after the nastiest election we’ve had.

  • BeYourGuest

    It’s a step in the right direction.

  • Andrew

    I’m sure the troops appreciate the fact that new leadership was delayed until after the election, for political purposes. Rumsfeld has been a lame duck SecDef for months now.

  • Charles Jordan

    Ramble, maybe it’s the timing of this that is bad. It should have been done a long time ago. Bush should have took Bremmer, Franks and Rumsfeld to the woodshed a couple years ago and told them to get their act together or they’d out out of a job. The leadership should be held accountable.

    It’s a shame Bush didn’t look after his secretary a little better and hold him to a standard.

  • Rambie

    Kim, agreed. I think it’s funny all the partisans out here today who are acting like the Dems are going to run to the far left now. I hope you’re right that the Dems will NOT do that and will continue to move toward the Center. For too long the Dems were too far left and the GOP was too far right.

  • Rambie

    CJ and Andrew,

    Agreed, this is really overdue, the Bush Administration has been running in a delusional manner for too long. I agree with Elrod, last night was (hopefully) a wakeup call to this administration.

  • Lynx

    I’m with Rambie, I’ll believe bipartisanship when I see it. If the Dems take the senate, then yes, I think that even Bush would understand that he HAS to reach out and I should hope Dems are not such numbskulls to not understand that they must reach out to the President. But if the Senate stays republican, then everything will grind to a halt and I suspect that partisanship will become more, not less, fierce.

  • Rambie

    Lynx: But if the Senate stays republican, then everything will grind to a halt and I suspect that partisanship will become more, not less, fierce.

    That’s a scary thought… 🙂

  • Truflo

    Ditto Elrod. My own sense is that the Baker/Hamilton Iraq Study Group will allow the president and democrats to immediately unite. If they do, good for them and good for the country.

    While there are other issues that need to be confronted- the Military Commissions Act to name just one- the Iraq war is by far the most lethal and pressing.

    If the sectarian slaughter in Iraq is to be halted, both parties and the president must start working together. As Skysaxon says, its a disgrace that it has taken six years and the deaths of almost 3000 American troops for the administration to admit this, but better late then never.

  • Ack

    Well, this is a good step. And I am glad it happened so quickly. And I am also pleased, as others have noted above, that Gates is evidently on the Baker-Hamilton Commission.

  • Rubyeyes

    Bush sacrifices Rumsfeld, big whoop. Bush’s choice was either do it on his terms or have it done for him, because one thing was pretty certain a democrat win was a Rumsfeld loss.

  • Lynx

    CNN, the AP and the Wall Street Journal are saying Montana is blue! Only Virginia left, with Webb ahead, though it’ll probably go to recount.

  • AustinRoth

    Webb recount is unlikely to help Allen, so it seems that both houses are now blue.

  • Rambie

    I wouldn’t be surprised if with Montana and Virginia go to a recount as the results are so close in both.

  • C Stanley

    (link)Rambie (mail):
    Kim, agreed. I think it’s funny all the partisans out here today who are acting like the Dems are going to run to the far left now. I hope you’re right that the Dems will NOT do that and will continue to move toward the Center. For too long the Dems were too far left and the GOP was too far right.

    Rambie,
    To be fair, I think you have to admit that there are some people showing partisan stripes of both colors here today. Sure, there are a couple of right wingers who are saying that they don’t believe that a Pelosi led House will act in a centrist or bipartisan way, but by my count there are more lefties here who are highly skeptical that Bush will tango with the new Dem Congress. I’m not commenting on whether or not that is justified, but just noting that it looks to me like there is more skepticism on that side, and that those who take this stance should realize that their attitude forces Bush into a corner (refusing to even admit that sacrificing Rumsfeld was a huge concession which was made before we even have the votes counted and before we know if the Senate has gone to the Dems) What exactly do they think that Bush could do to prove that he will meet the Democrats half way?

  • What the timing says to me is that Bush is hoping to get Gates confirmed by the lame duck Senate; which means the administration thinks Allen has lost.

  • C Stanley

    aphrael:
    On what basis do you think that Bush would be concerned about a Democratic Senate blocking the confirmation of Gates?

  • Ryan

    Sure, there are a couple of right wingers who are saying that they don’t believe that a Pelosi led House will act in a centrist or bipartisan way, but by my count there are more lefties here who are highly skeptical that Bush will tango with the new Dem Congress.

    C Stanley, maybe that’s because Bush has a track record of being as partisan as he can while the new Democratic Congress as of now has no track record and will not until at least January. Personally, I hope both sides will act in a bipartisan manner and am at the moment willing to give both a chance. However, I can understand people who say give the unknown a chance to prove themselves while saying the known has a very clear track record. Can you not understand this point of view?

  • Initial thoughts: Bush is dealing with yesterday’s elections in a marvelous manner. Whatever! Bush’s unconditional support for for Rumsfeld is one of the major reasons the Republican lost the election. This guy should have been removed from office long ago. Democrats did not forget about his support of the former FEMA Director, his support of Rumsfeld and lets not talk about the Director of Homeland Security who screwed up regarding oversight of New Orleans. The chickens are coming home to roost. You cannot continue a war with the support of the American people. The American people have spoken. I can’t wait for Democrats to control the Senate. They should treat the Republicans like they have been treated for so many years.

  • heheh from my man skip:

    “it’s been a bad week for these two:”
    Click Pic Link

  • You cannot continue a war without the support of the American people. The American people have spoken.

  • egrubs

    No. The Democrats should extend their hand and get to business fixing this mess, hopefully with Republican support. We have Torture bills and the Patriot Act to fix, and we have a war to clean up. I don’t want more bitter partisan fighting. I want solutions (and civil rights).

  • interested

    Wonder who’s to follow.

    Little late for house cleaning IMHO.

  • Charles Jordan

    African American political pundit? HEY I thought that was my gig? (smile)

  • Holly in Cincinnati

    Thanks Michael! I was at a professional meeting and did not know that Rumsfeld was out until I got in my car and heard it on NPR.

  • C Stanley: it’s not so much Gates as any candidate. I think that it’s a legitimate concern that a Democratic Senate would use the nomination of a new SecDef as an excuse to hold wide-ranging hearings on the conduct of the war *before confirmation*.

    Those hearings will happen anyway. The question is whether or not those hearings will hold up confirmation of the new Secretary of Defense.

  • les

    C Stanley says: “What exactly do they think that Bush could do to prove that he will meet the Democrats half way?”

    Uh–obey the law and the constitution? Stop characterizing anyone who disagrees with him as aiding the terrorists? Stop confusing Iraq with Al Qaeda? Eliminate signing statements that equate to “not if I don’t want to?” Bush has practiced 6 years of f**k you rule; why should he get any benefit of doubt?

  • C Stanley

    les:
    It’s not a matter of what Bush deserves, it’s a matter of what the country deserves.

  • jjc

    Rumsfeld’s exit was, to use an unfortunate phrase, the politically correct thing to do. GWB deserves credit for doing it so quickly, but it’s too early to make any judgments about whether this was an indication of a change in course or more of a diversionary maneuver.

    There’s been way more dirt swept under the rug during this Administration than can exposed by any number of investigations. It’s plainly in GWB’s interest to “disincentivize” the Dems from pushing too much in that direction. I just hope the Iraq reconstruction mismanagement and corruption doesn’t escape notice. That sort of thing someone has to pay for.

  • Egrubs, Democrats have extended hands for 6 years. They can’t fix the mess by themselves. Bush knew Rumsfeld had to go, not just because of the election results, but because the major military newpapers and our men and women on the ground didnot support or trust his leadership. Yes the Torture bills and the Patriot Act need to fix, but it was democrats who screw us too on those bills. We don’t want more bitter partisan fighting, but that politics 101. I agree, we want solutions (and our civil rights back). Let’s see what happens. Let’s keep these newly elected democrats and republicans accountable. But Republicans deserve no “special treatment” by the democratic majority.

  • Truflo

    Going after Bush directly might feel good but it would be a losing strategy. Working with him where possible will not only be good for the country but it will also negate criticism from the usual mob when the dems start to uncover the bags of crap that have been piling up, uncollected, over the past five years.

  • Rambie

    I can’t wait for Democrats to control the Senate. They should treat the Republicans like they have been treated for so many years.

    No, that’d be the worst this for the Country as a whole and the Democrats as a party. Also, two wrongs don’t make a right.

    I’ll agree that the Republicans led by President Bush have turned partisanship and divisiveness into a new art form, but the Republicans lost last night partly for those reason. It was also the corruption and running their party for the far-right that lost them the elections.

    The Democrats and Republicans would be smart to learn those lessons and reform their parties. Purge the corruption in Washington, work in a bipartisan manner, and run their parties from their respective centers.

  • Davebo

    As I understand it, he was quite a good, compromizing Governor of Texas: he was able to work with both sides

    Michael, the Governor of Texas is mostly a symbolic position. Almost no real power and certainly a lot less power than the Lt. Governor.

  • egrubs

    No, they don’t deserve special treatment. It’s a shame that the current environment has made it so decency is special treatment.

  • C Stanley

    C Stanley: it’s not so much Gates as any candidate. I think that it’s a legitimate concern that a Democratic Senate would use the nomination of a new SecDef as an excuse to hold wide-ranging hearings on the conduct of the war *before confirmation*.

    I don’t know, I think the Dems would realize that holding up the confirmation would make them look extremely bad as obstructionists. After all, it would be easy for the Republicans to put this out to the public as an example of politics over policy, when the Iraq War and our soldiers hang in the balance. And it’s not as though Gates’ nomination should be very controversial as he’s already been confirmed when he became head of the CIA under Bush 41. He did have some baggage prior to that (Iran Contra) but by the time of that appointment, that had faded away and he got the confirmation, so I can’t see how they’d block him now.

    Either way, it can’t happen soon enough so I’m glad Bush isn’t waiting any longer.

  • I can’t help but wonder if Rumsfeld’s resignation a couple weeks ago would have kept a single Senate seat to the Republicans.

  • Rambie

    CS: To be fair, I think you have to admit that there are some people showing partisan stripes of both colors here today.

    Agreed, there is those on the left who are out today in schadenfreudian glee. However, after 6 years of being called everything from traitors to wimps, I’m willing to give them a day to gloat.

    There are those on the right who aren’t even willing to consider that the Democrats will try to work with the republicans in bipartisan manner. Just like there are those on the left who are convinced that the Republicans will continue with their divisive politics.

    I’m willing to give them a chance. As I believe the American voters gave both parties a mandate last night. As I posted before: Both parties need to purge the corruption in Washington, work in a bipartisan manner, and run their parties from their respective centers.

  • In light of the BushCo record, there is a clear way to handle the new situation.

    Start dismantling the worst of the Bush House-of-Torture with logical, well-written legislation. Put that legislation on the Decider’s desk for signature.

    He will sign it, veto it, or, attach a signing statement to it. His bipartisanship will thus be established early. His responsibility for grid-lock, or lack thereof, will be established.

    “True” oversight should begin simultaneously and vigorously.

    Past performance of this criminal hack is well-established. Democrats would be wise to force Bush to make his positions public and clear. Bipartisanship works best in the light of day.

    Cooperate but verify.

  • Kim Ritter

    C Stanley, maybe that’s because Bush has a track record of being as partisan as he can while the new Democratic Congress as of now has no track record and will not until at least January. Personally, I not underhope both sides will act in a bipartisan manner and am at the moment willing to give both a chance. However, I can understand people who say give the unknown a chance to prove themselves while saying the known has a very clear track record. Can you not understand this point of view

    Good point, Ryan and I agree entirely. I’m hoping that a message was sent by the voters to both sides. Bush and the Republicans have learned that just because they can act without the other party’s input doesn’t mean voters see partisanship in the country’s best interests to do so, and the Democrats were sent the message- now you need to prove that you have something to offer besides criticism of the other side. Its in both of their interests, as well as the country’s to try their best to work together.

    I see the move to fire Rumsfeld, as a signal from Bush, that he’s willing to accept new ideas from the Democrats, the Baker Commission and military leaders who were stifled by Rumsfeld. He’s shed the ideological direction for a more pragmatic one—maybe at the urging of his father. What role will Cheney and Rove play now? They are the last two blocks to bipartisan progress.

  • C Stanley

    (link)pacatrue (www):
    I can’t help but wonder if Rumsfeld’s resignation a couple weeks ago would have kept a single Senate seat to the Republicans.

    Oh, I think that a lot of seats would have been saved if Bush had made this decision earlier. Ironically though, I think most Republicans will respect him more for doing it this way because we really don’t think that these things should be done on the basis of partisan politics. What would have been much better though, would have been for Bush to have made this decision several months ago when it would have been based on events unfolding in Iraq but not tied to the domestic political situation.

  • Kim Ritter

    CS- Gates is a pragmatist, not an ideologue, who has been around since Bush 41. Its a sign that Bush 43 is going back towards the diplomatic route on foreign affairs–hopefully.

  • Truflo

    Don’t know much about Gates, but CS is right, its the wrong battle, particularly with the Iraq Study group report due shortly. Word is it will make some sense (which is about double the amount Rumsfeld ever offered) and will offer something everyone can get behind, which means Gates too.

    The Military Commissions act, that’s where the fight should be.

  • AustinRoth

    I also feel bad for my son, and all Aggies. Gates was outstanding for A&M, and I am sad to see him leave that post.

  • Kim Ritter

    What would have been much better though, would have been for Bush to have made this decision several months ago when it would have been based on events unfolding in Iraq but not tied to the domestic political situation.

    I think he should have gone after the 2004 election. Even back then he was having a lot of trouble working with the military brass and was also engaged in interagency warfare with Powell and Rice. We might have been able to correct mistakes made in Iraq and provide more support for Afghanistan. His major focus has been on remaking the military into a smaller, tougher, more modernized force-, and I don’t think that goal was compatible with what military experts were suggesting in Iraq and Afhganistan.

    He’s stayed this long because of his great friendship with Cheney. They even have their vacation properties right next to each other. Even this time, Cheney tried to champion his friend’s cause–but Bush finally did the right thing.

  • Rambie

    Cooperate but verify

    LOL… agreed.

  • C Stanley

    They even have their vacation properties right next to each other.

    LOL, I didn’t know that. Hope that Rummy is careful during hunting season!

  • Marlowecan

    C Stanley said: “I don’t know, I think the Dems would realize that holding up the confirmation would make them look extremely bad as obstructionists. … And it’s not as though Gates’ nomination should be very controversial as he’s already been confirmed when he became head of the CIA under Bush 41…so I can’t see how they’d block him now.”

    You have obviously forgotten the Roberts confirmation hearings, where perhaps the most qualified SCOTUS candidate in a generation was opposed by a wide range of Democrats despite the unanimous support of both GOP and Dem legal establishments.

    Rumsfeld has done a lot of good work, apart from Iraq (cancelling unnecessary weapons systems; restoring civilian control at the Pentagon; reforming promotion structures; closing unncessary bases domestically and overseas; founding a countinsurgency school). But politically this was a good time to remove him, as confirmation would be a pretext for sweeping investigations.

    Speaking of…

    egrubs said: We have Torture bills and the Patriot Act to fix, and we have a war to clean up. I don’t want more bitter partisan fighting. I want solutions.

    This is what I mean. Of course, the Dem roots don’t want to be partisan…just to cancel all the GOP legislation of the past decade!!! Nothing partisan about that. Why would that lead to bitter partisan fighting? 🙂
    I imagine all those new Dems from conservative regions will LOVE opening up the Patriot Act debate! hahahahahaha….

  • egrubs

    I’m sorry. The Bill of Rights is a joke? And you are?

  • grognard

    Gates as a replacement for Rumsfeld is a fairly clear indication that the Baker report will be taken as a starting point for any policy from now on, can’t wait for the report to be published. The timing might have something to do with getting this nomination through a Republican Senate while it lasts. Now if Rove goes, that would be a change.

  • Ryan

    Marlowecan, what you’re saying is that it would be partisan to roll back legislation that violates the Geneva Conventions, to review legislation that has parts that are unconstitutional and fix those parts, and finally to do something to try to improve our situation in Iraq? If so, consider me a partisan. However, if this is your definition of a partisan, I think you’ll find a lot of partisans who have voted both R and D in the past (and even yesterday – I in fact split my ballot between 4 different parties including R and D yesterday).

  • Richard 23

    Rumsfeld is a hard hack to follow. And it’s nice to see yet another Iran-Contra crony gets a new crack at republican governance in another Bush Administration. I guess Oliver North turned the job down.

    But I guess I can’t complain too much. Even Barney would be better than Rumsfailed. So long and thanks for all the torture and incompetance.

  • GreenDreams

    Lots of Republican sour grapes here. We feel your pain, but get used to it. Your side built a big ole house of glass and from said house, hurled stones at half the country. They insulted us in the ugliest terms possible, called us Godless traitors. They created and prepetuated myths about their opponents that I’m still reading here today. Assuming the right-of-center here truly believes some of those things we are still not buying, I’m sure they won’t mind sharing the evidence now. Subpoena power can shine lots of light into places long kept in darkness by the most secretive ruling clique this country has known. Yeah, time to show us your hand, Mr. President. We’re calling your bluff.

    I’m confident the right will continue to hurl the same stones even now, and I see it right here. Bad idea.

    Sure, let’s reopen the debate on the so-called Patriot Act, and Military Commissions Act, AFTER we see exactly what “terrorists” have been spied on under it, AFTER we see whose library, medical and banking records were scrutinized, AFTER we see what evidence was used to justify warrantless search and siezure, kidnap and torture. I think then even Republican lawmakers will be squeamish about supporting many of those unconstitutional measures when the truth is known.

  • interested

    Lots of Republican sour grapes here. We feel your pain, but get used to it.

    You see that? I havn’t seen it today. Dissapointment for sure. But most are taking a lets-see what happens approach.

  • dan

    Rambie:
    Yes, just as the Dems are saying they’ll work in a bipartisan way with the Republicans. For now, it’s all just talk, so I’ll believe it when I see it.

    QFT.

  • Rambie

    interested: You see that? I havn’t seen it today. Dissapointment for sure. But most are taking a lets-see what happens approach.

    Really, I see all the same straw-man “Democrats are the Boogeyman” fallacies that I’ve heard this whole election season.

    Like this one:

    Abe Lincoln:
    God help us all,

    If the reality of Nancy Pelosy being two steps away from the Presidency doesn’t scare everyone,,,, IT SHOULD…

    Or this one:

    Marlowecan: impeachment! The drums have begun beating on nutroot sites this morning. Of course, they will call it “investigations” but even the MSM won’t be able to provide cover for the vindictiveness and triumphantism of Conyers…

  • Rambie

    Oops, hit Post to soon.

    These types comments sure sound like sour grapes to me. They are not convincing me that the Republicans are open to working in a bipartisan manner. Also, the gloating from the left also isn’t conductive to a open environment.

  • interested

    These types comments sure sound like sour grapes to me. They are not convincing me that the Republicans are open to working in a bipartisan manner. Also, the gloating from the left also isn’t conductive to a open environment.

    True dat – I wasn’t very clear, I was meaning the regular posters here instead of drive-by’s on both sides of the row.

  • Rambie

    True dat – I wasn’t very clear, I was meaning the regular posters here instead of drive-by’s on both sides of the row.

    No problem.

  • SnarkyShark

    These types comments sure sound like sour grapes to me. They are not convincing me that the Republicans are open to working in a bipartisan manner. Also, the gloating from the left also isn’t conductive to a open environment.

    Come on, don’t be such babies. Everybody knew what the dynamic was going to be. People are human, and emotions are in turmoil right now.

    I am encouraged. I see less rancor and gloating than I thought I would.

    Keep some perspective, this was a major event. Democracy works, but it isn’t always going to be painless or pretty.

  • Rambie

    LOL Snarky. Yes, as I said before. I’m giving the Dems a day to gloat as they deserve it after 6 years of being the GOP’s scapegoat.

    I’m giving less leeway to those who are crying doom-and-gloom. Mainly because they haven’t seemed to hear the message from the American voters yesterday:

    …the Republicans led by President Bush have turned partisanship and divisiveness into a new art form, but the Republicans lost last night partly for those reason. It was also the corruption and running their party [from] the far-right that lost them the elections.

    The Democrats and Republicans would be smart to learn those lessons and reform their parties. Purge the corruption in Washington, work in a bipartisan manner, and run their parties from their respective centers.

    I’ll shed no tears if the Republicans don’t listen to the message.

  • dano

    prediction: Cheney out. All hail VP Lieberman!

  • dittohead

    Mikey:

    You’re exactly right. The MSM said a couple weeks ago that Rumsfeld would stay through the presidency and once again the MSM lied. Bush told the truth.

    And Bush is settinmg the traitors up. The Dems are acting so wimpy and let;s get along liberal like as taritors who hate America always do and even acting like they’ll restore the courtesies the opposiion used to get before Gingrich. And Bush is playing them, so cecent people can blow them up. We’ll get the scum when they don’t expect it!

    Bush is a good man and you know he doesn’t stand for those appeaser values. A great man.

    You’re the same kind of guy Mikey. Back in August you were saying in August what a great guy Rumstud was for saying anyone who questioned his war policy was an appeaser, then you realized that wasn’t currently the best strategy so you started saying nasty things about him even though he’s your kind of guy.

    That’s what Republicans do, Karl rove taught us. Truth is flexible as they teach in Utah where boy genuis went to school. You’re going to be another one.

  • C Stanley

    Keep some perspective, this was a major event. Democracy works, but it isn’t always going to be painless or pretty.

    Like watching sausage being made. Bratwurst, anyone?

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com