If he would have quit before the mid-term election, would that have changed any results?
2006-11-08 07:20:17 · 14 answers · asked by GoChrisGo 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I last minute resignation would be admitting mistakes and admitting the falsehood of the whole Iraqi adventure. Therefore such resignation would resort even a bigger Democratic win.
He could resign a couple of months ago but at that time Republicans still believed in their win. Fortunately they were mistaken!
2006-11-08 07:41:49 · answer #1 · answered by blapath 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
One can only assume that he had to wait until after the election to know for sure that the Dems would take control of 1 or both Houses of Congress.
This is because if more Dems than Repubs won, there would be too much politicking and gridlock between the Secretary and Congress, but if the Repubs stayed in power even barely, he might have stayed on at least til the end of the year or even until Bush is out of office.
2006-11-08 15:32:28 · answer #2 · answered by STILL standing 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, I think "From Hangu and Still Standing" might be somewhat right. He probably realized where most disappointment was centered on, and envisioned a long and hard defense when pansy Dems would take control. I think that maybe he just didn't want to face the cry-baby squabbling Dems would start. Hell, if I was this man's age, I wouldn't either! This is a sad day for America.
2006-11-08 15:50:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No way to know for sure. Last night was probably more of a referendum on this Presidennt than on Rumsfeld. The President's announcement that Rumsfeld would be with him to the end probably didn't help much. My personal opinion, though is that the election would still have gone the same way.
2006-11-08 15:23:59 · answer #4 · answered by toff 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
B/C the republicans still had control before the elections. Now Bush has to find a way to get along with these people for hte next two years. If he doesn't then it's two wasted years for the republicans.
2006-11-08 15:21:56 · answer #5 · answered by Sharp Marble 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
How can you possibly expect anyone to quantify the reasoning behind anything Rumsfeld has said or done? Let me give you a clue--the decision could only be made by one man--the decider. It only took the outrage of many of our top generals, the armed forces press core, and the entire Democratic parties disfervor along with the voice of the American people on Nov. 7th to bust him off his stump and fire the architect of the clusterfook in Iraq. Good by Donny, see ya in front of the House Sub-Committee on Pre-Iraqi War Intelligence.. Bye the way--BRING A TOOTHBRUSH!!
2006-11-08 15:30:12 · answer #6 · answered by scottyurb 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It really might have changed things! However, I think the People were just tired of the administration in general
2006-11-08 15:22:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think Rumsfeld was not aware of the fact that he was un popular. He resigned when he saw the result.
2006-11-08 15:24:01 · answer #8 · answered by From Hangu 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The polls that Rove ("Turdbucket" is actually his self-claimed nickname) referred to, convinced the republican machine that the polls were wrong, and a figment of the "liberal" media's imagination. I think he actually managed to convince himself of that, too.
The people have spoken.
2006-11-08 15:23:44 · answer #9 · answered by finaldx 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because Bush was told by the Democrats to fire him and Bush did as he was told.
Bush being the good political whore that he is did what he had to in order to remain in power and keep the heat off of the wrong doings he has done.
2006-11-08 15:23:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋