Don't you agree that if they did that before the republicans would or could have still ruled the house?
2006-11-08 20:38:32 · 14 answers · asked by AJ 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think the most possible reason is that it sends a message to the Democrats that Mr. Bush is willing to deal with them. Further it signals the country that their message has been heard. I must say though that I believe this was planned in advance of the election with a definite possibility that if the Republicans had won it would not have happened. If you examine Mr. Bush' record in Texas he did have a history of bi-partisan cooperative efforts. I don't believe he is incapable of working with congressional democrats now, so long as both sides are open to that cooperation. Either way I believe the war effort will benefit with some fresh attitudes and ideas possible with a new SecDef.
2006-11-08 20:51:16 · answer #1 · answered by Bryan 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Rummy bailed. Cut and run. Bush's house of card is about to fall and he's one of the first in line to have to answer for all those mistakes in Iraq. Getting rid of him before the election wouldn't have done anything, people would have seen it for what it was, an attempt for the Republicans to keep control by offering a sacrifice. The people are tired of being played as fools as the election results showed.
2006-11-08 20:44:15 · answer #2 · answered by Hillaryforpresident 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think they still entertained the hope or notion that they would maintain a congressional majority. Being repudiated, Rumsfield had to be sacrificed. One can only pray that the victors in this midterm election will use their position to do what is right for America as a whole and, unlike the so-called conservatives, not simply advance their own partisan agenda to enrich themselves and their cronies.
2006-11-08 20:53:30 · answer #3 · answered by Mad Roy 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Republicans gambled on Rumsfeld thinking that they will still win in the election that turned out in the opposite.
2006-11-08 20:42:41 · answer #4 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush is a stubborn man and he will never admit to being wrong. Moreover, I don't think he has control of his own administration, and I doubt that he is the one in power anyway!!
Sixty percent of America is against the war, he should have seen the handwriting on the wall!!
2006-11-08 20:42:50 · answer #5 · answered by cantcu 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hell yeah. I mean how dare different international places flow about their employer even as the Yanks are gearing up for an election. solid ingredient they did not do it even as Paris Hilton replaced into exhibiting her vadge to cameras or something, the Yanks might want to have nuked them. I mean come on, instruct a touch observe of, that is the almighty u . s ..
2016-11-28 23:01:27 · answer #6 · answered by northcut 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the election was a "wake-up call" to his strategy in Iraq. Exit polls say that most people voted Dem because of the war. And as much as people say that polls don't really matter, they really do. Especially when they have such high numbers.
2006-11-08 20:42:57 · answer #7 · answered by Mutt 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It pretty much makes Bush a flip flopper.
2006-11-08 23:45:12 · answer #8 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He was their scape goat. I don't think it would have made any difference people were ready for a change
2006-11-08 20:44:37 · answer #9 · answered by katlady927 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You would have to ask Carl Rove that one.
They might have.
2006-11-08 20:40:38 · answer #10 · answered by FL Girl 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋