2006-11-09 09:30:24 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Most likely. I think people wanted to know that Bush knew how things were going in Iraq and was going to take action to improve the situation.
2006-11-09 09:33:48 · answer #1 · answered by American dude 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush is not a person to ever change, even when faced with the odds! He said today he would work with the Democrats on the Iraq war as long as it was his way! That is not bridge building!
Some say that they would have picked up 14 House seats if he had let Rumsfeld go, but i am not sure that is true!
Tuesday's vote was about dissatisfaction with Bush! Rumsfeld is just another cronie!!
Republicans wouldn't know the truth if it hit them between the eyes! They don't even believe what they hear and see! Just what is fed to them like a child's pablum! Not all, but many, especially the neocons who are damaging your party!!
2006-11-09 17:39:26 · answer #2 · answered by cantcu 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Possibly. But, in two years it will be better off this way. If we had Rep. control for another two years, America would've just kept getting madder and madder at the Republicans and then there would've been a major turnover of both houses and the white house. This way, America can be reminded that the Democrats suck too and won't be so anti-Republican the next time around. We should be happy now, because this will help us keep Hillary or Obama out of the White House in two years.
2006-11-09 17:37:37 · answer #3 · answered by Chris J 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Without a doubt. The GOP lost a LOT of seats, but the races themselves were often VERY close. They would have kept the Senate for sure, and the House would probably have been a coin-flip.
I'm just glad Bush and Rove were so clueless about the true feelings of Americans.
2006-11-09 17:37:18 · answer #4 · answered by truth be told 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe so. Americans, Dem and Rep alike, were getting disatisfied with his performance, and if he had been let go before the election I think Americans would have seen that Bush is willing to change for the people, and then maybe not so many people would have voted Dem simply to punish the Reps. I'm not saying we would have won, but we might have had a better chance
2006-11-09 17:34:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
If Rumsfeld was let go AND the new Sec of Defense had outlined new policy for Iraq, then yes. Letting Rummy go and replacing him with someone who spouted the same line would have backfired.
2006-11-09 17:36:53 · answer #6 · answered by Chredon 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I dont believe the election results had as much to do with Rumfeld as it did with the public's utter dissapointment with the administration. It's like everything in the military, when a product does not sell they have a tendancy to repackage it and call it something else.... Next year it will be called Gates.. This is what happens when you fall on your own sword.. Couldn't have come soon enough.
2006-11-09 19:22:59 · answer #7 · answered by armypoetess 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO! The only thing that would have made a difference would have been for the Democrats to tell the truth about their plans and agenda. That is impossible, so the Republicans would have to have lied as they did because the American people will not believe the truth.
2006-11-09 17:37:48 · answer #8 · answered by daydoom 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. The people decided that they would teach the Republicans a lesson because of spending and doing nothing about things people wanted like immigration.
2006-11-09 17:51:15 · answer #9 · answered by Fly Boy 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Who knows? I'm glad to see the back of him but I wonder why they didn't think of this sooner. It's like you are sending messages to Betelgeuse and it takes 20 light years to get a reply.
I think some people saw him as inflexible and arrogant and it took a "thumpen" to get him to see.
'course it's a dollar short and a day late now.
2006-11-09 17:42:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋