Friday, November 10, 2006

Wondering

I was wondering, do you suppose Bush is angry at his party for what he thinks is a betrayal? I say this because Ankle Biting Pundits has a post titled "Newt rips GOP a new one" which says in part:

"He condemned Bush’s admission that in making last week’s statement about Rumsfeld, he had known he was being misleading.

“It’s inappropriate to cleverly come out the day after an election to do something we were told before the election would not be done,” Gingrich said. “I think the timing was exactly backwards and I hope the President will rethink how he engages the American people and how he communicates with candor.”"

Now why would Bush lie to his own party about Rumsfeld's dismissel if he wasn't really angry at them? I mean, look at the times Bush tried to get his pet programs through only to have the usual suspects, Arlin Spector, Hagel, Chaffee and Voinovich and others fight him all the way. Whether they were right or wrong on the merits of any given program is irrelevent here. What matters is how Bush percieved the support he was not getting from his own party. Does he blame his party for ruining his agenda and perhaps his presidency? Did he feel "Ok, if you're not going to support me, to hell with you"?

I've wondered why the Republicans didn't make an unofficial invitation to one or two of these guys to get out of the party the way the Dems did to Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman. It seems like the Dems really crack the whip when it comes to party loyalty but the Repubs don't seem to care. That's why I think Bush may very well be mad as hell and has decided in essence what good are they? "I might get more done with the Dems because at least I know where they stand."

Maybe I'm just imagining things but it does sound plausable to me.

7 comments:

Myrhaf said...

Mike, I think you're misreading this one. Bush didn't lie to his party, he lied to all of America and the world. I believe he made a public statement about Rumsfeld in response to a reporter's question, didn't he?

I don't know why he fired Rumsfeld the day after the election, but I agree with those who say it was a lousy thing to do.

Myrhaf said...

Or did I miss your point?

Mike N said...

I was basing my claim on the sentence by Newt Gingrich that Bush said before the election he would keep Rummy and then let him go after the election. Maybe Bush wasn't lying and was just being his pragmatic self. But Newt felt that Bush cost the party the Senate and maybe a few house seats by announcing he would keep Rummy.

So, my speculation is, did bush do this on purpose to pay back his party or did he just not give a damn?

I didn't read the statement to the reporter and I too think the move was a lousy one. But I know this, if I had been the president I would have been furious at the lack of support for my programs. (Then again I think I would have been a stronger leader than Bush. His weak leadership part of the problem of lack of support.)

Anyway, if Bush didn't do it on purpose then my speculation is wrong. Like I said, it just sounded plausible to me.

Myrhaf said...

I see what you're saying -- that Bush did not fire Rumsfeld before the election because it would have helped the Republicans and he wanted them to lose because they did not support him. That seems awful vindictive and petty, but who knows? I don't have a lot of respect for Bush.

Blair said...

I could be way off base here, but it [the firing of Rumsfeld] could be as simple as Rove telling Bush - mistakenly - that the election was "safe" and "we'll just lose a few seats in the House" while in reality, they got blown out of the water. So, Bush thinks he can 'stay the course'[before the election] because the election won't do any real harm.
Remember too, these republicans live by the mantra of 'reality is what we make it.'

Blair said...

Plus, I loathe how Bush immediately bowed and groveled before Pelosi. Apparently she runs the White House now! Bleh.

Mike N said...

Yeah, I didn't like the way he knelt before Nancy either. He no doubt thinks he will be liked by someone for doing it. He really is turning into a major league disappointment.

You know, I never could figure out why the left thought Rove was a genius, evil or otherwise. I always thought the opposite, that he and Andrew Card were giving Bush a lot of bad advice. Now the verdict is in, they were.