Friday, November 10, 2006


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.
Post a Comment