Rumsfeld and Other Stuff
Why is it that Bush has stayed away from movement conservatives/Reagan-types in his cabinet appointments and the like. He's brought in personal loyalists and Bush-41 types, but not many people that truly make the conservative movement happy. I mean, think about it -- how many solid conservative appoitnments has he made? There was John Ashcroft as Attorney General, who, in addition to being better than Alberto Gonzalez, allowed a little "triangulation" to make Bush seem more moderate in comparison. Ashcroft and Rumsfeld were the two big lightning rods attracting hate from the Left, and now they're both gone. Not really the best of moves.
As for the timing of Rumsfeld's resignation, if Bush was going to replace him anyway, why not ask for the resignation before the election? It might have helped Republicans hold a few seats, or gain those seats in Georgia. As there had been numerous Republicans calling for his resignation (wrongly, as to the merits, in my opinion, though quite possibly correctly as to the politics), it seems this could have bought the Republicans some votes, held onto a few defectors, and just generally helped his party. Several House seats were decided by 5,000 votes or less, and the Montana Senate seat was decided by about 3,000, and the Virginia Senate seat by less than 8,000. Small swings in each of these races would have greatly helped the Republicans. While it's doubtful the Republicans could have kept the House from that one act, they could have held onto a few more seats, and probably retained control of the Senate, which would have been big come nominations time. If Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retires, Bush will certainly be wishing the Senate were split 51-49 in his favor, rather than against him. I'd expect him to hold all 49 Republicans (Chafee, the only Republican to vote against Alito, is gone), and pick up Ben Nelson of Nebraska, but it gets sketchy after that, making it harder to get a nominee through. Landrieu of Louisiana, Johnson of South Dakota, Baucus of Montana are all up for re-election in 2008, which makes them more likely to support nominees than they normally would be (and, as memory serves, all three were more likely to support Bush's nominees than your typical Democrat), but the Senate leadership is in the hands of Harry Reid (majority leader) and Pat "Leaky" Leahy (Judiciary Committee Chairman), and I don't trust them to move Bush's nominees.
As for the timing of Rumsfeld's resignation, if Bush was going to replace him anyway, why not ask for the resignation before the election? It might have helped Republicans hold a few seats, or gain those seats in Georgia. As there had been numerous Republicans calling for his resignation (wrongly, as to the merits, in my opinion, though quite possibly correctly as to the politics), it seems this could have bought the Republicans some votes, held onto a few defectors, and just generally helped his party. Several House seats were decided by 5,000 votes or less, and the Montana Senate seat was decided by about 3,000, and the Virginia Senate seat by less than 8,000. Small swings in each of these races would have greatly helped the Republicans. While it's doubtful the Republicans could have kept the House from that one act, they could have held onto a few more seats, and probably retained control of the Senate, which would have been big come nominations time. If Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retires, Bush will certainly be wishing the Senate were split 51-49 in his favor, rather than against him. I'd expect him to hold all 49 Republicans (Chafee, the only Republican to vote against Alito, is gone), and pick up Ben Nelson of Nebraska, but it gets sketchy after that, making it harder to get a nominee through. Landrieu of Louisiana, Johnson of South Dakota, Baucus of Montana are all up for re-election in 2008, which makes them more likely to support nominees than they normally would be (and, as memory serves, all three were more likely to support Bush's nominees than your typical Democrat), but the Senate leadership is in the hands of Harry Reid (majority leader) and Pat "Leaky" Leahy (Judiciary Committee Chairman), and I don't trust them to move Bush's nominees.
posted by DC | 5:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home