(Potential) Breaking News! Rumsfeld Stepping Down?

[Leonidas]

OK, I'm in the military, we might cancel all work and throw a party tomorrow.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Of course, since they now have the power they've been trying to win back the past dozen years, the pressure is now on the Democrats to put up or shut up.

Hopefully they will do better than their predecessors.

[Dutch]

My gut reaction was that forcing him out a week ago might have helped them hold on to the Senate.

I would have been very dissappointed in the Republicans if they were throwing guys under the train in hopes for a vote or two. So I am proud that they waited until now. Bravo to at least that!

[Butter]

Love all the Republican rationalization going on here. Nice to be on the other side of this for once.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The lawyer in me supposes that he was able to tell the truth last week because the plan all along was to stick with Rumsfeld until 2008, unless what happened last night actually happened. Therefore, last week he had every intention of having Rumsfeld stay as SoD, but that changed - and the contingency plan kicked into effect - once the returns started coming in last night. Once the masses spoke, he had no choice but to show the Dems he is willing to play ball. This is probably a move to gain some favor with them on key issues he wants to move forward on next session.

For that to be true, then what would have to be true is that the president selected his next Secretary of Defense during a time of war in about five minutes.

He apparently met with Gates on Sunday and decided to make the move, but hadn't told Rumsfeld he was going to tell him to resign yet, which happened yesterday. During the press conference, he alluded to the fact that he and Rumsfeld spoke last week about the possibility, but didn't specify whether that meeting occurred before or after the interview with the wire service reporters.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

But the Democrats still kicked ass. It doesn't matter if a team has 6 turnovers in a game, if you win by 40, you kicked ass. Maybe the other team was mostly responsible, but doesn't change the final calculus.

After all 1994 was about disenchantenment with the Democrats.

That's semantics then. The way I see it, Tucker didn't beat Maassluis in the IHOF playoffs. Maassluis gave the game to us.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Subby

Hopefully they will do better than their predecessors.

They should. We did all the dirty work for them. Now they can kick back and reap the good times for a few years, soak in the praises, and ignore a world slowly turning back into shit while they 'enron' it up. But hey, free blow jobs, you can't blame them for that, I guess.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Dutch

They should. We did all the dirty work for them. Now they can kick back and reap the good times for a few years, soak in the praises, and ignore a world slowly turning back into shit while they 'enron' it up. But hey, free blow jobs, you can't blame them for that, I guess.

At least you are taking this well

[Ksyrup]

Part of the contingency plan. It's all about plausible deniability. Perhaps he discussed the possibility with Gates on Sunday, knowing (a) he'd need to backup his statement that he had discussed this move prior to the election, and (b) that a negative outcome in the election was a very good possibility, so he had to have someone lined up in that case.

I don't see what's so preposterous about that.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

How exactly do you figure? Simply because the Democratic Party of Connecticut voted for Lamont doesn't mean that the national party is going to boot Libermann out at the first instance. Libermann will come back into the fold and I wouldn't be surprised if he wins the Dem primary if he tries again for re-election.

Because the National Democratic Party told Leiberman NOT to run as an independent. Because Howard Dean and Nany peolsi and the other Dem talking heads all told Joe to be a good party member, respect the voters, and support the winner of the Democratic primary, which he did not. Democratic leaders in the senate said prior to the outcome of the primary that - should Lieberman lose the primary and get elected to the senate as an Independent - Lieberman would not be asked to be a member of any key Senatorial committee.

Lieberman is lucky that the demographics of the senate are as close as they are, because if they didn't need his vote, Lieberman would be persona non gratia as far as the Democrats are concerned.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Subby

At least you are taking this well

I appreciate the two-party system more than I appreciate a non-challenged Republican party. So I am glad that the Democrats have finally won again. The country isn't made great by one party or the other. The ebb and flow throughout history suggests that both parties make this country strong. So I'm not bitter at all, but having said that, I will still talk shit to shit talkers.

[DaddyTorgo]

lol...i went to HS with Aneesh Raman...and now he's a CNN reporter in Baghdad?

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I will still talk shit to shit talkers.

Hear, hear!

Now we get to second-guess and talk about all the dumba$$ moves the Dems make.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Dutch

They should. We did all the dirty work for them.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Good one.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Because the National Democratic Party told Leiberman NOT to run as an independent. Because Howard Dean and Nany peolsi and the other Dem talking heads all told Joe to be a good party member, respect the voters, and support the winner of the Democratic primary, which he did not. Democratic leaders in the senate said prior to the outcome of the primary that - should Lieberman lose the primary and get elected to the senate as an Independent - Lieberman would not be asked to be a member of any key Senatorial committee.

Lieberman is lucky that the demographics of the senate are as close as they are, because if they didn't need his vote, Lieberman would be persona non gratia as far as the Democrats are concerned.

Oh please. They did that because they wanted to discourage the sort of behavior in case others would do it in closer races where the Republican had a chance. Wouldn't have mattered if the Senate was not close, they would have welcomed him back in. All the prior stuff, just politics.

[NoMyths]

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Hear, hear!

Now we get to second-guess and talk about all the dumba$$ moves the Dems make.

True dat. I have much more fun when libs are in power. Somewhere within me there's a dim hope that Republicans will actually govern conservatively (yeah, I know), so I get frustrated with their ineptness. Democratic ineptness, I expect, so I can just sit back, grab the popcorn, and enjoy.

[st.cronin]

Oh happy day!

And I'm really stunned by the hatred for Lieberman. There's obviously nothing the Dems can do about him ... he's obviously going to be Connecticut's senator for as long as he wants, whether he runs as an independent, Green Party, Socialist Party, Playboy Party. He's a centrist with a spine - pretty much the ideal politician, imo.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

True dat. I have much more fun when libs are in power. Somewhere within me there's a dim hope that Republicans will actually govern conservatively (yeah, I know), so I get frustrated with their ineptness. Democratic ineptness, I expect, so I can just sit back, grab the popcorn, and enjoy.

Well, on that note, I can't think of anything that would please the popcorn eatin crowd more than President Hillary Clinton.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Well, on that note, I can't think of anything that would please the popcorn eatin crowd more than President Hillary Clinton.

As long as she had a Republican Congress to keep either side from screwing up the nation any further, I probably wouldn't really fret about it. It has become more and more clear to me that at no time in my lifetime will I see the political process ever be all that effective, at least at the National level, so I might as well be entertained by it. I don't think we're very far from "as long as they don't screw things up much more than they already are" is going to be defined as being successful.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

True dat. I have much more fun when libs are in power.

You, and all the people who still think Democrats are "tax and spend" make me chuckle.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Of course, since they now have the power they've been trying to win back the past dozen years, the pressure is now on the Democrats to put up or shut up.

Agreed, the Republicans delivered in their first few years of control and helped make the Clinton years what they were. From 94 on, the repubs called the shots.

If the Dems don't do anything now, I predict the Repubs storm back in 2008.

[JPhillips]

Its comforting to know that no matter who is elected all the good things are the Republicans' doing and all the bad things are the Democrats' doing.

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Its comforting to know that no matter who is elected all the good things are the Republicans' doing and all the bad things are the Democrats' doing.

And vice versa, of course. Maybe John Galt's sig line that he had at one time should be "Under Democrats, man exploits man, under Republicans, the reverse is true."

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

You, and all the people who still think Democrats are "tax and spend" make me chuckle.

They're all tax and spend. They just spend on different stuff. Government should be DRASTICALLY reduced, but some will never understand that.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Agreed, the Republicans delivered in their first few years of control and helped make the Clinton years what they were. From 94 on, the repubs called the shots.

How so? Clinton pretty much raped them on the budget shutdown. The impeachment failed. Newt was gone by 98.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

And vice versa, of course. Maybe John Galt's sig line that he had at one time should be "Under Democrats, man exploits man, under Republicans, the reverse is true."

It actually said "Under capitalism" and "Under socialism," but the point is the same. It is an old Polish proverb.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

As long as she had a Republican Congress to keep either side from screwing up the nation any further, I probably wouldn't really fret about it. It has become more and more clear to me that at no time in my lifetime will I see the political process ever be all that effective, at least at the National level, so I might as well be entertained by it. I don't think we're very far from "as long as they don't screw things up much more than they already are" is going to be defined as being successful.

Well, if the government "screwing things up" at the National level is what entertains you, the last 6 years for you must've been one hell of a party.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Subby

Hopefully they will do better than their predecessors.

That bar is low.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I don't think we're very far from "as long as they don't screw things up much more than they already are" is going to be defined as being successful.

I think we've been at that point for about 30 years.

[Arles]

I would guess the reason for Rumsfeld leaving is that both him (and the Bush White House) knew that he would be public enemy number one to the new House leadership. I'm sure that, had he stayed, they felt there was a decent likelihood of an investigation into Rumsfeld's activities as Sec of Defense. By resigning, he takes a big piece of red meat off the table for the new house and spares the country from what could have been a very ugly event.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Well, if the government "screwing things up" at the National level is what entertains you, the last 6 years for you must've been one hell of a party.

Hmm....

Originally Posted by SkyDog

True dat. I have much more fun when libs are in power. Somewhere within me there's a dim hope that Republicans will actually govern conservatively (yeah, I know), so I get frustrated with their ineptness. Democratic ineptness, I expect, so I can just sit back, grab the popcorn, and enjoy.

There ya go.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Hmm....

There ya go.

True dat. "Lib" ineptness tends to be kinda goofy (like cum stains on dresses, BJs in the oval office, and that crazy-ass Commie Congresswoman of yours), while "Rep" ineptness is just downright depressing and soul-crushing.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Arles

I would guess the reason for Rumsfeld leaving is that both him (and the Bush White House) knew that he would be public enemy number one to the new House leadership. I'm sure that, had he stayed, they felt there was a decent likelihood of an investigation into Rumsfeld's activities as Sec of Defense. By resigning, he takes a big piece of red meat off the table for the new house and spares the country from what could have been a very ugly event.

I'm not sure exactly how it would have gone but it would have been something like that. This is simply trying to show a new Democratic congress a willingness to change now that they have to. As a Republican, I think it's fairly shameful. This should have been done about a year ago.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Arles

I would guess the reason for Rumsfeld leaving is that both him (and the Bush White House) knew that he would be public enemy number one to the new House leadership. I'm sure that, had he stayed, they felt there was a decent likelihood of an investigation into Rumsfeld's activities as Sec of Defense. By resigning, he takes a big piece of red meat off the table for the new house and spares the country from what could have been a very ugly event.

DING DING DING!

[Butter]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

They're all tax and spend. They just spend on different stuff.

Yes, you're right. But people still use that label to disparage Dems., which is what I'm referring to.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

You, and all the people who still think Democrats are "tax and spend" make me chuckle.

You must belong to the OTHER Democratic Party.

[SFL Cat]

As far as taxes and spending goes...it's like this.

Republicans - we need to be fiscally responsible, we're cutting spending.
Democrats (bitch and moan) you can't cut programs, the children, they'll starve.

Democrats - we need to be fiscally responsible, we're raising taxes.
Republicans (bitch and moan) you can't raise taxes, it's not your money in the first place.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

As far as taxes and spending goes...it's like this.

Republicans - we need to be fiscally responsible, we're cutting spending.
Democrats (bitch and moan) you can't cut programs, the children, they'll starve.

Democrats - we need to be fiscally responsible, we're raising taxes.
Republicans (bitch and moan) you can't raise taxes, it's not your money in the first place.

You forgot the part where the Republicans actually increase spending but reduce taxes.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

As far as taxes and spending goes...it's like this.

Republicans - we need to be fiscally responsible, we're cutting spending.
Democrats (bitch and moan) you can't cut programs, the children, they'll starve.

Democrats - we need to be fiscally responsible, we're raising taxes.
Republicans (bitch and moan) you can't raise taxes, it's not your money in the first place.

IMO, that's how it *should* be and maybe this election will set the world back normal again.

Over the past 4 years its been:

Republicans - we need to be fiscally responsible, we'll do that by counting on huge economic growth by tax cuts. Let's spend like drunken sailors!!
Democrats - Hmm, you're not quite spending enough and I don't like all these tax cuts. Still, what the heck, I'm out of power and can't do a darn thing anyway so I'll think I'll just whine cause I'm bored.

The only thing that's saved this country is that the private sector has kicked off enormous growth - enough to overcome the massive spending in washington. Still, expecting this to last forever could be very costly and the one hope in a divided government is less overall spending/programs.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

You forgot the part where the Republicans actually increase spending but reduce taxes.

Yep. But the fact of the matter is, as a general philosophy/party platform, the Democratic Party is in favor of spending money to cure problems. In theory, anyway, that's not what the Republican Party stands for. And that's the reason why, although I may not vote Republican if they continue to stray from their philosophy, I cannot bring myself to vote Democrat for fear that they won't stray from theirs.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

How so? Clinton pretty much raped them on the budget shutdown. The impeachment failed. Newt was gone by 98.

The impeachment was the highwater mark of this era of Republican control of Congress. Others may disagree, but no way anyone else attempts to impeach a president for doing what Clinton did. For the record, I was against the impeachment.

The greater effect was on the course that Clinton pursued after 94. Prior to that he had a fairly liberal agenda, but after he lost control of Congress he started his triangulation approach which meant a move to the center.

When Newt was forced out in 98, that was the end of the reform era of the Republican party.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, but that's the thing. Clinton had to triangulate, but he beat the Republicans by doing it very quickly. They were completely unprepared for it and when the government shutdown occured, Clinton's superior political skills made the Republicans look horrible and himself not so bad. Once he won that battle, he was in the saddle and managed to take away issues from the Republicans, redoing them in his own way.

Clinton really did run circles around the Congressional Republicans.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

No, but not having Rumsfeld around will be a huge boost in '08 -- the Dems won't have his butt to kick around any more. Politically, Rumsfeld had to go. My gut reaction was that forcing him out a week ago might have helped them hold on to the Senate. It's quite possible there is polling data that suggested booting Rumseld before the election would be seen as politically motivated and have an adverse effect. I'm too cynical not to believe there is polling data on this.

I will grant in one way this is smart timing in that now you can get the lame duck Senate to approve Gates and not have to deal with a Democratic Senate in January. Getting rid of Rumsfeld had to happen to give the Republicans any chance in '08.

This is the correct answer. Bush won't run for President. Cheney has no shot so he's out of the picture. They just got rid of the only other lightning rod that's out there. Without those three in the picture, the Republicans have a chance in 2008.

[ISiddiqui]

Republicans always had a chance in 2008. This was merely local and statewide races, the Dems have to pick a Presidential candidate that is supposed to appeal to the entire country for the '08 elections.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Republicans always had a chance in 2008. This was merely local and statewide races, the Dems have to pick a Presidential candidate that is supposed to appeal to the entire country for the '08 elections.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....

...like that'll ever happen....

...AHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

...

When Newt was forced out in 98, that was the end of the reform era of the Republican party.

Truly a sad day. Newt was not nearly the demon he was made out to be.

Hastert and Delay spent the next half a decade plus repealing all of the ethics reforms Newt put in place while championing the contract with America.

[JPhillips]

Always remember that Newt was forced out by his fellow Republicans. That's why he'll never see any elected office again.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

You must belong to the OTHER Democratic Party.

Yes, the one that actually wins elections.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Republicans always had a chance in 2008. This was merely local and statewide races, the Dems have to pick a Presidential candidate that is supposed to appeal to the entire country for the '08 elections.

It's going to be Obama. Why do you think he was on every news show in the country on Tuesday night? Hillary is too polarizing, though I still think she will run and may even win the nomination. But I think the party wants Obama to run, because he is a bit more populist and more of an X factor than Hillary.