How Bush lost the House and Senate.
So it is not very characteristic of me to be critical of President Bush, but I think for the first time I will be in placing some of if not the majority of blame on the Republicans losing the house and the senate on Bush; although he has already taken much the blame himself. Many see Bush as a stubborn guy and for me, that is one of the things that makes him great because he doesn’t change his position on certain issues, but in this case I think it really worked against him. There are a few reasons for this. I wouldn’t have said this up until yesterday, when Rumsfeld “resigned.” The more I look at it, the more I really don’t understand the timing. In the months leading up to the election, it became extremely clear that people were very unsatisfied with the way the war was being handled and while only a small few wanted a complete withdrawal, a majority of individuals wanted at the least a different direction including many Republicans. Polls were coming out left and right talking about how Americans were trusting the Democrats more in regards to the war, security, and various other issues (which is pretty rare, and that's not the Republican side of me talking), although the war clearly being the strongest issue. Given the Mark Foley scandal, the Republicans were definitely in trouble. As far as that goes, the Republicans didn't help themselves when they decided to attack the Democrats about it for some reason instead of acknowledging that Foley was a sick bastard and making him leave, which he did; but that conversation is for another time and could have been saved. What I don’t understand is why Rumsfeld wasn’t let go during this time. Bush acknowledged in his press conference yesterday that this vote meant that the American people wanted a new direction in the war and his firing of Rumsfeld was one way to start in this new direction. The problem lies with Bush himself, who, whenever asked if he thought the Republicans would hold both the house and senate said that he was sure of it and was not worried even though the polls should the complete opposite. If anyone needs to be let go by the White House is is whoever is responsible for briefing Bush about the news, or just the entire staff who either ignored the polls or believed that the Republicans were ok. Although, I find it really hard to believe that they had no idea what the polls were showing. By having Bush and much of the White House isolate themselves in the belief that the Republicans were going to be ok, he left the Republicans in the house and senate out to dry. They basically had two options; they could either A, come out against the president and his policy in Iraq and say that they needed a new direction thus possibly swaying some Democrats and Independents and losing some of the Republican vote and making themselves vulnerable, or B, ignore the polls as Bush did and attack the Dem’s, try to defend Mark Foley, or talk about the economy even though the war was the clear issue. The Republicans chose the latter, and for clear reasons. Had Republicans have come out against the war, not only do they lose some of the Republican base and make themselves and the Bush White House vulnerable to Democratic attacks saying it isn’t unified, but when they are in office they are now more split then they were before and we are likely in the same rut. Now, had Bush dropped Rumsfeld during this process and acknowledged (as he did yesterday and as the polls clearly showed) that the country was not happy with the war, then I believe that takes attention off of Mark Foley (at least a little), shows the American people that he is acknowledging their discontent, and in my opinion, wins us the election and avoids the "thumpin" we got. Especially if this happens and John Kerry still botches his joke, then I think it’s a given. Bush’s argument however was that he did not come to this decision until the weekend and thus did not have him resign then because he did not want to throw in another issue. I say…why not make another issue? Show the people at the last minute that you understand their desire that you understand what the polls are saying, and are making the moves to do it. Give people out there a reason to come to the polls, give independents a reason to stick with the Republicans. It wouldn’t have hurt a thing. And now, with the timing, whether or not he was really thinking of doing this over the weekend, it just adds to the Democrats victory and does not make Bush look good. So now we have democratic control of the house and senate, which it took them twelve years to get, and that in including six years with a democratic president. So this doesn’t seem to be a short-term thing, especially given that the Democrats can now re-write the voting districts as the Republicans did and make it harder for them to take it back. It means no more conservative judges in the senate and John Bolton is out. It is more than simply losing the house and senate and it likely could have been avoided had Bush not been ignorant of the polls. Don’t get me wrong, I still love Bush and support the war (and possibly a new direction), but I think this could have been avoided had he taken action sooner. As I said earlier however, I am interested to see what the Democrats are going to do with the war. I don’t think really think that social issues are going to be affected, and I know that if the Democrats screw this up they can basically write the ticket for the Republican presidential candidate in 2008.