Rumsfeld Resigns

[Bruce Carriker]

no text

[Sara Sheppard]

Yep...I'll be honest, this entire deal ticks me off.

Let me start by saying...I voted for Bush and for the most part like him. I do think he can be a bit bull headed. Sometimes you are wrong and the best thing any human being can do is say "I was wrong and I'm going to try and fix this".

If Bush would have admitted 6 weeks ago that along the way some things related to this war are wrong and if he had made changes (Yes having Rumsfeld resign) 6 weeks ago and begun chartering a new course, then I think we would not have seen so many Democrat victories this week.

However, Bush was bull headed and would not admit his mistakes. Instead he wanted to keep on this course with NO change. So, the American people voted and said basically "Sir, we don't know what change needs to happen but you aren't willing to make any change so we are going to vote for someone else and at least give them a chance".

By his own bull headedness, now we have a Democrat House - most likely a Democrat Senate and he still was forced to make changes by getting rid of Rumsfeld - basically b/c the American people told him too.

So...what did his pride and sticking to his guns get him? As far as I can see - nothing.

Now keep in mind...I like the guy but this is still my assessment. His greatest weakness in the last 6 years has been too much confidence in himself. Mr. President - we ALL make mistakes. Smart people acknowledge them, figure out how to fix them, and then begin to make changes.

Sara

[Bruce Carriker]

Sara, I don't think anything could have saved the House, but I believe you are absolutely right about the Senate. If this had come six weeks ago...or even two weeks ago...it likely would have made a difference for Burns in Montana, Talent in Missouri. And when you lose the Senate by one seat, two seats lost to one mistake is huge.

[Marsha Gupton]

Well, what we need to remember is that this is the United States of America and I am glad we have a two-part or more system.

Those that know me well know that I do not like politics. I voted a split ticket this time. Sara will understand who I voted for by voting a split ticket.

I mean no disrespect to any one at all, but I think that the american people are tired of us having a presence in Iraq. I am just stating a fact.

It should be an interesting next few years in Washington.

Marsha

[BobHunt]

As strong as a Republican as I am, at first I was dismayed. Then I began to think about the future. Maybe this will help the Republican party to get themselves together, to get rid of all the scandals like Ohio's Bob Taft, and to get a start on the next national election.
Being the Sen Liberman is conservative, I think he will help bring both sides together at least. I hope that the Democrats will come up with a plan of their own for Iraq, and instead of investigating every Republican they can find, put all that aside and get on with it.
One thought: In this election, there was more spent than any other election ever on negative advertising. And I think it hurt this election. When you hear negative about anyone over and over and over, you kinda have the feeling, "well their all a bunch of crooks anyway, why should I vote or even care?" What if we had taken all this money and did a real in depth investigation into Iraq and what we could do to solve this crisis? There has to be some common ground somewhere between political parties, we get no where at all by shouting at one another and calling each other names.

I think the main item that helped the election go the way it did was the displeasure about Iraq. I hope that the Dems will come up with a plan, or at least find some middle ground about Iraq. I havent heard any yet....

[Sara Sheppard]

Marsha,

I also voted a split ticket... :0

Sara

[Donna Adams]

There aren't too many people who like war or enjoy war. But the fact is, we are in a war. I dislike it more than some because my only son in law is there. But I know he is doing what he was called to do, and I am very proud of him and all of our soliders. I do not like politics either, it drives me crazy. I cannot stand bad mouthing our president no matter what his politics are, I don't think our country for the most part has a clue what they really want.
It's time for America to pray people!

[David Cash]

I read an interesting editorial on a UPI site tonight. Without the background to prove or disprove what the guy said, I can only mention it at face value, but I want to mention it.

What he said was that a significant number of the new Democrats coming in with this election are either centrists or conservatives. He even mentioned a prolife Democrat who was so religious he wouldn't campaign on Sunday. I could probably vote a split ticket for somebody like that.

David Cash

[Bruce Carriker]

The Democrats in Washington will be more conservative than the party that is there right now. Rahm Emmanuel and Charles Shumer went out and recruited candidates who were more centrist, so they could run strong in more conservative districts. There are a number of the new Democrats (who are really OLD Democrats, the way the party was before it got stupid) who are pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-gun. They are socially conservative and fiscally progressive. It was nice to see that Democrats like that can still run and win.

Hopefully the new Democratic majority in Congress will realize that they won for two reasons: 1) the country was really angry at the President; 2) they ran more to the center than they have in at least 20 years. If they take Tuesday's results as a "mandate" to enact a bunch of far left proposals like gay marriage, they'll be the majority for two years.

But there are a number of issues where they can operate from the center (or only slightly left of center) and operate well within the mainstream of middle American thought.

[Gary Swartzlander]

Based on people elected or not elected and proposals that passed nationwide, I think it's pretty clear that people want change without moving to far to either the right or left. I don't think the public will stand for radical change, but they are looking for solid leadership and action.

I'm Republican and probably a moderate one at that. The Republicans have nobody but themselves to blame for the losses they suffered. One only has to look at the messes that have led news stories in Ohio for the past 2 years to understand why people weren't willing to let Republicans take the lead again this time around.

Let's hope and pray that everyone can do a bit of growing up, put the stupidness of campaigns behind them and come to a concensus of what needs to be done.

Our very conservative county here in Michigan turned out 2 incumbent Republicans in favor of two democrates for our state house of representatives, one who has no previous political experience other than running for office a couple times before winning. In my particular district, I stayed with the Republican when it came time to vote, but I sure gave a lot of thought to going the other way.

It will be an interesting couple of years, let the 2008 campaign begin.

[Stan Hall]

I've never voted straight party. I voted Libertarian where I could.
There's no question the Republicans blew it in the last 6 years. What I find curious is that while the liberals like to paint Bush as some extreme right wing fanatic that's patently absurd. The problem with Bush, in my view, is that he failed to adhere to conservative principles. In government growth and spending he out-democratted the democrats. So what do people do? They vote democrat. Go figure.
But this may indeed have a silver lining. First it may wake up the GOP to the fact that they need to actually listen to the people. Like on border security. Second, government size and spending grow the most and the fastest when a single party controls Congress and the White House. No matter how outrageous the bill, it gets passed. With a party split, bills can't be as extreme and pass.
I just hope it is remembered that like it or not, we are at war. And the object must be to win it. Better to fight it in the middle east than have to fight it here.

Stan

[William Hunter]

The major news networks, in interviewing voters as to why they voted, said the war in Iraq was a secondary issue. The main issue was moral and ethical behavior.

We have a society in serious need of statesmen, but all it gets is politicians. Statesmen are leaders who uphold what is right regardless of the popularity of the position. Statesmen speak out to acheive good for their people, not to win votes. Statesmen promote the general good rather than regional or personal self-interest. No matter what side of the asile we are talking about, all we get is politicians and no statesmen. We get mud-slinging rather than open discussion of issues. We get obstructionism rather than bringing ideas to the table of public debate for the good of all, etc. Govt. leaders, voted into office by us, give us politics. When are we who vote going to start insisting on statesmen, people of high moral and ethical fiber, people who make decisions based on sound moral and ethical foundations, people who can be looked up to with respect instead giving us moral and ethical decay?





Well, what we need to remember is that this is the United States of America and I am glad we have a two-part or more system.

Those that know me well know that I do not like politics. I voted a split ticket this time. Sara will understand who I voted for by voting a split ticket.

I mean no disrespect to any one at all, but I think that the american people are tired of us having a presence in Iraq. I am just stating a fact.

It should be an interesting next few years in Washington.

Marsha

[Judy Hamilton]

.

I mean no disrespect to any one at all, but I think that the american people are tired of us having a presence in Iraq. I am just stating a fact.

It should be an interesting next few years in Washington.

Marsha

also no disrespect intended Marsha however consider the alternative

i rathar the terrorist and the efforts to contain/neturalize them be in Iraq than on our own soil..we could well pull all of our troops out of Iraq and revise their misson to defending us here in our own backyard ...

would this not also quickly displease the American people???????

Judy

[Glenn Harris]

also no disrespect intended Marsha however consider the alternative

i rather the terrorist and the efforts to contain/neturalize them be in Iraq than on our own soil..we could well pull all of our troops out of Iraq and revise their misson to defending us here in our own backyard ...

would this not also quickly displease the American people???????

Judy

I don't think the public as a whole is as much tired of dealing with Iraq or soft on terrorism as they are of the apparent lack of any plan being put forth. The nation is sinking all it's resources in one area and other areas are popping up. It isn't coincidence that Iran and North Korea are making noise now. It isn't coincidence that Hamas is escalating it's violence towards Israel. I think people are just getting nervous about it. I think the general consensus of people I talk to is that we need to go to Iraq, give them a workable timeline and tell them to get it together because on XXX date we're gone. It's time to stop sending our finest into harms way to do something they either need to do themselves or there is no hope that it will ever get done. Quite honestly, I'm a Republican, I voted an ALMOST straight Republican ticket (I threw in one liberaterian and I would have voted for Spratt if he hadn't turned so negative in his campaigning) but over the last couple of years I've started to realize that the party I support is not really supporting me or my interests. My big concern has been Iraq. But fortunately, as Gary and Bruce have talked about, while this current house is numerically controlled by the Democrats it is neither more liberal or more anti military than the old house. If anything, it is more stable. To me, sending our people into harms way without equipment, support or a plan is worse than refusing to send them and the former administration, while big on terrorism get an F from me on planning and people in the long term. The biggest losers in this election aren't the troops or the people. The biggest losers are the chamber of commerce Republicans who think playing war is good business and don't care squat about the soldiers it puts in harms way and the more liberal Democrats who just saw that their party realized that the direction they were going was a sinking ship and watched it make a move to the right. Also, regardless of Nancy Pelosi's personal politics, she didn't get where she is by being stupid and she has to realize that a draconian shift to the left now by her party would either cause a revolt from those moderate democrats that got elected and have to go home to face their constituents or a guarantee of another 12 years of Republican rule starting in 08.

Glenn

[Bruce Carriker]

I've never voted straight party. I voted Libertarian where I could.
There's no question the Republicans blew it in the last 6 years. What I find curious is that while the liberals like to paint Bush as some extreme right wing fanatic that's patently absurd. The problem with Bush, in my view, is that he failed to adhere to conservative principles. In government growth and spending he out-democratted the democrats. So what do people do? They vote democrat. Go figure.

Except that he didn't "out-democrat the democrats". Most of the government growth and deficit spending you refer to owe to fighting a war without raising the taxes to pay for it; and creating new bureacracies to support the war, without making cuts anywhere else. His tax cuts were definitely NOT something out of a Democratic playbook. He is probably the most conservative president we've had in over 70 years. The only one close might be Reagan, and this guy lacks both the likeability and the pragmatism of Ronald Reagan.

But this may indeed have a silver lining. First it may wake up the GOP to the fact that they need to actually listen to the people. Like on border security.

Except that border security was a losing issue for the Republicans. Randy Graf, the most anti-immigration candidate running anywhere in the country, in a district where border security was the # 1 issue, just got trounced. Even the National Republican Campaign Committee realized this, and refused to help fund Graf's campaign. And let's not forget that it was the arch-conservatives in Bush's own party that kept Congress from passing immigration reform in this session.



Second, government size and spending grow the most and the fastest when a single party controls Congress and the White House. No matter how outrageous the bill, it gets passed. With a party split, bills can't be as extreme and pass.

True, true!!

I just hope it is remembered that like it or not, we are at war. And the object must be to win it. Better to fight it in the middle east than have to fight it here.

Stan

Define winning the war. We won the war in Iraq two weeks after it started. It's restoring the peace that we haven't been able to accomplish.

You can't fight a war against a tactic. In the Pacific, we didn't fight a war against kamikaze...we fought a war againist Japan. In Europe, the war wasn't with blitzkrieg...it was with Germany. Terrorism is a tactic. We can't be at war with terror...or terrorism. We can, however, be at war with terrorists.

If we're at war with al-Qaeda, great. Then say we're at war with al-Qaeda. Then lets ramp up the troop strength in Afghanistan and fight a war with al-Qaeda. Let's define the objectives in Iraq in CONCRETE TERMS, and then put all the resources necessary into meeting those objectives and bringing our troops home.

And rather than deficit spend, let's increase taxes to foot the bill. If you argue that the object of the war is to win it, then we must be willing to pay the bills incurred in achieving victory...not simply pass them on to our kids and grandkids.