I guess Rove must be disgraced

[audreyh1]

Maybe Bush really believed that the Republicans would hold both chambers of congress, if Rove was telling him what he was telling the press. Maybe Wednesday morning was a big nasty surprise for Bush.

From: http://mediamatters.org/items/200611100003

• When host Robert Siegel pointed out to Rove that major public opinion polls showed Democrats with a significant advantage over Republicans during an October 24 interview broadcast on NPR's All Things Considered, Rove told Siegel, "You may end up with a different math, but you're entitled to your math, I'm entitled to the math." Rove also said, "I'm looking at all these [races], Robert, and adding them up, and I add up to a Republican Senate and Republican House."
  
• On the October 31 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America, senior national correspondent Claire Shipman reported on Rove's NPR interview and confidence in the days before the election, noting that "[p]olitical Svengali" Rove had presented "a compelling scenario as to just how Republicans might hang onto the House. He said, 'Every way I look at it, I see we have a structural advantage.' " Shipman also detailed Rove's "unconventional wisdom as to why Republicans might even hang onto the House when most polls show it going Democratic by at least a few seats."
  
• In an October 25 Associated Press report, staff writer Deb Riechmann reported on the October 24 "Radio Day" press event at the White House, where administration officials granted interviews to a host of radio outlets. Riechmann noted that Rove "gushe[d] with optimism about Election Day," and uncritically reported his prediction that "Republicans would retain control of Congress, discounting polls that show the Democrats threatening to take over."

Audrey

 

[BOBOT]

Well for sure he's always been disgraceful. But then so were those who heeded his counsel.

 

[2B]

It's gamesmanship. It would be foolish for either side to admit they were going to lose. That would only encourage voters to give up and not vote. That would only make it worse. I can't think of any campaign where the "in" people projected or admitted defeat.

 

[TromboneAl]

Politicians always say they're going to win even if the polls show them as getting 10% of the vote cough Ralph Nadar cough.

Around here I noticed that even when the voting was done, one candidate who was behind was saying that she was going to win when they finished counting the absentee ballots. That is, even after the voting was done she exhibited this behavior.

 

[AltaRed]

I think Bush projected losing at least the House because I don't think he'd have Gates lined up so quickly to replace Rummy.

 

[audreyh1]

I think Bush projected losing at least the House because I don't think he'd have Gates lined up so quickly to replace Rummy.

That was kind of fast. But why did he declare his full support for Rumsfeld so soon before the elections (which really pi**ed off a few vulnerable Republicans)? To me that indicates Bush really had no idea that his administration would get such a "thrashing".

Audrey

 

[saluki9]

That was kind of fast. But why did he declare his full support for Rumsfeld so soon before the elections (which really pi**ed off a few vulnerable Republicans)? To me that indicates Bush really had no idea that his administration would get such a "thrashing".

Audrey

Loyalty! It's one of the reasons I'm a big fan of our president. He wasn't willing to throw and old friend under the bus for a few votes.

 

[LOL!]

That was kind of fast. But why did he declare his full support for Rumsfeld so soon before the elections (which really pi**ed off a few vulnerable Republicans)? To me that indicates Bush really had no idea that his administration would get such a "thrashing".

Audrey

This is a classic move. By declaring full support for Rumsfeld beforehand and then Rumsfeld resigning it looks very much like Rumsfeld made the decision and that Bush did not fire him. Bush comes out smelling cleaner and Rumsfeld takes the full hit by falling on his own sword. Bush can then wash his hands and change his strategy in Iraq without looking like a flip-flopper.

 

[2B]

That was kind of fast. But why did he declare his full support for Rumsfeld so soon before the elections (which really pi**ed off a few vulnerable Republicans)? To me that indicates Bush really had no idea that his administration would get such a "thrashing".

Audrey

It actually wasn't that bad. A midterm election is usually the kiss of death to a significant number of members of the sitting president's party. The most significant problem is that the margin of majority was so thin that it cost leadership in both houses.

The dems may regret what they've accomplished. There will now be a perception that they are "in charge." Many of the newly minted majority are pretty conservative and may not like the liberal reservation of the party leaders. That will make it difficult for the "liberal" agenda to move forward. If the dems go off on a mission to "pay back" the repubs for Clinton, there will be total gridlock and they'll look pathetic or worse.

They do have a great chance to lead. We'll see.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

This is a classic move. By declaring full support for Rumsfeld beforehand and then Rumsfeld resigning it looks very much like Rumsfeld made the decision and that Bush did not fire him. Bush comes out smelling cleaner and Rumsfeld takes the full hit by falling on his own sword. Bush can then wash his hands and change his strategy in Iraq without looking like a flip-flopper.

Standard procedure.

JG

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Loyalty! It's one of the reasons I'm a big fan of our president. He wasn't willing to throw and old friend under the bus for a few votes.

Yep. And he's stubborn, but it does get him in trouble. BTW, someone
posted (forgot who) that Bush got pretty chummy with the Texas dem.
party after he became governor, and expected the same now in Washington. I suspect this is true but hope not. The inside-the-beltway
Wash. D. C. dems are a far cry from in-state Texas dems. In fact,
it looks like a whole other party compared to the Kennedy/Rangel/Pelosi/Boxer/
Leahy/Schumer/Obama asylum.

JG

 

[astromeria]

why did he declare his full support for Rumsfeld so soon before the elections (which really pi**ed off a few vulnerable Republicans)?

He has dmitted that he lied about it. Rummy being pushed out and replaced by Gates was a done deal more than a week before the election, they just delayed the annoucement to try to push Iraq to the background in favor of their preferred election themes.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200611100005

 

[audreyh1]

Loyalty! It's one of the reasons I'm a big fan of our president. He wasn't willing to throw and old friend under the bus for a few votes.

Well - I guess he wasn't so "loyal" after all! It was a done deal BEFORE the elections.

Again - very frustrating for some Republicans who had to suffer the "stay the course" dogma.

Audrey

 

[MJ]

He has dmitted that he lied about it. Rummy being pushed out and replaced by Gates was a done deal more than a week before the election, they just delayed the annoucement to try to push Iraq to the background in favor of their preferred election

Too bad he wasn't under oath but the conservative ethical folks here should have no problem calling for either his resignation or impeachment for lying about that man.
Oh never mind, I forgot, we'd be stuck with shotgun cheney.