Will the White House shake-up rescue the Republicans

TheVan

47% of americans "strongly disapprove" of George Bush's performance so there has been a White House shake-up.

In the last few weeks -

• New chief of staff, Josh Bolten
• New director of the Office of Management and Budget, Rob Portman.
• Karl Rove, has had his portfolio pared back
• Scott McLellan resigns
• Rumsfeld under increasing pressure to go

So will this save the Republicans in the mid-terms and in 2008 and can the Democrats capitalise on the Republican woes?

Dirk Gently

TheVan wrote:

So will this save the Republicans in the mid-terms and in 2008 and can the Democrats capitalise on the Republican woes?

Will it save the republicans, hopefully not but I have no faith in the American public to do anything about them.

Can the democrats capitalise, if they were in any way capable they would have forced bush out of office already by way of impeachment.

Pazaz 21

If bush and the republicans are really serious about change they should sack Rumsfeld now. It would show an ability to change, out with the old and in with the new. The republicans need to distance themselves from the Bush administration and the neo-liberal cronies that are an integral part of the current white house administration.

the_syco

Aye. Sack Rumsfield. Get an ex-marine, or someone who has actually fought in combat, so that they can help administer the system, and not just send troops unprepared to a war that gets you nothing. Heck, if they wanted oil, they could've gotten Chavez killed.

Hobbes

There are rumours that a Fox reporter may replace Scott.

Jon Stewart comment: The whitehouse is considering paying a fox news reporter to tell the public what it would like them to hear. I hope hes up to the job.

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=61819

Dirk Gently

that clip is class.

bonkey

Will the White House shake-up rescue the Republicans

Probably, but at a guess its not in the manner that one might be expecting.

The only potentially meaningful shift to come out fo the shake-up is the changing of Rove's official portfolio.

What is Rove going to now concentrate on? "Politics" I believe was the eu[phemism that was used, but what is clearly meant is "the mid-term elections".

Rove excels at this. I don't like what he does, nor how he does it, but at the end of the day he is a proven master at whipping up a public frenzy sufficient to get the masses forgetting that there were actual issues that they cared about.

What Bush has basically done is said "Turd Blossom*, I want you to go out and remind the public just how scared they need to be so that they'll continue to vote Republican".

As for Bush's outstanding approval figures, and all the other approval figures...I don't put too much weight in them. Why not? Because what you never see reported is the stats on the obvious follow-up question: "Do you think a Democrat could do a better job".

It doesn't matter if 99% of the US think Bush and the Republicans are doing a bad job, as long as enough of them continue to cling to the notion that the other side would do a worse one.

I've lost track of the number of people on the Politics forum amd elsewhere who I've seen insist that they voted for Bush, not because they supported him, but because they wanted to keep Kerry (or Gore in 2000) out. If anyone did admit to voting for Bush because they supported him....it was almost invariably because he and, by extension, the Republicans) were the only ones they could trust to keep America safe from weevil tourists. Who whipped up the fear that was needed in order for them to feel the need to "vote for safety" ????

Karl Rove - the man once again tasked with playing it, Sam, one more time.

Beyond the shifting of Rove's responsibilities....none of the other changes matter much that I can see.

As for the pressure on Rumsfeld....there is little more certain to ensure that he remains exactly where he is than the pressure coming for his removal. To bow to such pressure would entail an implicit admission of the faults that are being laid at his feet, which would undermine the Administration on so many fronts its simply not a eralistic option in my mind. Not only that, but just listen to Bush's recent "I am the decider" rhetoric. Does that really sound like a man who's saying "make your case and I'll decide if he should go or not", or more like a man who's saying "I don't care what you say. I make the decisions, and I have already decided he's staying.

jc

*No, really. This has been reported as Bush's nickname for Rove, which replaced his earlier moniker of "boy genius".

TheVan

clown bag wrote:

if they were in any way capable they would have forced bush out of office already by way of impeachment.

Unfortunately the Democrats have a minority in both houses and an 2/3 majority is needed to impeach the President. It ain't gonna happen unless the Democrats win a huge majority.
As for impeachment proceedings, I think many politicians worry about turning impeachment (a very serious turn of events) into another political tool.

I reckon the Republicans will suffer in mid-terms but will probably cop on enough in 2008 to have a nomination who reaches across the political divide. If John McCain wins the nomination, he'll walk the presidential election.

Hobbes

Whatever happened to Rove and the whole Plame affair where he didn't out the CIA operative because he only said "Her Husband" or something like that.

Zombrex

The American voting public are a strange group.

After the Clinton witch hunt many commintators said that the ridiculous carry on by the Republics trying to legally coup clinton would damage the Republicans for years afterwards. What happened? Bush won the White House (admittly not very legally)

Then with the WMD looking like a complete smoke screen to invade Iraq simply because Bush wanted to you would expect that at least his sport would dwindle with swing voters. Instead he did better in his second term election

So I don't know. Never under estimate the ability of voters to vote with their heart/fears rather than head. Sure look at FF here at home, how the feck are they still in power?

TheVan

Well I'm going to play devil's advocate here (note that if I were american I would vote democrat!) but here's why people voted for George Bush.

Basically the Republicans promised tax cuts (always a popular choice) and traditionally win on security issues. As we have seen security has been a major issue in the US.
On tax cuts, there had been 8 years of Clinton with higher taxes (although not exorbitant) and programmes such as Medicare and Medicaid.
As clichéd as this sounds, the West Wing will give you an idea of voters in America. Basically, Democrats suffer from the Mommy Problem. When voters want a "mommy" to provide healthcare, education etc they vote Democrat. When they want a "daddy" to provide a safe country etc they vote Republican.

Politics and people are bizarre!

Lemming

TheVan wrote:

As we have seen security has been a major issue in the US.

You mean perceived security of course ... the reality is that security is no different than before beyond the superficial xenophobic dross ... err I mean "gloss". But anyway, I digress from the point at hand.

blueshirt

So will this save the Republicans in the mid-terms and in 2008 and can the Democrats capitalise on the Republican woes?[/QUOTE]
It’s impossible to tell, Americans must be the most unsophisticated voters in the democratic world, and so few of them bother to vote. People tend to get what they deserve and they deserve Bush and co. but the rest of the world don’t deserve them.

SteveS

At this point, I seriously doubt that the democrats will benefit from shake ups at the WH and Bush's poor ratings. They haven't offered much beyond "we hate Bush" or "Bush is the source of all problems." Until they make a convincing argument for how they would/could improve things, most independents will not be interested.

The reality is that candidates have to convince the independent or undecided voters. The percentage of people identifying themselves as republican or democrat is roughly the same, so you have to win over the rest of the people.

Unfortunately, we have a two party system that forces many people to vote against someone, rather than voting for someone. Like a previous poster indicated, I am one of those that voted against Kerry, rather than for Bush. This also encourages candidates to suck up to certain groups, and make all sorts of promises. In some cases, they don't have to do much. Environmentalists aren't going to vote republican, no matter what. In other cases, they have to work harder. Bush sucked up to some Christian groups by portraying himself as anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion. Kerry tried to win over some gun owners by going on some goofy, staged goose hunt. The list goes on and on.

In addition, I agree with the poster that said that most voters are stupid. Unfortunately, this is true. During the last election, Sean Hannity would send one of staffers out into the streets of Manhattan with a microphone and ask people who they were voting for. When he got someone that was voting for Kerry, he would ask them additional questions. Most of these people had no clue who he was running with or even had a basic grasp of any of the more prominenet issues of the day. In the interest of fairness, I am sure they are plenty if ignorant republican voters.

Frankly, I have little faith in either party. Bush may be a social conservative, but he has shown no interest in any kind of fiscal restraint. Neither party has any respect for the Constitution.

TheVan

Just an update.....according to the Sunday Times (so not too definite, but interesting nonetheless) Bush is under pressure to make a senior change in the White House, specifically, replacing Dick Cheney with Condoleeza Rice

Pazaz 21

Just heard that Tony Snow has been appointed the new White House Press Secretary.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060426/ap_on_go_pr_wh/white_house_snow;_ylt=AlWxdkQMO.whKbeE147MKdmyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

Wow a Fox news reporter feeding us, sorry i mean telling us, the latest news from the president. Ya, he'll sure lend a lot of credibility to any message the White House puts out, NOT!!!

But wait he has been critical of bush and bush still hired him, what a gimmick, like bush dosen't like being surrounded by yes men, see how quickly Snow changes his tune.

bonkey

Pazaz 21 wrote:

But wait he has been critical of bush

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/25/snow-on-bush/

Some amusing quotes from him here Somehow, I don't expect the tone to remain the same.

SteveS

Pazaz 21 wrote:

Just heard that Tony Snow has been appointed the new White House Press Secretary.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060426/ap_on_go_pr_wh/white_house_snow;_ylt=AlWxdkQMO.whKbeE147MKdmyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

Wow a Fox news reporter feeding us, sorry i mean telling us, the latest news from the president. Ya, he'll sure lend a lot of credibility to any message the White House puts out, NOT!!!

But wait he has been critical of bush and bush still hired him, what a gimmick, like bush dosen't like being surrounded by yes men, see how quickly Snow changes his tune.

I know this is such a surprise, since most presidents try to surround themselves with people they can't stand. Maybe he should have hired James Carville...the voice of reason and moderation.