Interesting article in The Hill newspaper about Republican Hill staffers reaction to the Rumsfeld firing (um resignation) a day after the election.
The Hill
Overall, I think the net benefits of firing Rumsfeld (getting rid of an unpopular figure, demonstrating flexibility, etc.) say six months ago versus now slightly outweigh the possible drawbacks (endless hearings on the war, the base getting upset, etc.). Although I don't think it would have made a huge difference overall it probably could have made a difference in a few closes races like Virginia and Montana.
The resignation the day after the election showed the President was a loyal guy who allowed Don Rumsfeld, to leave in a dignified manner (which the President has done with everyone who has shown him loyalty) and cared more about loyalty than politics but I think the Republican reaction is understandable.
In other news, Ken Mehlman is resigning as head of the RNC.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20061110-121131-5518r_page2.htm
This is typical as most RNC heads serve for one election cycle. Mehlman did a great job with fundraising, made no gaffes unlike his counterpart at the DNC, and implemeted a fine GOTV effort, so overall I would say he did a good job. That said, I don't think he was forceful enough in his defense of candidates and the RNC when they were falsely accused of racism through the Harold Ford ads.
He also spent too much time courting the African-American vote, which was just as poor for the GOP in this election as in others. Perhaps Katrina ruined it for the GOP, but perhaps not. He spent a good deal of time recruiting African-American candidates who couldn't win because of their conversative positions on social issues in purple or blue states (i.e. Swann, Blackwell, and Steele). This outreach was essential and may pay dividends in the future but in this type of election a more narrow focus might have been preferable. Perhaps, installing Michael Steele as the head of the RNC will lead to a significant increase in the percentage of African-American votes for the GOP, I hope so.
The Hill
Overall, I think the net benefits of firing Rumsfeld (getting rid of an unpopular figure, demonstrating flexibility, etc.) say six months ago versus now slightly outweigh the possible drawbacks (endless hearings on the war, the base getting upset, etc.). Although I don't think it would have made a huge difference overall it probably could have made a difference in a few closes races like Virginia and Montana.
The resignation the day after the election showed the President was a loyal guy who allowed Don Rumsfeld, to leave in a dignified manner (which the President has done with everyone who has shown him loyalty) and cared more about loyalty than politics but I think the Republican reaction is understandable.
In other news, Ken Mehlman is resigning as head of the RNC.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20061110-121131-5518r_page2.htm
This is typical as most RNC heads serve for one election cycle. Mehlman did a great job with fundraising, made no gaffes unlike his counterpart at the DNC, and implemeted a fine GOTV effort, so overall I would say he did a good job. That said, I don't think he was forceful enough in his defense of candidates and the RNC when they were falsely accused of racism through the Harold Ford ads.
He also spent too much time courting the African-American vote, which was just as poor for the GOP in this election as in others. Perhaps Katrina ruined it for the GOP, but perhaps not. He spent a good deal of time recruiting African-American candidates who couldn't win because of their conversative positions on social issues in purple or blue states (i.e. Swann, Blackwell, and Steele). This outreach was essential and may pay dividends in the future but in this type of election a more narrow focus might have been preferable. Perhaps, installing Michael Steele as the head of the RNC will lead to a significant increase in the percentage of African-American votes for the GOP, I hope so.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home