In the couple of weeks before the election, I heard Republicans over and over again shouting that the Democrats had no plan for victory, or that Democrats wanted to leave before the job was done, or that they had no strategy. My guess is that we the people were to assume that the Republicans DID have a plan for victory that encompassed more than "stay the course," which we'd been seeing for years. I can't help but wonder, though, what exactly the plan for victory was that would not have included Donald Rumsfeld as the Secretary of Defense? The president being "the decider" and all, he must have intended for Rumsfeld to step down today regardless of who took control of the House and Senate.
But today he says that he hears the people calling for a change. The people have been calling for a change for months now, yet the administration insisted they were going to stay the course - wait, last month they told us it was never stay the course - they were changing constantly, but always moving toward victory.
I want to know, what possible explanation could there be for the decider's actions other than the fact that the Democrats won? Does anyone honestly believe that Rumsfeld would be out of a job today had the elections not turned out the way they did yesterday? Does anyone think that the President would have "listened to the people" who had been calling for Rumsfeld's resignation had he still had a majority in the House? How did the war suddenly go from "we're making continued progess" to "it's time for a change in course" based on anything other than the election results? The president listened for once because he couldn't ignore; that's why the election results are good in my opinion.
Now, let's get a solid moderate party for a viable third option.