lily
11-11-2006, 11:11 PM
Most polls both before and even now after the elections show that one of the reasons people voted the way they did, was because of the war in Iraq. Reading other forums and listening to some "news shows" people say they might have voted differently if they knew Rumsfailed would no longer be in charge. I've never been shy on my opinion of the man and it seemed like some Republicans were begining to think the same.
I think the Foley scandal pretty much ran it's course and by election time, people were thinking about it....but not as much as they would have had, if the Haggert scandal wouldn't have hit the papers, to refreash our memory.
As I said in another thread, if Bush had said anything the Sunday before I would have been screaming the loudest that he was doing this out of desperation, to change the elections...... but that doesn't change the nagging in the back of my head, wondering if we would have won the House by a bigger majority than we needed, or even expected and maybe not the senate at all.
I also think Bush didn't think the Republicans were going to loose and he only let Rumsfailed go as a pre-emptive strike, so it wouldn't seem like right off the bat he was giving into Democrats demands. If Bush would have let Rumsfailed go 2-3 months before the election, do you think the election would have turned out the way it did?
I think the Foley scandal pretty much ran it's course and by election time, people were thinking about it....but not as much as they would have had, if the Haggert scandal wouldn't have hit the papers, to refreash our memory.
As I said in another thread, if Bush had said anything the Sunday before I would have been screaming the loudest that he was doing this out of desperation, to change the elections...... but that doesn't change the nagging in the back of my head, wondering if we would have won the House by a bigger majority than we needed, or even expected and maybe not the senate at all.
I also think Bush didn't think the Republicans were going to loose and he only let Rumsfailed go as a pre-emptive strike, so it wouldn't seem like right off the bat he was giving into Democrats demands. If Bush would have let Rumsfailed go 2-3 months before the election, do you think the election would have turned out the way it did?