(no subject)

[ladynox25]

First it was John Ashcroft resigning.
Then a whole bunch of CIA people resigned.
Then *4* cabinet members resigned.
Now Tom Ridge is resigning?

I don't know what to make of this, honestly. I have no idea whether it's good or bad. I do know that it worries me. A lot. What is happening in the White House? What are the odds that it's anything good? Not bloody likely IMHO.

*shudder*

Signs and portents, signs and portents....

Comments

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

They're "purging" (their word, not mine) CIA of officers not "personally loyal" (their words, not mine) to George Bush himself. Not the Agency, not the country, not the President, "George Bush".

They're doing the same, apparently, with State.

The only *loyal* lunatic to resign is Ashcroft - which, since they expect at least one Supreme to retire or die during Bush's term, sets the stage and makes eligible Supreme Court Justice John Ashcroft. They can't do that if he's still AG.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

I don't know that State has started yet, though it certainly will. I do know that Dick Armitage, the only other buffer between the radicals and State, also left. Sigh.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Powell is out. Rice is in. THAT ALONE would constitute "purging all the intelligent ones" and "replacing with reality-impaired fanatics", even if not a single other person moves.

[desdenova.livejournal.com]

Many of these resigning Cabinet members had announced their intention to do so a while back (Ridge, Powell, possibly more), so it's not like it's all out-of-the-blue.

I'm not getting terribly excited about it, AFAICT, they're just trading one bunch of schmucks for a different bunch (or, in some cases, the same bunch in different positions). I don't expect it to have much impact on actual policy.

[texas-tiger.livejournal.com]

I didn't mean to imply that it was a surprise. Yes, I have known about various parts of this for whatever length of time. I just chose now to mention my worry, is all. And I think the thing that worries me most is that its not just trading one group of schmucks for another, it's more like trading one group of schmucks who actually occasionally think independantly of Shrub for a group of schmucks who only think what Shrub tells them to think.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

You must admit, even though we KNEW that there would be a purging of the moderates, it's terrifying to watch anyway. Sort of like watching a train wreck happen before your eyes. You may know it's happening, but your powerlessness to stop it doesn't keep you from yelling "LOOK OUT!"

[prince-corwin.livejournal.com]

Well, some of them announced their intention to resign before the election. Before the 2000 election, that is. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I think Powell stated way, way, way back that he was a one-termer.

If you look at some other recent cabinets, you can see that Bush Jr is part of an overall trend toward increasing cabinet stability. And the beginning of a second term is a traditional time for firing people from those positions-- cabinet officers are custom-bound, if not legally bound, to submit resignations at the end of the first term.

In one term, Bush Jr has had 19 officers for 15 offices.
That's 4 first term replacements, and we'll see how many mid-term replacements.

In two terms, Clinton had 30 officers for 14 offices.
That's 4 first term replacements, 9 mid-term replacements, 4 second term replacements.

In one term, Bush Sr had 21 officers for 14 offices. That's 7 first-term replacements.

In two terms, Reagan had 33 officers for 14 offices. That's 5 first-term replacements, 7 mid-term replacements, and 6 second-term replacements.

In one term, Carter had 21 officers for 14 offices. That's 7 first-term replacements.

In less than one term, Ford had 23 officers for 11 offices! Damn! That's 12 replacements in one term! Probably a result of housecleaning from Nixon, and just plain not having picked them in the first place.

In a little more than one term, Nixon had 31 officers for 12 offices. That's 7 first-term replacements, 8 at the mid-term, and, amazingly, two during the brief part of the second term he served.

Okay, I'm bored, now, but I think the point is clear. Note, most of these stats are from Wikipedia, and I didn't bother to soublecheck, so there's probably some piddling errors in there.

[texas-tiger.livejournal.com]

But the trend of these replacements is disturbing.

[turnberryknkn.livejournal.com]

It's extremely hard to tell. *Who* replaces those who leave is just as important, in the long term, as who leaves. Specifically, whether there is any correlation between previous record of being right/wrong and promotion/departure. Is there any sign that people are being held accountable for prior mistakes or errors? Are people who were wrong before being shuffled out or being promoted? What happened to the people behind key decisions in the run-up to and the execution of the war, for better or for worse?

As prince_corwin points out, shuffling per se is common. The key is *who* gets shuffled out and who gets shuffled up. The pattern will clearly telegraph the priorities of the Bush/Cheney Administration.