Bush is incorrigable. Despite the "new era" they're up to their old tricks.

[Armstead]

You gotta hand it to these guys. They've got metallic gonads.

They're either diabolically devious or dumber than fence posts. Or some combination of the two.

But his first major act coming out after the GOP election defeat is to attempt to mousetrap the Democrats yet again. Similar to how he started in the brief period of "bipartisanship" after he was selected in 2000.

There is widespread pressure from all corners for him to dump Rumsfeld. The Democrats say that would be the first step towards extricating ourselves from the Iraq Mess.

So, after resisting for so long, Bush finally "gives in" following an overwhelming Democratic victory. It's portrayed as a gesture of bipartisanship and a reaching out to work with Democrats.

There are numerous potential nominees who would have the qualifications and also truly generate bi-partisan support.

But.....Who does he choose to replace Rumsfeld? Yet another Iran-Contra figure who was involved in past GOP CONservative misdeeds. And who was controversial enough to stir the ire of Democrats in the 1980's when he was up for confirmation.

(Details available on other DU posts on the subject.)

So in one fell swoop,he forces the Democrats to do one of two things. Either cave in or fight him on this nomination. If the Democrats (and the media) choose to overlook the unsavor aspects of Gates resume, Bush will push through another bad choice yet again. But if the Democrats choose to challenge his nomination, he gets to characterize them as "partisan obstructionists" who are merely trying to score political points.

Hopefully this will somehow backfire on them, and Gates will get tough scrutiny at the very least and be rejected at best.

But the fact that he chose to do it this way -- rather than start fresh with a clean nominee for Sec. of Defense -- shows how they are not planning to change their stripes.

[The Count]

1. And by today's Snow job, no negotiaton on withdrawal

Also, the Rummy press conference was announced, then muted BY ALL CHANNELS, WHY???

[chefgirl]

2. Funny you should say that

Yeah, you know, I've been running this around in my head for the past 24 hours, trying to find the 'catch'. Your theory is one I came up with too, and sounds just like KKKarl, doesn't it?

On the other hand, you have to wonder how much of this has to do with the Baker report, coming soon, and Poppy finally putting his foot up Junior's ass. Gates is a member of the Baker Study Group, after all.

Probably somewhere in between the two is the truth. Choose one of Poppy's cronies, and who better than someone who will make the Dem's grind their teeth?

-chef-

[ljm2002]

3. Well duh...

...not to be snarky to you, I agree completely with what you say.

But, if anyone actually expected these guys to suddenly play nice, puhleeze.

Let's see: Bush's first presser after his defeat, he repeatedly refers to the opposition party as the "Democrat party". He knows better, and he does it for two reasons: to irritate us (and I admit it always works on me); and to signal to his true believers what he really thinks of the opposition that he is pretending to make nicey-nicey with. Then, he has a presser today where he states what must happen in the few weeks before the Democrats take over both houses of Congress.

Yeah, these guys are going to go out of their way to play nice. Not.

They got where they are by playing hardball and always being on the offense. They have carefully orchestrated their own message, and have control of most of the media including newscasters, pundits and talk radio. They will not lay down and they will not quit kicking.

Our job is to crush them. In the nicest possible way.

[Armstead]

6. I just hope the Democratic leadership sees it as a 'duh"

[ljm2002]

10. Me too!

It is so frustrating to see our guys over and over again fall into the same trap that Charlie Brown did with the football.

Can't they see it? Here's hoping...

[The Blue Flower]

4. Will 'obstructionist' stick?

Now that We the People have cleaned house and hired a whole new crew to do a better job, it's hard to see how the term 'obstructionist' could work. This new crew is there because we WANT to obstruct the criminals in their continuing criminality.

[kentuck]

5. Only a fool would trust George W Bush ...

or Karl Rove. The Democrats are walking into a trap, I fear. Politically, they cannot shun "bi-partisanship". But, they should tread very carefully around this offer from the WH...

[Armstead]

7. Our anthem should be the old Who song...

"Won't get fooled again"

[Skidmore]

8. They are true believers in the power of PR and the shell game.

Razzle dazzle with one hand and do the evil work with there. We need to let them know clearly that we know what they are up to and to make it known to the rest of America...it's called oversight.

[Akoto]

9. Good. Let us be partisan obstructionists.

I think they could do with having some of their decisions obstructed for a while.

I'd rather bear the label than allow another monster into power. If the media wants to consider us to be so, then so be it. We've got a job to do.