Slashdot Mirror
Ridge, Homeland Security Head, Steps Down
WeAz writes "According to MSNBC, Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge has decided to call it quits. 'Ridge, the seventh officer to leave Bush's Cabinet so far, oversaw the most significant government reorganization in 50 years.' Ridge joins Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Ashcroft as the newest cabinet member to resign from their office."
I guess I spent too long in the john: I'm gone 5 minutes and Rummy is history?
Or not....
Can't find anything on news.google.com
Rumsfeld resigned? Where the frig did you read that?
The article mentions, as is conventional wisdom, that he'll stay on for a few years to oversee operations in Iraq and transitions to national elections (assuming they ever happen). Of course, they were saying the same thing about Powell before the election.
No, not really.
... except for the Presidency, that is.
This kind of thing always goes on between terms. No one wants to get stuck in the same job for 8 years
sigs, as if you care.
That's just about as many people who left Clinton's cabinet in between terms. I'm hoping it means they think their jobs are done and there's nothing major looming on the horizon that any of them feel like they need to be a part of.
The opposite option: they're getting out while they can. I can't really believe that though. They've already worked through one of the most polarizing administrations in quite a long time (i'm no history buff), they're probably just tired. If the Bush administration is planning on anything more "interesting" (May you live in interesting times. --Confucious) than this whole Iraq thing, well, I'd be impressed.
Direct away from face when opening.
I think there's been around 7 cabinet-level resignations, which isn't too far above the average.
Of course, the CIA is a different story...
In other news...
Steve Ballmer and Darl McBride have both retired from their positions and eloped to Massachusetts where their marriage would be legal.
Actually, Donald Rumsfeld hasn't resigned.
And they went to Norway.
Direct away from face when opening.
I share your opinion on stereotyping and how to avoid it. I do occasionally succumb to partisan pressure, gleefully lashing out at prominent figures with trashy one-liners, but that is not my preferred method of political discourse. The motivation for using the phrase "liberals do X" was, ironically enough, to appeal to the very crowd you accused me of being a member of. Sometimes, one must work from within the system to garner sufficient respect and attention to be able to breed resistance against the status quo.
I take no offense. In fact, I greatly appreciate your comment, o Anonymous Coward, for the content that is so rarely purveyed by Slashdot members. The only flaw is the fact that the subject was not news to me. I had originally prefaced the term "liberal" with a disambiguating comment on the order of "A sizable bloc of partisan progressive voters have, in standard knee-jerk reflex, pounced on these cabinet level resignations as fool-proof evidence of a failed presidency." However, I removed it in an attempt to be less verbose - as well as to appeal to a wider, less politically correct, audience. Although this sentence also stereotypes, I feel that it does so to a lesser extent as it is neither all-encompassing nor targeting a defined subgroup of those who vote Democrat or Green more often than they do Republican or (arguably) Libertarian.
Now, let me say one thing on the topic of avoiding blanket political terms entirely: I cannot fully agree with you. These terms are invented, and often cast off just as quickly, because of their functionality in plebeian conversation. If you were to be stopped on the street randomly, you might be asked your party affiliation or your political leanings. In such circumstances, and I consider Slashdot to be an analogous time-sensitive circumstance, convenience often trumps accuracy. So, instead of saying "I am an ardent supporter of equality in society, including the gender/sex/race/creed blind bestowing of civil liberties upon all of humankind, who also wishes government to make greater monetary and political investments in the normalization of the standards of living in this country, eliminating the disparity between rich and poor, while still maintaining the exquisite freedom and right to individuality granted us by our constitution.", I might simply state "I would consider myself a social liberal. If you need more information, ask me now, otherwise I will tune you out, attending to my doughnut instead."
Now that you're confident that no flame war was incited by your reply, would you mind responding to this post using your Slashdot UID? I'm curious about what else have said or have left to say.
I don't understand your argument at all.
I'm not trying to be glib, but I don't understand:
Maybe I'm dense before coffee? Please help me out.
sigs, as if you care.
There is an interesting correlation between presidents and their respective turnover rates that should also be taken into account.
Could you explain this statement? The only correlation that I see is that recent Presidents have higher number of resignations than those in the past, but that doesn't seem to be your meaning. This change over time probably reflects a changing political culture with the addition of a few cabinet posts as a contributing factor (Eisenhower had 10 Cabinet Secretaries, GWB has 15 in addition to another 6 "cabinet level" positions).
The Bush administration thus far has been notable in it's very low turnover in the Cabinet. In his first term only 2 cabinet positions changed hands, historically quite low. This is probably due to a desire for continuity and a sense of urgency after 9/11. The result is that some cabinet members that would have resigned earlier are taking the changeover as an opportunity to get out.
Another factor in this spate of changes is that W. is impatient to press his political advantage coming out of the election. Unlike most second term presidents who are content to rest on their laurels Bush actually has a farily aggressive policy agenda for his second term and feels the need to hit the ground running. People like Powell that wanted to hang around for a 6 months or more to tie up loose ends are being pushed to get out to clear the decks for their successors. Bush's perception is that he has two years to accomplish anything. After the 2006 midterm elections he will be a true lame duck with no leverage. He wants the team he will be playing with for those two vital years in place immediately... no hanging around unless you intend to stay on through '06. Resign now and do it quickly so approval of the full slate of nominees can be the incoming congresses first order of business.