Posted on 12/03/2004 7:41:09 PM PST by Doctor Raoul
When the eigth member of Bush's cabinet resigned post-election, the mainstream liberal media went into their Friday Follies mode and made it sound like it was another one for the "body count". The mainstream liberal media has become McNamara's Pentagon. Fixated on a body count and doing anything to hype it. With the old dinosaur media wringing their hands over the "turnover" in the Bush cabinet, I went to www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0878421.html and looked up G. W. Bush's cabinet members and then all the cabinets back to Eisenhower. The numbers below are accurate as of today with the eight resignation. For every President, I took the total number of Cabinet Officers, divided by the total number of Cabinet Offices (which increased over the years), and divided that by the number of years that President served. That yields "Yearly Turnover per Position", a fair way of comparing Presidents that served different numbers of years and had different numbers of positions. Here's the results: President Yearly Turnover Bush 33% Since the eight replacememts won't be confirmed until during the fifth year of Bush's Presidency, I divided by five. If you insist on using four years, don't count those eight as "turnover", they haven't been confirmed yet. Only Clinton, Reagan and Eisenhower, all two full term Presidents, had less "turnover". Bush is still lower than the "One Term" presidents and if the new guys stay any length of time, his percentage turnover gets even lower. Bottom line is this, on a scale of one to ten, Bush ranks fourth, better than six of the last ten Presidents. And that folks is why ABC's Terry Moran is Terry Moron.
Clinton 26%
G. H. W. Bush 38%
Reagan 32%
Carter 40%
Ford 64%
Nixon 52%
Johnson 36%
Kennedy 65%
Eisenhower 26%
Good job. I'm going to bookmark this one.
And the Liberal/Democrat/Communist's will keep on trying while the rest of America see's their game and laughs. HAHA
Thanks. I think as they stay, Bush's numbers will go down below Bubba's. What that frost the boot licking liberal media "reporters"...
Curious as to who's "formula" you are questioning?
I have not seen any of those alphabet channels in years. I never see it, so I can't get upset.
Works for me!
The MSM also fails, intentionally, to mention their efforts to demonize any person who served under Bush. No matter how successful, no matter what the conditions, the MSM was always there, attack mode and firing blindly. Hits were irrelevant, the number of shots was what was important.
Hey, Cabinet Officers for conservative presidents have to leave mega-monied jobs to serve, take massive amounts of heat from Rats and the MSM, and give up everything to serve an HONEST President.
...Just the opposite when serving a piece of trash president and happily scooping up illegal monies in back door deals. It sure beats a lowly professor's job!
Check that page at infoplease.com and you can get the names. At the bottom of that page, you can "go back" to the last President, and there, "go back" even further.
You'd have to be familar with who's who and why.
My main point in this was to show that the turnover in the administration is not excessive like the LIBERAL media is trying to paint it.
The GAO has a report out on this too, I assume. lol ;-)
Like Rush says, "Liberals want credit for their intentions, not results."
My oldest son had no idea who Dan Rather or CBS News was when rathergate broke. but he can have an informed conversation about current events. Amazing isn't it?
When you get down to it, GAO's job is to ask questions, not provide answers. She's a big wheel there now.
I once got to see a GAO type where the roles were reversed. They had to answer the questions about how GAO didn't understand the business of what GAO had be tasked to examine and had drawn a number of really bad conclusions.
It wasn't pretty, but she was a good sport about it.
Unfortunately, the 911 Commission is a lot like the GAO. A little better staffed, but still, they blow in, blow up and then blow out. And who's left still having to do the job?
That's why folks like you and others here are here, I reckun. ;-) Thanks!
Can there be any doubt that the girly men of the Old Media are apoplectic that Rummy is going to hang around?
Panties in a knot time for those wannabe relevent anchor farm boys.
Why is turnover considered bad? It can be good or bad,depending on the case. If it results in a more competent person filling the cabinet post, it is probably good (unless it reflects poor decision making in previously choosing the person being replaced. Lack of turnover can certainly be bad if it is caused by the President not having the courage to fire a poor cabinet member.
I'm curious why you would include presidents other than those elected to two terms. There are only 5 of those from the list: Ike, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and now, Bush. All the others replaced sitting cabinet members from a previous administration not their own. The issue is one of cabinet members from a first term not returning for a second. Bush looks about average by your numbers from that more realistic assessment.
JFK never finished his first term. LBJ only stood for election once. Even though Ford served as president, he lost to Carter as the "incumbent" having never assumed the office through election. Carter lost a reelection bid as did GHWB.
Speaking of Bubba, how many SecStates had he churned through by end of his first term? Three?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.