I was thinking that if Bush wanted to be a uniter, not a divider, and wanted to change the situation in Iraq, he could fire Rumsfeld and hire a Democrat in his place. Highly unlikely, I know. But if you have any hope, here’s where I demolish that hope.

Scenario: Rumsfeld, suddenly, retires due to “health reasons.” In a surprise move to establish unity, Bush names a high-profile Democrat to the post of Secretary of Defense. The American public sees a little progress in Iraq. New Secretary of Defense gets the credit, not Bush, or Republican Party by extension. Secretary of Defense becomes next president.

Scenario Two: Rumsfeld, suddenly, retires due to “health reasons.” In a surprise move to establish unity, Bush names a high-profile Democrat to the post of Secretary of Defense. The situation in Iraq worsens. The political career of the Secretary of Defense is over.

Bush can’t replace Rumsfeld with a Democrat since if it helps the situation in Iraq, he’s helping Democrats win the presidency and look real good on security. Even if he tried, a Democrat probably wouldn’t want the job since they mostly see Iraq as a quagmire and impossible to improve. Ideology aside, it is very difficult to turn the situation in Iraq around, and if you don’t, your political career is over.

Why it might be good for the nation and the war on terror for Bush to replace Rumsfeld… I’ll leave you to figure that out. But you might as well not try since it’s never going to happen.

I know it’s an odd argument to make. Who’s out there saying Bush should replace Rumsfeld with a Democrat? Well, for one, I’m just wondering aloud that it might be cool if it happened. Secondly, I think I saw on Sullivan something about him thinking that Lieberman was pushing himself for Secretary of Defense?

Also, what if Bush replaced Rumsfeld with anyone? I think even a lot of Republicans want to distance themselves from Bush when it comes to the War in Iraq. Seriously, who the hell in Washington would want Rumsfeld’s job?