Joshua Spivak: Why Bush didn't fire Rumsfeld earlier

If there has been one consistent hallmark in George W. Bush's political career, it is his need to avoid the missteps of his father. From consciously mollifying his conservative base with a concentration on tax cuts and social policy to ousting Saddam Hussein, Bush has focused on not repeating the political errors of Bush the Elder.

Though many will interpret his latest action, firing Donald Rumsfeld ˜ his most controversial Cabinet member ˜ as finally adopting his father's philosophy, they would be mistaken. The timing of his firing of Rumsfeld is perfectly consistent with his drive to avoid the"sins of his father."

The way he dealt with Rumsfeld is exactly the opposite of the first Bush's behavior, which should be a warning to anyone expecting Bush to behave more like his father for the remainder of the second term. The big issue in the 2006 election campaign was the war in Iraq, with widespread voter criticism of Bush's insistence on"staying the course." The lightning rod for attacks was Bush's staunch backing of the much-criticized Rumsfeld.

Bush had already weathered one storm with Rumsfeld, holding off on removing him after the Abu Ghraib scandals put an early tarnish on his 2004 re-election campaign. For 2006, Bush apparently decided to stick with Rumsfeld through another election fight.

The problem Bush faced ˜ how to deal with an unpopular Cabinet member ˜ paralleled the one faced by George H.W. Bush in his 1992 re-election bid. The first Bush was fighting a different battle, one against the recession gripping the country. This downturn was causing his poll numbers to plummet from the record highs of the first Iraq war.

On the campaign trail in the waning days of the 1992 election, in an attempt to prove that he had seen the light of economic enlightenment, George H.W. Bush announced that if he were re-elected to a second term, he would remove Secretary of the Treasury Nick Brady and Budget Director Dick Darman.

Brady and Darman were blamed for Bush's retreat on his famous"no new taxes" pledge. Bush hoped these sacrificial lambs would be blamed by swing voters for the downturn. In addition, the elder Bush hoped to shore up his conservative base, as the economic policy of Brady and Darman was seen by the Republican right as a heretical violation of Ronald Reagan's supply-side philosophy.

This desperate gambit failed, as voters decided that the fault lay not with the employees, but with the boss.

Faced with a similar problem, the second Bush took a completely opposite tack. Rather than make a politically palatable concession by removing Rumsfeld, Bush publicly confirmed his support for the embattled secretary of defense. This might not have been the cause of the Republican electoral catastrophe, but it certainly showed voters that Bush and the Republican Party were not planning on changing their Iraq strategy.

From later accounts, George W. Bush blamed Brady and Darman for his father's failure. However, Bush the Second must have taken notice of the voters' underwhelming reaction to his father's electoral strategy of firing a subordinate, one that had failed a number of other presidents in the past....