I knew that these elections would stir things up, but I didn't quite expect them to be as interesting as they've become. Rumsfeld's resignation was unexpected, though I have to give Bush credit for waiting till after the election to announce the news, it would have been seen as a political move. Now for sure, it could be viewed as, "Well, we did poorly in the election, time to show the world we're moving on too". And it may be, but I don't believe that to be the primary reason - in my honest opinion Bush knew even before the elections took place that Rumsfeld needed to go.
I was unable to vote in this election, I forgot to change my voter registration address in time and also forgot to request an absentee ballot. I take voting very seriously and I feel ashamed for not voting. It is a civic duty and those that do not vote should have little say in the repercussions of the elections (unless of course for no fault of their own). Therefore, I hope I can live up to my own principles and keep my critiques to a minimum. It's a good thing that the people I would have voted for won anyway.
For those that are interested I wanted Martin O'Malley and Ben Cardin to win - they did. Even though I am no longer a resident of Pennsylvania I would have voted for Rendell over Lynn Swan (despite the fact that I am a die-hard Steelers fan); I am ecstatic that Bob Casey defeated Rick Santorum.
Harry has a great post on the elections. I don't like the post title, though I think his commentary is quite good. I am not a fan of one issue politics - the effects of elections are greater than any one single issue, Israel included.
What also disturbs me is Haaretz's Israel Factor page. It's a ranking on which candidates are more pro-Israel than the other. What describes one as better than another, and can you really put that into a point total? Is a candidate that would blindly support Israel under all circumstances really what we want? Sure it might be if you're the guy in charge, but if you don't happen to support Olmert 100% then you shouldn't support blind support.
What we need is responsible support. An American President to tell Olmert when he's not acting appropriately. One with the intelligence to understand that he'd act the same way if he was the Prime Minister of Israel. Also one to know when certain actions are out of line (e.g. Amona) though also to know the balance between friendly advice and over reaching. These are among the reasons why I do not understand why people believe Bush was good for Israel. Good how? No, he was the blind supporter. We do not need that.
Sometimes I wish I could vote Bartlet.