Did Clinton have this much cabinet turnover when he won re-election?

[WI_DEM]

Just curious. It seems that almost every member of Schrubs cabinet or subcabinet is giving their resignation. Is this common? or is this Bush trying to give his administration a "new look." Interestingly one holdover is Norm Mineta, the only democrat in Bush's cabinet as Sec of Transportation. He also served in Clinton's cabinet.

[trotsky]

1. I think Warren Christopher left

and then Madeline Albright took his place. But Christopher was pretty old, so that could be looked at more as a retirement.

I'm not recalling many other departures - others will probably have a better memory than me.

[Dover]

2. Rolling stones gather no litigation

I think the Bushco revolving door is simply tactical...people do their little part and then DEpart. And anyone who even gives a hint of attracting too much attention or animosity is quickly rotated out.
They've done that from the get-go. Their working model is more corporate and doesn't value longevity per se.

[DebinTx]

3. Everyone in Clinton's admin. changed at some point except for Reno

Here's a list.

http://u-s-history.com/pages/h1409.html

[Blue Wally]

5. About right

Most cabinets turn over during an eight year administration. Look at Eisenhower and Reagan.

Hell, Roosevelt kept changing vice-presidents.

[TaleWgnDg]

4. The irony in these "replacements" is that they are more . . .

hard-core rightwing radicals than those that they are replacing . . . Who could (or would) have guessed that there were any more extreme than those who were already in in the Cabinet?! It all points to the arrogant power of this nutcase, George Walker Bush.



.

[PATRICK]

6. There is a second term logic

in that the first termers are worn out or in a groove that won't work for a soon to be lame duck. Nixon voiced this as one of his regrets in keeping on old hands. Possibly he regretted not filling his place with stormtroopers who could fight off Watergate with clean hands.

I suspect the Nixonian logic is operant here considering the sorry Nixonian debutantes who are high up running things. The simple intent also has been in print. Bush wants to run hard and fast with his "mandate" and that requires zealous cronies, not balance or a 'dream team" illusion. Other problem areas he wants emasculated with stooges in place since bad things or nothing will be done(Education, etc.). Bush probably is dismayed that after a tough campaign he must get it mostly done in the coming year.

The Dems should physically wear Bush out by whatever means possible. No more vacations, rests, or reprieves, no honeymoon, no allowances and less compromise than ever. The blowback from having cronies is that there is no alternate voice to mediate or take the fall and fewer people of any real talent or responsibility to do the job at all!

Instead, of course, in line with the dumber journalists also guessing, people tend to look for "sackings" and "trouble" or "scandals" as being behind this refacing of the WH. It was all planned
and part of the next agenda. It looks to be very ugly, but another 911 would help Bush immensely to get away with tremendous horrors.