The folks over at Quasipundit have been discussing, among several other things, the announcement by Jim Gilmore that he is resigning as head of the Republican National Committee. There's been much speculation amongst the punditocracy about whether he was asked to step down by the White House (both he and the White House deny this), as a result of the recent election losses.

My take--Gilmore was a dud. He was singularly unimpressive in the interviews that I saw with him, and didn't even seem able to articulate what the Republicans think they stand for. But I don't think that it's his fault that the elections in NJ and Virginia were lost.

One of the crucial factors that resulted in the losses, particularly in Virginia, was the fact that the President did absolutely no campaigning for either Schundler or Earley. Ironically, while the war has boosted Bush to stratospheric popularity levels, I think that it actually made life much more difficult for Republican candidates this fall--the issues and tone of the campaign were constrained (for Schundler in particular), and the White House was unwilling to enter the fray. Thus, if Gilmore really was canned by the White House for the losses, it would be singularly unfair. I do think that Karl Rove thought that new blood was required in that position, but I'll take the White House at their word, and assume that he jumped, but was not shoved.