Comments (123)

Jim wrote on June 11, 2007 6:32 PM:

Who voted "present"? that seems an extra-special act of cowardice.

Roberta wrote on June 11, 2007 6:42 PM:

I seem to remember more than seven Republicans speaking out against AGAG re. his behavior and competence. General cowardice reigns.

And Lieberman? He is beneath my contempt.

security code: debt. I hope the payment will be very high for the cowardly Repubs, with the kind of interest charged to the rest of us.

jman_nyc wrote on June 11, 2007 6:43 PM:

That makes a total of 92 votes, where are the other 8 cowards?

KCinDC wrote on June 11, 2007 6:45 PM:

Did any Democrats vote no, or were several absent?

gorillagogo wrote on June 11, 2007 6:47 PM:

That makes a total of 92 votes, where are the other 8 cowards?

good question. i didn't even check the total when i first read the post.

Mop1 wrote on June 11, 2007 6:47 PM:

"That makes a total of 92 votes, where are the other 8 cowards?"

On the campaign trail 500 days before an election.

Mop1 wrote on June 11, 2007 6:47 PM:

"That makes a total of 92 votes, where are the other 8 cowards?"

On the campaign trail, 500 days before an election.

david in norcal wrote on June 11, 2007 6:48 PM:

Lieberman is not a Democrat.

--not that anyone is saying that he is.

Woodhall Hollow wrote on June 11, 2007 6:49 PM:

8 cowards include Obama.

Did Clinton vote?

And FUCK Joe Lieberman. (just had to get that off my chest.)

chuck wrote on June 11, 2007 6:49 PM:

Well, the R's have one vacancy with the death of Craig Thomas, the D's have Tim Johnson out ill, and did anybody expect McCain to come in and actually vote?

Jim wrote on June 11, 2007 6:53 PM:

Will you guys post a link to the roll call when available?

Thanks

Michael Stevens wrote on June 11, 2007 6:53 PM:

There are 49 Democrats in the Senate, with two independents who Caucus with the Dems. Johnson is on medical leave and Leiberman voted against.

That leaves 46 Dem' votes for cloture, 1 ind
vote for cloture, plus 7 repub' votes for cloture.

So one Democrat either didn't show or voted against.

Mary in Spokane wrote on June 11, 2007 6:53 PM:

Who do I despise more, Gonzales or Lieberman? Got to give Lieberman the nod.

Michael Stevens wrote on June 11, 2007 6:54 PM:

There are 49 Democrats in the Senate, with two independents who Caucus with the Dems. Johnson is on medical leave and Leiberman voted against.

That leaves 46 Dem' votes for cloture, 1 ind
vote for cloture, plus 7 repub' votes for cloture.

So one Democrat either didn't show or voted against.

Eric wrote on June 11, 2007 6:56 PM:

bush/gonzo say EXACT same thing about how they are spending their day while senate votes (from msnbc article): "I am not focusing on what the Senate is doing," Gonzales said at a nuclear terrorism conference in Miami. "I am going to be focusing on what the American people expect of the attorney general of the United States and this great Department of Justice."

eripsa wrote on June 11, 2007 6:58 PM:

Voting record here: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00207

jman_nyc wrote on June 11, 2007 7:02 PM:

These senators did not vote. Voters in these states need to starting making calls. What the fuck - Biden! Dodd!?!?!? OBAMA?!?!?! :

Biden (D-DE)
Brownback (R-KS)
Coburn (R-OK)
Dodd (D-CT)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)

bo wrote on June 11, 2007 7:02 PM:

Present - 1
Stevens (R-AK)

Not Voting - 7
Biden (D-DE)
Brownback (R-KS)
Coburn (R-OK)
Dodd (D-CT)
Johnson (D-SD)
McCain (R-AZ)

bo wrote on June 11, 2007 7:03 PM:

Present - 1
Stevens (R-AK)

Not Voting - 7
Biden (D-DE)
Brownback (R-KS)
Coburn (R-OK)
Dodd (D-CT)
Johnson (D-SD)
McCain (R-AZ)

Joe Buck wrote on June 11, 2007 7:04 PM:

The security code is, appropriately, "narrow".

Biden, Obama and Dodd missed the vote.

So did Brownback, Coburn, and McCain.

And Johnson is out sick. Had the healthy six shown up, it would have been 56-41 (presuming that the five presidential candidates and the other loon would have voted along party lines).

I was wondering about the math, but Wyoming has an empty seat because of Craig Thomas's death.

cmg wrote on June 11, 2007 7:05 PM:

Coburn AND McCain have both called for AGAG's resignation. Where were those guys?

KCinDC wrote on June 11, 2007 7:06 PM:

Michael, it was 45 Dems + 1 Ind (Sanders) + & Reps for cloture = 53. Voting no were 37 Reps + 1 Ind (Lieberman). Ted Stevens was the coward who voted present. Those not voting were 4 Dems and 3 Reps, including 4 presidential candidates (Biden, Dodd, McCain, Obama) and Johnson, who's still out because of illness. Clinton did vote.

Poolio wrote on June 11, 2007 7:07 PM:

Stevens voted "present"

roll call

mark wrote on June 11, 2007 7:09 PM:

What are people waiting for?!?!?!?

IMPEACH THE BASTARD!!!!

Woodhall Hollow wrote on June 11, 2007 7:09 PM:

Code word is story.

And the story is Joe Lieberman, who works for Netanyahu (and the US neo-cons) and not the people of CT, and the other CT Senator who did not have the cajones to show up and vote.

Nikole wrote on June 11, 2007 7:09 PM:

Headline is misleading IMO which is not normal for tpm. Should read Republicans fillibuster the no-confidence bill. The vote of no confidence didn't fail, it hasn't even been voted upon yet...

Poolio wrote on June 11, 2007 7:10 PM:

oops... the link got stripped.

here's the roll call:

http://tinyurl.com/2hcosv

Tom wrote on June 11, 2007 7:11 PM:

Looks like the Presidential Race cost us Biden, Dodd and Obama. Hillary will kill them politically for missing this vote.

GOP Presidential chicken hawks include McCain and Brownback.

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Biden (D-DE), Not Voting**
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting**
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Not Voting**
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Not Voting **
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting (Health)
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Martinez (R-FL), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting **
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Not Voting **
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Present
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Nay
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

chuck wrote on June 11, 2007 7:11 PM:

My math says this wouldn't have passed if those absent voted along party lines. They needed six more Aye votes and no additional No votes to make this pass.

cevrero wrote on June 11, 2007 7:15 PM:

Is anyone going to ask Al Gore if he had any regrets picking Lieberman as a running mate back in 2000? Lieberman doesn't come close to having Independant cred,...c'mon this guy can't bend down to tie his shoes without Bush shizzle of over his face. This guy is a purebred Neo-con, bushie loyal pupeteered pro-war goon. Everytime I hear him speak, he's got this nasal snob sound that just oozes with pure utter non-sense that runs out of his mouth. When he said, the people voted for War in Nov 06, was the last straw for me. I used to like Connecticut, too. Someone please kick him in the nutsack, cuz nothing else will work.

Jim wrote on June 11, 2007 7:16 PM:

I'm surprised at Dodd missing this one. Especially for what is, to be charitable, a longshot candidacy.

phil james wrote on June 11, 2007 7:20 PM:

Just a short note to Democrat and Independent voters of Connecticut who voted to put neocon Joe back in the Senate. Here's hoping that, when your sorry butts are told to leave your voting place in 2008 because you are not properly registered(for whatever reason Karl Rove engineers with your US Attorney) you reflect long and hard on that 2006 vote.

Woodhall Hollow wrote on June 11, 2007 7:20 PM:

If some of those absent (Obama? Dodd? McCain? etc) had had the cajones to make some political hay out of this vote, it would've easily passed.

Sorta like Hillary voting for the War Resolution without even reading the NIE. She didn't want to set a precedent. Which would undermine the unilateral authority that she would like to have, would she to become President.

That is, those who want power, worship power. And that includes Brownback, Dodd, Obama, and McCain.

Jim wrote on June 11, 2007 7:22 PM:

**Is anyone going to ask Al Gore if he had any regrets picking Lieberman as a running mate back in 2000?**

I think his silence in the CT Senate primary last year spoke volumes (as opposed to certain other individuals who live in Chappaqua, NY). I wish he had gone whole hog and endorsed Lamont like he did Howard Dean (another rather telling moment wrt Lieberman, don't you think?), but considering the people who did go and shill for the lunatic (Barbara Boxer, fercrissake?!?!?!?), what Gore didn't do was pretty bold, by their rules.

The Oracle wrote on June 11, 2007 7:24 PM:

Is anyone going to ask the Democrats when the party is going to acquire a brain. Brilliant move. Schedule a resolution. Don't count the votes. Let it go down on party lines. Blah blah blah.

Brilliant. Schedule it weeks away from Comey (or anything for that matter) so it seems like old news to the MSM. No pressure. No nothing. Caging? Pfshaw. Who cares about caging.

Ralph was right. There is very little difference between the parties: Republicans are slightly more self-centered, arrogant and evil. But, and I am sorry to say it, but the Democratic party collectively is just too stupid to lead.

Mark Richards wrote on June 11, 2007 7:25 PM:

If the congress can't even issue a simple resolution (in the face of undeniably illegal conduct and obstruction of justice) - an act that amounts to a warning instead of a speeding ticket - I would say that the message is clear: we are indeed screwed.

Stormwatcher wrote on June 11, 2007 7:26 PM:

A lot of brownie points were earned by Clinton imho. If nothing else, she did vote. Biden, Dodd, and Obama loose.

Stormwatcher wrote on June 11, 2007 7:27 PM:

A lot of brownie points were earned by Clinton imho. If nothing else, she did vote. Biden, Dodd, and Obama loose.

KCinDC wrote on June 11, 2007 7:27 PM:

Woodhall Hollow, what on earth makes you think that if McCain had spoken out on this he would have been on our side? I knew this was lost this afternoon when I heard Specter spouting his handy list of excuses for his Republican colleagues to use for voting no.

The Republicans continue, incomprehensibly, to lash themselves firmly to George Bush. How much closer to the election does it have to get before they get a little scared of doing that?

foggylady wrote on June 11, 2007 7:35 PM:

Votes by yeah/nay,,,,,,,,,
Grouped By Vote Position

Not Voting - 7
Biden (D-DE)
Brownback (R-KS)
Coburn (R-OK)
Dodd (D-CT)
Johnson (D-SD)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)

YEAs ---53
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
**********************************************
NAYs ---38
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Present - 1
Stevens (R-AK)

Woodhall Hollow wrote on June 11, 2007 7:37 PM:

KCinDC

You are right. I would not expect McCain to be out "our side." But I would expect him to be a slightly smarter pol. That is. Having the courage (he is, after all, supposedly a war hero, but one could theoretically make the argument that his spirit was broken in Hanoi) to DO the RIGHT thing. As a true maverick might.

So in answer to your question, no, a vote in favor of the resolution would not grant him status on "our side" -- rather that fact that he didn't, shows his cowardice and hypocrisy. And stupidity.

KCinDC wrote on June 11, 2007 7:37 PM:

Sure, Oracle, no difference at all. The Democrats voted 45-0 in favor, the Republicans voted 37-7 against (with 1 cowardly "present"). Virtually identical.

A 51-seat majority is barely functional, and when 1 of those seats is Lieberman it's not really a majority at all. Give us 60 Democratic seats and see how things change. Hell, give us 55 and at least get a little room to maneuver.

Stop living in the fantasy world in which everything was going to change instantly just because we barely retook Congress. Republicans still exist and can have an effect. Let's hope we have fewer after 2008.

Theo wrote on June 11, 2007 7:38 PM:

Quite honestly, a vote of no-confidence really doesn't accomplish anything, so I don't think missing the vote is much of a big deal. Of course, I can't see a reason what's wrong with voting "Yea" if they _were_ present.

What I'm waiting for is a motion for impeachment. At best, we have an incompetent AG who has ignored his duties and unintentionally presided over a politicization of the DoJ (and that's only if you believe everything he said). At worst, we have an AG that's guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice, probably a bunch of other stuff, and has presided over a _deliberate_ politicization of the DoJ. Considering all the prevalence convenient "I cannot recall"s and contradictions in all the testimonies, I'd say it's far closer to the latter.

mark ettinger wrote on June 11, 2007 7:41 PM:

Can someone enlighten me as to why the D's couldn't try bringing the vote to the floor, where 51 votes are required. The R's would have to keep the debate going until they could get a cloture vote. If the country watched the R's enomiums for Gonzales for a while, it would make for good election sound bytes.

Tom Simon wrote on June 11, 2007 7:46 PM:

It was a meaningless, toothless censure. Either he broke the law, lied or is simply incompentent. Incompetence is relative. He certainly got away with a nose thumbing of the constitution.

As GW said, "he is part of my government" - the only votes that count are during elections...

KCinDC wrote on June 11, 2007 7:46 PM:

Sure, Woodhall Hollow, if McCain had principles and integrity, he would have spoken out in favor of the resolution and voted yes. If Specter had a spine, he wouldn't have given a speech urging his colleagues to oppose the bill while he voted for it. If Gonzales had a modicum of competence, we wouldn't be in this place to begin with. If Bush were a better singer, he'd be an opera star now.

Janie wrote on June 11, 2007 7:51 PM:

A bit of speculation. Assuming, just for a laugh, that Obama, Biden, Dodd (but not Johnson who has a legitimate excuse) managed to get their sorry butts to work and voted, only 3 more votes would have been needed.

Could 3 arms have been twisted? I would think so.

O, B, and D have some explaining to do, imho.

Henry wrote on June 11, 2007 7:53 PM:

People switch parties on occasion, but how can Lieberman choose to become a Republican just when the Republican Party comes to stand for torture and corruption? Does he believe in torture and corruption? Or is this a career move? I don't get it.

KCinDC wrote on June 11, 2007 8:03 PM:

Janie, it's more likely the other way around. If 3 more arms could have been twisted, then Biden, Dodd, and Obama would have managed to make it, but since they couldn't be, there wasn't much point. Do you have evidence that Reid failed to do some specific bit of arm twisting, or are you just assuming 3 Republicans would somehow have changed their minds?

For whatever reason, prying these Republicans away from Bush is a lot harder than we were hoping.

mbraymen wrote on June 11, 2007 8:05 PM:

Just reflecting that of the 21 Republican Senate seats up for election in 2008 (not counting Thomas-WY), five voted for cloture:

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
Sen. John Sununu (R-NH)
Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN)

of 27 not up for election two voted for cloture:

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA)

spiny wrote on June 11, 2007 8:05 PM:

I bet that now were are going to here that impeachment of Gonzales is "off the table" because "we don't have the votes" and it will be business as usual for the remainder of the year, with no accountability moments for the loyal Bushies. It is just going to embolden the criminal elements of the Republican party. Sad.

starwheel wrote on June 11, 2007 8:10 PM:

Hell. I'm going to change my party affiliation to Republican and I'm gonna do some heavy duty lawbreaking!!!

The Republicans have turned the Justice Department into a sick pathetic joke.

Nevermind the Democrats who weren't present to vote. The fact that most of the Republicans put their party over the country's best interests should be blatantly obvious to everyone by now.

Regardless of whether anyony thinks Gonzales did anything improper, untoward, or illegal, his sheer incompetence should have been reason enough for the no confidence vote.

Thus, the Republicans are the party of incompetence.

SC: face

JustAmazed wrote on June 11, 2007 8:11 PM:

There is plenty of evidence now that Lieberman is a neocon fellow traveler and the Likud representative in the Senate. But, this is the same Joe Lieberman who was selected by Al Gore for his VP in 2000. Doesn't this raise serious questions about Gore's judgment? Without Lieberman, he probably have won (in my opinion). And, my own California Senator Boxer stumped for Lieberman!! I'm hoping for a serious alternative to Boxer in the Democratic Primary next year.

Orwell's Intuition wrote on June 11, 2007 8:12 PM:

Liberman. That F'ing useless albatross.

Nancy Davies wrote on June 11, 2007 8:13 PM:

If the 3 Dems (Obama, Dodd and Biden) and 4 Republicans (Graham, Shelby, McCain and Sessions) had showed up to vote to walk their talk it would have made the tally a virtual draw or veto-proof vote:

Either 59-38

OR

60-38

Barbara wrote on June 11, 2007 8:17 PM:

Was this a test to see if they could get the votes for impeachment? Does this mean that impeachment would not succeed?

I've mainly stopped putting in the security codes even though it is often tempting, but this one is too much: poison. No comment needed.

ohiomeister wrote on June 11, 2007 8:20 PM:

Nancy, you are dreaming, there is no way those Republicans were going to show up and vote against Gonzales. The GOP is still afraid of Bush, even as he drags their party further into the mud.

The whole show is getting 60. The Dem leadership knew they weren't going to get 60 votes or else they definitely would have had all of the Dem presidential candidates come in for the vote. You can be 100% sure of that.

The Oracle wrote on June 11, 2007 8:25 PM:

I could list the similarities but would run out of space. I'm sure you trust that I could. Voting along party lines, for example, is something that afflicts both.

Scheduling the resolution without counting the votes was moronically stupid. Scheduling a meaningless, unnecessary vote like this was brilliant if the goal was to give the appearance the scandal is over. Why not parade around the floor wearing a billboard proclaiming "its over." It was so dumb it was not even stupid.

Tell me ... what was accomplished today?

Jeffrey S wrote on June 11, 2007 8:26 PM:

I see my republican Senator Norm Coleman voted "no confidence" but you can bet it wasn't out of courage. The only position Norm holds is what will get him elected and he's running scared.

DIB wrote on June 11, 2007 8:30 PM:

I

Tom wrote on June 11, 2007 8:32 PM:

Senate Republicans have expressed a lack of confidence in the Attorney General. Will they back up their statements with a vote today?

* Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS): “When you have to spend more time up here on Capitol Hill instead of running the Justice Department, maybe you ought to think about [stepping down]” (AP, 5/16/07) lied and Voting No

* Senator John McCain (R-AZ): “I am very disappointed in [Alberto Gonzales’] performance . . . I think loyalty to the president should enter into his calculations. . . . I think that out of loyalty to the president that [resigning] would probably be the best thing that he could do.” (Washington Post, 4/25/07) Did NOT Vote

* Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK): “But to me, there has to be consequences to accepting responsibility. And I would just say, Mr. Attorney General, it's my considered opinion that the exact same standards should be applied to you in how this was handled. And it was handled incompetently. The communication was atrocious. It was inconsistent. It's generous to say that there were misstatements. That's a generous statement. And I believe you ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered. And I believe that the best way to put this behind us is your resignation.” (Judiciary Committee Hearing¸ 4/19/07) Did Not Vote

* Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL): “There are some problems that he just hasn't handled well, and it might just be best if he came to a conclusion that the department is better served if he's not there.” (AP, 4/20/07) Lied and Voted NO

* Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC): But at the end of the day, you said something that struck me, ‘That sometimes it just came down to these were not the right people at the right time.’ If I applied that standard to you, what would you say? (Judiciary Committee Hearing¸ 4/19/07) Lied and Voted No

If these 3 said yes as they originally committed to and the other two voted as they believed, the vote becomes 58-35, then the 3 Democrats running for President showing up makes it 61 votes.

John wrote on June 11, 2007 8:32 PM:

Lieberman appears to have a terminal case of Zell Miller disease.

Anonymous wrote on June 11, 2007 8:33 PM:

Izzit possible that folx here don't realize that us Demoncrats do not have a majority in the Senate? Huh?

Wisechick wrote on June 11, 2007 8:38 PM:

Why even bring this up if you don't have the votes? I just don't get it! I asssumed the Dems knew they had the votes for this when they brought it up. (I know, stupid me for making that ASSumption.)

cjop wrote on June 11, 2007 8:39 PM:

Difference between the parties? Here's what I told our lone Congresswomen when she voted for the credit industry license to steal and Cheney's torture bill. At least if I vote republican I expect to get the shaft 9 times out of 10. If I vote for a democrat I only think I won't get the shaft. Security code is "loss" as in "The democrats have lost my vote."

tas wrote on June 11, 2007 8:42 PM:

Time to e-mail or call Harry Reid and tell him to get rid of Joe. Let him know that most Dems are sick and tired of unHoly Joe running his mouth and opposing everrything the Dems are trying to do. Tell him to strip Joe of his Chairmanship and let Joe become what he always was, a neocon Republican.

moondancer wrote on June 11, 2007 8:43 PM:

Does anyone know if Conn. has recall in their laws? I think that nitwit could be on umemployment pretty quickly if they do.. code word: bent (as in get)

DIB wrote on June 11, 2007 8:46 PM:

I hope I'm not shocking any readers when I point out that a lot that would otherwise not make sense in American politics (especially regarding foreign policy) is understandable when one looks at religion.

Does Lie-berman believe in torture? Why did California liberal Barbara Boxer support neo-con "Independent" Lie-berman (against Lamont)? Why (in part) did the US invade Iraq? Obviously there's no single, sufficient, complete answer. But partial answers across a range of different cases also yields valid conclusions.

Let's be clear: most American Jews are liberal, Democrats, and non-political. More Jews than gentiles in the US opposed the invasion of Iraq (by 10%, in late 2002). Equally clear, most Arab states have never owned up to their role in allying with Germany during the Shoah (Holocaust) genocide that killed 6 million Jews. And still equally clear: many fundamentalist Christians (including James Woolsey and John Bolton) are more rabidly, blindly, militantly pro-Zionist as the most hawkish Likud member.

That said, the most powerfully-organized Jewish voices in the US (AIPAC, CPMAJO, JINSA, MEMRI, and ilk) are militant Zionist hawks who put Israel first, above American interests. Until mainstream American political discourse openly addresses this, without facing shameless charges of "anti-Semitism," our political problems will only get worse.

Does Lie-berman believe in torture? Yes, if he thinks it helps preserve Israel.

Why did California liberal Barbara Boxer support neo-con "Independent" Lie-berman (against Lamont)? In part because they are both Jewish, travel in the same circles, and both are hawkish about Israel.

Which American President appointed more Jews to top positions than all others combined? Bill Clinton. (Where is Hillary getting a lot of her support from now? Did many of these supporters -- including some bloggers we know -- initially support Lie-berman?)

Where did Dennis Ross work before he became US "negotiator" in the Middle East? AIPAC.

Were Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Elliot Abrams, Robert Zoellick (yes, he signed the PNAC letter), David Wurmser, and their intellectual supporters (like Bill Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Robert Lieberman) instrumental in leading the US into invading Iraq? Unequivocably, yes.

Did things have to be this way? NO! There once were meaningful, open debates within the Jewish community on these issues -- even on the foolishness of carving out a Jewish state in the middle of hostile neighbors. And within Israel today there are still open debates. But not inside mainstream US political circles.

That's a shame.

tas wrote on June 11, 2007 8:50 PM:

By the way, this now allows all those Dem challengers to run those ads about how the incumbent Republican voted to keep Gonzo in office. Cloture is to shut off debate and bring the measure to a final vote where only 51 votes are needed to pass. Reid forced those scumbags to defend Gonzo and his awful record. Its not over 'cause he can still be charged with perjury and that statute of limitations goes way beyond '08. But it is time for Reid to deal with Lying Joe.

tas wrote on June 11, 2007 8:50 PM:

By the way, this now allows all those Dem challengers to run those ads about how the incumbent Republican voted to keep Gonzo in office. Cloture is to shut off debate and bring the measure to a final vote where only 51 votes are needed to pass. Reid forced those scumbags to defend Gonzo and his awful record. Its not over 'cause he can still be charged with perjury and that statute of limitations goes way beyond '08. But it is time for Reid to deal with Lying Joe.

Anonymous wrote on June 11, 2007 8:50 PM:

My fingers are walking to candidates web pages....

esp. Biden and Obama..

if we have 2 friends who have 2 friends etc. sending e-mail to dose guys....

Tom L wrote on June 11, 2007 8:55 PM:

Can we have a no-confidence vote on Lieberman?

Tom

JNagarya wrote on June 11, 2007 8:59 PM:

Update: A statement out from the Justice Department:

“The Attorney General remains focused on the important issues that the American people expect him to address: securing our country from terrorism,""

Suppressing the votes of non-white (males).

". . . protecting our neighborhoods from gangs and drugs, . . . ."

Suppressing the poor even with force where perceived necessary. Continuation of suppressing their votes.

". . . shielding our children from predators and pedophiles, . . . ."

Pandering to women with the politics not merely of fear but actually of terrorism.

". . . and protecting the public trust by prosecuting public corruption.""

Abuse of procewss in the form of fraudulent vote fraud charges against Democratic candidates during and before elections.

"With so many pressing issues facing our country such as the threat of terrorism and the danger posed by gangs and violent criminals, . . . ."

Politics of fear, the issue exaggerated, invented as a way to garner public attention, continued during Republican dominance in gov't, but not resolved, then used as election platform -- that Republicans will eventually get around to actually resolving their deliberate act of terrorism.

". . . to continuing to work with Congress to identify appropriate solutions to address these issues.”

-- Until which avodiance is overcome by Congress, doing as one pleases because Congress has not "weighed in" because the Executive has deliberately excluded Congress.

Terp wrote on June 11, 2007 9:01 PM:

Given that Stevens is under investigation by the Justice Department, it was probably the ethical thing to do to vote "present." In fact, all of the Republicans should have voted that way.

KCinDC wrote on June 11, 2007 9:02 PM:

Those of you complaining about how stupid it was to hold this vote, could you explain the significant difference between today's vote and the vote we would have had in some alternativev universe in which the actual bill could have been voted on? Do you think that if the bill had passed, that Gonzales would have been shamed into resigning? Do you think that Bush would have cared?

Yes, it would have been nice to pass the resolution, but really all it would have been was a symbolic vote allowing a majority of the Senate to state their opposition to Gonzales. Well, we got that today anyway, except that more Republicans decided to tie themselves and their party still tighter to this incompetent and criminal adminstration.

The Oracle wrote on June 11, 2007 9:03 PM:

Let me get this straight: you think it is a GOOD campaign strategy to run ads targeting Republican opponents for supporting Gonzo in a cloture vote?!

Um, yeah. I can see the ad now. Dems will probably take every state house in the country if they run this one.

Might be a doubled edged sword though. Y'know, the Dems are sure to be blamed for the inevitable riots in the streets.

You shoulda gone into advertising.

And will folks stop with the non-sequiter we only have 51 votes so we have utterly no choice but to be mindlessly stupid....

Even if the Dems had a smoking gun and are just lying in wait, today was moronic. Ya really think LBJ woulda let today happen? Stop apologizing for these morons. The Democratic leadership is a bloody embarassment.

The Oracle wrote on June 11, 2007 9:03 PM:

Let me get this straight: you think it is a GOOD campaign strategy to run ads targeting Republican opponents for supporting Gonzo in a cloture vote?!

Um, yeah. I can see the ad now. Dems will probably take every state house in the country if they run this one.

Might be a doubled edged sword though. Y'know, the Dems are sure to be blamed for the inevitable riots in the streets.

You shoulda gone into advertising.

And will folks stop with the non-sequiter we only have 51 votes so we have utterly no choice but to be mindlessly stupid....

Even if the Dems had a smoking gun and are just lying in wait, today was moronic. Ya really think LBJ woulda let today happen? Stop apologizing for these morons. The Democratic leadership is a bloody embarrassment.

LakersFan wrote on June 11, 2007 9:05 PM:

5 of the 8 cowards who didn't vote are also running for President.

Not voting:
Biden (D-DE)
Brownback (R-KS)
Coburn (R-OK)
Dodd (D-CT)
Johnson (D-SD)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)

Voted present:
Stevens (R-AK)

I'm especialy bothered that Biden, Obama and Dodd didn't bother to vote. Regardless of whether their votes would have made the difference in cloture, if they want to lead our country, they need to make their voices heard. Are they telling us that they don't think this is an important issue?

JNagarya wrote on June 11, 2007 9:08 PM:

Well, the R's have one vacancy with the death of Craig Thomas, the D's have Tim Johnson out ill, and did anybody expect McCain to come in and actually vote?

Posted by: chuck
Date: June 11, 2007 06:49 PM

Yes: this is actually about the Republicans.

I see so much twit-less bashings of the Democrats because they don't yet have sufficient votes to do as is demanded of them because of REPUBLICAN foot-draggers.

Stop the stupid bashings of the Democrats -- who don't yet have sufficent votes to do as you demand, and _now is the time to go after the FOOT-DRAGGING REPUBLICANS.

Those who bash Democrats at this point are pro-Bushit trolls.

SC = golve. As in, Republicans wear gloves. Democrats have honest ungloved hand.

Anonymous wrote on June 11, 2007 9:15 PM:

Um, thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood. Where I come from you don't schedule a meaningless censure resolution if you don't have the votes.

Exactly what did the Dems accomplish today?

Sincerely,
Bushite Troll (...who believe the administration should be tried for war crimes)

Nancy Davies wrote on June 11, 2007 9:19 PM:

You're absolutely right, OHIOMEISTER. I knew from the get-go the Dems and Repugs wouldn't pull together for the necessary 60 votes.

But that didn't prevent me from writing my senator (Obama) to chastize him for not being present for this vote.

But at least the Senate followed through with a "no confidence" vote. If I were Alberto Gonzalez and Bush, I'd still be running scared.

We're watching these criminals...

JNagarya wrote on June 11, 2007 9:21 PM:

"bush/gonzo say EXACT same thing about how they are spending their day while senate votes (from msnbc article): "I am not focusing on what the Senate is doing," Gonzales said at a nuclear terrorism conference in Miami. "I am going to be focusing on what the American people expect of the attorney general of the United States and this great Department of Justice.""

"Let's pretend it means nothing in hopes it goes away.

Posted by: Eric
Date: June 11, 2007 06:56 PM

Joe wrote on June 11, 2007 9:22 PM:

Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Corruption, is the one who voted present. He's so confused by his impending indictment and those damn tubes that he didn't know how to vote.

The Oracle wrote on June 11, 2007 9:22 PM:

I'm certain that the next Attorney General can do just as "fine" a job as Alberto Gonzales has supposedly been doing, including "protecting the public trust by prosecuting public corruption."

In fact, whoever succeeds Gonzales as Attorney General should "protect the public trust" by "prosecuting" Alberto Gonzales, to the fullest extent of the law, on "public corruption" charges.

I mean, good ol' boy Alberto initiated the widespread violations of the Hatch Act at the DOJ, violations of "the law" that led to Monica Goodling to take the fifth and then seek immunity from Congress before she'd testify.

Thus, the top "law enforcer" in our nation is a criminal, one who's been conducting a criminal conspiracy out of the offices of the Attorney General, with one of his main partners in this ongoing criminal activity being Karl Rove.

Forget the no-confidence vote.

Democratic Senators should inform the White House that unless Alberto "Pretty Boy" Gonzales resigns immediately, no more judicial confirmation hearings will be held. An ultimatum. A take-no-prisoners ultimatum.

Similar to the stunt the Republican-controlled Senate pulled against Bill Clinton's judicial nominees in the 1990s. But with a major difference.

Alberto Gonzales, as the most corrupt Attorney General in American history, is a "clear and present danger" to our Constitution and our democratic form of government.

Democratic Senators, en masse or individually, have got to play hardball. Otherwise, they might face a "no-confidence vote" themselves in November 2008. Just as many of the "culture of corruption" Republicans will definitely face a "no-confidence vote" in November 2008.

Many patriotic U.S. citizens are beginning to realize that our very democracy itself faces a "clear and present danger" from people like Alberto Gonzales, and their utter, fascist-like disregard for our "rule of law" and our nation's inherent democratic, freedom-loving, anti-tyranny values.

Joe wrote on June 11, 2007 9:23 PM:

Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Corruption, is the one who voted present. He's so confused by his impending indictment and those damn tubes that he didn't know how to vote.

PurpleAvenger wrote on June 11, 2007 9:28 PM:

Here are the Repubs who voted FOR the resolution - What's striking to me is that 4 of the 7 - Collins, Sununu, Smith and Coleman are all going to be in tight reelection races in 08 which suggests they see this as a CYA and are aware of their own vulnerability.

As for the other 3 - Hagel has broken with Bush on Iraq - is this just another step away? Specter just seems pissed at how - he? the Senate? the judiciary ctte? - has been treated, and I don't know enough about Snowe to say.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Sen. John Sununu (R-NH)
Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN)

Jane wrote on June 11, 2007 9:28 PM:

This is not about the Senate trying to embarrass Bush. This is about Bush embarrassing the the country by retaining Gonzales. It is not simply that the Department of Justice has been politicized. It is that =there is an ongoing attempt to use the DOJ as a tool to steal elections. For that both Gonzales and Bush should be impeached and as more evidence is slowly accumulated it will be possible to do so.

The Republicans were given a chance to embarrass themselves by voting for Gonzales and many of them took it even among those who have acknowledged that he is unfit:

* Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS)

* Senator John McCain (R-AZ): “(Washington Post, 4/25/07) Did NOT Vote

* Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK)

* Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL): “

* Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC):

Tom at 8:32 above notes that if these 3 said yes as they originally committed to and the other two voted as they believed, the vote becomes 58-35, then the 3 Democrats running for President showing up makes it 61 votes.

Obama, Dodd and Biden have done political damage to the cause of getting rid of Gonzales and should suffer retribution in the primaries.

Somebody should poll CT on how they feel about Gonzales and let Lieberman see how much of a political blunder he has committed. His failure to fight when the election was stolen from Gore shows that he was never committed to democracy but a threat to his own position might move him.

Slippery Slope wrote on June 11, 2007 9:30 PM:

As we get closer to Nov'08 more and more Republicans will jump from the sinking SS Dumbya. This recorded vote FOR Gonzalez further ties these Republicans together. Not to Bush... Together!

America is not in the position we are in today because of one man. The past Republican majority through their votes and lack of oversight along with Bush’s signature pen and administration brought us:

Torture
Repeal of Habeas Corpus
Domestic Spying
Ineffective response to Katrina
Illegal invasion and continued occupation
Election fraud and tampering
USA firing scandal and more (Specters little midnight gift)
No oversight on Hatch Act
Port security sell out
911 commission Part II, oh wait, never happened.
Cronyism to no end
Delay, Shooter, Santorum, The Dukster, Doolittle, Abermoff, Micaca Allen, Ney, Foley, Stevens, and Strom’s buddy Lott to name just a few.

In my view this vote did make step us in the direction of ousting these corrupt Republican clowns by putting them on record as a group, still marching in lock step.

Rich wrote on June 11, 2007 9:35 PM:

Why the hell is that immoral son of bitch Lieberman still causcusing with the Democrats?

JNagarya wrote on June 11, 2007 9:35 PM:

"Ted Stevens was the coward who voted present."

He's distracted by FBI investigation. He's the "Bridge to Nowhere" guy. I think that "Bridge to Nowhere" is fine, as long as the legislation authorizing and funding it specifically stipulates that it is only for the use of Republican'ts.

"Posted by: KCinDC
Date: June 11, 2007 07:06 PM"

SC = sleep. As in, Those who are not awake are a ["a" = "without"] sleep. Comatose.

The Colonel wrote on June 11, 2007 9:42 PM:

DIB-

I wish more Americans were as knowledgeable of the real FORCE in contemporary U.S. national politics as you are. I believe, as apparently you do, that far too many duel citizens(USA/Israel)are controlling the goverenance of the USA. This is particularly true in the area of foreign affairs. Lieberman and the list of neocons you mentioned, in my opinion, are Israelis first and patriotic Americans only when our wealth and blood advances the the Zionist objective in the State of Israel.

panf wrote on June 11, 2007 9:49 PM:

Can't say it enough. People either don't know what's going on with this scandal or they don't know enough because the media either doesn't consider it a national issue or have purposely chosen not to cover it inorder to sheild GOPers in 2008.

This provides just enough cover for Republicans to vote against holding Alberto accountable and escape intense scrutiny. Thats why they can express no confidence and then vote against doing ANYTHING about it.

The Democrats were stupid to even pose the vote. As stated, the public isn't following the story because it's not being covered adequately if at all. And therefore failing to secure a vote makes Republicans look more united than they really are while making Democrats look irrelevant.

In short, the timing was all wrong. The Democrats should have conducted more testimony making it harder for Republicans to refuse to act.

But we know the WH's plan. They won't ditch Gonzo because they know they can't get anyone confirmed that will do the same heck of a job Gonzo has done.

Democrats should be focusing on something everyone is concerned about and something easy to follow - like warrantless wiretapping.

If we were to give democrats the benefit of doubt, perhaps this whole Attorney Scandal isn't intended to remove Gonzo, but instead to freeze the WH/DOJ's efforts in rigging the 2008 electon.

JNagarya wrote on June 11, 2007 9:54 PM:

As ever, the bullshitter bullshits --

"Sorta like Hillary voting for the War Resolution without even reading the NIE."

The NIE was the cherry-picked "version" provided by Bushit/Cheney.

You demand she should have relied on the lie, instead of voting on the best objective evidence available -- that being also cherry-picked.

You know why the No-Confidence "failed"? Because the FOOT-DRAGGING REPUBLICANS voted against it.

And what do you do, in the face of that, Brainiac? You bash the Democrats for not having sufficent votes to meet your demand.

Ignoring that the reason the Democrats don'y yet have sufficient votes is because of FOOT-DRAGGING REPUBLICANS.

So what do you do, sane-meister? You bash the Democrats.

Pro-Bushit troll.

She didn't want to set a precedent. Which would undermine the unilateral authority that she would like to have, would she to become President.

That is, those who want power, worship power. And that includes Brownback, Dodd, Obama, and McCain.

Posted by: Woodhall Hollow
Date: June 11, 2007 07:20 PM

SC = spade. As in, Let's call a spade a spade, or -- in the alternative --- bash Democrats.

Chuck wrote on June 11, 2007 10:01 PM:

Don't know if there's the votes to do this, but there's always the power of the purse. Seems to me, back in the day, that Sen. Magnusson used to just attach a little rider to an appropriation that said no appropriated funds could be used to pay the salary of anybody who was doing something he specifically didn't want done. Apply this technique to the DOJ, that comes out as a provision that forbade paying the salary of any political appointee employed by the DOJ until the DOJ satisfied outstanding document requests and subpoenas of the House and the Senate. Seems to me that laying siege to the DOJ and starving them into surrender might be more convenient than impeachment.

Samsara wrote on June 11, 2007 10:03 PM:

The Oracle is right about the Democratic leadership in the Senate. It sucks. Reid has been a disappointment so far. He was just going through the motions on this whole no-confidence thing. You don't schedule important votes on Mondays or Fridays.

Regardless of the date of the vote, the fact that Democratic Senators felt they could just skip this vote shows that Reid is weak. Either you don't have the votes and you tell Schumer to back off, or you make an effort to find the votes to win. He did neither.

If McConnell was about to lose a vote because someone didn’t feel like being there, you better believe there would be consequences.

And if I have to listen to any more moaning from Reid on the Senate floor about how disappointed he is in the Republicans I will be ill.

JNagarya wrote on June 11, 2007 10:23 PM:

". . . . There is very little difference between the parties: Republicans are slightly more self-centered, arrogant and evil. But, and I am sorry to say it, but the Democratic party collectively is just too stupid to lead."

You have it wrong. Law lags reality. In other words, tobacco smokers had to cause problems before the gov't enacted laws to prevent those problems.

Seond: we don't have a "leaderseintative" gov't. We have a REPREsentative gov't. We the people are the ultimate check on gov't; the ultimate directors of it. Thus we are the leaders, not the gov't we ELECT to REPRESENT -- not make up their own shit/"leadership".

Take responsibility instead of palming it off to gov't "leaders". "Democracy is responsibility" -- Justice Louis Beandeis.

Posted by: The Oracle
Date: June 11, 2007 07:24 PM

SC = letter. As in, Must only everyone but you comply with the letter of _your_ "law"?

JNagarya wrote on June 11, 2007 10:27 PM:

A lot of brownie points were earned by Clinton imho. If nothing else, she did vote. Biden, Dodd, and Obama loose.

Posted by: Stormwatcher
Date: June 11, 2007 07:26 PM

Stop being a newbie. Learn the different and correct spellings and applications of "lose" and "loose".

Slippery Slope wrote on June 11, 2007 10:39 PM:

Wow... Samsara, jump on the Democtratic leadership "It sucks" bandwagon.

At least The Oracle seems to provide some constructive ideas that might advance the cause. You simply take his post as an opportunity to bash the Democratic leadership.

As if the 37 Republican 37 & 1 Ind (Lieberman) votes didn't exist.

What about the fine Republican leadership that orchestrates a majority Republican caucus vote that supports a corrupt DoJ. And even with that, within the Republican ranks there are more dissenters than the few no-shows on the Democratic side.

What are your comments on McConnel, Lott, and Thune’s leadership? Great Gonzales cheerleaders?

shorelineCT wrote on June 11, 2007 10:39 PM:

Look, Holy Joe was really just thinking of all us hammered CT voters. See, he just wants to help us with that ol' energy thingy...our electricity rates went up 50% this year and of course, gasoline prices just happen to be near record levels too. Joe, what at guy....

Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) made the following statement today regarding his vote against cloture for the Gonzales resolution:

"My vote against going ahead with more debate on this no confidence resolution is not an expression of confidence in Attorney General Gonzales. It is an expression of opposition to spending any more time on a resolution that will accomplish nothing, instead of going ahead with the next item of business, which is energy legislation. If we work urgently together on energy legislation, we can accomplish something that is truly important to the American people.

"As I have said before, Attorney General Gonzales is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, and it's time for him to really look into his own heart and soul, as tough as it is, and ask whether he should continue in this job. And it is time for the Senate to move on right now to do something about energy prices supplies and energy prices."

Honest George, Lewiston, Idaho wrote on June 11, 2007 10:43 PM:

Aren't we better off with Gonzo in office and in the news every day? Sure, he takes our eyes away from the bride (Bush) now and then but he provides first-rate entertainment.

Slippery Slope wrote on June 11, 2007 10:45 PM:

Even as I hit the enter button to post my last entry I wished I could have pulled it back… One major editing was needed:

Instead of “a corrupt DoJ”, I should have written “a corrupted DoJ by it’s political appointed Republican leadership”. I do not mean to disparage the whole lot. I am sure there are still many fine DoJ employees that are just as sick of this situation as I am!!!

yathink wrote on June 11, 2007 10:47 PM:

It is time for the poeple of Connecticut to get serious and impeach this horrible excuse for a senator. Please.

MaxGowan wrote on June 11, 2007 10:49 PM:

This is so loathesome even by Lieberman's barrell-scraping standards, the question begs to be put forward: Might something else be going on here? (besides, say ego triptus giganticus, or dementia) There has to be a real possibility that Rove has something career-ruining on Lieberman. Maybe not - but at this point it cannot be ruled out either. One thing is true and underreported, the degree to which the White House has played him.

frankhackett wrote on June 11, 2007 10:59 PM:

We have to shitcan joe loserman he is the israeli stooge and he is beneath contempt.if we can get one more dem.in power in the senate we should dump this barney fife lookalike fast.Strip him of his chairmanship.I dont know how he sleeps at night knowing that everyone knows he is a rat.

Mongo wrote on June 11, 2007 11:01 PM:

When will these lame-ass Democrats learn to play?
Why don't they propose a resolution to force a vote on "Who supports Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez?" and force everyone to vote on record?
This is how the Republicans force the Democrats to continually eat crow.

Mongo wrote on June 11, 2007 11:02 PM:

When will these lame-ass Democrats learn to play?
Why don't they propose a resolution to force a vote on "Who supports Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez?" and force everyone to vote on record?
This is how the Republicans force the Democrats to continually eat crow.

xargaw wrote on June 11, 2007 11:19 PM:

Lieberman is a republican. The sooner the DEMS drop kick him through the goal posts of the party to the other side, the better. Just being in the same chamber with him would give me the creeps.

Rich wrote on June 11, 2007 11:47 PM:

"Sorta like Hillary voting for the War Resolution without even reading the NIE."

You sir, are a moron.

tbhull wrote on June 12, 2007 12:23 AM:

The Dems in the Senate fail on this candy-ass issue all while they turn their head on the fact that millions of US citizens' e-mails and phone calls are captured and searched by the US government without a warrant and without. in many cases, probable cause as is expressly required by the US Constitution.

The dem instigated investigation of Alberto was a bullshit smoke screen doomed for failure at all times that provides cover for real issues (such as the NSA warrantless search of US citizens communications with AT&T's able and eager assistance on a scale that most cannot imagine) unreported in large measure, including on this blog. A failed investigation ab initio that the clown Schumer, a failed investigation pushed by the incontinent and over the hill Leahy, a failed investigation that provided much needed and much cherished camera time for the Dapper Dan man dandy Conyers with all of his powerless enthusiasm and ineffectiveness, and a failed investigation from the beginning relentlessly hyped by this and many other blogs that serve as apologists for the feckless dem power structure in Congress that cannnot distinguish itself from its failed repub counterparts. The reason, the dems and the repubs answer to the same masters and no real difference between the two exist no matter how much cheap lipstick TPM smears on these pigs.

Sound and fury signifying nothing. Here we go 'round the prickly pear, the prickly pear ...

?W wrote on June 12, 2007 1:57 AM:

I think one of our legs was chopped off, politically, the moment Nancy Pelosi said impeachment was 'off the table.' It seems the Republicans have been able to rub the Democrats face in it ever since. She should have said something like it just wasn't the current priority and then kept in reserve as leverage.
Except for Rumsfeld there doesn't seem to be much 'draining of the swamp.' There was a major cave in on defunding Bush's Iraq debacle and now this cave in with Gonzo.
Fifty three yea's with four Dem's not present- that would have made 57. Your telling me there wasn't three more yea's out there? BALONEY!
This was major. This was needed. Where the heck were the 'not present' Democratic Senators?
Something's whack! One more major cave in and there could be some serious doubt about a Democratic President in '08!

parrot wrote on June 12, 2007 3:39 AM:

The Country is being let down the tubes.

'smell' -- yep.

starwheel wrote on June 12, 2007 7:39 AM:

What are your comments on McConnel, Lott, and Thune’s leadership? Great Gonzales cheerleaders?

Posted by: Slippery Slope
Date: June 11, 2007 10:39 PM
------------------------------------------------

Exactly. Voting against incompetence SHOULD be a bipartisan issue.

At least the Democrats who were there voted in unison against a corrupt incompetent AG.

I'm not willing to let Obama, Dodd and Biden to take all the blame for this. We still have a political party that is concerned more about protecting their party than they are about preserving/restoring an independent Justice Department.

SC: still

Emmett Hifinger wrote on June 12, 2007 8:54 AM:

Schumer did a two-fer: 1. At the end of the (election) day more dems in the senate in '08 2. DOJ gets cut loose from the Bush house.
With a one sentence "resolution", he gave the cheerleaders a chance to make fools of themselves (again) and they promptly siezed the opportunity.
Bush hires 9 (that we know about) new lawyers to try to cover his butt from a threat that he knows about but we don't. The 120,000 people at DOJ can now clean up their mess.

Earthling wrote on June 12, 2007 8:57 AM:

Why does it take 60 votes when the constitution says 60%.

Dabb wrote on June 12, 2007 10:00 AM:

This is what got to me the most in this whole mess...

"They can have their votes of no confidence, but it's not going to make the determination about who serves in my government," Bush said in Sofia, Bulgaria, the last stop on a weeklong visit to Europe.

My government??? Bush's government??? I thought this was a government by the people and for the people. I thought this was OUR government. What arrogance!!!

Dems need to jump on this statement and run with it. And never let up on those that voted their confidence in Gonzo especially those Republicans that talked the talk but can't walk the walk.

steambomb wrote on June 12, 2007 11:49 AM:

Dems need to jump on this statement and run with it. And never let up on those that voted their confidence in Gonzo especially those Republicans that talked the talk but can't walk the walk.

Speaking of the Repubes that can't walk the walk. Tom Coburn told Gonzales that he should resign in a senate hearing and yet when a no confidence vote is up he cannot get behind it? AND retaliates against congress because of it? Is this guy schitzophrenic?

KYJurisDoctor wrote on June 12, 2007 11:56 AM:

Alberto Gonzales' fate on this issue, is, and should be, ONLY in Bush's hands.

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/06/republicans-rightfully-show-no.html#links

KYJurisDoctor wrote on June 12, 2007 12:02 PM:

Alberto Gonzales' fate on this issue, is, and should be, ONLY in Bush's hands.

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/06/republicans-rightfully-show-no.html#links

Agent86 wrote on June 12, 2007 1:49 PM:

To:
?W 2 @ June 12, 2007 01:57 AM
tbhull @ June 12, 2007 12:23 AM
shorelineCT @ June 11, 2007 10:39 PM - with Lieberman's statement explaining his 'no' vote.
MaxGowan @ June 11, 2007 10:49 PM

When I put your posts together, I can see the sense in anyone saying the problems are much deeper and more opaque than the weirdness we are seeing up front, which is far beyond mere stupidity, incompetence, corruption and sabotage.

MaxGowan: You could be right. There may be a serious problem with the misapplication of NSA-gathered intel on American citizens, especially the most public and most vulnerable ones (including Lieberman).

Lieberman's statement is so facile that I feel like someone just blew in my ear -- and I'm supposed to thank him for the refill.

I think you're very right, ?W: Something's whack. Something's rotten, and it ain't in Denmark.

And, tbhull, if your thesis is correct, "the dems and the repubs answer to the same masters," then we should be outing those masters. And that would include the 'Texican Group,' the 'military industrial complex' that Eisenhower warned us about, the torture folks and their minions and the political infiltraitors of every government agency we can shake a stick at.

Um, this is a big crowd with a lot of money & power. I don't think the DC dilettantes are 'doilytantes' without a reason. Are they running scared? Why are the talentless put forward to lead the questioning in the investigations? Why is Habeas Corpus suddenly ended? Why does Bush's new “homeland security-national security presidential directive” effectively suspend the US Constitution in a national emergency? Why are the media strangely uninvolved? Why did so many Republicans shift over to vote for Lamont before they returned to their bat caves? (The url for this weirdness in my name.) Why are we fed a constant spew of pap, piffle & twaddle by professional analysts?

Are we being marooned like the victims of Katrina? Hey, America, we got a problem.

M. Plumley wrote on June 13, 2007 11:35 AM:

I think this helps me decide on a candidate. I can't vote for someone who isn't willing to put themselves on the line on something like this. All candidates who didn't vote should be removed from contention. To those below, you just lost an election.

Not voting:
Biden (D-DE)
Brownback (R-KS)
Coburn (R-OK)
Dodd (D-CT)
Johnson (D-SD)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)

Voted present:
Stevens (R-AK)

NEVERvoterepublican wrote on June 13, 2007 4:00 PM:

What ever happened to the famous "up or down vote" the Republiscums kept using during the most corrupt Congress, the 110th? Abu Gonzales deserves an up or down vote. So come on you Republithugs, let's have a vote and if Abu loses, he goes out the door.

Security codes is: snake, just like Abu Gonzales is a snake in the grass. He does not deserve to be in that office and actually should be in jail.

NEVERvoterepublican wrote on June 13, 2007 4:01 PM:

What ever happened to the famous "up or down vote" the Republithugs kept using during the most corrupt Congress, the 110th? Abu Gonzales deserves an up or down vote. So come on you Republithugs, let's have a vote and if Abu loses, he goes out the door.

Security codes is: snake, just like Abu Gonzales is a snake in the grass. He does not deserve to be in that office and actually should be in jail.

NEVERvoterepublican wrote on June 13, 2007 4:02 PM:

What ever happened to the famous "up or down vote" the Republithugs kept using during the most corrupt Congress, the 110th? Abu Gonzales deserves an up or down vote. So come on you Republithugs, let's have a vote and if Abu loses, he goes out the door.

Security codes is: snake, just like Abu Gonzales is a snake in the grass. He does not deserve to be in that office and actually should be in jail.

This site is so s l o w, I don't think it is going to make it.