Comments (55)

RB-Chicago wrote on June 11, 2007 9:55 AM:

IMPEACH!!! THIS GUY IS A LOSER!!!

Phill wrote on June 11, 2007 10:03 AM:

Of course its a stalking horse for impeachment.

What is somewhat bizzare here is Bush's declaration that the Senate is irrelevant. Sounds to me as if the Democrats should be running ads in the districts of senators voting for Gonzalez with the title 'Irrelevant' in block capitals above their picture.

This is not how to win friends and influence people. Accusing the Senate of being 'political' - as if that was a sin in a politician.

rumpole wrote on June 11, 2007 10:08 AM:

Sadly, I don't think that this is the kind of thing that most people are going to get PO'd about, as I would begin to bet that less than half could identify the current AG.

Rusty wrote on June 11, 2007 10:11 AM:

Will this be on c-span at all today? I did not see it in the adgenda this morning.

budfox wrote on June 11, 2007 10:13 AM:

The sixty votes won't happen. The GOP senate is an obstructionist gaggle that has no interest in seeing government and our Democracy function.

It is a very small percentage of Americans who follow what our represenatatives are actually doing, compared to those who follow the ups and downs of a rich heiress.

TheraP wrote on June 11, 2007 10:15 AM:

A lot of things can happen between now and a year from November.

But if the republican senators have to explain a "vote of confidence" in Gonzales, I think that would be right up there with support for Iraq by the time of the elections.

Right now people may not be paying attention. But at this point senators should be mindful of the low numbers for bush.

If they vote "for" Gonzales, they may be voted out of office themselves!

RW wrote on June 11, 2007 10:24 AM:

What keeps ringing in my head is the phrase, "serves at the pleasure of the President", as if that is the ultimate edict and only criteria. This goes to the heart of the plenary [fascist neo-con's] camp.

Saturday our local newspaper ran an op-ed that called for the immediate pardon of Libby to end what they referred to as a "political farce" where I replied idea that those who serve this Administration, are in fact, not bound by the laws of this Republic, and are in effect above its laws, whether it is perjury in special prosecutor investigations, or extraordinary interrogation methods [torture], or extraordinary renditions [kidnapping], designation of enemy combatants [denial habeas corpus], political hiring practices [Hatch Act violations], vote fraud [suppression of voting rights], or testimony to Congress [absence of reasonable memories], as they are protected and serve at the pleasure of this President.

RW wrote on June 11, 2007 10:24 AM:

What keeps ringing in my head is the phrase, "serves at the pleasure of the President", as if that is the ultimate edict and only criteria. This goes to the heart of the plenary [fascist neo-con's] camp.

Saturday our local newspaper ran an op-ed that called for the immediate pardon of Libby to end what they referred to as a "political farce" where I replied idea that those who serve this Administration, are in fact, not bound by the laws of this Republic, and are in effect above its laws, whether it is perjury in special prosecutor investigations, or extraordinary interrogation methods [torture], or extraordinary renditions [kidnapping], designation of enemy combatants [denial habeas corpus], political hiring practices [Hatch Act violations], vote fraud [suppression of voting rights], or testimony to Congress [absence of reasonable memories], as they are protected and serve at the pleasure of this President.

RW wrote on June 11, 2007 10:25 AM:

What keeps ringing in my head is the phrase, "serves at the pleasure of the President", as if that is the ultimate edict and only criteria. This goes to the heart of the plenary [fascist neo-con's] camp.

Saturday our local newspaper ran an op-ed that called for the immediate pardon of Libby to end what they referred to as a "political farce" where I replied idea that those who serve this Administration, are in fact, not bound by the laws of this Republic, and are in effect above its laws, whether it is perjury in special prosecutor investigations, or extraordinary interrogation methods [torture], or extraordinary renditions [kidnapping], designation of enemy combatants [denial habeas corpus], political hiring practices [Hatch Act violations], vote fraud [suppression of voting rights], or testimony to Congress [absence of reasonable memories], as they are protected and serve at the pleasure of this President.

Anonymous wrote on June 11, 2007 10:25 AM:

A few years ago, no one seemed to be interested in the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Today most Americans agree the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. It takes time for this kind of bad government to sink through. But it does get there.

The Republicans may defeat the no-confidence vote in the Senate, but the Democrats need to stay on message.

skogie wrote on June 11, 2007 10:30 AM:

Did Bush say "my government"? When did it become HIS government?

Anonymous wrote on June 11, 2007 10:32 AM:

This vote encapsulates the failure of the new Democratic majority. Since they know to a certainty that the meaningless gesture will fail, why not fail in a gesture that would be meaningful? An impeachment conviction wouldn’t pass the senate either, but it would allow the vetting of these issues in a way that would capture the public’s attention, and perhaps reveal even more about the depth of the corruption within the DOJ

From my perspective, there is no reason at all to support the Democrats. It’s past time for an opposition party, and I categorically refuse to participate in this attempt to bamboozle the public into the belief that there is one with pathetic nod to the status quo.

Rebel wrote on June 11, 2007 10:46 AM:

Where's that "up or down vote" the Republicans always crowed about?

Whispers wrote on June 11, 2007 10:49 AM:

10:32

The Democratic caucus does not have a hive mind. It has a large number of Senators who have different agendas and pressures. For many of them, there is little upside in taking on the White House directly, esp. when Bush is going to be gone in less than two years. Yes, I personally think Abu should be impeached, but we're kind of stuck in the situation we have. Given the Lieberman situation, and Senator Johnson's condition, I wouldn't even say that the Democrats have a true majority. Any strongly anti-Bush measure will have at most 48 Democrats (+ Bernie Sanders) behind it. That's something we have to remember every day, rather than blaming the Democratic caucus for not doing something they never had the power to do in the first place.

Or to put it another way: the Senate has never been a locus of dynamic policy change, and it's sure not going to start doing so now.

Anonymous wrote on June 11, 2007 11:02 AM:

This is a scandal of unprecedented proportions. It is disgusting that even the Republicans aren’t ashamed of what this administration has done to the nation, but that the so-called opposition party won’t even make it look like we are going down with a fight is maddening beyond words. There individual motivations are irrelevant. The final vote is now meaningless, assuming there would even be a final vote.

Since success is impossible, all that is left is the process, but the Democrats fail at that as well.

What’s happened is that sinking feeling from deep in the gut that the Democrats didn’t really oppose the policies of the last six years is discovered to be the fact of the matter.

Cranky Observer wrote on June 11, 2007 11:10 AM:

Is there a specific name/number for the resolution? What is the correct wording for (1) support for bringing the resolution to the floor (2) support for the resolution itself (for a letter to a Senator)?

Thanks.

Cranky

Anonymous wrote on June 11, 2007 11:45 AM:

We suck.

BluestateRedhead wrote on June 11, 2007 12:03 PM:

For Rusty and Cranky, here is a CSPAN link and bill number.

http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/issues/bills/?billnum=S.J.RES.14&congress=110&size=full

Larry_H wrote on June 11, 2007 12:08 PM:

The Democrats should have offered a resolution expressing confidence in Gonzales, then spend a day railing against it, followed by a vote that would force Republicans as well as Democrats go on record voting "No."

ignatious wrote on June 11, 2007 12:26 PM:

This vote is important for Democrats because it helps put an end to the lie of "law and order" Republicans. Party above principle and lock-step loyalty is the Republican M.O now. With new revelations about untalented, loyal Republican immigration judges recently appointed by this AG-- his reputation gets even worse on an issue Americans really care about.

If Democrats have the wll to put together a new Republican Party image-- illogical and unscientific, weak on foriegn policy, weak on law and order, hopelessly and helplessly corrupt-- it works well to have Republicans continuing to defend the indefensible.

And, outside of all political thought, it's very sad and disappointing that they do.

ignatious wrote on June 11, 2007 12:26 PM:

This vote is important for Democrats because it helps put an end to the lie of "law and order" Republicans. Party above principle and lock-step loyalty is the Republican M.O now. With new revelations about untalented, loyal Republican immigration judges recently appointed by this AG-- his reputation gets even worse on an issue Americans really care about.

If Democrats have the wll to put together a new Republican Party image-- illogical and unscientific, weak on foriegn policy, weak on law and order, hopelessly and helplessly corrupt-- it works well to have Republicans continuing to defend the indefensible.

And, outside of all political thought, it's very sad and disappointing that they do.

bohdi wrote on June 11, 2007 12:26 PM:

This is utter nonsense. The demo geriatrics botched another one, pushing their walkers around the Hill,trying to gum on to the monkey man's hairy ankles. Its embarassing.

My complements once again to the worlds most skilled fatman, K.Rove. Schumer and Leahy, aging gas bags who can't really go to the mat have painted themselves into a corner now. The no confidence vote fails, Rove defines the whole thing as a political ploy, the ignorant Mass farts and turns the channel and within a day the most radical underground attempt to stage a one party revolution in the history of this dying Republic is forgotten and left unexplored.

Rove wins so easily time and again that it is laughable. Nixon would have choked on this months ago. They learned their lessons well in Watergate and their control of media propaganda is expert. Hats off to the Roveinator.

Melissa wrote on June 11, 2007 12:31 PM:

Every time a neocon states "Serves at the pleasure of the president" please remind him that the president serves at the pleasure of the people of the United States. And the people are extremely displeased. The representatives of the people, the Congress, are expressing the displeasure of the people and the president is obligated to listen and adjust his behavior accordingly. And that's the way it works in a democracy. Or should work...

JNagarya wrote on June 11, 2007 12:35 PM:

A lot of things can happen between now and a year from November.

But if the republican senators have to explain a "vote of confidence" in Gonzales, I think that would be right up there with support for Iraq by the time of the elections.

Right now people may not be paying attention. But at this point senators should be mindful of the low numbers for bush.

If they vote "for" Gonzales, they may be voted out of office themselves!

Posted by: TheraP
Date: June 11, 2007 10:15 AM

I've never agreed with Newt Getrich -- except his recent statement that if Republicans want to get elected, they have to make a sharp break with Bushit. I largely hope they ignore his advice, of course.

And, yes: 21 Republican't Senators are up for re-election; that better be in their thoughts when they vote on the no-confidence resolution.

jrcjr wrote on June 11, 2007 12:37 PM:

this vote only makes sense as a precursor to impeachment, but I'm sure the repubs will figure that out.

frankly, how did the phrase "pleasure of the president" become so ingrained so quickly? it's unbelievable how fast that became a standard phrase, when it was invented so recently--what was it, last fall?

TheraP wrote on June 11, 2007 12:43 PM:

Thank you, Melissa. Well said!

.

I think we all need to stand back and realize that the wheels of democracy turn slowly (which is frustrating to many who want them to turn faster). And the wheels of dictatorship may turn faster, but in ways that are not fair to the rest of us.

Fairness is a slow process, like it or not. And fairness, I hope, is what we're after.

It's very difficult to win when one side does not play by the rules and the other side is committed to the rules. That's what we're up against. We simply cannot become like "them." And "them" is cheating.

Ask yourself: As often as rove may "win," would you want to look at yourself in the mirror and see someone like rove? Or do you want to see someone you can respect, when you look in the mirror?

JNagarya wrote on June 11, 2007 12:44 PM:

"This vote encapsulates the failure of the new Democratic majority. Since they know to a certainty that the meaningless gesture will fail, why not fail in a gesture that would be meaningful? An impeachment conviction wouldn’t pass the senate either, but it would allow the vetting of these issues in a way that would capture the public’s attention, and perhaps reveal even more about the depth of the corruption within the DOJ"

What is it with you math-illiterate twits. The Democrats DON'T YET HAVE SUFFICIENT VOTES TO GET THE QUESTION OF IMPEACHMENT TO THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE, LET ALONE DRAW UP ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT!

"From my perspective, there is no reason at all to support the Democrats."

And you obviously don't: the Democrats don't yet have sufficient votes to do that you demand because of FOOT-DRAGGING REPUBLICANS.

Those being the facts, which do you bash? The Democrats.

Pro-Bushit troll.

"Posted by:
Date: June 11, 2007 10:32 AM"

Powysian wrote on June 11, 2007 12:51 PM:

Why is everybody, including the AP, forgetting about those subpoenas for Rove and company that have already been approved for delivery? Since there unfortunately seems to be no appetitite for a well-deserved impeachment of Gonzales, a direct assault on the White House and its role in this scandal, which is not going to go away, is clearly going the next chapter of the saga.

Powysian wrote on June 11, 2007 12:54 PM:

Why is everybody, including the AP, forgetting about those subpoenas for Rove and company that have already been approved for delivery? Since unfortunately there seems to be no appetitite for a well-deserved impeachment of Gonzales, a direct assault on the White House and its role in this scandal, which is not going to go away, is clearly going to be the next chapter of the saga.

Nicholas wrote on June 11, 2007 1:09 PM:

Bush says the Senate vote will not influence who serves 'in my government.'

Last time I checked, it's our government... you know, of the people, by the people. Not HIS government.

TheraP wrote on June 11, 2007 1:14 PM:

JNagarya,

I've been restraining myself for a long time.

I do wish you would work on putting your logic into more polite language. So, more style with the substance. I think you'd gain more listeners that way. (and turn fewer people off)

Just some friendly advice.

nofltwlt wrote on June 11, 2007 1:25 PM:

I'm real tired of the GOP standing up to support filth such as Tom Delay and Alberto Gonzales and our little woodenhead president Pinocchio.

I am predicting that anyone who votes in support of Gonzales will be swept from office in the next election. It will be easy, just itemize his/her voting record. Americans are fed up with this shit and these bastards.

Dump Gonzales and impeach Bush and Cheney before they fuck up one more thing.

CJ wrote on June 11, 2007 1:32 PM:

JNagarya,

Please let me second TheraP. I really enjoy your analysis, explanations, and insight. The name-calling, while understandable and tempting, doesn't advance the cause much, though. Take the energy from that anger and your obvious intelligence and let's use them to model to the trolls what real political and civil discourse looks like.

Best regards.

Steve5117 wrote on June 11, 2007 1:46 PM:

CJ @ 01:32 PM

Civil Liberities to Republicans involves green pieces of paper with dead Presidents' pictures on them.

TheraP wrote on June 11, 2007 1:59 PM:

Steve5117,

Let's remember, that at this point many republicans are feeling left out of their own party, as ashamed of their "leaders" as we are. And are ready to vote them out.

My own dad, who turns 90 next month is among them. I think we can respect honest republicans while denouncing the dishonest ones.

My hope is that out of this mess will come a renewed concern for our Constitution. And a respect for the fact that people can honestly disagree about how to govern - but agree that dishonest government is bad, no matter which party might be doing it.

Samsara wrote on June 11, 2007 2:25 PM:

TheraP

I think your dad is the exception. My dad is 70 and as been listening to Rush for so long that whatever the GOP does, he excuses it and insists that it is a liberal conspiracy. Then starts on about welfare mothers and how Jane Fonda betrayed the troops during Vietnam. Maybe when my dad reaches 90 he will see the light too.

Anonymous wrote on June 11, 2007 2:36 PM:

Stop waiting for Congress to impeach AG: Direct the US Attorneys to explain why they have not _prosecuted_ Gonzalez. Arguably, legal counsel that refuses to prosecute, or work with thier peers in the legal communty -- as they did with the Libby defense -- is evidence of 5 USC 3331 vioaltions, oath of office.

Time to get the legal community on the table to explain: Where are they with their standars of conduct; have they full asserted their oath; and what is the _legal community's_ explanation for not prosecution given the Congressional inaction on impeachment.

The Americna legal community is arguably reckless, lazy, and not willing to assert its oath. Give the public one reason why we should have confidence in the legal profession; or believe that the legal profession can self-regulate itself. The evidence is scant, the reuslts are reckless, and we have no credible enforcement of this Constitution.

We the People need to see an enforcement mechanism, not excuses by Congress and the legal commuinty to do ntohing. Either they prosecute this AG, or Members of Congress and the legal comunity will remain continuing targets for war crimes indictments, proseuctions, and 5 USC 3331 actions. The Constitution shall prevail; the issue is whether Members of Congress and the lawyers in the American legal profession will stay out of jail.

TheraP wrote on June 11, 2007 2:37 PM:

SamsaraZ:

May your dad live to 90 - and to an open mind.

It was painful to go through the Vietnam war and Nixon with my dad and I at loggerheads.

This has been surprising, to say the least.

May we all keep open minds into our old age.

Anonymous wrote on June 11, 2007 2:39 PM:

Posted by: JNagarya
Date: June 11, 2007 12:44 PM

There are suggestions there is no support for impeachment.

Where's the leadership in the legal community for prosecutions? Libby's trial generated meetings in the legal community. Why no meetings to discuss indictments of this sitting President?

Either there are prosecutions of the AG/POTUS/WH Legal counsel; or the legal community that refuses to assert its oath gets prosecuted, 5 USC 3331.

Jane wrote on June 11, 2007 2:39 PM:

Bush is again reality challenged. He does not decide whether or not WMDs are in Iraq. He does not decide whether Gonzales is effective or not. He is not entitled to his own set of facts.

Gonzales has lost the confidence of the Senate if the Republican Senators have the guts to vote against this despised President. Those of them who proclaim themselves of the Judeo-Muslim-Christian tradition have an obligation not to bear false witness. To say that Gonzales can now be effective is false.

Steve5117 wrote on June 11, 2007 2:40 PM:

I just saw on C-SPAN 2 that they will hold the no confidence vote at 4:30.

Anonymous wrote on June 11, 2007 2:55 PM:

COMPEL THE SENATE TO VOTE UP OR DOWN FOR REMOVAL: LET THE VOTERS AND PROSECUTORS INTERPRET THE DECISION

Unreasonable members of Congress will refuse to confront legal issues; and not confront war crimes evidence, as is required per their oath, 5 USC 3331. Refusing to impeach isn't an option when the legal requirement is to assert all lawful options to defend the Constitution. Whether the Senate has or does not have enough votes to _convict_ is irrelevant for the _House_. Inaction on war crimes evidence is admissable for 5 USC 3331 prosecutions and subsequent war crimes trials against Members of Congress and legal cousnel.

Let the House impeach; and let the GOP Senators refuse to convict for obvious crimes. The voters will have more evidence the GOP is reckless. Why not let the GOP go on the record to refuse to remove in cases where the evidence is high?

Surely, if the evidence is sufficient, and the GOP Senate refuses to convict, the rout against the GOP in November 2008 will be that much higher; indeed, inaction on impeachment, and a refusal to prosecute isn't a problem, but more evidence of 5 USC 3331 violations.

For a Senate that "has other things to do," they sure have enough time to talk about how "pointless" the talk of accountability against AG Gonzalez is. Why is the GOP afraid of voting down an impeachment against AG Gonzalez; surely efforts to defend the Constituting -- as required by 5 USC 3331 -- cannot be taken as a "distraction," but as a requirement. Is the legal community afraid of asserting the rule of law through prosecutions? surely, where there are clear standards, those standards must be enforced. If the rule of law is not asserted against all -- either through impeachment or prosecutions -- we do not have a republic, but a sham system.

let's see some leadership in the legal community. They well mobilized to defend Libby. Or is the legal community only willing to mobilize on some issues that make excuses for illegal activity; but when it comes to accountability for war crimes, the legal community says, "We have no leadership." Indeed, the lazy legal community likes to write about the rule of law and their "noble" defense of the Constitution, only to pretend those standards do not apply when imposed on them.

The rule of law prevails, especially when it comes to war crimes, matters of criminal law, 5 USC 3331 violations, and decisions by lazy, reckless legal counsel not to fully assert their oath. He we are, 6 years into these abuses since 2001; Congress refuses to impeach; one would think that the other method of enforcing the law -- through prosecutions -- would have been asserted by now. Not this lazy, reckless, incompetent legal community. They like to talk about their grand profession, but when it comes to accountability, they make excuses, putting their peers above the law, not making reports to DOJ OPR, and refusing to assert their standards to disbar legal counsel who are reckless, make excuses to defy the law, and not fully assert their legal duties per 5 USC 3331.

Either the AG is impeached; he is prosecuted; or we have no functioning legal community or credible enforcement mechanism. This isn't a problem for We the People, but one for the legal community that talks about the "rule of law" as a "basis" to impose lawlessness in Iraq; then hide evidence of war crimes when it is shown that the American model of governance is reckless, has failed, and is worthless. Could the American legal community have bothched this any more? Surely not, because they still have time to destroy more evidence of war crimes, intimidate more witnesses, and bring more lawsuits to stifle public discussion of well known war crimes.

Where is the lazy legal profession when it comes to defending the Constituting? The impeachments aren't here -- that is self evidence -- but when will the lazy buffoons in the legal community awaken to reality and accept that without impeachment, prosecutions must be used to defend this Constitution? Either the lazy legal community awakens to their legal requirements, or they too shall be prosecuted for refusing to assert all lawful options per 5 USC 3331 to defend this Constitution. On the table is the impeachment and prosecution option and legal counsel refuses to assert either; those options may be legally asserted against them.

Congratulations: War crimes indictments and prosecution of US legal counsel is on the table. If adjudicated with war crimes, 5 USC 3331 violations, and refusals to enforce Geneva against legal counsel for their recklessness in refusing to defend the Geneva Conventions, they too may be lawfully prosecuted and sentenced with the death penalty.

Samsara wrote on June 11, 2007 2:58 PM:

Thanks Steve5117

I'm From PA so I wonder what Specter will do after all that snarling he did at AGAG. I don't expect much. He won’t cross Mitch McConnell.

lower tiberius wrote on June 11, 2007 3:34 PM:

the "immigration judges" misdirective was a planned planted Goodling story to speak Rove code to the citizenry that this crime syndicate is only doing their sub-text racism that they really really want so badly that they dont even realize it. It projects away from the issue of criminal corruption so profound the elected representatives simply cant help themselves and even have the audacity to imply "it's political" when they get caught.

sounds alot like a rich heiress who cant come to terms with the idea there are laws and she must follow them or suffer the the consequences.

Gonzales is a criminal ... those who vote confidence in him are facilitators to his criminality.

Candyce wrote on June 11, 2007 3:36 PM:

Specter just left the biggest hot, steaming pile on the Senate floor. I swear, I have never seen a man so skilled at talking out of both sides of his mouth. He said he has two choices: To vote no confidence, or to give in to the political chicanery of Democrats, specifically Schumer. He is voting no on cloture.

Candyce wrote on June 11, 2007 3:42 PM:

My error above. He is voting to invoke cloture.

oldtree wrote on June 11, 2007 4:14 PM:

personally, the line "embarrass the president" is the most interesting. imagining that either of the two have human feelings after the people they have killed. really.

mjr wrote on June 11, 2007 4:40 PM:

As a matter of fact, it is a surprise that Republicans can hold their noses and vote no on this "No Confidence Vote". Must mean either they are gutless and terrified of one of Bush's tissy-fits OR they are unable to distinguish his behavior as being unworthy of confidence. Seems then, they would be comfortable with an Attorney General who says "I can't remember" (or some rendition of the phrase) 64 or maybe more times. If they actually vote no, we can give them a no-confidence vote in the next election. I have been a lifetime moderate Republican but the party has lost its soul.

TheraP wrote on June 11, 2007 5:08 PM:

Samsara, sorry about the accidental Z in your name above.

Some strange karma?

Anonymous wrote on June 11, 2007 5:12 PM:

McConnell is engaging in a personal attack directed toward Schumer. It seems Schumer had the gall to campaign against Demato, and win. If Schumer had any pride he’d withdraw the no confidence resolution, and replace it with a bill to request the house begin the impeachment process. But, alas, he has no pride; he’ll polish McConnell’s shoes in the Cloak Room after the debate.

Lott doesn’t recall any such resolution in the Senate before. He also says it is meaningless vote (he is right about that); they should have a no confidence on the Senate, not a bad idea.

Not a one of the Republicans has even attempted to defend Gonzo.

Breadbox wrote on June 11, 2007 5:13 PM:

It is official: watching the no confidence debate on Gonzales, it is clear that not only is McConnell an ass, he is seen to be an ass, and presumably never more can deny that he is an ass.
D'Amato investigated the first lady. Whether Schumer was correct or not that this was inappropriate given his positions is irrelevant. Gonzales is an officer of the United States, with his position subject to Senate confirmation, and with official job duties subject to review by the Senate! This is why this investigation is different, and why McConnell's statements show that he is an ass.

Anonymous wrote on June 11, 2007 5:21 PM:

Lott didn’t really pick up the talking point personal attack on Schumer, guess he knows that dog don’t hunt.

Hutchenson thinks the resolution is meaningless. I just hate it when I agree with these snakes. She wants to talk about immigration. Funny, the only good to come of this resolution will be that the lame immigration bill is delayed a little longer. She also believes they should be working on bringing gas prices down, like that would happen.

Now, they are saying that Reno was a bad AG but the Republicans didn’t attempt a no confidence vote. That might be because they were obsessed with impeachment of the President at the time, but who pays attention to the details.

She didn’t take up the personal smear either.

JTL wrote on June 11, 2007 6:05 PM:

The sad fact is that, for whatever reason, politics has morphed into some kind of team sport. Whatever happens, if you go against your "team" and the other side "win," that is seen as being undesirable. Consequently, if a Democrat suggests something, it is automatically distasteful to Republicans. And vice versa in many cases.

That is the only conceivable reason why any Republican would not vote the way they truly feel on this motion. It's also the only reason why they would put party loyalty above the good of the country. And it's also the only reason that, as yet, they apparently can't bring themselves to publicly repudiate the worst President their party has ever inflicted on the nation.

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

This action reflects that the Republican administration is incapable of governance and governing. This happens when one places blind ideology above principle.

The Oracle wrote on June 11, 2007 9:45 PM:

Democratic Senators should inform the White House that no more judicial confirmation hearings will be held until after Alberto Gonzales resigns as Attorney General.

A single U.S. Senator can block any nominee from being heard, as we all learned during the Clinton years when Republicans blocked his judicial nominees.

Therefore, Senate Democrats should return the favor.

At the least, this will keep anymore "culture of corruption" Republican judicial nominees from being seated on the federal bench while the most corrupt administration in American history decides whether or not it is worth it to keep Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General.

I know the "culture of corruption" Republicans will cry foul, but it would be interesting to see how Mr. 29-percenter, George W. Bush, and his utterly insane, neo-Nazi adviser, Karl Rove, decide to play this.

Do they keep Alberto "Pretty Boy" Gonzales in hopes of using the DOJ again to try to steal the November 2008 elections, or do they toss him overboard so they can continue packing the federal courts with their hardline, anti-abortion judges?

It's time for Democrats in Congress to play hardball.