What vote?

Yet another "photo op" to bash Bush thwarted.

LOL

Do you at least understand the 60/40 split now?

Boyd, I have always understood it.

In some cases it is relevant -- like an obvioulsy partisan "attack" bill such as this.

In other cases it is not, such as a resolution to defund the war -- there would be no way in hell that the GOP would ever stop that one from going to a vote.

As is aid to Danforth a few moments ago:

Look Danforth, to pass a resolution to defund the war without needing the Presidnet to sign off on it, they need a simple majority -- 51 Senators ON THE ACTUAL RESOLUTION. I was wrong to say the democrats have the power because they actually hold only 49 seats -- so to get the majority that would require 1 independent and a whopping 1 Republican to side with them.

Your supermajority for closure is bogus and irrelevant. Why? because getting the votes for closure on such a resolution wouldn't be a problem. The GOP will enthusiastically give them the votes for closure -- because they would just be enthusiastically giving them a boatload of rope to hang themselves with.

If the Democrats really were sincere about ending the war, if they really believed that they have a manadate from the american people to do so -- they could pull their 49 together with that independent and 1 misguided Republican and bring the resolution to the floor.

And I would guarantee that there would be no GOP filibuster to stop it from going to a vote.

Bottom line -- The Dems won't do it -- because they are hypocrites-- and they don't believe their own propaganda -- they are as terrified of the bloody, negative consequences of leaving Iraq prematurely as the GOP is. And they certainly won't put themselves in a position where they can be blamed outright for that defeat and bloodbath that will likely follow -- in Iraq and here.

Haha Libs

Another meaningless, non-binding resolution by Democrats. Gosh, they are showing so much leadership since taking back Congress.

Can't they at least rename a post office somewhere?

The country has shown that there is NO confidence in congress , and by the way the libs are the majority in that cluster fuck . And mR sPECTACLE is just another leftwing assclown , it only makes sense that he would vote on this at all .

Can't they at least rename a post office somewhere?

Posted by vernon
St. Elsewhere?

The majority wish to vote up or down on a no-confidence vote for Gonzales.

Shouldn't the obstructionist Republicans allow a vote?

Is it time for the Democrats to invoke the "Constitutional option"?

I thought that was the Nuclear Option??

Larry

Is it time for the Democrats to invoke the "Constitutional option"?

Posted by Boyd


Maybe Dirty Harry could just pull the bill off the table, like the eh...Immigration Bill?

Shouldn't the obstructionist Republicans allow a vote?

Posted by Boyd at 2007-06-11 08:36 PM | Reply

They voted. Dems lose on another non-binding, pointless resolution.

Larry-
It was the "nuclear option", as coined by Trent Lott, but that didn't poll well with focus groups, so they started calling it the "Constitutional option", but now they all have amnesia about it.

Go figure.

They voted. Dems lose on another non-binding, pointless resolution.

Posted by vernon

Another wet dream, gone dry.

The thing is, is that (see Vernon's posts, eg) it was never a principled stance (Nuclear/Constitutional option). It was all bullshit, hence the collective amnesia.

Later all

The GOP only blocked the "no confidence" vote on Gonzalez because it was such an obvious partisan hit on the administration, that had no legal impact at all. The GOP denied the dems their grandstanding and photo ops as they should.

If the democrats really beleived Gonzalez was as bad and criminal as they say he is -- then they should work together with their buddies in the House and file articles of impeachment against Gonzo.

Gonzales is a bad Attorney General. What kind of a chief judicial officer for the United States finds it necessary to say that he doesn't recall major policy decisions that he bears responsibility for? A partisan hack appointed by a partisan doofus. That's who. America deserves better. Apparently it's OK with Vern and Bowa that he's unethical, unqualified and incompetent but not actually a criminal(maybe).

,i>Apparently it's OK with Vern and Bowa that he's unethical, unqualified and incompetent but not actually a criminal(maybe).

No. I think he should have stepped down a long time ago.

Now, of course, he can't step down because he's become a pawn in a political game between the Democrats and Republicans.

frankly, I think this is one case where "articles of impeachment" may well be justified. Wonder what's holding the democrats back?

Apparently it's OK with Vern and Bowa that he's unethical, unqualified and incompetent but not actually a criminal(maybe).


Posted by BlueInBushland

Hey, don't be a dick due to tha fact your party (again) couldn't find enough stones to force a vote. But in 2008....

Apparently it's OK with Vern and Bowa that he's unethical, unqualified and incompetent but not actually a criminal(maybe).


Are you kidding? That's their comfort zone. They love what they know best.

frankly, I think this is one case where "articles of impeachment" may well be justified. Wonder what's holding the democrats back?

Gonzo's a gift.

This keeps him and his incompetence in the spotlight a bit longer.

You believe in victory, no matter how pyrrhic.

Excuse my enjoyment.

Are you kidding? That's their comfort zone. They love what they know best.

ooops, you're wrong (see my 9:22 post)

Just don't quit, Gonzales. The Dems wish to crack you, then Rove, then El Presidente. They will not succeed. Remember the words of Churchill: don't quit.

This has reached political posturing and Specter has revealed his color as one not faithful to his party. I hope he will not be chairman again if there is a next time.

Complete your term with President Bush. You have nothing to lose, and your enemies the Democrats and the shaky Republicans have everything to lose if you hang tight and don't quit.

You win. They lose, in terms of frustrations and inability to bring any legal charge. Just hang in there and let them lose.

You win. They lose, in terms of frustrations and inability to bring any legal charge. Just hang in there and let them lose.

Posted by takitez

Besides, we shot our load during the first 100 hours. - The Left.

Bowa

Oooops, you're right. I didn't see it.

It's okay though. Wis showed up to save the day. Just slide him in there, and add Tak.

This keeps him and his incompetence in the spotlight a bit longer.

Actually, I think if anything the longer that Gonzo stays in office the weaker they look -- the accusations made by Democrats were so heinous and outrageous, that one must wonder how come Gonzo has not been brought up on charges yet.

That he hasn't, makes it seem like the democrats accusation have been unfounded and without merit. In other words, the democrats seem like they lied about Gonzo for political gain.

Like the "Boy who cried wolf" the Democrats and their constant rants and accusations leading nowhere risk being tuned out and ignored by the electorate

Ted, I think Gonzo should be impeached.

His lack of candor in an office that requires and demands candor justifies such a an extreme measure.

Why the Democrats are not pursuing impeachment of Gonzalez is baffling.

When are they going to add some real teeth to all their accusations?

If they dont have the votes for "no confidence" they won't have them for "impeachment" of Gonzales.

IDIOT! How many times does this need be explained to you?

I wish I knew.

HEY! That answer works for both Bowa and I N.

I do know how to multitask after all.

Seriously, how mant times, in how many ways, and by 5 different people, do you need to have it explained to you that the demsx dont have a significant majority to overcome the bush asslicking republicans?

I N

I think they know, it's just that it ruins the whole talking points thing.

If they dont have the votes for "no confidence" they won't have them for "impeachment" of Gonzales.

There is no cloture rule in the House so what's stopping the Dems there?

As for the Senate, The GOP would not use the cloture rule to block an impeachment of Gonzalez.

They would let it come to a vote, because it would be bad form politically to block an impeachment from coming to an up or down vote.

Not sure if it would pass. But it might.

Seriously, how mant times, in how many ways, and by 5 different people, do you need to have it explained to you that the demsx dont have a significant majority to overcome the bush asslicking republicans?

In other words, the Democrats want to play the victim once again. When the democrats were in th eminority they said they had no power, now that they have the majority they say they have no power. All the democrats seem to do is whine, complain, and play the victim card. And that's pretty sad.

You cant have it both ways, bowa. If the dems do nothing because they don thave the votes you whine.

If they try(like today) and fail you just whine.

Also, if they actually succeeded, you'd complain that they were wasting the govts time with a "witch hunt" and a "perjury trap".

You are a dishonest partisan hack and everyone knows it.

The dems dont have the votes: Get that into your lying head.

Bowa - of course you are right in saying (I think) that Gonzales should have resigned some time ago.

He didn't resign, because Bush doesn't want him to resign, and wouldn't let him.

Bush doesn't want him to resign because he would have a hard time getting anybody he nominated confirmed.

The Democrats are actually playing a sophisticated game here. They are increasingly attracting Republicans who are worried about their seats in 2008 to come out against Gonzales, and they are making it clear to people that Gonzales is just a stooge of Bush and not an effective Attorney General. It makes Bush look stubborn and stupid, and that's good because he is. Whenever Bush says this is "political theater" it only reminds us that Gonzales staying on is also "political theater" and that the work of government is not being done.

The lame duck gets lamer.

What was that I heard driving home today? Harry Ried approval rating at 19%? Yes, that was it.

It's okay though. Wis showed up to save the day. Just slide him in there, and add Tak.

Posted by TedBaxter

What's the matter Teddy? Please explain what you Libs need to accomplish something. For a minute, I thought you guy's had won something last November.
Guess I was wrong.

The lame duck gets lamer.

If bush is such a lame duck, how come he seems to be winning on some key issues?

Hows this for a sophisticated game:

Bush is falling on his sword (and taking McCain with him) over immigration in order to help the GOP to separate themselves from him (and his 28% approval) and give them a better chance in 2008.

I mean, Bush didn't have to insert himself into the middle of the immigration debate at this time -- it was Congress' thing, McCain and Kennedy's bill. He could have waited -- but he didn't. Why?

Dumb move or smart political strategy?

Hmmm.... maybe smart strategy ...when liberal OP-Ed writers start saying Bush is a liberal -- then it gets harder and harder to say the Republican Party is just the waterboy for the Bush agenda.

And the immigratiojn issue gave all the candidates (except McCain) an easy chance to beat up on Bush and differentiate themselves from him and his unpopularity.

"If the Democrats really were sincere about ending the war, if they really believed that they have a manadate from the american people to do so -- they could pull their 49 together with that independent and 1 misguided Republican and bring the resolution to the floor."

More bullshit. If the President even thought he would lose that battle, that's when the R's stop cloture. As usual, Bowa is talking out his ass, and once again, demonstrably, proveably wrong. C'mon Bowa, explain after what happened today how the Dems "have the power", and this time, try not to deflect on what the Republicans would do: from my first response, it's been about---and only about---what they could do.

then it gets harder and harder to say the Republican Party is just the waterboy for the Bush agenda.

After all, they only played that role to the hilt for six years.

At least he's taking McCain out with him.

Where's Rudy on immigra? I haven't watched any debates.

You cant have it both ways, bowa. If the dems do nothing because they don thave the votes you whine.

How weak and pathetic is the democratic party? Are you actually suggesting because they fear the GOP might use the cloture rule, the Democrats would rather just capitulate and surrender without even trying to get something done that they believe in?

I'm not even a Democrrat and I don't believe they are that lame.

I think what is more likely is that for all their heated rhetoric and accusations to the contrary, the Democrats don't have the goods on Gonzo, the President, or believe that withdrawl and surrender in Iraq will not have horrible and bloody consequences that will follow us here.

If they did. If they really believed in what they were saying -- they would risk the political battles and do whatever is necessary to stand up for what they believe in.

The political fallout the GOP would face if it tried to use parlimentary procedure to prevent a vote on defunding the war, or on the impeachment of an attorney general would be devastating. That's why they wouldn't do it. They would let the resolutions come to a vote.

That the democrats won't even attempt to draft a resolution to defund the war outright, or start an impeachment on Gonzo speaks volumes about the difference between what Democrats say and what they actually believe and are willing to fight for.

Republicans would do: from my first response, it's been about---and only about---what they could do.

To people with integrity, who actually believe in something -- what someone could do to try and thwart them is irrelevant and would never prevent them from taking the necessary actions they believe are right. If you believe you are right -- you try. And if you fail. You try again. and again. Because if you believe you are right, you never give up, never surrender.

What the other guy does is there problem.

What you and other people here are arguing is that because the GOP could do something , the Democrats should not even bother trying to do what they believe is right.

That kind of mindset is impossible to understand unless of course you don't really believe what you say you believe.

"The political fallout the GOP would face if it tried to use parlimentary procedure to prevent a vote on defunding the war, or on the impeachment of an attorney general would be devastating."

Horse manure. They did it today regarding Gonzales without batting an eye. If impeachment were on the table you'd have the added pressure of the President, and over 40 sided with him today without the arm-twisting. And regarding war funding, they could do it with a nod and a wink to the Democratic leadership, who may not be that eager to press it in the first place. It would barely score a blip on the radar, unless, of course, the Democrats got enough Republicans to agree to close debate, something the Dems didn't 'have the power' to do today.

How unbelievable He is IN Cognito. First He bitches because He claims Democrats are wasting time and money on a "Witch Hunt". THEN He complains when they don't waste time when He wants them to. LOKISFUR is unbelievable isn't He. UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE.

Larry

"you and other people here are arguing is that because the GOP could do something , the Democrats should not even bother trying to do what they believe is right"

That's a total lie.

I've been arguing, since the beginning, one thing and one thing only, and it has NOTHING to do with right or wrong. It has nothing to do with the funding bill, or any other specific bill, for that matter. It has nothing to do with whether politicians would vote this way or that way due to political peril. It has nothing to do with needing one vote for a majority vote. It has nothing to do with anything but your ignoring RROR, after I specifically referenced it my first post. Your statement the Dems "have the power" to do whatever they want because they have enough votes is a statement borne of an ignorance as how government is actually run. It is proveably wrong---today is a perfect example---so any more posting of that falsehood should be viewed as willful lying. I have proven that to the point of exhaustion. Any more and I'm wasting my time.

You are welcome to your delusions.

Quit whining Larry

Not whining at all just tired of the BULLSHIT. If I wanted to Hear BULLSHIT or Read BULLSHIT I would watch Dubya.

Larry

Every time the Rupublicans shoot down one of these "meaningless" bills, they take responsibility object of the bill.

Hillary had it right when she pointed out that vetoing the spending bill - and Repubs upholding it - made Iraq a Republican war. Same deal with Gonzales - you can call the Dem bill partisan, but what do you call the actions of legislators who refuse to vote no confidence, even though they publicly asmit they have no confidence in the guy?

Frankly, it seems to me the Dems are doing their job and expressing the opinion of the people - though very limited means - and are constantly being slapped down by Republicans who don't agree with their own positions, but are just trying to save their party from embarassment. It's the Republicans who look bad here, putting party before conscience.

Vote by vote, the Republicans are getting more of Bush's stink on them. Every one of these votes can and will be remembered come 2008. Expect the Dems to take every opportunity to make the Republicans stand up and vote to cover Bush's ass again and again in the next year.

This was stupid for the democrats to push. It clearly shows how backwards our elected officials seem to be.

Why push now a few months after you raised a stink, stupid.

Act on poor action immediately or not at all, it just makes the issue look revengeful, not altruistic.

Or is it that Republicans think incompetence, hackery, cronyism and malfeasance are good things we should encourage?

Whether the "no confidence" vote ever occurs or not, the message has already been delivered. Both Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders have made clear to the POTUS that they do not trust Mr. Gonzalez or believe he should remain. The fact that the GOP does not want a "no confidence" vote is a simple political decision having nothing to do with the fact that Gonzalez is pretty much a lame duck from here on out.

If you righties want to keep arguing how it's a good thing to keep incompotent people in office have at it.

The rest of the country is paying attention.

I say keep 'em all in. 2008 will be a lock for the Dems. America isn't as stupid as you think.

Who do those Repubs think they are? Democrats out of power?

Danforth, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I never said the Democrats had the power to do anything they want. I said the Democrats had the power to defund the war with a simple majority. As I have said, I was wrong -- the way the senate is currently configured it would take the help of 1 independent and 1 Republican to give the Dems the 51 majority they need for passage

Procedural votes prior to an actual vote on such a bill are irrelevant because unlike the "no confidence on Gonzalez" bill which is not serious, has no legal impact and is just an exercise in partisan hatred of Bush, it would just not be acceptable to the American people to use parlimentary procedure to block a vote on such a serious issue, with such real consequences. The political pressure in the press and from outraged citizens to let such a resolution come to a vote, coupled with the view that such a resolution would make Democrats responsible for the bloody consequences of withdrawl and defeat adds up to one thing -- the Republicans just wouldn't block it. They would allow an up or down vote.

The bottom line is that the Democrats aren't pursuing a bill to defund the war outright because they are afraid of what the GOP "could do" using the cloture rule, they are not pursuing such a bill because they are afraid of being blamed for the consequences if it passes.

It sounds to me that you are so caught up in what "could" be done using RROO, that you completely ignore the political reality and consequences of using such tactics.

The bottom line is that the Democrats aren't pursuing a bill to defund the war outright because-

They don't have the $&#_)+@ votes, pinhead.

They don't have the $&#_)+@ votes, pinhead.

Posted by I_N_Cognito

That is true, but then wouldn't it make sense to figure that out before spending the time on something like this? And to waste the effort on a non-binding resolution such as a no confidence vote? I say work on something meaningful like a revised Immigration Bill.

"They don't have the $&#_)+@ votes, pinhead."

The reason they don't have the votes is because a lot of DEMOCRATS will vote against defunding the war. BOWA is right.

"I say work on something meaningful like a revised Immigration Bill."

That would make way too much sense.

"This is a nonbinding, irrelevant resolution proving what? Nothing," Lott said. "Maybe we should be considering a vote of no confidence on the Senate or on the Congress for malfunction and an inability to produce anything."
In summary...taking the focus off the amnesty bill disaster?

Republicans in the Senate are just as afraid of a new Attorney General who will have to undergo Senate approval as is the president. They can't afford to have an honest person take over and remove some of the worst of the prosecutors and also investigate some of the crimes committed during the past six years of corruption. Not to worry Dems, after jan. 2009 a real Attorney General will be appointed and begin digging through the crap left behind by the criminals. A very few may even be prosecuted using the tiny amount of evidence not eliminated by the criminal conspiracy.

BTW, if the Dems no confidence vote was a political stunt then the Republicans blocking it was even more so.

Not to worry Dems, after jan. 2009 a real Attorney General will be appointed and begin digging through the crap left behind by the criminals. A very few may even be prosecuted using the tiny amount of evidence not eliminated by the criminal conspiracy.

Posted by danni

That's great Danni. Maybe amother 4 years of worthless investigations, plus another 2 years during the Bush administration. I can see we'll have to wait awhile for anything meaningful to get done. Maybe after 2112, we can take a look at Immigration and Social Security.

Danforth- has your patience, consistently argued, been finally exhausted? I hope not but I wouldn't blame you.

BTW, if the Dems no confidence vote was a political stunt then the Republicans blocking it was even more so.

That makes no sense.

""Maybe amother 4 years of worthless investigations, plus another 2 years during the Bush administration.""

Worthless to who...the Republicans who don't want the immoral, unethical, criminal behavior of this administration exposed. The president's poll numbers have been directly effected. So have the do nothing Republicans who investigated nothing.

"Maybe after 2112, we can take a look at Immigration and Social Security."

Gee, your guys had six years, how much time did they need????
You guys keep forgetting how long the do nothing Republicans were rubber stamping anything Bush wanted. But don't worry, I'll keep reminding you.

BOWA if you can't figure out why that is even more of a political stunt then I have to say I overestimated you.

In summary...taking the focus off the amnesty bill disaster?

The one that President Bush is going to Capitol Hill to lobby on behalf of?

Danni, don't get me wrong.....I'm completely fed up with both sides. Time to remove all these career politicians and elect new blood. Immigration needs to be addressed along with the potential SS shortfall that we face.

Danforth- has your patience, consistently argued, been finally exhausted? I hope not but I wouldn't blame you.

Sitdown, it is obvious to anyone following this argument that Danforth and I have a completely different focus -- as he said, he is only concerned with what Congress "could" do, while I am focused on what Congress "would" actually do and the reasons behind those actions.

That Republicans "could" use the cloture rule to prevent a vote on defunding the war does not mean they would nor does it mean the fear of what the GOP could do is preventing the Democrats from even trying to defund the war outright without even the need for Presidential approval.

"Gee, your guys had six years, how much time did they need????"

How old are you, DANNI? You say "six years?" Seems to me that there has been problems with immigration and social security for DECADES. I know you want to blame this administration for the plague, small pox and everything else, but there is plenty of blame for today's problems to spread around through MANY administrations. Some of them were even democrats...GASP!

Why couldn't the Dems just not vote one way or the other on a funding bill when it comes up again. Instead of "defunding" just don't fund. I am sure the president would pull $$$ from elsewhere but I think the Dems could do it but apparently THEY AIN'T GOT THE GUTS!
I took up for them before but I think Pelosi and Reid need to be replaced with leaders who LEAD!

""How old are you, DANNI? You say "six years?" Seems to me that there has been problems with immigration and social security for DECADES.""

Not like the past six years we haven't.
The Bush administration had completely stopped enforcing the penalties against employers until just lately when public knowledge of that became known. Clinton was slightly better but not much.
However WISGOD was commenting on the lack of action by the Dems, who do not have the votes to pass legislation without Republican help and who can be easily vetoed by Bush, as if the Republicans...who held a clear majority in both houses and had the presidency too for six years could be forgiven for inaction. Pretty hypocritical in my view.

BOWA if you can't figure out why that is even more of a political stunt then I have to say I overestimated you.

Danni, nope I can't figure it out. You are going to have to explain it to me.

How is blocking a political stunt a political stunt in an of itself?

That's like saying stopping a juvenile stunt like say shooting spitballs at a teacher, is in itself a juvenile stunt.


As I said, that makes no sense.

""How is blocking a political stunt a political stunt in an of itself?""

If it was just a meaningless stunt then why did it matter enough to block it???
A stunt is a meaningless exercise, the fact that they took the time to organize an opposition to it and actually block it gave it more meaning than it originally had. I hope the Dems remember which Republicans stood up for Gonzalez and his use of the Federal Prosecutors as tools of the Republican Party and bash them with it come election time. But then, there are so many things with which to bash Republicans it may be forgotten. It's like having too much ammunition.

BTW....the idea of the Republican "culture of corruption" was reinforced by their blocking of this vote.

BTW....the idea of the Republican "culture of corruption" was reinforced by their blocking of this vote.

Posted by danni

A vote of "No Confidence" does not equal "Corruption".

""A vote of "No Confidence" does not equal "Corruption".""

Opposing a vote of No confidence for an AG who is so obviously corrupt does. It hints that the Republicans actually want Gonzalez to remain in office....SO THAT THEY KNOW THEY AND THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT FACE ANY INVESTIGATIONS FROM THE Justice Dept. A new AG, approved by the Senate would probably not be so willing to ignore criminality or to use the prosecutors as a political weapon. Some of the Senators voting against this vote actually benefited by the politicization of the prosecutors and probably will again.

"(Danforth) is only concerned with what Congress "could" do, while I am focused on what Congress "would" actually do and the reasons behind those actions."

Only because your original statement, which was about what the Dems "could do" has been so totally debunked. That's why you've tried so desperately to change the argument to what they "would do" ever since.

"Republicans "could" use the cloture rule to prevent a vote on defunding the war"

Which proves my point, and shows yours as wrong, since in my first post I referenced RROR. You don't get to now hide behind what they "would" do, since my very first post pointed out your error in what they "could" do. That argument might swim if I hadn't referenced RROR & cloture specifically before your first response, but since you quoted my questions directly, you can't now pretend you were unaware of what I was refererencing.

Opposing a vote of No confidence for an AG who is so obviously corrupt does.
Posted by danni

Well Danni, after months of investigation, then it appears that the best the Dems could muster up was a No Confidence vote. Sorry your party let you down (again).

It hints that the Republicans actually want Gonzalez to remain in office..

Danni, first thanks for taking the time to explain your comment that blocking the "political stunt" was also a "political stunt". While I disagree. I do understand where you are coming from.

That said, I don't think there are many Republicans (me included) who want Gonzo to remain in office. He's been shown to be incompetant and inneffecive. He lacks candor in an office that demands candor.

Unfortunately, he has also become a political pawn used by Democrats to as a point to launch all kinds of unproven allegations and accusations at the Bush administration from.

Given all the heinous accusations made against Gonzo, to attempt to pass a "non-binding" resolution of "no confidence" would give those accusations far more validity then they deserve at this time.

By blocking the move, the Republicans were telling the Democrats that if they want to get rid of Gonzalez for all the reasons they have no confidence in him, then get the goods on him for real and bring something binding (like impeachment) to the table. In other words, the GOP was telling the Dems to put their money where their mouth is


BTW: Before the democrats took power, I had never heard the term "non-binding" resolution. It seems like an oxymoron. But the concept of a "non-binding resolution" is symbolic of my view of the democcratic party in general -- More talk then action. More interested in flinging accusations then proving them. More interested in talking about what they would do then actually doing it. More content with trying to position themselves so they bear no responsibility for anything they do, then standing up for what they believe in and accepting the consequences of that decison.

Any self-respecting professional in Gonzo's position would have resigned long ago.

The Dems just didn't count on the extreme arrogance and hubris that flows downward in this admin.

The Dems just didn't count on the extreme arrogance and hubris that flows downward in this admin.


Posted by Corky

Was that the point of a 3 month investigation Corky? Investigate and maybe he'll resign? Keep the faith. You're party may even accomplish something.

This is hilarious. The moral republicans are complaining about a party playing politics. They never did that the last 6 years.

Its pretty simple. Gonzo should have stepped down. Any respectable person or administration would have him leave after the circus he put on in congress. But, not this administration. Now, the Dems are making the Repubes pay. Bush is YOUR president. Sleep in the bed you made.

I don't like this political posturing either, but to play high and mighty after the hole the rebublicans put us in with their "party first" mentality is ridiculas.

The point of the investigation was to uncover any wrongdoing.

The result of the investigation was to establish that we have just one more Bush appointed incompetent "yes man", willing to write torture memos or whatever else he is told to do, in high office.

""Well Danni, after months of investigation, then it appears that the best the Dems could muster up was a No Confidence vote. Sorry your party let you down (again).""

No, they presented pretty clear evidence of the politicization of the Justice Dept. There really wasn't much doubt that it was being done though it is a little harder to bring a criminal indictment. That said...the Republicans are well aware of it and refuse to go along with an impeachment which the Dems would happily bring articles of. thus it is the Republicans who are protecting what is in effect a criminal conspircacy in the Justice Dept. and that fact should be reported to the voters.

""Keep the faith. You're party may even accomplish something.""

It's all about 2008 when hopefully we can clean house. Both of them. Make that all three of them.

The point of the investigation was to uncover any wrongdoing.

Posted by Corky

Ok. And obviously nothing was found. So a "vote of no confidence" is in order? The way I see it, there are politicians on both sides who deserve a no confidence vote. My point is cut out the B.S. and get down to business.

"Ok. And obviously nothing was found."

hehe

hehe

hahahahaha!

I think it's funny too. Funny that your party found enough to muster a "no-confidence" vote.

The party of investigations fails it's constiuents again.

BWHAHAHHA

Next up....Impeachment.

House impeaches by a simple majority, where the Democrats do have the votes. Senate convicts by 2/3 where obviously the Democrats do NOT have the majority and where the "no-confidence" vote took place yesterday. This game of chess will continue. Democrats have only had 6 months to undue years of corruption (including their own). Time will tell.

undue=undo

WisGaurd,

Do you believe Gonzo should have resigned? Just curious.

Do you believe Gonzo should have resigned? Just curious.

Posted by BenFranklinn

Not sure. Did he screwup during the hearings....yes. Was any wrongdoing (Corky's word) proven? No. My point was and is that the Dems should have dropped it.
Another interesting note:

New York Senator Hillary Clinton, a Democratic presidential candidate, voted to end debate. Other senators who are presidential candidates didn't vote, including Democrats Joseph Biden of Delaware, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Barack Obama of Illinois and Republicans Sam Brownback of Kansas and John McCain of Arizona.

And BTW Ben, why is it U.S. Rep. William Jefferson has not been removed from office considering the charges he faces? You can't have it both ways.

ah well after reading the thread, here is the deal......its not whether he did anything illegal because from day one constitutional experts and lawyers have said that he didnt, so all of this has been just a show,...and most of the attacks here from the right are about the grand congress that many of you here said on the 2nd WEDNESDAY Of last november was going to save the republic has done very little and cant even get across a meaningless letter to "tell my mommie on you" about gonzo.
and this standup to the left gumption is what really pisses most of you off...
how dare the right wing stand up to the smartest people on the planet....I mean come on.

A vote of "No Confidence" does not equal "Corruption".

Posted by wisgod

Gonzales has been corrupting America's legal system by using the Justice Department for political purposes.

The most corrupt act of all.

""its not whether he did anything illegal because from day one constitutional experts and lawyers have said that he didnt,""

Bull shit. Gonzalez's convenient memory lapses, lost emails, etc. etc. have made it probably impossible to prove he did anything illegal. The liklihood though is pretty obvious to everyone....including some of the Republicans.

hey.bullshit lady,

from day one every scholar or expert that any network has run out to talk about this has said the very same thing.
nothing was illegal, so I guess I'm going to go with that for now and then in 4 or 5 years when the dems are still pushing this shit maybe they will come up with something then when they rewrite history from this time.........

bushlovertwo,

What about the caging? What about the illegal hiring procedures by Monica? These fall on Gonzales whether you think so or not. And we won't even discuss the inappropriate investigations near election time in Missouri. According to the right wingers the Congress should just ignore all of this.

BushLoverTwo (of six)

Mom, dad, Laura, Buddy, the twins, and BL2 LOL

Haha Libs

Posted by wisgod at 2007-06-11 08:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now there's a real thinker.

Gonzo perjured himself numerous times.

The dems need to make a federal case of it (literally) and toss the douche bag in jail.

Gonzo perjured himself numerous times.

Posted by NONSENSE

Say's you? Boy, then your Party must really be stupid.

"If they dont have the votes for "no confidence" they won't have them for "impeachment" of Gonzales.

IDIOT! How many times does this need be explained to you?

Posted by I_N_Cognito"

IDIOT! How many times does this need be explained to you? Impeachment is by simple majority.

Clinton was impeached, he just wasn't removed.

The Democrats have the votes to impeach by simple majority. Gonzales looks like an easy target to succeed - but perhaps not convict. Should that stop them? Is it a waste of time to do what is necessary?

As much as I enjoy the "your party this" and "your party that" blather... doesn't anyone find it depressing very few Senators from either party claim to have confidence in this man's ability to continue on in his office, but that they are so busy sticking fingers in each other's eyes that no one will actually DO anything about him?

People are so worried about scoring political points that no one cares about the office, the law, or the country.

Meanwhile, whether the man is guilty of anything or not, his office has certainly taken an enormous hit. Our Senate has taken another embarrassing hit. Our President looks like even less of a leader for not being able to get control of this thing, and our country has, once again, been successfully distracted from the real issue at hand.

What about Paris Hilton???

"Clinton was impeached, he just wasn't removed."

Posted by Petrous

***************

Clinton was impeached but he wasn't convicted. Therefore there wasn't even a discussion regarding removal.

True SLBOW. He wasn't convicted.
Gonzales could be impeached. With a simple majority, which obviously exists, the articles would then go to the Senate.

If the man is guilty, then you either prosecute or you are placing a 'signing statement' that you won't enforce the law.

So very Bush-ish. No wonder there's no real difference between the two parties. There's little effort to prove otherwise.

Gonzo perjured himself numerous times.

Posted by NONSENSE

Say's you? Boy, then your Party must really be stupid.

Posted by wisgod at 2007-06-12 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Says me?

No, says anyone that watched the FLIP FLOPPERS testimony. I'm sure that it will just be chalked up as "forgetfulness" but he was lying (aka PERJURING himself).

The dems aren't my party, but those stupid people did beat your party in the last election.