AP: GOP Blocks Gonzales No-Confidence Vote. Cloture vote fails 53-38.

[flpoljunkie]

Wonder which R's voted for cloture.

GOP Blocks Gonzales No-Confidence Vote
By LAURIE KELLMAN

The Associated Press
Monday, June 11, 2007; 6:19 PM

WASHINGTON -- Republicans blocked the Senate's no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Monday, turning back a symbolic Democratic effort to prod him from office despite blistering criticism from lawmakers in both parties.

The 53-38 vote to move the resolution to full debate fell seven short of the 60 required. In bringing the matter up, Democrats dared Republicans to vote their true feelings about an attorney general who has alienated even the White House's strongest defenders by bungling the firings of federal prosecutors and claiming not to recall the details.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales speaks at the National Press Club in Washington in this May 15, 2007 file photo. Majority Democrats in the Senate are forcing their Republican colleagues on the record about whether Gonzales should keep his job. The resolution, expected to be voted on Monday, is one sentence: "It is the sense of the Senate that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales no longer holds the confidence of the Senate and of the American people."

Republicans did not defend him, but most voted against moving the resolution ahead.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061100320.html

[AndyA]

1. The Democrats couldn't block ANYTHING when they were the minority party.

So how is it now that the GOP is the minority, they still have their way?

Harry needs to kick some serious Senate butt, or we need a new leader in the Senate. This is getting old.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. They did a better job when the Senate was 51/49, not so much when it was 55/45

If we had 55 Democrats in the Senate, the GOP wouldn't be blocking very much.

[flpoljunkie]

5. Senate can pass nothing without first having a cloture vote which requires 60 votes. Do the math.

[sampsonblk]

18. Question is, why didn't it work like this a year ago

Its because the GOP is willing to take political risks to secure its base of support for the long haul.

Dem party? Risk averse to the point of impotence. Remember Kerry being forced to apologize for his 'botched' joke? Remember when Dean said we were not safer after the capture of Saddam?

[flpoljunkie]

19. Am not sure what you mean. Cloture votes are always required for Senate to proceed to vote, unless

they are waived. In this case, the Republicans would have objected to waiving the cloture vote.

The Republicans are now on record of continuing to support Abu Gonzales. This is good.

[sampsonblk]

20. My issue is the tactics or lack thereof

What I am trying to highlight is that the GOP isn't using the same 'dry powder' strategy that the Dem party used when we were in the minority.

So while we were in the minority, the GOPers got everything they wanted. Now we are in the majority. And the GOPers are still getting pretty much everything they want.

When is a majority not a majority? When the other guys can still pass the bills they want and stop the ones they don't want.

I honestly don't expect a heavy price for the GOPers who voted against this. They can just claim it was about principle and not about Gonzales.

Just my opinion(s).

[onenote]

24. count the votes

the repubs got what they wanted because they had 55 guaranteed votes and only needed to pick up 5 more for cloture. Now the Democrats have 51 votes, and when you consider that Tim Johnson isn't available to vote, its down to 50 and the fact that Lieberman is likely to vote for the repub position on many issues -- we really need as many as 11 pick ups. How do you suggest that Reid go about getting more repubs to vote with Democrats?

[sampsonblk]

37. ...then you don't bring up the bill

nt

[ProudDad]

23. They only need 40 votes

to sustain a filibuster.

[Totally Committed]

2. Goodgawdalmighty

Even when they try to do something meaningless, they don't succeed. WTF?

TC

[LibDemAlways]

3. WTF? What the hell is the matter with the Dems?

Why doesn't being the majority party in the Senate seem to mean anything when the Dems are supposedly in charge?

[Totally Committed]

6. It's all the DINOs, I think...

If the Democrats voted as a block, the way the Repubs do on matters like this, we wouldn't be in this problem.

TC

[onenote]

25. not really...we need repub votes to break a filibuster

The fact that someone like Lieberman votes with the repubs on many occasions hurts, but the fact is that even if every member of the Democratic caucus (including Tim Johnson, who isn't available) voted as a block, the repubs could prevent legislation from moving by denying cloture.

[snowbear]

8. It's just what Schumie wanted.. and------

... the Republicans in blue/purple states will be in countless television ads just before election time at a TV near you.

Schumer was counting on this happening!!!!

I'll bet you they've already started production on the political ads that they plan to flood the airwaves with.

Give the guy some credit --- he knew what he was doing during the congressional election last year---



---------------and he was chomping at the bit for the fodder he needed for commercials that these Republicans are going to DREAD like hell!

NOTHING is wrong with the Dems!

[LibDemAlways]

9. If the tables were turned, the party that impeached Clinton

for a blow job would have hounded a corrupt AG out of office. No way would they settle for fodder for future campaign ads.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. The House CAN impeach.

But it's obvious the Senate could not convict.

And I might add, the Senate did not convict Clinton either, so Republicans DID settle for fodder for future campaign ads.

My how you twist history to bash what is allegedly your own party.

[LibDemAlways]

33. Not attempting to twist or rewrite history. And I never said

anything about Clinton being convicted. Only that the r's had no problem going ahead with impeachment over something as insignificant as Lewinsky. If you reread my post I said that had the tables been turned the r's would hound a corrupt AG out of office. No need to impeach him. Just put so much pressure on him he'd be compelled to resign.

I don't see how pointing out the difference in how the two parties approach something like this is Dem bashing. I think there are many people on this board who'd like to see them start going for the jugular the way the r's do.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

34. R's paid a price for that witch hunt, remember?

R's also got booted out of office going for that jugular, remember? Fact is, their tactics would have seen them lose the majority AND the Presidency well before 2006, if not for 9/11. Their blueprint is not the one to emulate if you wish to sustain a majority and see real changes take place. Not even Republicans were able to fuck everything up by June of 1995. It took them well into the Bush Presidency to start doing serious damage.

[Zandor]

26. 55 < 60

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. Is simple math lost on you?

Only seven Republicans joined Democrats in the vote to invoke cloture. 7+50 still only equals 57. 57 is still less than the 60 votes needed.

How can you even begin with a "WTF*)$!@Y)$@U)" tantrum when all that could be done was done?

[Hart2008]

7. Stop wasting time! Impeach the SOB!

The House needs to hold the hearings on impeachment for Gonzo.

Let them filibuster the impeachment vote!!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

13. or stick him on a desert island?

[flpoljunkie]

10. Geez, Lieberman voted NO!

OP blocks Gonzales no-confidence vote

Although Republican Sen. Arlen Specter said earlier today that there is "no confidence in the attorney general on this side of the aisle," Senate Republicans largely held together this afternoon in blocking an up-or-down vote on a resolution expressing the Senate's lack of confidence Alberto Gonzales.

Senate Democrats needed 60 votes to prevail on a cloture motion and bring the no-confidence resolution to the Senate floor. In the end, they got 53. Republicans voting with the Democrats: Specter, John Sununu, Gordon Smith, Norm Coleman, Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Among the senators voting no: Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/06/11/vote2/index.html

[jenmarie]

11. Obama and Dodd

couldn't bother to show up. Too busy focusing on their potential next job instead of doing their fucking jobs NOW.

It wouldn't have put us to 60 votes, but every vote counted in this and would have been closer. This 2 year campaigning for president is ridiculous.

As for LIEberman...

Wes Clark's Ad for Ned Lamont says it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uPpQXBmPQ4

ends with "Re-elect Joe Lieberman? There's a word for it -- Mistake."

[ElizabethDC]

12. Biden didn't show up either. n/t

[jenmarie]

14. Right!

I didn't realize that until after posting. Grrrrrr.

Something needs to change. If we're going to have 2 year presidential races, those in congress need to figure out how to still do the job they were elected to do. I hope their constituents let them know how disappointed they are.

http://www.congress.org

[ElizabethDC]

16. Exactly - and we're far enough out from the primaries that candidates can reschedule campaign events

they could at least wait a little longer to start missing important votes.

[flpoljunkie]

15. If ALL Dems voted for cloture, plus the 7 Republicans--that still adds up to only 57. Do the math.

Lieberman, Independent (Connecicut for Lieberman) party, voted with the Republicans. Sanders, Independent, voted with the Democrats.

[ihelpu2see]

17. Harry Reid needs to strip Joe LIEberman of any caucus positions he holds

these are provided to Senators by the party and Joe is not in the Dem. Party and now calling for bombing of Iran..... out you go JOE!!

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Lieberman will just joing the Republic Party if Reid does that

And frankly it surprises me that he hasn't already. I'm not for stripping Lieberman of his committee assignments, but I'm also not in favor of indulging his threats. If Lieberman says he'll switch parties if the Democrats do something he doesn't like, well then I say fuck Lieberman.

[enough already]

27. Call the prick's bluff

If he wants to switch, who cares at this point? We're letting the prick hold us hostage right now. Cut him loose and move on. I promise you he doesn't actually have the balls to switch over.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. I agree, just not with removing his committee assignments`

If he says "If you bring this Iraq Bill to the floor I'll go to the GOP" then I'd absolutely call his bluff.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. And then we lose Majority status.

Great idea. :eyes:

[ProudDad]

22. Gee, now why the fuck didn't the Dems

fillibuster Alito.

[enough already]

28. It was all part of an elaborate strategy, remember?

I just can't seem to remember what that was....

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. Because Bush is still the President.

Why do so many on DU have this ill conceived notion that life in the Majority for Democrats is the same as it was for the Republicans? It's completely, totally, and infinitely different, for several reasons:

1) Bush can veto any law that we pass.

2) Bush still nominates all appointed positions, so if it wasn't Alito, it would have been some other asshole that is just like him.

3) They could have gone nuclear and given us a LOT worse than Alito. If you think Alito is scary, how about Supreme Court Justice Ted Haggerty? We can't go nuclear because we made such a bluster about how unconstitutional and insane it was.

4) We have a MUCH slimmer majority, even slimmer still with Tim Johnson still out of office. In order to get around a filibuster, we'd need 10 Republicans to switch sides. Even when Dems were in the minority, it was a very rare occasion to see 10 of them join a cloture vote. 5-7 at best, but 10 is nearly impossible.

5) They didn't have their majority status hinging on a single member threatening to switch parties, as we do with that fucktard Lieberman.

6) Did I mention Bush can still veto any bill and appoint any nominee? It's worth mentioning twice, because it's impossible for us to ramrod through any legislation we want and expect it to be enacted. And while we can get nominees far more palatable to us now that we're in the majority, they're still not exactly going to be liberal appointees.

[mvd]

35. I'm not sure..

this is worth bringing up again with other issues like the war. But we need to be screaming in the media - Congress is thwarting the will of a majority of the members. All because of Repuke obstruction.