So... how does Senator Sanctimony (I*-Connecticut) justify his vote on the Gonzales bill?

[Zenlitened]

Holy Joe Lieberman -- America's own (if self-appointed) moral compass, the high priest of non-partisanship in pursuit of (his own blinded-by-bin-Laden version of) Truth -- how does he justify his vote to derail the Gonzales censure?

... Those voting not to shut off debate included 37 Republicans and independent Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.

Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6OotNu.lboY&refer=home

Republican Senators who actually may possess a hint of moderation about them... they had no trouble putting aside party allegiance and voting to move the bill forward.

What's your story, Sen. Sanctimony? :shrug:



The "I" in (I-CT) is for "infatuated," apparently.

:puke:

[pinto]

1. Actually, I think he's set his place in the Senate. And it ain't Dem.

I expect little from him, overall, except on labor and some health care issues. I welcome that, fwiw.

Though I think retirement would have been a good move, once he lost the Dem. primary, I'm over his defection. Expect him to vote (R) on any national security issue, balk at real oversight of the Executive, and hem and haw his way with the lame duck Administration.

Kind of a sad end to his career, but he's got his (I) seat in the Senate and that's the way it is. I won't rail on him *nor* will I count on him for any kind of broad support for a Democratic agenda.

If by some chance Guiliani wins the (R) nomination, look to see Sen. Lieberman in his campaign.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. it is because politiks be bad when Dems do it, but great when GOP does it.

it is that simple.