The Democrats are being laughed at by both the media and this administration

[still_one]

When do you think they will learn to put the gloves on.

If you were to hear the media receit the administrations talking points you would think this is only political, but in reality what you have is an attorney general who LIED under oath to congress, and was involved in witness tampering.

"Democrats to push vote on Gonzales

WASHINGTON - Majority Democrats in the Senate are forcing their Republican colleagues on the record about whether embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should keep his job.

No one is predicting that a symbolic resolution expressing no confidence in Gonzales will survive even the test vote Monday. Most Republicans are likely to vote no, dismissing the whole exercise as a ploy to embarrass President Bush"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_go_co/senate_gonzales

Funny, they are playing the game of misinformation with libby also, not focusing that he purjured himself and obstructed justice


No matter how this vote turns out, if gonzalez does not resign, and if the Democrats do not impeach gonzalez, then we have won nothing in 2006, it is just in name only

This isn't about politics, it is about incompentence and breaking the law!!!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. How Can You Possibly Put Forth A Premise That Even If They Don't Have Enough Votes To Pass A

no confidence measure, that they BETTER impeach him? Don't you realize how out of touch with reality that sounds?

[still_one]

2. First of all I am not "floating" that premise, AP and most of the MSM are

Here is another piece. somewhat more objective than the AP piece, but still showing the contempt the administration has for Congress, and the law:


Bush Calls Vote on Attorney General `Meaningless' (Update1)

By Edwin Chen

June 11 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush dismissed as ``meaningless'' a planned Senate vote today on a resolution of no confidence in U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, America's top law enforcement officer.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aUDrCxl9zPtg&refer=home

Incidently, Gonzalez VIOLATED the law by lying under oath, and witness tampering. Why would impeachment be "ridiculous" if he doesn't resign?

[Oilwellian]

3. Uh...

It's not the premise of impeachment that's ridiculous...it's expecting it to happen when there aren't enough votes in the Senate to do so.

[blondeatlast]

5. If they can't garner enough votes for "no-confidence" vote, which is milder than impeachment,

I can't see how they can get the impeachment through.

I'd love to see BOTH happen, but if the "no confidence" isn't realistic, impeachment is a castle in the sky.

I'm not saying they shouldn't try, I'm just saying that if they try and fail, the media and the president will still hold them in contempt. Sadly, anymore, that's the media's job.

[still_one]

10. You have a point, but goodling and others have implicated him in illegal activities

perjury and witness tampering. I am not even going into the probable voting supression that he was involved with

We have the head of the Justice Department implicated in committing a crime, why are charges being brought against him?

[The Stranger]

4. "One man with courage makes a majority."

Jackson understood that conviction comes first, and the votes inevitably follow.

[On the Road]

25. You Honestly Believe

that if the Democrats had acted with greater "conviction," they would have succeeded?

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. It's called doing the right thing

which is a concept our elected Dems seem unfamiliar with.

[still_one]

12. Shouldn't charges being brought against gonzalez for illegal activities?

What message does it convey if nothing is done?

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. Exactly!!

I am so tired of hearing "we don't have the votes!" OR "we don't have the time" OR "we have more important things to do".

The friggin AG is a goddamn corrupt partisan hack, the president is a war criminal, and our elected Dems want to IGNORE all that and just wait it out till these people are GONE???

[jwirr]

22. How do you propose doing it without votes? I know the law has

been broken but who do you propose arrest the man who is in charge of the arrests of both *ss and gonzo? I do not see another way to do what you are asking so I would like to hear how you are going to do it? If the votes are not there? If it will take us the next two years to get it done and we have to ignore other issues (global warming) to get it done? I am not trying to dis you I just want to know how else we can go about this. Also do not assume that stopping the funding will automatically do it. These criminals will simply raid other funds and use military funds earmarked for other things for their war. They will do anything to keep it going as long as they can.

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. Doing nothing is not acceptable.

There is a criminal enterprise in the White House. Our national conscience should be insisting on impeachment.

I really don't care if there are enough votes. Do you think Newt and company worried about votes before impeaching Clinton? Remember, they lost that battle.

[jwirr]

24. I asked how? As to Newt, they did not care about a true impeachment

they only wanted to get the word out. We will not accomplish anything if we just follow their example of publicity hungry maniacs who did not have the good of America at heart but only their road to more power. They won the battle they were fighting for - 8 cursed years of *ss and his rubber stamp congress.

My questions are legitimate. How can we accomplish this outside of the normal channels which are not working?

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. Pressure

We need to be flooding Conyers with calls and faxes. Some of us are doing just that. Now imagine if only half of DU contacted Conyers this week. I think he would get the message.

[jwirr]

28. I think he has the message just not the votes.

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. He works for us

He doesn't have the right to ignore the message.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. That's Obviously Up To Each Individual's Perception.

[gratuitous]

6. If doing the right thing causes other people to laugh at you

Do the right thing anyway.

I'm uninterested in listening to the popular media, which has been so wrong about so much over the last six years. And I'm completely unfazed by anything this lying administration has to say about being called out for its crimes.

[bigtree]

7. Whoever is 'laughing' at our Democrats doesn't deserve my attention

for ANYTHING they are proposing.

All you've done here is knock them for their efforts so far, offering absolutely no support at all for their no-confidence vote. You cite the numbers which don't seem to be enough for the censure, but you then expect for them to pull off some impeachment. It's awful easy to sit back and harp on them for what they haven't yet accomplished, but it's more than sophistry to ignore the republican obstruction and heap the blame on Democrats for their inability to overcome that obstruction. Just hollering that they should 'impeach' at every turn and knocking them because they haven't is absolutely the most absurd position.

They way you describe this is sort of like fantasy football, instead of anything resembling the political realities we all are facing operating against the republican obstruction with our slim majority; or anything resembling the opposition our Democrats are actually engaging in. Every time they fail to move that obstruction, I guess we can expect you to heap all of the criticism and pressure on the ones who are trying to make a difference instead of the republican opposition. Every obstacle can't be addressed by some impeachment proceeding. Do you honestly think our legislators would deliberately pass on a course of action which they though would actually unseat the Attorney General? They're all idiots and you're the only smart one around because you've proposed impeaching him?

Just keep setting up these ridiculous hurdles. I'm sure they'll provide you with more than enough to serve your epic pouting over our party.

[still_one]

15. Shouldn't charges be brought against the attorney general for perjury at the least? /nt

[bigtree]

20. if they can find a clear path to conviction

of course.

Just rehashing news reports doesn't get them there though. This is being investigated. But indictments, much less convictions, don't happen overnight.

[blogslut]

9. Thanks for the reminder

When is the vote? :)

[bigtree]

11. No Confidence Vote on Alberto Gonzales Today

June 11, 2007 at 09:01 AM
Email this Print this Blog this Digg this

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) announced that a vote of no confidence in U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will be held in the Senate today: http://www.opencongress.org/blog

If all senators who have actually lost confidence in Attorney General Gonzales voted their conscience, this vote would be unanimous."

"However, the President will certainly exert pressure to support the Attorney General, his longtime friend. We will soon see where people’s loyalties lie."

Meanwhile, a Washington Post-ABC News Poll asked 1,205 adults whether they approve or disapprove of the way Gonzales has handled the controversial firing of nine federal prosecutors. 52 percent said that they disapprove; another 23 percent said they had no opinion.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/06/no_confidence_v.php

[blogslut]

13. I'm looking at the Senate site

Say it's not convening until 2:00 PM? Think that's typo?

[bigtree]

14. the link the DNC provided above says 5:30 nt

[blogslut]

18. Ahh. Thanks.

Silly me. I shoulda checked out the links you provided. My bad.

Plenty of time to knock back some work and pop some popcorn. :)

[lonestarnot]

17. The law? Who cares about law! Law is irrelevant!

:sarcasm:

[OzarkDem]

21. Bush thinks its "his government"?

From the linked article:

"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 Monday."

Someone needs to remind him the government belongs to the citizens of the US. It may be his administration, but its our government.

Its truly scary if he sees himself as a dictator now.

[dogday]

26. This is the part I think sucks

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

Yes they did defend him by voting for him...

Freaking MSM sucks

[Virginia Dare]

29. How can they laugh at the Democrats...

when this is their leader: