REID FAILS AGAIN-- APPARENTLY SENATE HAS CONFIDENCE IN ABU GONZO
>
Maybe if we give him 10 more Democrats in the Senate in '08 Harry Reid will manage to pass something. Or at least he won't have the excuses he uses now. The Democrats needed 60 votes to shut off Miss McConnell's filibuster. They got 53 votes. It's important to mention that Joe Lieberman, who was supported by Bush and Cheney in the general election against Democrat Ned Lamont didn't have any worries about Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and other top Democrats fighting him off. Lieberman, as he always does when it counts, voted with Bush and Cheney today. Good job, guys. Seven Republicans voted to end the filibuster including Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Chuck Hagel and the 4 Republicans widely thought of as likely to lose their seats next year who are all desperate to try to show that they are suddenly not Bush/Cheney rubber stamps (Sununu, Coleman, Collins and Smith). It wasn't important enough to Obama, Dodd or Biden to show up for the vote and McCain... well, he's barely a member of the Senate any longer anyway. He's just a 24/7 donations collector, sort of like one of those special French pigs that roots out truffles.
Labels: Gonzales, Harry Reid, Purge-Gate
posted by DownWithTyranny @ 3:49 PM
19 comments
|
Reddit
19 Comments:
Howie,
Is there anything we can do about Reid? He is dreadful.
Spineless Democrats have been disappointing the country for decades.
It is clear that Gonzales is guilty of several felonies including perjury. Why is there no special prosecutor? SPINELESS DEMOCRATS, that's why.
"sort of like one of those special French pigs that roots out truffles"
Oh, Lordy. You really need to put in a spew alert... I'm STILL howling. Now all we need is someone with Photoshop skills to make it come true...
Reid is useless. Is there any way to put someone with some cojones in his job? I'm not up on the finer points of Parliamentary process, but he's got to go.
are these comments satire?
its reid's fault that the dems dont have 60 members?
Even if Lieberman voted "Yes" and
even if Johnson(Dem) was not ill
and able to vote and even if Biden/Dodd/Obama had showed up and
voted, the total "Yea" vote would
have been only 58; still 2 short
of the 60 required.
Reid is to be blamed...He, it is
evident, does not know how to count. Never should have gone
forward with the vote if he knew
a large number of Dem's were either
not going to cast a vote or were
unable to attend. He is WEAK.
Regarding "60 Fixation" : Count me among those who believe that one does what one believes is right, regardless . . .
Have to disagree, Bobo. 40 or more Republicans are now on record as having protected Gonzo.
Actually, I think they only needed 56 votes to end debate. I wouldn't bet my life on my knowledge of Senate rules, but I believe they need 3/5 of those voting. 60 votes in a full house. As only 92 voted, 56 votes would have ended it. I assume that if Obama and Biden would have come back to town, McCain and Brownback would have too. Still, they should have.
And, yeah, it's not Harry Reid's fault that only a third of the senate was up for reelection last year.
Am I incorrect or doesn't Joe Bleederman's departure represent new ground for him here? He's been a total sycophant on war-related issues, but this one was about corrupted justice and elections, with nothing tied to national security.
I think he should be questioned repeatedly by the media to answer this question: what's your rationale for supporting outright corruption of justice that has disenfranchised voters and launched faux-investigations to 'win' elections for the GOP?
What's Lieberman's rationale for supporting outright corruption of justice that has disenfranchised voters and launched faux-investigations to 'win' elections for the GOP?
Payback.
And Dan sorry you're wrong. This isn't Iraq's parliament. It's gotta be 60 out of 100 no matter how many show up.
Downwithtyranny, get off Harry's back! He can't manufacture votes. Do the simple math. Then direct your fire at the Republicans where it belongs.
Or go join the Greens.
I am with those who don't see how it is Reid's fault. I certainly rather have a man like him than the Hammer who got his votes no matter what. What I am amazed with is how insulting the Senators that voted with Gonzo on this are to their constituents. It's shocking how little concern they give to the American public. Just another slap in the face and their supporters take it.
I'm pretty sure it *is* 3/5 of the people present (not of the full Senate); I actually looked it up a few years ago. It could have changed since then of course.
Found this on the senate website:
cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.
Can't we give the Democrats credit for even bringing this to a vote. Imagine something like this even being mentioned a year ago. Come on, we're further along now than we were before. Get out and vote next year to oust ALL repugs. Then you'll see things getting done.
Would it have made a difference anyway. Bush has proven time and again that he is as stubborn as a child who doesn't get his way. He wasn't about to give up on his long time pal, Gonzo.
I also thought Lieberman's defection was notable. I imagine he'll spout something about this being only a political stunt and he, of course, is above such things. Blah blah...
The headline is disingenuous. The Senate didn't get to vote, one way or the other, on whether it had confidence in the attorney general. It's pretty clear that had such a vote taken place, the majority would have voted No Confidence. To prevent that from happening, the Republicans filibustered, preventing the motion from coming to a vote; and since the Democrats don't have the 60 necessary to pass a cloture motion, the filibuster wins.
One can point the irony of all those who accused the Senate Democrats of "obstructionism" and "anti-democractic behavior" back when they were in the minority. But highlighting Republican hypocrisy on protection of the minority party is like shooting fish in a barrel with the fish already dead.
Why all the talk about the Democrats? ITS just like the Dan Rather issue during the election, the substance was the truth but it was the wrong typewriter and that was more important than what that brat in the White House did to the American people. Here same thing , the dems are trying to do what the AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT AND THAT IS STOP THIS WAR AND THE REPBS are doing all they can to obstruct the issue of the day. Y ou dont seem to care that its what the public wants that matters. I think the dems were right and the repubs are dead wrong.
Post a Comment
<< Home