Dems to try and hold a "No Confidence" vote...

[Sinsear]

Full text here.

Two Senate Democrats said Thursday they will seek a no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales over accusations that he carried out President Bush's political agenda at the expense of the Justice Department's independence.

Never been done in our government's history. Not too many people left supporting this guy.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Full text here.

Two Senate Democrats said Thursday they will seek a no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales over accusations that he carried out President Bush's political agenda at the expense of the Justice Department's independence.

Never been done in our government's history. Not too many people left supporting this guy.

I guess this is more important than all the other stuff they campaigned on. Where's that lobbyist bill?

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Full text here.

Two Senate Democrats said Thursday they will seek a no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales over accusations that he carried out President Bush's political agenda at the expense of the Justice Department's independence.

Never been done in our government's history. Not too many people left supporting this guy.

I guess this is more important than all the other stuff they campaigned on. Where's that lobbyist bill?

It certainly is more important.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Full text here.

Two Senate Democrats said Thursday they will seek a no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales over accusations that he carried out President Bush's political agenda at the expense of the Justice Department's independence.

Never been done in our government's history. Not too many people left supporting this guy.

I guess this is more important than all the other stuff they campaigned on. Where's that lobbyist bill?

He's the attorney general, not the local dog catcher...having an honest one in office seems like a pretty important thing for the country.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Full text here.

Two Senate Democrats said Thursday they will seek a no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales over accusations that he carried out President Bush's political agenda at the expense of the Justice Department's independence.

Never been done in our government's history. Not too many people left supporting this guy.

I guess this is more important than all the other stuff they campaigned on. Where's that lobbyist bill?

X1000

 

[trenchfoot]

hit'um where it hurts, and incessantly poke at it for full effect. tit for tat.

just another fun day on the hill.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

I understand that Gonzales is a creep and needs to step down. I'm not arguing that point.

But what does this accomplish? From the link it appears that it simply puts a group stamp of disapproval on AG Gonzales that has previously been expressed by individuals. In the end Bush is the "decider" here and he's been pretty clear that he's not going to let AG/AG go.

Can the senate, by this vote force AG/AG to resign or fire him? If not, what's the point?

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I understand that Gonzales is a creep and needs to step down. I'm not arguing that point.

But what does this accomplish? From the link it appears that it simply puts a group stamp of disapproval on AG Gonzales that has previously been expressed by individuals. In the end Bush is the "decider" here and he's been pretty clear that he's not going to let AG/AG go.

Can the senate, by this vote force AG/AG to resign or fire him? If not, what's the point?

Just another way to get it through his thick criminal skull that it's time for him to "spend more time with his family".

Or more precisely, "Here, Mr. Gonzales, we all chipped in and bought you a clue".

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy If not, what's the point?

To put an official stamp of disapproval on a guy the President continues to support, despite most of the country and the people they elected being against him. If there ever needs to be, say, an impeachment trial, this is just another mound of evidence to show that Bush is not fit to lead this country. Not that too many people can argue that anymore either.

No Attorney General has ever had a vote of no confidence pass against him. Just the fact that it passes puts even more pressure on the President to do the right thing. You can say "well, he won't let him go anyway," but then that's a damn good argument for that nice little impeachment bill everyone's been denying. If the President continues to deny the other branches any semblance of power, it's a pretty good bet the Congress will actually up and do something about it. I would think that there'd be a way, in the Constitution, that can strip power away from a completely obstructionist President. Something like this could start the wave, and that would be immensely good for everyone.

So yeah, there is kind of a big point to all this.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy If not, what's the point?

To put an official stamp of disapproval on a guy the President continues to support, despite most of the country and the people they elected being against him. If there ever needs to be, say, an impeachment trial, this is just another mound of evidence to show that Bush is not fit to lead this country. Not that too many people can argue that anymore either.

No Attorney General has ever had a vote of no confidence pass against him. Just the fact that it passes puts even more pressure on the President to do the right thing. You can say "well, he won't let him go anyway," but then that's a damn good argument for that nice little impeachment bill everyone's been denying. If the President continues to deny the other branches any semblance of power, it's a pretty good bet the Congress will actually up and do something about it. I would think that there'd be a way, in the Constitution, that can strip power away from a completely obstructionist President. Something like this could start the wave, and that would be immensely good for everyone.

So yeah, there is kind of a big point to all this.

So in a very round-about way you're agreeing with me that this is little more than a group stamp on something that has been expressed by almost everyone individually... and accomplishes nothing.

As for the impeachment thing... I don't remember where you could impeach a guy for not firing someone everyone hated.

I'm not defending the guy... Or Bush for that matter. I just think this is a waste of time and little more than political wrangling and games. If AG/AG is that bad have a hearing. Call him up and bash his head in for a few days on CSPAN.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy If not, what's the point?

To put an official stamp of disapproval on a guy the President continues to support, despite most of the country and the people they elected being against him. If there ever needs to be, say, an impeachment trial, this is just another mound of evidence to show that Bush is not fit to lead this country. Not that too many people can argue that anymore either.

No Attorney General has ever had a vote of no confidence pass against him. Just the fact that it passes puts even more pressure on the President to do the right thing. You can say "well, he won't let him go anyway," but then that's a damn good argument for that nice little impeachment bill everyone's been denying. If the President continues to deny the other branches any semblance of power, it's a pretty good bet the Congress will actually up and do something about it. I would think that there'd be a way, in the Constitution, that can strip power away from a completely obstructionist President. Something like this could start the wave, and that would be immensely good for everyone.

So yeah, there is kind of a big point to all this.

So in a very round-about way you're agreeing with me that this is little more than a group stamp on something that has been expressed by almost everyone individually... and accomplishes nothing.

As for the impeachment thing... I don't remember where you could impeach a guy for not firing someone everyone hated.

I'm not defending the guy... Or Bush for that matter. I just think this is a waste of time and little more than political wrangling and games. If AG/AG is that bad have a hearing. Call him up and bash his head in for a few days on CSPAN.

Cripes Whoozyer, you really watch CSPAN?

Deadliest Catch rocks, show some support for your region FTW.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy If not, what's the point?

To put an official stamp of disapproval on a guy the President continues to support, despite most of the country and the people they elected being against him. If there ever needs to be, say, an impeachment trial, this is just another mound of evidence to show that Bush is not fit to lead this country. Not that too many people can argue that anymore either.

No Attorney General has ever had a vote of no confidence pass against him. Just the fact that it passes puts even more pressure on the President to do the right thing. You can say "well, he won't let him go anyway," but then that's a damn good argument for that nice little impeachment bill everyone's been denying. If the President continues to deny the other branches any semblance of power, it's a pretty good bet the Congress will actually up and do something about it. I would think that there'd be a way, in the Constitution, that can strip power away from a completely obstructionist President. Something like this could start the wave, and that would be immensely good for everyone.

So yeah, there is kind of a big point to all this.

So in a very round-about way you're agreeing with me that this is little more than a group stamp on something that has been expressed by almost everyone individually... and accomplishes nothing.

As for the impeachment thing... I don't remember where you could impeach a guy for not firing someone everyone hated.

I'm not defending the guy... Or Bush for that matter. I just think this is a waste of time and little more than political wrangling and games. If AG/AG is that bad have a hearing. Call him up and bash his head in for a few days on CSPAN.

Well obviously there is an element of political wrangling going on here. After all, in addition to actually running the country (I assume that happens some other time...), everyone in DC is trying to get re-elected or support their party or something along those lines. The Republicans just spent several furiously frustrating years doing nothing but play political games on every conceivable topic, please don't act so surprised that the Dems want to have their fun too. Normally that kind of thing would piss me off, but I think we're still at the stage where the Republicans are getting their well deserved karma. If this is all the Dems do for the next several years, THEN I might be a little pissed.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy If not, what's the point?

To put an official stamp of disapproval on a guy the President continues to support, despite most of the country and the people they elected being against him. If there ever needs to be, say, an impeachment trial, this is just another mound of evidence to show that Bush is not fit to lead this country. Not that too many people can argue that anymore either.

No Attorney General has ever had a vote of no confidence pass against him. Just the fact that it passes puts even more pressure on the President to do the right thing. You can say "well, he won't let him go anyway," but then that's a damn good argument for that nice little impeachment bill everyone's been denying. If the President continues to deny the other branches any semblance of power, it's a pretty good bet the Congress will actually up and do something about it. I would think that there'd be a way, in the Constitution, that can strip power away from a completely obstructionist President. Something like this could start the wave, and that would be immensely good for everyone.

So yeah, there is kind of a big point to all this.

So in a very round-about way you're agreeing with me that this is little more than a group stamp on something that has been expressed by almost everyone individually... and accomplishes nothing.

As for the impeachment thing... I don't remember where you could impeach a guy for not firing someone everyone hated.

I'm not defending the guy... Or Bush for that matter. I just think this is a waste of time and little more than political wrangling and games. If AG/AG is that bad have a hearing. Call him up and bash his head in for a few days on CSPAN.

Cripes Whoozyer, you really watch CSPAN?

Deadly Catch rocks, show some support for your region FTW.

Where did I say that? What I was hinting at was that a public hearing (which I have said repeatedly is how the Dems should handle this and other things) would be far more effective and go a lot further in the press than a N/C vote can.


And FYI... They don't catch crab in Maui. 😛 (Love the show though)

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy If not, what's the point?

To put an official stamp of disapproval on a guy the President continues to support, despite most of the country and the people they elected being against him. If there ever needs to be, say, an impeachment trial, this is just another mound of evidence to show that Bush is not fit to lead this country. Not that too many people can argue that anymore either.

No Attorney General has ever had a vote of no confidence pass against him. Just the fact that it passes puts even more pressure on the President to do the right thing. You can say "well, he won't let him go anyway," but then that's a damn good argument for that nice little impeachment bill everyone's been denying. If the President continues to deny the other branches any semblance of power, it's a pretty good bet the Congress will actually up and do something about it. I would think that there'd be a way, in the Constitution, that can strip power away from a completely obstructionist President. Something like this could start the wave, and that would be immensely good for everyone.

So yeah, there is kind of a big point to all this.

So in a very round-about way you're agreeing with me that this is little more than a group stamp on something that has been expressed by almost everyone individually... and accomplishes nothing.

As for the impeachment thing... I don't remember where you could impeach a guy for not firing someone everyone hated.

I'm not defending the guy... Or Bush for that matter. I just think this is a waste of time and little more than political wrangling and games. If AG/AG is that bad have a hearing. Call him up and bash his head in for a few days on CSPAN.

Cripes Whoozyer, you really watch CSPAN?

Deadly Catch rocks, show some support for your region FTW.

Where did I say that? What I was hinting at was that a public hearing (which I have said repeatedly is how the Dems should handle this and other things) would be far more effective and go a lot further in the press than a N/C vote can.


And FYI... They don't catch crab in Maui. 😛 (Love the show though)

Aren't you from Alaska?

Oh, reciprocity, right?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy If not, what's the point?

To put an official stamp of disapproval on a guy the President continues to support, despite most of the country and the people they elected being against him. If there ever needs to be, say, an impeachment trial, this is just another mound of evidence to show that Bush is not fit to lead this country. Not that too many people can argue that anymore either.

No Attorney General has ever had a vote of no confidence pass against him. Just the fact that it passes puts even more pressure on the President to do the right thing. You can say "well, he won't let him go anyway," but then that's a damn good argument for that nice little impeachment bill everyone's been denying. If the President continues to deny the other branches any semblance of power, it's a pretty good bet the Congress will actually up and do something about it. I would think that there'd be a way, in the Constitution, that can strip power away from a completely obstructionist President. Something like this could start the wave, and that would be immensely good for everyone.

So yeah, there is kind of a big point to all this.

So in a very round-about way you're agreeing with me that this is little more than a group stamp on something that has been expressed by almost everyone individually... and accomplishes nothing.

As for the impeachment thing... I don't remember where you could impeach a guy for not firing someone everyone hated.

I'm not defending the guy... Or Bush for that matter. I just think this is a waste of time and little more than political wrangling and games. If AG/AG is that bad have a hearing. Call him up and bash his head in for a few days on CSPAN.

Cripes Whoozyer, you really watch CSPAN?

Deadly Catch rocks, show some support for your region FTW.

Where did I say that? What I was hinting at was that a public hearing (which I have said repeatedly is how the Dems should handle this and other things) would be far more effective and go a lot further in the press than a N/C vote can.


And FYI... They don't catch crab in Maui. 😛 (Love the show though)

Aren't you from Alaska?

Oh, reciprocity, right?

I moved... Been on Maui for four months now. 😀

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy If not, what's the point?

To put an official stamp of disapproval on a guy the President continues to support, despite most of the country and the people they elected being against him. If there ever needs to be, say, an impeachment trial, this is just another mound of evidence to show that Bush is not fit to lead this country. Not that too many people can argue that anymore either.

No Attorney General has ever had a vote of no confidence pass against him. Just the fact that it passes puts even more pressure on the President to do the right thing. You can say "well, he won't let him go anyway," but then that's a damn good argument for that nice little impeachment bill everyone's been denying. If the President continues to deny the other branches any semblance of power, it's a pretty good bet the Congress will actually up and do something about it. I would think that there'd be a way, in the Constitution, that can strip power away from a completely obstructionist President. Something like this could start the wave, and that would be immensely good for everyone.

So yeah, there is kind of a big point to all this.

So in a very round-about way you're agreeing with me that this is little more than a group stamp on something that has been expressed by almost everyone individually... and accomplishes nothing.

As for the impeachment thing... I don't remember where you could impeach a guy for not firing someone everyone hated.

I'm not defending the guy... Or Bush for that matter. I just think this is a waste of time and little more than political wrangling and games. If AG/AG is that bad have a hearing. Call him up and bash his head in for a few days on CSPAN.

Cripes Whoozyer, you really watch CSPAN?

Deadly Catch rocks, show some support for your region FTW.

Where did I say that? What I was hinting at was that a public hearing (which I have said repeatedly is how the Dems should handle this and other things) would be far more effective and go a lot further in the press than a N/C vote can.


And FYI... They don't catch crab in Maui. 😛 (Love the show though)

Aren't you from Alaska?

Oh, reciprocity, right?

I moved... Been on Maui for four months now. 😀

All the more reason not to waste your time watching CSPAN.

🙂

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy If not, what's the point?

To put an official stamp of disapproval on a guy the President continues to support, despite most of the country and the people they elected being against him. If there ever needs to be, say, an impeachment trial, this is just another mound of evidence to show that Bush is not fit to lead this country. Not that too many people can argue that anymore either.

No Attorney General has ever had a vote of no confidence pass against him. Just the fact that it passes puts even more pressure on the President to do the right thing. You can say "well, he won't let him go anyway," but then that's a damn good argument for that nice little impeachment bill everyone's been denying. If the President continues to deny the other branches any semblance of power, it's a pretty good bet the Congress will actually up and do something about it. I would think that there'd be a way, in the Constitution, that can strip power away from a completely obstructionist President. Something like this could start the wave, and that would be immensely good for everyone.

So yeah, there is kind of a big point to all this.

So in a very round-about way you're agreeing with me that this is little more than a group stamp on something that has been expressed by almost everyone individually... and accomplishes nothing.

As for the impeachment thing... I don't remember where you could impeach a guy for not firing someone everyone hated.

I'm not defending the guy... Or Bush for that matter. I just think this is a waste of time and little more than political wrangling and games. If AG/AG is that bad have a hearing. Call him up and bash his head in for a few days on CSPAN.

Cripes Whoozyer, you really watch CSPAN?

Deadly Catch rocks, show some support for your region FTW.

Where did I say that? What I was hinting at was that a public hearing (which I have said repeatedly is how the Dems should handle this and other things) would be far more effective and go a lot further in the press than a N/C vote can.


And FYI... They don't catch crab in Maui. 😛 (Love the show though)

Aren't you from Alaska?

Oh, reciprocity, right?

I moved... Been on Maui for four months now. 😀

All the more reason not to waste your time watching CSPAN.

🙂

Speaking of which... time to take the doggy to the beach... 😀

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy If not, what's the point?

To put an official stamp of disapproval on a guy the President continues to support, despite most of the country and the people they elected being against him. If there ever needs to be, say, an impeachment trial, this is just another mound of evidence to show that Bush is not fit to lead this country. Not that too many people can argue that anymore either.

No Attorney General has ever had a vote of no confidence pass against him. Just the fact that it passes puts even more pressure on the President to do the right thing. You can say "well, he won't let him go anyway," but then that's a damn good argument for that nice little impeachment bill everyone's been denying. If the President continues to deny the other branches any semblance of power, it's a pretty good bet the Congress will actually up and do something about it. I would think that there'd be a way, in the Constitution, that can strip power away from a completely obstructionist President. Something like this could start the wave, and that would be immensely good for everyone.

So yeah, there is kind of a big point to all this.

So in a very round-about way you're agreeing with me that this is little more than a group stamp on something that has been expressed by almost everyone individually... and accomplishes nothing.

As for the impeachment thing... I don't remember where you could impeach a guy for not firing someone everyone hated.

I'm not defending the guy... Or Bush for that matter. I just think this is a waste of time and little more than political wrangling and games. If AG/AG is that bad have a hearing. Call him up and bash his head in for a few days on CSPAN.

Cripes Whoozyer, you really watch CSPAN?

Deadly Catch rocks, show some support for your region FTW.

Where did I say that? What I was hinting at was that a public hearing (which I have said repeatedly is how the Dems should handle this and other things) would be far more effective and go a lot further in the press than a N/C vote can.


And FYI... They don't catch crab in Maui. 😛 (Love the show though)

Aren't you from Alaska?

Oh, reciprocity, right?

I moved... Been on Maui for four months now. 😀

All the more reason not to waste your time watching CSPAN.

🙂

Speaking of which... time to take the doggy to the beach... 😀

Cheers!