Reply With Quote
Shouldn't the democrats engage in representing their cons uents instead of using their senate control as a weapon?
Does anyone hear advocate this immoral action?
Another vote, another purely symbolic (i.e. political) victory for Demos..
MSNBCRepublicans 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.
Republicans did not defend him, but most voted against moving the resolution ahead.
Short of impeachment, Congress has no authority to oust a Cabinet member, but Democrats were trying anew to give him a push. Gonzales dismissed the rhetorical ruckus on Capitol Hill, and President Bush continued to stand by his longtime friend and legal adviser
This resolution never had a chance, but setting the ground for 08, the Demo leadership wanted to get Republicans on record supporting Gonzo, or at least, refusing to oust him.
Kind like Wolfe and Libby, you just know this isn't gonna end good for Gonzo. Perhaps it would be better if he did resign.
Shouldn't the democrats engage in representing their cons uents instead of using their senate control as a weapon?
Does anyone hear advocate this immoral action?
If Gonzo left, BushCo would have to appoint somebody who's not a lapdog.
Can you say "lame duck"?
It's about time the Republicans stood up and were counted.
The dimm-o-craps have been trying to find something, anything
to hang on Gonzo. This time they got it handed back to them.
0 + 0 = zero
I wonder why they don't do some real ethics investigations like the land deals a senator from Nevada made, or the money directed to a husband of a senator from California?
Oh wait. I forget. The democrats don't really want to investigate ethics, they just use it as a political weapon!
Forgive my lapse of judgment there.
...or maybe it's because both those stories had serious holes that even the M$M could easily debunk......
That's all this administration appoints is lap-dogs and lobbyists - take the recent appointment of Gillespie for instance.
Are you joking? There is serious merit to both. Feinstein and Reid should be under investigation. All these things the demonrats come up with have appearance with no merit.
No, they've both been debunked in this forum, only the search feature is disabled right now (for the playoffs), so I can't post links, but they are still around.
The accusations against Feinstein, for instance, originated from a weekly newspaper with deep RNC connections. No other newspaper supported their accusations. Well, duh, of course not, they weren't true - Feinstein had already been cleared by a bi-partisan investigation when she first joined the committee, and they were well aware of her hubby's relationship with the contracting company.
Because of the senate rules, it might be true that no wrong-doing was found. However, these two have committed real ethics violations for fact.
Funny how when a demoncrap is involved in questionable activities, it goes unnoticed by the media, but it gets played for weeks if something that seems improper happens to a republican...
Just an example of media bias.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
