From the CT Post:
Republicans blocked the Senate’s no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Monday, rejecting 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.
Despite co-sponsoring the resolution Dodd missed the vote entirely.
Meanwhile I don’t even have enough energy to be disappointed in our Junior Senator. It doesn’t surprise me that he’d vote with the Republicans. How Lieberman is able to sleep at night I still don’t understand, but that may just be one of life’s great mysteries.
Source.
Kellman, Laurie. “Republicans Save the Attorney General”. CT Post. 6/12/07
DC is carved out of Maryland (they’re on the same side of the Potomac). The fed could try giving DC back to...
71 responses so far ↓
Again, the obvious.
Lieberman makes what he considers to be the most appropriate decisions.
The people who should be ashamed of themselves are the Senators who thought that it was appropriate to spend their time on this Gonzales stuff instead of dealing with real issues.
Lieberman, like always, has integrity while many others in the U.S. Senate do not …
[quote post="626"]Lieberman, like always, has integrity while many others in the U.S. Senate do not …[/quote]
We disagree. Fundamentally. If I learned anything from last year’s Senate campaign it’s that Senator Lieberman doesn’t have one shred of integrity.
Hold the phone. Dodd missed the vote? I gather all of you on the left will give him the tongue lashing he deserves for that failure.
Which Senator makes what he /she considers the appropriate choice and then votes the other way?
Try Hillary on some of the Iraq votes …
Some Senators/Presidents make decisions based 100% on what the polls say to do …
Dodd should have been there. Period.
Agreed. As Biden, Obama, McCain, and Brownback. There was no excuse for missing this one.
If there was ever a vote to miss, then that was the one. Complete waste of time. The Senators have important issues to deal with.
Perhaps it’s just me… but it seems that this new Democratic Senate, which promoised to change so much (end the war.. . halt the culture of corruption… blah blah blah) seems to making an awful lot of SYMBOLIC votes… and not many substantive ones.
Since it was a symbolic gesture, perhpad Dodd symbolicly voted
Lieberman maintained his integrity during the campaign last year, in the primary and general election. That’s why I was happy to support him.
All that he had, though, has been thrown out the window. A lot of us who bought into the Independent Democrat nonsense and thought he might just be a little behind the curve on the war are extremely disappointed.
I wish I could have that vote back. (I’ve typed that sentence on CLP a dozen times only to follow it with Backspace.)
The Scariest part of this is Lieberman talking about ENERGY LEGISLATION.
Remember,Lieberman was the only Dem in the Northeast to vote for the Cheney Energy bill saying it would lower Gas and Fuel prices and that also gave FERC dictatorial powers over siting of LNG terminals and then said Broadwater should be stopped.
I can’t wait for Lieberman to be THROWN OUT of the Dem caucus and stripped of his chairmanship of the most disfunctional Senate committee in Congress.His oversight of The Huge Homeland Security Dept has been a joke.Even Republicans must admit the committee in charge of securing our borders is at best,a failure.
[quote comment="12637"]Lieberman maintained his integrity during the campaign last year, in the primary and general election. That’s why I was happy to support him.
All that he had, though, has been thrown out the window. A lot of us who bought into the Independent Democrat nonsense and thought he might just be a little behind the curve on the war are extremely disappointed.
I wish I could have that vote back. (I’ve typed that sentence on CLP a dozen times only to follow it with Backspace.)[/quote]
It’s wonderful to see you’ve finally admitted your mistake. Unfortunately,thinking Lieberman had an ounce of integrity in the first place shows you’ll be as easily fooled in the future as you have been in the past.
Integrity Demanded once he lost the primary he get out of the race.Liebeman proved he never had an ounce of the stuff.
[quote post="626"]Integrity Demanded once he lost the primary he get out of the race.Liebeman proved he never had an ounce of the stuff. [/quote]
So the fact that nearly 60% of the state wanted him as their Senator doesn’t mean anything?
That’s a lot of purple on this map…
http://www.ctlocalpolitics.net/img/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=102&g2_serialNumber=1
Yeah, why should he have gotten out of the race? The people obviously wanted him overwhelmingly. So now the Democrat Party gets to pick the Senator from Connecticut? They picked a guy that got his fish scaled by 60% of the state.
Stamford–
It’s sad that the integrity of the Justice Department isn’t an important issue for you. It was for ten or so Republican Senators, despite the usual party pressures.
Little Boy Blue - Again, from yesterday, what exqactly did Gonzalez do that was ilegal or unethical? Still waiting.
LenS,
For over thirty years Joe Lieberman benifited from the system(even running for VP and Senate at the same time as a Democrat because of that system) and demanded fealty to it from all others.When it was time to show a little fealty to it himself he showed his self interest was more important to him than everything he had said he stood for throughout his entire carreer.
When Lieberman was put into a situation demanding the very definition of integrity he chose self interest instead. The funniest part is that his closest and longest freinds weren’t surprised.They all knew he hadn’t an ounce of the stuff for a very long time.
But how can you say it was suimply self-interest when it reflected the overwhelming will of the people? In other words, it would have been in the self-interest of half of the Democrat Party, at the expense of the electorate as a whole, for him to drop out. Why would that have been preferable???? You’re basically saying that the interestes of the Democrats are more important that the interests of the electorate. Real denmocratic of you keith.
Stark Raving Lunatic-
LMAO. You that deaf and dumb? Maybe all those Republican Senators calling for his resignation just drank the wrong Kool-aid?
Apparantly I am that deaf and dumb, so please explain to me what Gonzalez did that was illegal or unethical. Thanks.
Keith, if you’re trying to school the ‘wingers on why Lieberman should have respected the Dem primary, (or skipped it out of the gate), you’re wasting your breath.
Respect for the system just isn’t part of right-wing thinking these days.
No, you’re right. Apparantly repsect for the will of the people is the only thing we care about these days. The nerve of us!!!! Party above all, democracy be damned, is that right Keith?
[quote post="626"]When it was time to show a little fealty to it himself he showed his self interest was more important to him than everything he had said he stood for throughout his entire carreer.[/quote]
Nope. He showed that my, and the other 60% of the population’s interests were more important than a small left faction’s. God, for someone who rants endlessly about “loyal bushies” you seem to demand a lot of loyalty out of democrats. Why should a man, who clearly has a message with wide appeal succumb to the will of a clear minority?
Gosh Stark Raving–
With so much written about Gonzo, one would think you’d be up to speed on things. Google beneath you?
Honestly, you ought to get your news from more disparate sources than Rush and FoxSpews.
Little Boy Blew - All I have read was that Gonzalez fired a few U.S. Attorneys for political reasons. I can’t find anything that was unethical, illegal or not within his purview as Attorney General. I just assumed you had some other information that I was missing that warranted censure. Please share.
…..and I read and heard all this from the liberal press (ABC, CBS, NBC, NY Times, et al.) and the conservative press (Fox, Washington Times, etc.). Now you’ve piqued my interest in this unethical and illegal behavior - where did you hear about it?
So, respect for the system? I guess we’ll just move on past this whole Gonzalez fiasco then, after all, I believe these U.S. Attorney’s serve “at the pleasure of the president.” Seems you only want to respect the system when it suits you.
Also, what system are you talking about? The electorial process that Lieberman was well within his bounds to use? Or the democrat primary system, in which you seem to think you can dictate the will of the people.
[quote post="626"]Gosh Stark Raving–
With so much written about Gonzo, one would think you’d be up to speed on things. Google beneath you?
Honestly, you ought to get your news from more disparate sources than Rush and FoxSpews. [/quote]
That is the language of a man with no substantive answer.
LenS,
Lieberman got 49% of the vote NOT 60%.
He won because many of the “low information voters” and easily minipulated voters who are always about 9-12 months behind reality (jsrgnt) and now “wish they could have there vote back” were fooled yet again.
Luckily, He’s path back to the Senate completely nuetured him and now he’s viewed by most of the world as just another religious extremist who should be watched carefully while being laughed at.
Religious extremist? WTF?
Keith, he got 50% in the general election, but 60% was the anti-Lamont vote. You basically wanted the state to have a Senator that 60% of the electorate did not want. So much for Democracy - we get whomever the Poliburo picks, eh Comrade Keith?
The guy has more power in the Senate now than he ever did. And a religious extremist??????? C’mon Keith.
LenS–
I bet you also beleive that Scooter was wrongly prosecuted, by a rabid Democrat, no less, and that the jury of twelve should be overturned by a Presidential pardon.
You guys are unbelievable. Yesterday I had to confront Al, who presumed more than half of illegal immigrants aren’t working for a living. Then this morning I’ve got Dobb who doesn’t believe in Global Warming, now Stark can’t understand what on Earth Gonzo might have done wrong!
Who knew that reality-checking you guys could be so much work!
Yes, apologies, I should have said only 40% voted for Lamont. Also, he did get 50%. 49.7% if we’re being exact.
[quote post="626"]LenS–
I bet you also beleive that Scooter was wrongly prosecuted, by a rabid Democrat, no less, and that the jury of twelve should be overturned by a Presidential pardon.
You guys are unbelievable. Yesterday I had to confront Al, who presumed more than half of illegal immigrants aren’t working for a living. Then this morning I’ve got Dobb who doesn’t believe in Global Warming, now Stark can’t understand what on Earth Gonzo might have done wrong!
Who knew that reality-checking you guys could be so much work![/quote]
Again, nothing of substance there, your shocking ability to avoid as substantive post is remarkable, very impressive….I believe Stark’s question remains,Gonzalez did what wrong?
[quote comment="12657"][quote post="626"]When it was time to show a little fealty to it himself he showed his self interest was more important to him than everything he had said he stood for throughout his entire carreer.[/quote]
Nope. He showed that my, and the other 60% of the population’s interests were more important than a small left faction’s. God, for someone who rants endlessly about “loyal bushies” you seem to demand a lot of loyalty out of democrats. Why should a man, who clearly has a message with wide appeal succumb to the will of a clear minority?[/quote]
What was that message LenS.
“I want to end this war as much as anyone”?
Hows that jive with his stance since he slithered back into the Senate?
It’s not surprising you’re “sticking with Joe” just like you’re “sticking with Lou” DeLuca but using the word Integrity in the same paragraph with either of them is a joke.
[quote post="626"]You guys are unbelievable. Yesterday I had to confront Al, who presumed more than half of illegal immigrants aren’t working for a living. [/quote]
Al presumed no such thing, and was throwing out a clearly hypothetical number for the sake of discussion. But way to twist the facts.
TBCT - I have given you ample opportunity to let me know what Gonzalez did that was illegal or unethical and you have yet to explain it to me. Please, tell me. Also, I think Dobb asked you a question about gobal warming that I don’t think you have addressed. Your “reality-checking” is pretty funny because it does not involve a rational grip on reality but merely hyper-partisan talking points that are not grounded in fact.
As for Scooter Libby, we have walked this ground before. Should the investigation gone on once Fitzgerald knew the source of the leak? Absolutely not. But it did, and in the course of that investigation Libby lied to the grand jury. A criminal offense. I think he did lie (I can’t imagine his memory is not as bad as he claims) and was therefore rightfully convicted, but that is neither here nor there. I do think the sentence was out of whack with perjury convictions (Clinton only had his law license suspended) and think it should be commuted, but I don’t think a pardon for the crime is the right thing to do.
[quote comment="12663"]
Luckily, He’s path back to the Senate completely nuetured him and now he’s viewed by most of the world as just another religious extremist who should be watched carefully while being laughed at.[/quote]
Really? I think your expertise extends to making giant paper maiche heads and not to political analysis. By most objective accounts Lieberman is probably one of the most powerful senators in the country given his indepedant status. He could easily choose to change parties and tip the balance of power in the Senate, thus it is a mystery to me why you want him thrown out of the party and “stripped of his chairmanship”, because that would lead to…GOP control of the Senate and probably another Chairmanship for Lieberman.
Viewed in context Lieberman’s comments about Iran are not as outrageous as some people are portraying them to be. Having met a lot of jewish supporters of Lieberman’s during the campaign I think there is a large block of otherwise very liberal jews who are very hawkish on national defense. They seem to see islamic extremists as the second coming of the Nazis– a group that wants to see Israel destroyed and would like to cleanse the world of the jewish people. While many are silently facing the fact that Iran may be a threat to stability in the world, I think this group is more vocal in their belief that should it come to defending the US or our interests from Iran, then so be it. While you may DISAGREE with this view Keith, your “religious extremist” comment smacks of anti-semitism.
[quote post="626"]It’s not surprising you’re “sticking with Joe” just like you’re “sticking with Lou” DeLuca but using the word Integrity in the same paragraph with either of them is a joke. [/quote]
One, please show me any post where I’ve even commented on Lou DeLuca? Nice twisting of the facts there.
I don’t think Lieberman’s position on the war was hard to decifer. Your quote was in the context of a larger statement on his position, but nice selective cutting and pasting.
Leaving aside for a second that Lieberman can look at the line-up of up-for-grab Senate seats in 2008 and 2010 and do the same math that any of us can do, the quoted statement above is factually incorrect. Unlike in 2001, there was no language in the Seante Organizing Resolutions that would allow a change in control if one Senator who voted for Reid were to switch parties. Lieberman switching parties would result in exactly nothing practical - no change in Chairmanships, no change in his votes, no change in the dynamic of the Senate. In fact, the only change would be the abrupt halt to stories about Lieberman threatening to switch parties.
[quote post="626"]In fact, the only change would be the abrupt halt to stories about Lieberman threatening to switch parties.[/quote]
But how would he get on TV then?
[quote comment="12673"][quote comment="12663"]
Luckily, He’s path back to the Senate completely nuetured him and now he’s viewed by most of the world as just another religious extremist who should be watched carefully while being laughed at.[/quote]
Really? I think your expertise extends to making giant paper maiche heads and not to political analysis. By most objective accounts Lieberman is probably one of the most powerful senators in the country given his indepedant status. He could easily choose to change parties and tip the balance of power in the Senate, thus it is a mystery to me why you want him thrown out of the party and “stripped of his chairmanship”, because that would lead to…GOP control of the Senate and probably another Chairmanship for Lieberman.
Viewed in context Lieberman’s comments about Iran are not as outrageous as some people are portraying them to be. Having met a lot of jewish supporters of Lieberman’s during the campaign I think there is a large block of otherwise very liberal jews who are very hawkish on national defense. They seem to see islamic extremists as the second coming of the Nazis– a group that wants to see Israel destroyed and would like to cleanse the world of the jewish people. While many are silently facing the fact that Iran may be a threat to stability in the world, I think this group is more vocal in their belief that should it come to defending the US or our interests from Iran, then so be it. While you may DISAGREE with this view Keith, your “religious extremist” comment smacks of anti-semitism.[/quote]
Dude,
If Lieberman Switched toimorrow or yesterday it would have NO EFFECT on the Control of the Senate. The organizing Resolution makes that clear.
Lieberman is dispised on both sides of the aisle and as Collins just found out getting his endorsement will bring tons of cash to any opponent.
How many Ct Mayoral or first selectmam candidates of either party do you think would accept a visit from Lieberman in the upcoming municipal elections?
Lieberman is a pariah Locally,Statewide,nationally and internationally.That’s exactly why the term Nuetered is a perfect discription.Who,Besides Dick Cheney, wants to be seen with Lieberman?
As far as your anti-semetic bullshit it’s not worthy of a reply.Joe Lieberman has done more to weaken Israels position amongst the American Public and internationally then any person alive today because of his extremism.
Every cloud has a silver lining, I guess…
Or, he could threaten to invade Aruba.
Keith - It wopuld have an effect on the control of the Senate in spite of the organmizing resolution in a number of ways. First, the majority party could re-open the organizing resolution, albeit with the ability of the minorty party to filibuster, and reorder things. Second, absent such a move (more likely considering the filibuster) Mitch McConnell would automatically take the position of majority leader. The committee chairmanships would not change. This So, you’d have a Republican with the plenary power to bring, or not bring, any vote or amendment to the floor of the Senate. This would be a big, big deal and would effectively change control of the chamber from Democrat to Republican.
And again, what extremism?????
Yawn. Keith- you have no clue what you’re talking about. All I hear is unreasoned hate and vitriol from you.
I know about the organizing resolution. You want to take away his chairmanship– see what happens.
There’s no reason to reply Keith– because you don’t HAVE ONE.
YAWN,
I suggest you read what Gabe wrote and do a little research.
I’m Right and You’re wrong just like everything else from WMD through the failure of you silly “SURGE”.
Keith - How can you say the surge failed when it has just been fully funded?
I see TS,
The surge was about FUNDING. Sorry I didn’t get the memo,lol.
HEY DUDE,
I’m glad you brought up those Paper Mache Heads.
While I can’t take credit for building them I will share Credit with True Blue for popularizing the image by making the now famous “Kiss Buttons”. I understand we upset the nice little crony system you had grown accustomed to and benifited from but those days are ending and you’re going to have to get use to it or get out of the way. The Fact that you still have to hide behind the cloak of anominity makes that quite apparent.
For information on Lieberman’s religious extremism, please see the comments section of this post:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2006/03/helping-to-drive-that-silver-stake-why.html
Anonymous at 1:20 pm notes the Ed Ericson Hartford Advocate story of several years ago where Lieberman hawked the Armageddon fantasies of right wing Christians.
“The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (IFCJ), a Chicago-based nonprofit, sponsored the program, and its chief contact is one Joe Lieberman.
Sam Smith recently reported on Joe Lieberman’s work in The Progressive Review, quoting a piece by Edward Ericson of the Hartford Advocate.
“The image is jarring: Senator Joseph Lieberman, Presidential candidate, appears on an infomercial asking Evangelical Christians to donate money to `rescue a Jew.’”
Separation of church and state? Not in Israel, not here in Lieberman’s vision of the American republic.
TrueBlue, can you please explain to me why the Earth got cooler from 1940 to 1970, the year in which the Clean Air Act was passed?
It’s a simple question. Please give me a simple answer. You’ve been ducking me for half a day now. Thanks.
Hi LenS,
Thanks for your comment in post #38… You got it right of course…Sadly I was actually thinking an intelligent adult conversation was possible. Turns out that was the real hypothetical.
TrueBlue, lunch is over and I have to go back to work now, but if you come up with a good explanation for why the Earth cooled for thirty years, I’ll read it when I return from work. Thanks.
No sweat Al, clearly it’s much easier to attack you for the numbers used in your hypothetical than argue with the point you were trying to make in it.
On an unrelated note, now this is an Al Gore I can get behind…the second half of this video is the best.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/1602.html
[quote comment="12693"]HEY DUDE,
I’m glad you brought up those Paper Mache Heads.
While I can’t take credit for building them I will share Credit with True Blue for popularizing the image by making the now famous “Kiss Buttons”. I understand we upset the nice little crony system you had grown accustomed to and benifited from but those days are ending and you’re going to have to get use to it or get out of the way. The Fact that you still have to hide behind the cloak of anominity makes that quite apparent.[/quote]
What about “the Hug” Keith? Your overly romanticized visions of yourself as some sort of corruption buster is laughable. You may dislike Lieberman, but if anything the guy is a total square.
Stop trying to change the argument to something about anonymity. It shows you don’t wish to debate the substative issues for one thing. Also, I will extend you the favor you don’t to others– I won’t make it personal. Part of the beauty of the blog revolution is a semi-anon public forum. I am uncertain why you are so concerned with my “identity”, other than to harrass me, which of course I could live without. You already should know plenty enough about me if you read my posts carefully and other than that I am not sure why you need to know much else.
Dude,
You were the attack dog here. The difference is you won’t own your words because you’re afraid it will hurt you politically.
Of corse such cowardly behavior is exactly whats become expected of DLC types like yourself so there’s no suprise here.
Where did I say anything about you personally? The paper maiche heads comment? You’ve referred to that float before on your own…sorry if you consider that off limits. If you really want the gloves off, then just let me know.
[quote comment="12648"]Yeah, why should he have gotten out of the race? The people obviously wanted him overwhelmingly. So now the Democrat Party gets to pick the Senator from Connecticut? They picked a guy that got his fish scaled by 60% of the state.[/quote]
Lieberman ignored the point of the primary. He should have dropped out beforehand and started his campaign as an Independent right then and there.
I was actually pretty ambivalent about Lamont’s entering the race last year. Some of my earliest comments over at MLN were questioning the need for a primary. Then I started following the race. The more I saw of Lieberman the more I realized why Democrats were so desperate for a primary. Lieberman doesn’t care about Democrats, Republicans, or the people of Connecticut. Joe Lieberman cares about Joe Lieberman.
[quote post="626"]Lieberman ignored the point of the primary. He should have dropped out beforehand and started his campaign as an Independent right then and there. [/quote]
Isn’t the point of the democrat primary to pick the democrat candidate? Lieberman lost, and therefore didn’t run as a democrat and didn’t have access to the party aparatus.
Len, many states have spoiler laws against doing what Joe did. It was very selfish, and if Schlesinger had been a better candidate, it might have cost us Democrats a Senate seat.
If Joe didn’t want to respect Democratic voters, he shouldn’t have sought the endorsement, and he sure should have pulled out of the primary. It’s just a matter of ethics.
(and I never would have had a problem with Joe running as an Independent out of the gate, as Weicker did in 1990.)
Ethics? Are you saying that because the legislature (which is controlled by the Dems) can’t pass a spoiler law that Joe Lieberman is unethical for making an independent run within the law? Seriously?
The fact of the matter is that he shouldn’t have dropped out. Why? Because people obviously wanted to vote for him and there wasn’t a GOP candidate that could have provided a choice. It actually provided the people with a cholice - why is that a bad thing? Especially when they exercised that choice and voted overwhelmingly against the Democrat Party candidate.
Also, you said “[i]t was very selfish, and if Schlesinger had been a better candidate, it might have cost us Democrats a Senate seat.”
Judging from some of the views on this blog, including some of yours Blew, it seems like you think it cost the Dems a seat anyway.
[quote comment="12725"]If Joe didn’t want to respect Democratic voters, he shouldn’t have sought the endorsement, and he sure should have pulled out of the primary.[/quote]
Let’s be clear Blew - half of those Democrat voters weren’t “disrespected” as they voted for him in the priumary.
I love how the libs are getting into process and majority rule when it matters for them!
Tony–
What he did was legal, but also unethical. (and I know you have a hard time differentiating the two.)
Basically, when you seek a Party’s endorsement and subsequent nomination, you are in essence entering into a good faith contract to respect the will of the party as expressed by the primary.
Of course, I don’t expect you to understand such things.
You do realize that the entire primary system is based on statute, right? The only reason there is a primary that picks a candidate that will get a set line is because of the legislature. So, they aren’t really entering into a contract, per se, but rather following a procedure, set by the legislature to secure the nomination of a party. A part of that is being able to file as an indy after the primary.
Regardless, even if you think he owed a duty to the Democrat Party, isn’t that duty outweighed by a duty to the entire electorate? Doesn’t the interest in letting the state decide the issue outweigh the internal workings of party politics? I’d hope that interest is more important to you Blew.
Funny you mention “understanding[ing] such things”, because you still haven’t made me understand what Alberto Gonzalez did wrong.
Given that Lieberman won the election, it should be obvious to everyone that Connecticut would have been ill-served by having someone other than Lieberman as their winning U.S. Senate candidate in 2006.
ctkeith’s painting of Lieberman as a religious extremist is obviously anti-semitic. And he doesn’t like Gonzales. And he likely hates Condoleeza Rice. But it’s the crazy right-wing that is racist. ctkeith is not racist or anti-semitic, right? He can’t be because he’s a Democrat. No, GWB is the racist, of course …
ctkeith, why is it so important to you to remove Gonzales from office? And please tell me your thoughts about Condoleeza Rice.
Hello, TrueBlue. Quick question for you:
Can you explain for me why the planet cooled from 1940 to 1970? Thanks.
TB,
Please reconcile your position regarding Lieberman running as an independent with you not being a “winger”, per your definition last night.
“Yep, you’re a ‘winger. That’s my term for folks who put blind partisan loyalty before rational, independent thought. Like Tony heren re-gurgiating rightwing talking points about how minimum wage laws are horrible for the country, and the worker! lol.”
Seems to me like you are blindly partisan if you think Lieberman should have just listened to the will of the majority of the CT democrat party rather than the will of majority of CT citizens.
Also, you seem to have a firm grip on the ethics of the marketplace. Obviously Joe used a tactical loop-hole to get on the ballot so the people of Connecticut could make their overwhelming choice for him as their senator. Very sneaky, I know. Can you please tell us what you thought about the democrat senators last term filibustering George Bush’s judicial nominees? There were around 55 senators elected by the U.S., a clearly majority, was the filibustering, unethical in any way? I’m having trouble seeing the difference between the two procedural tactics.
Also, can you tell us what you thought about Frank Lautenberg replacing The Torch on the New Jersey ballot after it was clear Torricelli was going to be loser in the general election, even though Jersey law specifically said the party was barred from doing so. Yes, the courts ultimately gave it the okay, but ethical?
[quote comment="12740"]Hello, TrueBlue. Quick question for you:
Can you explain for me why the planet cooled from 1940 to 1970? Thanks.[/quote]
While you’re at it I’d appreciate an Alberto answer too
You must log in to post a comment.