1. zhiv says:

    I was wondering about McCain’s vote on this. What about Biden, Obama, and the others… did they have any significant effect on the tally, or potential future tallys (impeachment of Gonzo)?

    Could Lieberman possibly be any more annoying? Re: the previous post and comments, he doesn’t just work for Rove or Netanyanu, he works for both of them, and Dick Cheney too. And yes, he votes this way because he won the election (with their help) and has no accountability to voters.

    It does seem like this has to be the last straw, and Senate collegiality can only go so far. How does Reid deal with Schumer and Leahy when Lieberman votes this way? How can he stay in charge of his committee? It’s obvious that it should be doing something, although I don’t know exactly what the function is and how it’s different from Waxman’s oversight committee, and would love to hear the emptywheel version.

  2. Anonymous says:

    The missing presidentials didn’t have an effect. If Obama, Dodd, Biden AND McCain all voted yes, it’d bring the total to 57. When Johnson comes back, we’re at 58. We still need three more Republicans to pass a no confidence measure.

  3. zhiv says:

    That’s what I figured: call it 57 with Johnson, unless there’s some reason to count McCain. Seems like he would just keep avoiding the vote.

    I guess the question is what Schumer, Leahy, etc. accomplish with this vote for any sort of bigger picture. If it has taken away more of Lieberman’s cover and gets Reid, with help from lots of others I’d assume, to kick him off his committee so it could actually get some work done, it would have done a lot.

    Lots of Repubs on the record semi-supporting Gonzo, despite everybody except Hatch clearly believing that he’s worthless.

    Schumer has seemed very deliberate, like he knows where he’s going with this, and the vote probably happened for a reason. What could it be? Here are the guys killing immigration reform and still supporting the lying AG?

  4. oregondave says:

    Well, the missing presidentials had an effect on me. Showing up is an essential in my estimation. Biden, I can understand, but Obama and Dodd? . . . not the way to strengthen the Party.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I’m not convinced Schumer has this wired. He threw nukes by getting Comey to tell his story. He repeated it twice today. And it did no good.

    My next suggestion is to get one of BushCo indicted in EDVA. Because I don’t know what else is going to work.

  6. suzinmpls says:

    For a while now, with various Senators out for health reasons, I’ve wondered why they are not allowed to have a deputy step in? I know, there’s no law about this (except in an untimely death). But shouldn’t there be? I am really fed up with the limpy voting numbers.
    And, as I’m just on the fringe trying to keep up, I want to say how much I appreciate your posts, EW. I enjoyed your book enormously.
    Is it or might it be the end game we’re in? Anyone have the big picture mapped out or is this like Iraq?

  7. Anonymous says:

    I wonder how many ’fired’ USA’s watched today’s Republican senators on CSPAN and decided to walk out the door and register Democrat, or for that matter how many DoJ employees?

  8. sojourner says:

    FWIW, I just wrote my two senators and said what I thought of their votes. Senator Cornyn, I believe, is up for reelection next year. I am beginning to hear some rumblings from other people I know, and I guess it is the same thing people in other states are hearing — we are just tired of the crap.

    For supposedly intelligent people to just walk in lockstep off the edge of a cliff because someone told them to just defies my sense of logic. Enough is enough… I have just become a true political activist!

  9. Anonymous says:

    mainsail

    I had that question in mind while I was writing my Guardian column for tomorrow. Particularly given the speeches McCaskill and Whitehouse gave…

  10. darclay says:

    I written both of my Senators Libby and â€Cuckleburr†both of them are way past representing the people of NC. You would think reguardless of their party stance,they would at least think of the integrity of their Justice Dept. I am beginning to believe that there are no Republican Statesmen left or were there any to begin with.

  11. Anonymous says:

    OT –

    emptywheel – The NCAA has banned live-blogging from the press box of their events. I thought you might want to take a look at the story as you are the world’s most accomplished live-blogger.

    â€A Courier-Journal sports reporter had his media credential revoked and was ordered to leave the press box during the NCAA baseball super-regional yesterday because of what the NCAA alleged was a violation of its policies prohibiting live Internet updates from its championship events.

    Gene McArtor, a representative of the NCAA baseball committee, approached C-J staffer Brian Bennett at the University of Louisville’s Jim Patterson Stadium in the bottom of the fifth inning in the U of L-Oklahoma State game. McArtor told him that blogging from an NCAA championship event â€is against NCAA policies. We’re revoking the credential and need to ask you to leave the stadium.â€

    http://www.courier-journal.com…..002/SPORTS

    This looks like the kind of thing that could be litigated.

  12. Anonymous says:

    OT again:

    The NCAA is out of touch if they think they can ban blogging at college events. What will they do when entire campuses have WiFi service? That is already happening. Would they try to stop everyone in the stadium from blogging? I can imagine organized protests by thousands of students in the stands with laptops, blogging about the NCAA’s stupidity in trying to supress free speech.

    I can see it now … the NCAA aligns with the RIAA and sues students for undermining its right to profit from the news coverage of student sports. Does this plot line remind anyone of Catch-22?

  13. margaret says:

    As long as we are OT, for a moment, andmay I throw out a hypothetical concerning the latest round of personel changes, namely Pace? Because I’m a mere intuitive thinker and not the highly left-brained analytical wonders of the folks who post her, I’ve been sensing that there might be some subtle, behind-the-scenes â€warfare†within the WH between the forces of Bush and the oppositional forces of Cheney. On the surface, it appears that the WH operates as a single voice, but, is it possible that Bush might be knifing Cheney in the back by getting rid of Pace? By not immediately pardoning Libby? By allowing Condi to advance some dialogue with Iran?
    I admit, it sounds as if I am grasping at straws, but there seems to be a disconnect between Bush and Cheney. What do you think?