Preliminary Thoughts on Votes against Gonzales

by emptywheel

Now that Wolfie's gone (Libby, Bolton, Wolfie, ... we're gonna get you yet, Dick Cheney), I'd like to look at the potential Republican Senate votes against Alberto Gonzales. This is in anticipation of next week's vote of no confidence, but also in an attempt to discuss potential impeachment (if the vote of no confidence goes well). Here is TPMM's list of Republican Senators calling for Gonzales' resignation with my thoughts on their no confidence/impeachment votes.

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN): Coleman is up for a tough re-election fight, after having given the collosally incompetent Rachel Paulose the green light. Since Rove--who is the guy who usually coaxes discipline out of Norm--isn't that crazy about Gonzales staying, I'd count Norm as a yes for both no confidence and impeachment.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE): Chuck Hagel wants his party back--or, more likely, to run as a third party candidate to make it act more sanely. I'm guessing him as a yes for both no confidence and impeachment.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): Ah, John McCain, the "Maverick." He'll vote yes for no confidence, and go whichever way the wind blows on impeachment, I think. Though he ought to be susceptible to pressure on account of the fact that BushCo told McCain and Kyl to fuck off regarding their one choice for USA to replace Charlton. [Update: Though, as tekel points out, McCain doesn't actually show up for votes anymore so he'll likely miss these two.]

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS): Given his statements, Roberts will have to vote yes on no confidence. But really, he's in Bush's back pocket and susceptible to his own implication in some of BushCo's crimes. So he'll no on impeachment so long as Bush tells him to. Roberts is up for re-election in 2008, but Kansas has not been impacted by the USA Scandal, which would make it hard to pressure him.

Sen. John Sununu (R-NH): It'll be a tough, tough re-election fight for Sununu in 2008, particularly without the benefit of phone-jamming to lower turnout. So I think Sununu votes yes on no confidence and on impeachment.

Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR): Smith, like Sununu, has a really tough re-election fight in 2008. So he votes yes on both.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK): What was it I said? Usually concerned about colonizing my womb for the fatherland? Coburn votes yes on no confidence. If people hold him to his tough statements, he might be persuadable, but for now, I suspect he'd be a no on impeachment.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL): Normally, I'd say Sessions would do whatever Bush told him to do (indeed, at one point he was getting talking points from DOJ on this matter). But he is a former USA. I say he votes yes on no confidence, follows the prevailing wind on impeachment. Also, one of Alabama's USAs was on the firing list at one point, though perhaps for cause (he was being investigated internally).

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): yes on no confidence, persuadable on impeachment.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA): Specter will water down the no confidence language, then vote yes on it. But, since Specter has never met a courageous decision he didn't run from, he'll almost certainly vote "present" or some such nonsense on impeachment.

Bond: MO is knee-deep in the USA scandal, and we know BushCo overrode Bond's wishes when he asked for Todd Graves to be kept on long enough to finish some cases. Again, he ought to be pressured to vote yes on both votes. [Update: I think Bond graduates to a yes vote for no confidence with this statement: "The president might decide that the current leadership remaining at DOJ is doing more harm than good."][Update 2: As Quzi points out, Bond's friendship with Ashcroft may also influence him to vote against Gonzales.]

So among the Gonzales naysayers, we've got 10 11 Republican votes supporting the no confidence vote, 4 votes supporting impeachment, plus 3 4 more persuadables.

Then there's the rest of the Senate. Here are some thoughts on other votes of note:

Self-Importance for Self-Importance Party

Lieberman: Probably a no on both, so we need need 17 members of the GOP caucus to vote yes on impeachment.

Democratic

Johnson: Probably will not be back in time for a Wednesday vote, so we probably need 18 members of the GOP caucus to show enough votes to sustain impeachment.

Moderates and Reality-Based Conservatives

Grassley: Grassley, in particular, has been outspoken against Gonzales on the SJC committee (his Sampson questions were the ones interrupted by Republican attempt to shut down the Sampson hearing).

Snowe, Collins: Maine's USA was on the firing list at one point--making ME's Senators persuadable. Collins, who has a real challenge in 2008, will likely vote yes on both.

Gregg: Another Republican in an increasingly blue state, he may vote yes on both because of NH's fondness for civil liberties.

Alexander: Sometimes does the rational thing.

Warner: Sometimes does the rational thing, plus is retiring, so he doesn't owe anyone any favors.

Lugar: Sometimes does the rational thing.

Murkowski: AK is a special case, since BushCo refused both Murkowski's and Stevens' choice for USA. Turns out an immediate family member of both (daddy in Murkowski's case, son in Stevens') may be implicated in the AK-sized Republican corruption in AK, so Murkowski may vote yes on both to avoid any scandal taint.

Voinovich: Per Sara, Voinovich should be on a list of possible yes votes on both.

Nutcase Republicans Implicated in the Scandal

Domenici: Faces real ethical and legal problems because of his involvement; He might vote yes on both to avoid looking like he's scared. Particularly with a re-election bid coming up.

Stevens: As I said, Stevens' son is involved in an AK-sized corruption scandal. Stevens's choice was ignored for USA last year, in what would have been a timely USA appoint to fix Ben's scandal. Plus, Stevens is up for re-election. Probable no votes, but you never know.

Kyl: Kyl has expressed mixed feelings about Charlton's firing. But throw in BushCo's rejection of Kyl's and McCain's one choice for USA, and he might vote yes.

Ensign: Ensign was pretty pissed about the way Bogden was treated. I think he could--and should--be pressured to vote yes on both no confidence and impeachment.

In other words, I think we've got about 6 votes for impeachment now, with about 16 more persudables. If local states start pressuring their Senator about their personal implications in this matter, we might have more success.

The key is to get those persuadables to vote--at least--in favor of the no confidence vote (not much time to act, though). Because if we can show enough votes on no confidence to support impeachment (or get close) then we might get rid of Gonzales the easy way.

Comments

[albert fall]

It's a barometer for whether Karl can still maintain discipline.

Talking is one thing--if they vote against Karl, they have truly slipped the leash.

[emptywheel]

Right, but if the leaks coming out are not total BS, Karl would have preferred Gonzales to go peacefully about a month ago--and preferably before Monica testifies. Given the coordinated response of the Republicans in HJC earlier this week, that may have changed. That is, it may have gone too far for the Republicans to be able to dictate a successor (like Laurence Silberman). Which may make mean Rove's thoughts have changed.

But if Rove still feels like HE'D be safer with Gonzales gone, the Senators may have some leverage in this matter.

ANd consider: Rove too Coleman came out today calling for Gonzales' ouster. If he's a barometer (and I think he is), then I think we could at least get 66 on no confidence.

[albert fall]

EW--

Well reasoned. From your lips to God's ear.

[Rayne]

Here's a list of the Republicans listed in this post who are also running for office in 2008:

GROUP 1:

Coleman, Norm- (R - MN)
Roberts, Pat- (R - KS)
Sununu, John E.- (R - NH)
Smith, Gordon H.- (R - OR)
Sessions, Jeff- (R - AL)
Graham, Lindsey- (R - SC)

GROUP 2:

Alexander, Lamar- (R - TN)
Collins, Susan M.- (R - ME)
Warner, John- (R - VA)

GROUP 3:

Stevens, Ted- (R - AK)
Domenici, Pete V.- (R - NM)

Looks like we might have a lot of leverage there if we were focus on writing LTE's in local paper forums in their home states, or if their constituents pitched in and started hammering on them.

[Rayne]

p.s. you'll note I ignored Lieberman. What a piece of crap, I hope the folks in CT will be working on him and his lie about caucusing with Dems.

[Jim E.]

Apologies for OT posting, but I thought folks around here might be interested in this long, but deeply sourced story/profile (or is it hatchet-job?) of Waas:

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/display.php?id=1532&page=1

With regards to impeachment, has anyone on the judiciary committee or any other congresspeople/Senators ever uttered that word (impeachment, that is) with regard to Gonzo? I've only seen it mentioned on blogs. I'm surprised Schumer, Spector, and Leahy haven't been alluding to it. Or have they?

[A DC Wonk]

Kyl? Wasn't he the one, along with Hatch, who was defending everything/everybody in the Sampson hearing? (or am I thinking of somebody else?)

[Brecht]

Albert above mentions Karl Rove, and I wonder what his present take on this is.

I think the Republicans in general, and the White House especially, are in great danger here. If Abu G goes, there will have to be a new AG who can be confirmed by the Democratic Senate, and who will be far more reasonable than Abu G. And I think that will bust the logjam and lead to another Watergate.

If a new AG starts appointing independent prosecutors, releasing documents, responding to subpoenas (all the things Abu G is so good at "gumming up") then it's over for this administration. And even if the dirty laundry is from the White House, that will still be bad for all the Republicans looking to get re-elected.

If there's any way at all that Abu G can be left twisting slowly until more of the MSM are bored of the whole foul story, while Fox et al. claim this is just political spin and that Congress must stop pestering Abu G so that he can continue his vital work keeping this country (especially the kids!) safe, then that is what will happen.

I am not saying they will succeed in this, just that they are certainly pig-headed enough to try.

[orionATL]

you skipped over david addington.

put him in the washing machine too.

[anwaya]

Self-Importance for Self-Importance Party - LOL!

[emptywheel]

Brecht

They're in a really dangerous moment. If we CAN get about 70 votes of no confidence (a tall order, but we've got 23 above to play with) then it'll signal to the Dems that an indictment is within reach. If that happens, then Conyers' body becomes a true investigative body, with much greater powers of investigation than it currently has. Which is almost as bad as having to go through an AG appoint. This was the risk they took in keeping AGAG on--bc back in February, they would have been sure to get a real Bushie in to replace AGAG. No longer, I suspect.

I just think BushCo didn't expect Schumer to deal the Comey card.

[Frank Probst]

Hmmm. Good analysis of the here-and-now, but a good politician will be thinking about what the landscape will look like in November 2008. The warrantless wiretapping scandal looks like it's even worse than expected. If I were a Republican Senator up for re-election in 2008, I'd be wondering just how many more shoes are going to drop between now and the election. Then I'd ask myself, "If I vote AGAINST removing Gonzales, and he ends up staying in office, what are the chances that yet another scandal will break, and my Democratic opponent will bludgeon me to death with my vote when we hit the campaign trail?" When you look at it from that perspective, it's really a no-brainer.

[albert fall]

Comey exposed Bush for having really bad manners.

His Godfather-hospital-scene story about Card and Gonzales struck a nerve inside the Beltway about what thugs they are, and how little decency the administration has.

Personally, I thought they were bad guys based on the destruction of Iraq, the wholesale lying, the disregard for the Constitution, the reckless war spending, and the Plame treason, but I must be pretty simple to convince.

I want their grip on power to relentlessly and speedily erode, as more of this becomes known.

Still, cockroaches survive everything......

[Davis. X. Machina]

Collins votes yes on no-confidence, no on impeachment. And gets loud huzzahs for 'fairness' and 'balance' and 'moderation' from the Blethen family's mouthpiece, the Portland Press Herald -- because she's a reliable vote to abolish the estate tax, and that's all the Blethens care about.

[emptywheel]

Frank

It's not that easy, I don't think. I've accounted for all the Senators whose 2008 run would introduce that calculus, even including Domenici and Stevens who would normally be "slam dunks" for re-election (though Domenici, on this issue, is a unique case). I just don't see Senators Sessions, Graham, or Roberts getting pressed on this issue.

Davis X

You may well be right on that--it would be typical of her. Though at some point Collins might realize how few Republicans there are left in New England...

[obsessed]

If Domenici plans to retire (the conventional wisdom last time I checked) how does that that affect your calculus for predicting his votes on no confidence and impeachment?

[readerOfTeaLeaves]

This thing is spin-proof: a frightened wife called for help to protect her extremely ill husband from thugs. There is absolutely no way to 'spin' that story, and anyone who tries is a fool.

From here on out, it doesn't matter whether Bush, Cheney, and Gonzo claim Executive Privilege, or whether they claim that USAG's 'serve at the pleasure of the President'. Because these are the very people against whom a conservative Republican wife had to protect her extremely ill husband, while he was in Critical Care.

They've violated basic human decency. Nothing like this occurred even during Watergate.

Any US Senator who supports Gonzo/Bush inescapably tells these people to 'shove it':
Senator John Ashcroft, Mrs Ashcroft, Deputy AG Comey, DoJ Goldsmith,
FBI Mueller (and his agents), and others at DoJ.

Anyone who supports Bu$hCo/Gonzo is inescapably supporting: Gonzales, Sampson, Goodling/Rove, Cheney, Addington

Either you respect the sanctity of a hospital bed, and individual privacy -- OR you support the right of thugs, acting in the interests of the Unitary Executive, to harrass people.

The Dems now have the evidence; they need to take action. Leaders don't sit in endless hearings and allow liars to waste their time; if the Dems fail to act, they have no claim to leadership.

Rove can spin himself all the way to Pluto; but nothing changes the fact Comey and his DoJ colleagues required the assistance of the FBI to protect the AG against WH thugs.
Not spinnable.

[Quzi]

Being from Missouri, I agree that Bond would vote for no confidence on Gonzo and I believe it's very likely that he would vote for impeachment because he and Ashcroft have been buddies for a long time.

[emptywheel]

Thanks Quzi--I hadn't thought about the Ashcroft connection until RoTL's post. But I'll add it above.

[obsessed]

On the pessimistic side, I hate to sound like Idjo, but I'm not seeing much coverage of what to us is the bombshell from Comey. When I checked the news that day, it got almost no attention and I assumed the testimony was a dud. Only after seeking out the actual video did I get chills down my spine. Is there indication that Republican senators have actually changed position on Gonzales based on Comey? I still think we need a full bandwidth, 24/7 coverage bombshell from either Goodling or Ralston to turn the corner on this epic stonewalling effort.

On the optimistic side, if I were Schumer and I knew I had such a bombshell coming, a pre-bombshell no-confidence vote would be a brilliant chess move in terms of setting a trap for the 2008 election bids of all those endangered Republican incumbent senators. Get them to back up Gonzales based on the current atmosphere and then crucify them when broad-based public outrage sets in.

But broad-based outrage, shamefully, is damned hard to come by in this country. Katrina, Foley, Haggard and, oddly, the Dubay Ports thing ... maybe Walter Reed ... that's about it for Bush debacles which have actual provoked real outrage on the American street. The slimiest sins of DeLay, Cheney, & Rove, Abu Graib, torture, Tillman & Lynch, wire-tapping, war-profiteering, corporate fraud, oil company price-gouging, Abramoff, Plame ... none of these have really pierced the thick, callous moral skin of the television-addled average American.

... depressing.

[Brecht]

Emptywheel, yes, this is a crucial moment.

Comey's shocking story may change everything - IF the MSM are galvanized by it. Between Abu G's imminent grilling and the no confidence vote, this may be too much story for the MSM to ignore. Most of these Republican Senators would love to forget this whole stink, but they may do the right thing if they feel the outrage now, and are convinced that it will only increase and persist until Abu G. goes.

Abu G. has been so dense - I couldn't believe, after his strategically polite goodbye letter, that he would stab McNulty in the back and try to pin the firings on him (when we already know McNulty was mostly out of the loop). He is offensive to anyone with a conscience, which may well lead to more leaks from the DoJ.

Schumer is playing this very well. I wonder what Comey said after his testimony, behind closed doors - and whether Schumer can make use of what he learned.

Thank you for your constant and insightful work on all this - you, Froomkin and Greenwald are my favorite gadflies, doing your best to wake the slumbering giant of the MSM.

[tekel]

I maintain that it's a mistake to count on Maverick Johnnie- he's missed some 50 senate votes in a row, why would he show up for this one?

[Brecht]

Well, it's on the front page of tomorrow's NYT and WaPo, which is a good start.

[Jon]

Hi EW,

Good post!

One other calculation to take into account. By having a "no confidence" vote first, Senator Schumer is giving Senators an out. Senators who may be politically vulnerable, internally ("Rove payback is a bitch") or externally ("the voters don't much like me anymore?"), can vote "yes" on "no confidence" and then vote "no" on impeachment and say that they did the right thing on voting for "no confidence". They can explain that their vote was intended to put pressure on Gonzales to resign or for the President to fire him but that they didn't vote for impeachment because that was all about politics. Unfortunately, the Clinton impeachment debacle has clearly cast an unfavorable pall over impeachment in the mind of the public. While this argument sounds weak, and it is weak, it at least gives recalcitrant Republicans something upon which they can point to as having done their job.

I suspect the political calculus is completely different now. The White House has hung onto Gonzales so long that now they can't afford to let him go. The time for cutting a deal with the Senate so they could get a guy they'd want in place of Gonzales is long gone, I assume, unless the Democrats are content to "get" Gonzales and let the other more important matters lie.

[Veritas78]

Tomorrow (Friday) will be the third day in a row that the WaPo has its lead editorial focusing on this, excoriating BushCo and calling them criminals. They are now officially Pissed Off, and although it took an agonizingly long time, their line has been crossed.

I'm with ReaderofTeaLeaves -- this was a Schiavo moment that let us see these people for who they are. Odd that manipulating sick people in hospitals are in both dramas, but maybe that's what it takes to for some to recognize the nature of the beast.