Joe Chooses His New Friend, Karl Rove, Over the Rule of Law
by emptywheel
Between Joe Lieberman's calls to bomb Iran over the weekend, and his no vote on the no confidence resolution against Alberto Gonzales today, we have hit the final straws in Joe Lieberman's little dance with the dark side.
When a man cannot vote the no confidence that the entire Senate, save Orrin Hatch, implicitly shares, that says his interests lie with the party that is covering its ass rather than with the party with which he caucuses. It says his interests lie with protecting Karl Rove from the scrutiny a real AG would bring, over the rule of law.
And if Joe Lieberman won't vote with his former party on this vote, along with seven Republican Senators (Scottish Law Specter, Snowe, Collins, Hagel, Smith, Sununu, and Coleman), that says he won't vote with Democrats, ever, when it counts. If Norm Coleman--as much a flunkie of Karl Rove as anyone in the Senate--votes for the no confidence resolution, and Joe Lieberman does not, we have no further use for Joe Lieberman in our caucus.

Hear, hear!
There's no way that this leaverman should be allowed in the Dem caucus. No way!
Go get 'im, Edub!
Posted by: Canuck Stuck in Muck | June 11, 2007 at 18:45
If we ditch him, then don't the Republicans become the majority party in the Senate? The thought of Mitch McConnell as Senate Majority leader is frightening.
Posted by: KdmFromPhila | June 11, 2007 at 18:54
I had originally thought the "no confidence" vote to be a dry run for impeachment proceedings. I'll give Senator Schumer the benefit of the doubt for now and that there is a plan in place. Does the failure of the cloture vote indicate that AGAG is home free until Bush goes? Or does Speaker Pelosi now begin impeachment proceedings, with the understanding that Schumer has lots of stuff that will make it very difficult for the Senate Republicans not to vote in the required numbers? Or will the impeachment proceedings be stayed in return for something, like appointment of a special prosecutor? One thing about the Rethugs, they certainly know how to keep all their pawns in place in this chess game.
Posted by: Ishmael | June 11, 2007 at 18:55
Lieberman is firmly in Rove's pocket, and a closer neo-con, to boot. Rove got him the money to campaign as an "independent". He spends a lot of time, and appears to think his allegiance is to Israel, judging by his foreign policy statements, & not to the USA. Netanyahu is his mentor, in my opinion. His serial comments on attacking Iran are most certainly not in America's best interests, but are very popular in Tel Aviv.
Posted by: Seamus | June 11, 2007 at 19:03
EW,Thank you for the lowdown on the cloture vote. I want to hear the Senator's who voted "No" on cluture explain the reasons thay have confidence in Gonzalez as AG. I wonder how many would cite the lack of evidence of illegal activity. I'm struck by the low bar... in the shins.
Posted by: Neil | June 11, 2007 at 19:05
Bought and paid for, with Mel Sembler's money and the post-primary phone call from Karl: "Let us know if there's anything we can do to help, Joe!"
Posted by: TeddySanFran | June 11, 2007 at 19:09
Not one GOP would defend AbuG on the floor of the Senate today, choosing instead to slime Schumer for being political (!) and calling the vote political grandstanding and of no consequence. Also, Hutchinson thought they had better things to do. Ha-ha, KayB, you funny lady.
Posted by: TeddySanFran | June 11, 2007 at 19:13
Neil,
Only Hatch will say he has confidence in AGAG at this point, only Hatch.
So none of them would state their opinion as favorable to AGAG. Rather, they're taking cover in the fact that they don't want to have "question time" for George Bush. (Because god forbid Bush have to answer any questions, you know).
Posted by: emptywheel | June 11, 2007 at 19:13
gdmfsob
Posted by: Janice | June 11, 2007 at 19:14
Kick him out, I say.
Regarding Kdmfrom Phila's comment, my understanding is that the organizing resolutions have already been passed for this session, and that even if the balance of power switches, there is no way the repubs can become the majority party because any attempt to pass new organizing resolutions would be subject to cloture, which the repubs don't have the votes for.
That being said, I just heard a story on NPR this afternoon opining that if Sen. Johnson from SD hadn't recovered, the Senate would switch to GOP hands because the Republican SD governor would have appointed a repub, making the senate 50-50 with Darth as the tiebreaker. Someone needs to correct NPR on this point.
I assume I have all this right, where's Kagro X to weigh in?
Posted by: viget | June 11, 2007 at 19:15
Not that I enjoy being redundant, but I have to say it one more time:
FUCK JOE LIEBERMAN!
(& btw - I don't think he works for KKKarl Rove. Rather I think he really works for
SharonNetanyahu.) I have a well connected sister-in-law who teaches piano in a number of well apportioned CT yeshivas in CT who has told me so. Not that it would be rocket science to figure it out--what is rocket science is to figure out why it is so difficult (or sacrilege to say) to figure this out.Posted by: Woodhall Hollow | June 11, 2007 at 19:29
lieberman just got elected for six more years.
coleman is up for re-election next year, as i believe are collins, sunnu, and smith, maybe snowe.
that's the only difference.
if liberman's election were this year he would have voted with the democrats.
the time to get liberman was last year. it's too late now; he'd escaped.
in general, lieberman's voting positions this year seem almost to be personal ones in which he is saying "go to hell" to the democratic party.
as for who votes for what when, it's not necessarily the money you want to follow, but the political power.
same applies to bush vis-a-vis abu gonzales or iraq.
Posted by: orionATL | June 11, 2007 at 19:43
The Democrats should take his unused commitee chair away from him and re-assign it to a Democrat....Or maybe Reid should trade Joe for Hagle....someone who actually has principles.
Woodhall Hollow....You are so correct...Joe's true allegiance is too his religion/Israel. He is not a loyal American, just like all the other Neo-Cons traitors.
Posted by: Rick | June 11, 2007 at 19:51
Nice rant, Janice. Suprisingly easy to get every word.
Hey all, What about Obama? He didn't vote. And here I was ready to donate to his campaign. Just threw out the envelope. Edwards just became my favorite.
Posted by: Dismayed | June 11, 2007 at 19:53
Reid needs to lance the boil yesterday.
Posted by: sy | June 11, 2007 at 20:00
Orion
No, Snowe gets credit for this vote, she's not up for reelection (just Collins from ME). Same with Specter, though you can be sure he would have voted Scottish Haggis had the vote mattered.
Posted by: emptywheel | June 11, 2007 at 20:03
KdmFromPhila,
Why would McConnell want to be Majority Leader right now? He probably has more fun watching Reid make an ass out of himself(ie: HoJo).
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | June 11, 2007 at 20:04
Canuck Stuck in Muck: Nope, the rules of the senate are set at the beginning of the session: there would only be a change in the rules (including committee proportions, majority leader, etc) if there were 60 votes to change them; or after the next general election.
I say throw the bum out. Let the ass (Lieberman) lie down with the ass (McConnell) and not with the lambs.
N.
Posted by: breadbox | June 11, 2007 at 20:34
I just thought of an argument applicable to this entire debacle. Isn't calling this "no conf" vote partisan in itself an admission that AGAG is a partisan. The AG is supposed to be non partisan, thus a vote on confidence is by nature a non partisan vote. Anyone who calls it a partisan witch hunt is in fact admitting that Abu is a partisan. They are proving the point. Just throwing it out there.
Posted by: Dismayed | June 11, 2007 at 20:47
The Senate is organized, and unlike in 2001, there is no provision for a revote before Jan 2009. The Dems hold the majority leader position and the committee chairs regardless of what happens, unless the Senate disregards 200 years of tradition that says that they are a continuing body that adopts rules at the beginning of each session and doesn't change them midstream. This is the crux of the nuclear option, too, which one would think is now off the table since the GOP is staring at several years in the minority.
Lieberman should be stripped of his committee chairmanship since he is doing nothing, nothing at all with it. It is the counterpart to Waxman's committee in many respects and Joe is just warming the chair.
I do think the Dems will wait for a few more shoes to drop, wait for some indictments, maybe referrals of some of the DOJ cronies for lying, some more resignations and testimony from some more fired and resigned folks with integrity, a few more court decisions repudiating Bush's legal positions and after a few of each, do the vote again. Just like Iraq, make them vote for their masters over and over and hang them with it in Nov 2008.
They should
Posted by: Mimikatz | June 11, 2007 at 20:56
I don't think Joe's loyalty is to Judaism. I think he'd choose Israel over his synagogue, if it came to a choice. (I know at least one Jew whose contempt for JoeL is great.)
I say throw the bum out and see how long he bounces! (And while we're at it, tell Harry Reid 'no more speeches in Congress, ever!'
Posted by: P J Evans | June 11, 2007 at 21:03
Cut him loose, please God. Give his chairmanship to someone who actually wants to look in to Katrina. He has done nothing for the Dems since they took over, except to vote for Reid . This should not require a bit of thought. He has much more power as the Independant who might switch partys than he is as one of 51 Dems or he would have as one of 50 Reps. He knows his power lies in this construct. Selfish power hungry bast**d.
Posted by: DeeLoralei in Memphis | June 11, 2007 at 21:11
Mimikats and DeeLoralei - I don't know if, in fact, this is true; but I read somewhere back in late January or early February that the organizing resolution Mimi refers to (and she is definitely right about about the leader and committee percentages) also specifically names the committee chairs. If this is true, then it would not permit Schmoe Lieberman to be removed from his committee chairmanship. Does anyone else know the answer to this?
Posted by: bmaz | June 11, 2007 at 21:39
How do you 'Kick out' a guy who's already abandoned the hearth? His 'bomb Iran' talk is consistent with his neocon/likudnikism. But I think he broke new ground supporting an AG damned for corruption of justice and election-tampering faux-investigations.
In that regard, one hopes the MSM punditry would question him sharply since the AG's clear role is to turn Justice into a GOP election dirty tricks machine against the party he caucuses with.
(Yes, I know the MSM is also hopeless, but maybe someone can stick a bug in KO's ear to rant about Pro-corruption Joe.)
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | June 11, 2007 at 21:50
Just watched the RGJoe vote at C&L: I think it was Schumer and DiFi at the last minute on his shoulder, moving away together. With DiFi's anger at the firing of Carole Lam, I'd say she had an interest in that vote.
Posted by: anwaya | June 11, 2007 at 21:56