Number of senators favoring an up-or-down vote on a resolution expressing no confidence in Alberto Gonzales: 53.

Number who didn't want the question to come to a vote: 38.

Guess which party opposed an up-or-down vote on the no confidence resolution?

Republicans did not defend him, but most voted against moving the resolution ahead.

The only Republicans who voted to end debate were [corrected] Coleman, Collins, Specter, Sununu, Hagel, Snowe, and Smith. Joining the Republicans was the Party of One, Joe "bomb bomb bomb, bomb Iran" Lieberman.

Dave "Mudcat" Saunders is a Democratic political operative who hates "elites." That's why, in his first post at Time's Swampland, he defended Joe Klein's plea for no jail time for Scooter Libby.

This comment captures the mood:

Posted by Carneyvore June 11, 2007

Shorter Mudcat:

"Metropolitan Opera Wing" Democrats are losing the rural vote because they are being too hard on Joe Klein for carrying water for rural hero, Scooter Libby.

At daily kos, there seems to be a new approach to Crashing the Gates. It involves clearing the field. DavidNYC writes:

Earlier this week, Markos also took note of fears that a primary could be unnecessarily divisive. There's no question that to have a shot at beating Sessions, Alabama Dems will have to be completely united. Primaries can often be a good thing, but not always, and this race might fall into the latter category. And if Ron Sparks says so, I'm inclined to believe him.

To be fair to Markos, he really did not say that:

[M]oney isn't wasted in contested primaries if it keeps the eventual victor's name in the news and interest in the race high. It gives candidates a chance to hone their message and forces them to test their field operation before the November contest. In fact, primary victors often get a bump as a bandwagon effect takes hold. Our two most dramatic victories in 2008 -- in Red states Virginia and Montana -- featured Democrats who first had to make it through primaries. Primaries shouldn't be feared.

More

The story of the moment assures us that the sponsors of the immigration bill, secure in the knowledge that the Decider supports their tireless work, intend to soldier on despite a notable lack of enthusiasm for compromise in the legislature. The more interesting story is the right wingers' continuing separation from their fearless leader.

[T]hey now think they see in Bush the heart of a man who thinks he is morally superior to them even as his own incompetence drags them over a political cliff.

Bush infamously said, on two separate occasions, that opponents of the immigration bill are deliberately trying to "frighten" the public, that they "don't want to do what's right for America," and other calumnies - all while his Cabinet secretaries, former chief speechwriter, and other close allies have called the opponents "bigots," "nativists," "anti-Hispanic," and other insults.

There will always be Bush loyalists, but their numbers are dwindling toward insignificance. Reasonable conservatives abandoned Bush because of his fiscal irresponsibility, his incompetence, or Iraq. His newly-revealed contempt for non-monied conservatives has peeled away more supporters. More Bushies will walk away if Bush doesn't show reciprocal loyalty to the conservative cause by saving Scooter Libby from imprisonment.

Poor George. Do you think his mom still loves him? Do you suppose he cares?

Mark Kleiman writes:

I'd propose a simple rule: no one comes in who can't speak, read, and write English. I'm not a hard-core assimilationist . . .

You're not? I suppose Kleiman could argue that since there would be no need for language assimilation under Kleiman's plan. Being one of the wonky bloggers who we're supposed to take seriously, let's consider Kleiman's rationales for this departure from over a hundred years of immigration policy:

[T]he advantages, to immigrants and to the country, of having our citizens-to-be start out literate in the national language — which is also the world business language — seem to me obvious. As Net access becomes more and more nearly universal, so does access to the tools to learn English up to the rudimentary level which is all we ought to ask for. I'm reluctant to discriminate on the basis of social class, but I don't mind using intelligence and drive as filters.

That is some egregiously bad wonkery. Here's why.

When Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card visited John Ashcroft in a desperate attempt to secure his approval of the president's illegal wiretapping program, the second in command at the Justice Department, James Comey, intervened (as TalkLeft reported here and here). Accompanying Comey on his trip to the hospital was Patrick Philbin, described in this post as (like Comey) having later left the Justice Department "under stressful circumstances."

Adding to Philbin's stress was the knowledge that helping Comey block Gonzales had caused his career to dead-end. According to answers that Comey supplied as a follow-up to his Senate testimony, Vice President Cheney blocked Philbin's promotion.

Mr. Philbin was considered for principal Deputy Solicitor General after Paul Clement became Solicitor General. It was my understanding that the Vice President’s office blocked that appointment.

I understood that someone at the White House communicated to Attorney General Gonzales that the Vice President would oppose the appointment if the Attorney General pursued the matter. The Attorney General chose not to pursue it.

Philbin also participated in Comey's "thumbs down" review of the wiretap program. Comey's written answers are available here.

Newt Gingrich is sounding the alarm: the Bush administration is dysfunctional. Where's he been the last seven years?

"We have to have very relentless, dramatic change in American government," he said.

Gingrich added, "The key question is: Is somebody prepared to stand up and say that the American people deserve fundamental change in Washington?"

The answer is: Yes. Pretty much every non-Republican in the country has proclaimed the need for change. Hasn't Newt noticed?

Writing about George Will's column arguing for conservatism and the Republican Party, Greg Anrig points out a too common flaw in most apologias for conservatism and the GOP:

[H]e is reciting exactly the same rig[a]marole that he and other conservatives have repeated since before Reagan was president, as though the failures of conservatives to deliver on their promises while in power during most of the interim somehow isn’t germane to the discussion.

But is it just George Will and conservatives? Consider Rudy Giuliani's national security creds. Or Fred Thompson the tough guy. Actual experience and actual toughness have nothing to do with the way the Media covers these individuals. To quote the philosopher Andre Agassi, "image is everything" it seems.

Dan Bartlett tendered his resignation today. At 36, he is Bush's longest-serving staffer, spending 14 years with him.

The reason: to spend more time with his family. But he doesn't have a job lined up. He's hired a headhunter.

Who gives up a paycheck with "twin, 3-year-old boys and another son born in January" before they know another paycheck is coming in? Of course, maybe he's independently wealthy and just wants to spend more time at home.

So the Third Way's Scott Winship is still hung up on labels:

The biggest issue folks had with my last post was with my claim that the country tilts right of center. Since I indicated yesterday that I'd defend that claim today—yes, I realize that I didn't provide much evidence yesterday—and since I'm intending this post to be an example of the kind of evidence-based argumentation that I have in mind, let's get this party started.

Winship's proof? why self-indentification polls of course. Well, I self identify myself as a Centrist. Who disagrees with me on that? Let's face it, labels mean nothing as to what people believe on specific issues and that really is the point isn't it? Winship mentions Paul Waldman's argument on the issue (which, for those who care, I am looking at you my good friend Ed Kilgore, is the whole point of the Politics of Contrast - make folks deal with the actual stances of the two parties) and promises, eventually, to actually bring some facts to his argument for "empiricism." About time Scott. For a guy arguing for fact-based empiricism, you sure are taking your sweet time bringing some actual facts to the table.

Think Progress reports that Karl Rove's buddy Tim Griffin, at the heart of the U.S. Attorney firing scandal, has resigned as acting U.S. Attorney for Arkansas.

There's great speculation he will join Fred Thompson's presidential campaign.

This isn't a big surprise. He announced in February he wouldn't accept the permanent U.S. Attorney position. One of the reasons was Sen. Mark Pryor's opposition to him.

Raw Story has Sen. Mark Pryor's statement on Griffin's resignation.

Watching Al Gore discuss the importance of reasoned discourse in a democracy, it strikes me that our earlier discussion on Hugo Chavez and the closing of a privately owned television station critical of the Chavez government was missing some key understandings.

Gore argues for reasoned discourse, but he implicitly assumes that our current media structure may be capable of delivering the information necessary to forwarding that discourse. Is this true? An open question.

What is not an open question in my view is that a government, any government, Left or Right, can be granted the power to shut down media outlets because it is critical of that government.

More