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. [...]

"This is a nonbinding, irrelevant resolution proving what? Nothing," Lott said.

But if we can take another year or so of George presidenting over this country we should be able to take Alberto however unpalatable either option is. The country will survive, it's institutions badly damaged, its image in the tatters, same with our sense of self-worth as a nation, but the country will survive.

---

Still the fact that Alberto managed to survive is surprising. For two reasons.

First, it should have had dawn on George by now that people are not out to get him. Rumsfeld had to go not because he was a convenient, substitute anti-Bush target but because he was a total disaster in DoD. Same thing with Alberto. There is nothing anti-Bush here, simply having this "torture OK, habeas-corpus, warrants optional" legal shyster  and political hack totally incapable of basic honesty as our Attorney General is grossly demeaning to this country. People, dear George, only go after the most unacceptable, damaging members of your administration. Nobody is trying to force Condi out, however borderline Secretary of State she is.  Same thing with all other members of your administration, including even that paragon of total incompetence Karen Hughes. Keep them as long as you like, George. But Alberto? Oh please!

Secondly, it appears that nobody really thinks Gonzales is acceptable (except of George of course, but given his standards no surprise here).

The reason the vote was only 53-38 was because some senators thought expressing the lack of confidence in any member of the administration seriously undermines the basic constitutional order of things in this country.  

That's patently going too far.

Bush should indeed be able to keep whomever he wants regardless of anything  but if YOU think Gonzales is unacceptable or you don't have basic confidence in his ability to run the DoJ constitutionally, as more than 60 of you do, it is your RESPONSIBILITY to voice it and a vote of non-confidence is the best and in fact the only meaningful vehicle for it.

If we assume that Bush's right to people of his choice (after they've been approved by the Senate of course) is sacrosanct in our system of government, then a vote of no-confidence is the only meaningful way  for the legislature to express its lack of confidence in any particular member of administration without encroaching on that  right in the first place.  

They seem to be saying in effect that legislature has no right to voice its sense of uneasiness about any member of any administration and that is a rather dangerous notion for any democratic society.