WASHINGTON, June 11 — Senate Democrats fell short this afternoon in their effort to hold a vote of no confidence in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales but still registered a strong, if symbolic, rebuke of the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.
The Senate voted 53 to 38 to end debate and allow a vote on the no-confidence motion itself. Since 60 votes were required to shut off the debate, or invoke cloture, supporters of the motion were lacking seven votes. But Mr. Gonzales’s critics could console themselves with the knowledge that they mustered a majority.... New York Times, June 11, 2007
It was expected, of course, and that some Republicans voted for proceeding with the vote of no confidence is encouraging. However, it still doesn't answer a lot of questions, and there is one more big question that I have.
You can see the way the senators' voted here: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session. At the bottom are the names of the senators not voting -
Not Voting - 7
With Coburn and Johnson I might be able to accept a plausible explanation.
Aren't the others all running for presidential nominations? Would it not have been wise for them to have at least appeared and voted present?
oh, and there was a second part to Trent Lott's statement about the Senate not being the British Parliament - “...and I hope it will never become the British Parliament.”
that wasn't a very nice thing to say, was it?