U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 30, 2007 05:55 PM UTC
24 Comments
He looks like Kim Jong Ils’ long lost brother in that cartoon.
I wrote this post yesterday and there was some discussion of it in the weekend thread.
One of the comments was that you cannot legitimately impeach for being incomptent. I think this post shows that incompetence clearly is legitimate grounds for impeachment.
Yes the Republicans debased the concept of impeachment when they went after Clinton. And it is admirable that the Democrats are treating it as it should be. But that does not mean never impeach – just that it should only be used when clearly needed.
And with Gonzales it is clearly needed.
I read the posts on the link. They in no way confirm that incompetence is grounds for impeachment. They just don’t. There are a variety of opinions.
The one I agree with is that if incompetence is grounds for impeachment, then we lose the Legislative Function in the Constitution. The party in power in Congress would simply impeach the officials of the other party on the grounds of “impeachment.” And, vice versa.
where the level of incompetence makes the individual incapable of carrying out their job – and that must be grounds for removal.
Or as Gerald Ford said, grounds for impeachment is whatever a majority of the House says it is.
In this morning’s Gazette, Lamborn calls for a National TABOR
http://www.gazette.com/articles/tabor_25420___article.html/lamborn_budget.html
Doesn’t mention that more and more Colorado communities and districts are de-TABORing.
Doesn’t mention that TABOR is widely misunderstood in Colorado (recent polls suggest that upwards of 50% of Coloradoans have either never heard of TABOR or have heard about but don’t really know what it is and a good chunk of the other 50% don’t understand all of the ramifications of it).
Doesn’t mention that you have to have costly elections in order to adequately function and provide additional revenues (so much for representative government).
Doesn’t mention that any form of TABOR would be worthless at the National level because of deficit spending.
Does mention that you couldn’t vote on taxes at the National level (one of the few things that people do understand about TABOR).
Does mention that a big proponent is Doug Bruce (“First I screwed up Colorado Springs, then I screwed up Colorado – of course I want to take my act to the National level.”)
That’s exactly what they want to hear.
Jay Inslee (D-WA) is introducing a resolution to impeach Gonzo tomorrow apparently. My question is whether ya’ll will get pissed first when Pelosi et al dont support Inslee or when Repubs successfully portray Dems as “wasting time” when they’ve only passed 2 Appropriations bills b/c the Aug recess.
I will note that if Dems had any backbone this would be the perfect time to introduce the idea of impeachment to the public in a official manner. With congress out of session for a month, the media would have nothing to talk about and maybe some traction could be gained. Of course, we Dems often show no backbone and when Pelosi and the leadership gang dismiss Inslee’s idea then Repubs start talking about how little progress Dems have made on the Approp bills for FY 08, all this impeachment talk will seem rather silly.
BTW, anyone want to explain what reasons Gonzo should be impeached? Lying? Being a dumbass? Come on…you can do better than that 😛
I don’t think they can stuff the genie back in the bottle on this – house members are going to come under incredible pressure over August to vote for this.
This is actually excellent timing. If they don’t move on it it is the main thing every rep is going to hear about all August.
As are the callers. Not much support for the status quo.
How long ago did he get confirmed? Only 2 1/2 years ago? Wow, must be some sort of record.
It’s not an actual impeachment resolution, just a resolution to direct the Judiciary Committee to begin an impeachment investigation. Also, Pelosi has said nothing about taking impeachment of Gonzales off the table…
(Serial) Lying under oath – aka perjury. Obstruction of justice. Violations of the Hatch Act (in attorney firings). Potential violation (and continuing support/promotion of violators) of Federal employee laws and the Hatch Act (in civil rights hirings). Violation of the Geneva Conventions and U.S. laws on subversion of detainee treatment protections. Violation of legal ethics in attempting to acquire authorization from a medically unfit source (Ashcroft).
And, if the NYTimes story from over the weekend is true (and it is supposedly based on White House sources), violation of the Constitution in attempting to maintain the Total Information Awareness program in violation of a law denying all budget expenditures on TIA or any part of it by any name.
Any one of the offenses listed above are sufficient grounds for disbarment, and absent the good standing of the Bar, Gonzales cannot remain as AG.
Seems slightly logical, but is there a Constitutional or statutory requirement for this?
It’s one of the few offices with a requirement. If you’re not a member in good standing with the bar, you can’t call yourself an attorney.
I believe in his case, he can’t be disbarred in any state or at the Federal level.
I understand that I can’t call myself an attorney or represent others in court. But if, just hypothetically speaking, we had a stupid, arrogant, corrupt president, and he appointed me AG, why not? (Overlooking the confirmation obstacle.)
I couldn’t do worse than Alberto….
Aka illegal.
Which means that if we’re theorizing why Bush couldn’t do it, there’s no reason at all. Look for your recess appointment over the August break, assuming you’re willing to place yourself in some extremely compromising positions with President Cheney, his sockpuppet Bush and assorted other administration officials like Rove…
Torquemada suddenly resigns, Boosh suddenly appoints a new AG. It’s August!
Carrying my hypothetical to the absurd, what if I never called myself the AG? Let other folks do it….. “Pablito, you’re doing a heck of a job as Attorney General.”
The texas bar is one of the clubiest. Short of a conviction, the TX bar will not act on his ethical violations.
His violations are so obvious and so significant, I think the House will be forced to move the motion forward.
For starters:
Contempt of Congress & Perjury.
Disregarding the 4th and 8th Amendments to the US Constitution, and signed treaties respecting human rights.
Obstruction of justice.
Abdication of leadership responsibility and gross mismanagment, since he was completely unaware of who he was firing and why.
He was one of the five Democrats who successfully unseated Republican incumbents in the ’98 “blow job” election. He ran a really neat TV commercial featuring seductive stripper music, a blue dress, a cigar, and Ken Starr.
Studs and Studettes – proof that we rock – http://www.cnn.com/S…
Thanks! n/t