My guess is that Tilman was a high profile heroic figure whose death came at a low point in the war. Someone in the WH – probably Rove decided to use it to political advantage to buck up support the way they used Lynch’s story. Of course now no one recalls, so we’ll never know what really happened. This administration’s incompetent at everything but stonewalling.

BTW, the DEMs are also trying to pass the appropriations bills which Bush keeps threatening to veto. They are working with a president of the opposite party who doesn’t want to compromise one iota, and Congressional Republicans whose goal is to make the 110th a do-nothing just like the 109th. Thus all of the filibusters.

instead, they’re wasting their time on silly little partisan witch hunts, like going after Rumsfeld for what he knew about Tillman’s death, when all that does is end up boring anyone who doesn’t read blogs 20 hours a day and takes TV time away from the issues. You think the Dems are going to appeal to the masses with these hearings? right, about as much as the GOP scored with their hearings into Clinton’s escapades.

And if Bush wasn’t such a total flop, he’s actually be doing something to help his party, by proposing programs that the Dems will stymie, letting the GOP push those themes come election time. he ought to be pushing enforcement-first immigration reform, he ought to be pushing further tax relief, he ought to be pushing his judicial nominations and so on. But since he can’t do much right now but sit and hope that Iraq turns out well (which it won’t), he’s pretty useless right now.

The GOP’s case is that because the Democrats couldn’t get anything passed, they busied themselves with petty and partisan investigations which went nowhere and are a waste of taxpayer funds. (Like the 8 billion lost in Iraq by Bremer’s CPA in ’03 wasn’t a waste of taxpayer money, lol- compared to the amount that has been wasted and stolen for the war effort, the time Democrats are spending on these hearings doesn’t cost Americans very much). Therefore, since they’ve (the GOP) come to their fiscally responsible senses, they are ready to reassume power in ’08.

The democrats promised one witch hunt er hearing after another when they did not get their way in the vote to get out of Iraq.

Its much easier to just claim executive priveledge to an announced policy by the democrats then it is to try and answer questions designed to put a whole bunch of Libbys in jail for “Not remembering”.

That;s about the size of the in-depth criticisms here.

Washington may be shalloe and mroally corrupt, but they only mirror the public.

Sure, the Republicans are playing partisan defense with the only math they have. Then again, Harry Reid surely won’t be mistaken in the history books for Henry Cabot Lodge.

And Chris, ever to form, what your side does is okay, it’s always the Republicans who screw things up. Whose fault is it that the Dems thought they needed to go along with whatever they were going along with? And why not blame the Democrats for pushing such partisan legislation that they can’t get more than a bare majority of votes to support? Whenever the Dems filibustered or delayed GOP initiatives, your side complained that they were justified, inasmuch as it showed that the Republicans were set on pushing a rightwing agenda. But no such complaints from you now about the Dems proposals… so as I asked before, you the pot or are you the kettle?

I agree with you there, but what I find rediculous is to label the Dems as “Do-nothing” when they are in fact unable process wise to move anything of note forward. Between filibusters and more importantly not being able to overcome a veto they have their hands tied. The only real leverage they have at this point is subpoena and investigation into some obviously shady dealing of the exec branch and even that is being undermined.

In spite of what you may believe, from 2000-2006 the Congress and Bush did whatever the hell they wanted. The Democrats went along with 95% of it because they were told it was political suicide not to be bipartisan.

After Bush and his lapdogs in Congress drove us off a cliff, the voters wanted someone else calling the shots. If they wanted more conformity to the Bush plan, why wouldn’t they have kept the GOP in power?

But I digress. The situation today is quite different from that of just a year ago. Instead of the minority party going along with the majority, we have the Republicans blocking just about every piece of legislation coming down the pipeline.

That is a significant change, it’s not what the Democrats were doing.

Btw, how come the Republicans aren’t ever told they have compromise and be bipartisan?

And kim, I would really be surprised if the Dems only filibustered (or threatened to do so) Bush’s judicial picks. But, as per my point, once you accept using a filibuster to prevent unwanted legislation/action from going through, it’s petty to argue about the number of times or the particulars of what is being filibustered.

And if/when the Dems get a President to go along with a Congressional majority, I fully expect them to start threatening to get rid of the filibuster. Process doesnt matter – to either side – they only care about getting what they want.

Having said that, I wonder about the political instincts of Waxman and the other Democratic leaders when they devote so much airtime to chasing after Rumsfeld on a relatively nothing issue that isn’t going to resonate with relatively no one (and, yes, you two and Shaun are in the relatively no one category), when instead they have no shortage of issues they can push forward that would have a much better chance of allowing them to keep their control after next year’s elections.

And having said that, I have no doubt that were the roles reversed, the GOP would be doing the very same thing.

People cannot claim veto when done of the bills have even hit the President’s desk yet.

sd,
fil·i·bus·ter
-noun
the use of irregular or obstructive tactics by a member of a legislative assembly to prevent the adoption of a measure generally favored or to force a decision against the will of the majority.

====
Moreover, it’s time to purge the myth that the Democrats have to compromise with the Republicans or they are in deep doo-doo. First, the Republicans were not interested in compromise in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 or now. Second, to the President and his allies, compromise means doing what they say. And thirdly, polls show that a majority of the country is onboard with most of the Democratic agenda.

There is no excuse for the Democrats to be as ineffective as they are except that they have decided that scoring political points is more important than leading.

People cannot claim veto when done of the bills have even hit the President’s desk yet.

Maybe since the Democratic politicians are so used to living in defacto one party areas like San Franciso or Mass. that they forget that some people will disagree with them.

OF course in a few years when the Democrats are the one, relevent political party, they will no longer have any excuse and the budgets will still probably not be done on time.

There has been no shortage of legislation proposed, but the GOP has obstructed just about everything.

SD and others can try to spin it so it seems like the Democrats are wasting time, but let’s hope the American people see the truth.

Shaun,
Thanks for linking to that excellent blog post