Link is my signature:

Democrats pursue agenda with inquiries

When Their Bills Fail in Congress, Democrats Pursue Their Agenda With Inquiries

CHARLES BABINGTON

AP News

Congressional Democrats are using subpoenas and other investigatory powers to expose Bush administration missteps and push for policy changes even as they struggle at times to enact legislation.

...

Congress' oversight and investigative powers are especially vital to Democrats because a potent GOP minority in the Senate has kept them from passing legislation on issues such as immigration and an Iraq withdrawal plan.

"Maybe it's even more important than legislation," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., a key player who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

see the rest at the link, but in short, he gets pretty much everything factually correct, and even points out the positive progress the investigations have brought.

It is time, now for the netroots to start lobbying for 40 Democratic senators to filibuster any effort to make these changes to FISA permanent.

It's like we're in the minority somehow even in our majority. Damn it if we can't find 60 senators to end the war, but maybe we can find 40 who won't allow unregulated spying in perpetuity.

I would be positively heartened to learn that any part of the US government (including Congress) was paying Cole for advice on Iraq.

See the thing here about a "conflict of interest" is that there must be a conflict.

If I am a public critic of X, that X might pay me is actually not a problem if my criticism of X does not change.

So to imply there is something seedy going on with Cole, you'd need to find him reversing positions on issues to be in line with his supposed benefactors. Perusing his blog from time to time that is anything but the case.

There's no smoke.

It's a hell of a lot of money to pay for terrible advice.

I'd want my money back.

Hell, I will give the US government shitty advice for half that.

The market at work!

So ask him.

jricole at yahoo dot com.

I read your case and I don't agree that those comments imply he is "consulting" the government.

As I pointed out above too, there is no evidence that such a financial relationship has altered his positions, which is the basis of concern for such conflicts of interest.

A poor nominee should never even reach the floor for the 40 senators to filibuster. They can be blocked in committee, specifically the Judiciary Committee, so long as its democrats stick together:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/members.cfm

Feinstein worries me most in terms of propensity to bolt and vote with the Republicans.

And the circular firing squad loads up and starts firing.

God bless the circular firing squad. Let the Democrats never adopt the lock-step 11th commandment mindless authoritarian mindset of the right. We criticize that which is wrong and your problem with that is?

Fuck being anyone's water carrier.

Just speculating, but just before the break, Leahy asked the DoJ IG to investigate Gonzo's testimony, and that cat (the IG) was supposedly a fairly independent character. Maybe he was poised to actually investigate the AG and report the truth.

DailyKos lists Gonzales' official departure date as Sept 17. Would that not also mean Bush can't do a recess appointment, since the position is not actually vacant until the 17th, at which point Congress will be back in session?

Of course, Gonzales official departure date was determined by Bush anyway, so if had wanted to do a recess appt, he would have had gonzo go immediately. But that the date is delayed implies to me that Bush has opted not to do a recess appt, and will stick with Paul Clement as Glenn details in Update II, or hope the dems cave.

The only consequence of violating the hatch act is to be fired from your federal government job. I'm not saying that Gonzo shouldn't be prosecuted of course, it would be very symbolically important to affix a conviction on him for something, but he won't be in the clink over that.

At any rate, that would rely on a prosecutor convening a grand jury to bring an indictment. Unlikely under Acting AG Paul Clement.

That's right - Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell are also on Rogers' list. As Rogers notes, these three are some of the most reliably anti-gay votes in the Senate.

He also had some House republicans.

So revealingly, Barnett's blog colleague, Hugh Hewitt, demanded Craig's immediate resignation while openly acknowledging that he does not believe Sen. Vitter should resign. I wonder what the difference might be? It cannot possibly be that Craig's liaisons were with men rather than women, because the Right is completely indifferent to such considerations.

Is the coup de grace of the piece. You didn't say, but I would be interested in knowing how many of the others had not called for Vitter's resignation while calling for Craig's. It is the archetypal expression of right wing hypocrisy.

Will Craig's Senate colleagues support him or call for his resignation? If the latter, how will they explain that considering their overt support for Vitter remaining in the Senate?

I don't know how solid a case there would be, but if Craig seeks the help of the ACLU and there is good cause to believe his civil rights have been violated, they would help him. They helped freaking Sean Hannity after all.