This is still bugging me.

[whometense]

Three days later, and I'm still wondering why not one democratic SFRC member showed up to question Karen Hughes.

I've been fighting off some dem-trashers on the net, but aside from being called a pollyanna (at best) for saying I believe there was some method to it, I really have no solid theory to offer. Has anyone here got a good theory? Or have you seen anything written that might explain why they didn't take advantage of the chance to grill her?

[TayTay]

1. I don't think they find her central to the issue

I think she is tangentially involved, but is not the big fish in this pon. Rove, Libby and now Gonzales and Powell seem to have more direct involvement in this affair.

I would go after the ones that you have the best chance to get. Scattershot inquiries into everyone who ever worked at the WH, however much fun we might find it, is relatively pointless.

If Hughes is involved, the her time will come. In the mean time, the SFRC hearing was scheduled on a Friday specifically because Lugar and the Rethug knew the Dems tend to go home on those days. It was intentional.

[whometense]

2. Thanks. Makes sense.

It never fails to amaze me how many self-indentified lefties are just lying in wait, ready to pounce on democrats at the drop of a hat and call them spineless and worse.

[Mass]

3. Yeah, this week-end was great for that

You had people attacking Hillary based on a Drudge report, and then, if you tried to tell them what you thought of Drudge, you were called freeper.

[saracat]

6. Well, you have to admit several of them haven't given us much to be proud

of lately. I am still upset about all the praising of Roberts and I am not thrilled with Dean's latest comments. I am trying to be supportive but gee whiz, when some things are an anathema, how can we be quiet? Like the Bankruptcy Bill. I can't ever forgive those that voted for it. And now, too many are willing to negotiate choice.This has me really disappointed.Some people who I thought were solid turn out to be not.Grrr.

[whometense]

7. I do admit a number of them

should answer to the name "spineless jerk." What I object to is calling all senate dems spineless jerks. I find that unhelpful in the extreme.

[saracat]

8. I agree. I thank god every day for Kerry!

But I do worry that the "few and the proud" may not be able to prevail alone. That is why I get so angry at the Dinos. And I don't think it helps to pretend they don't exist. I just don't know what to make of these people.

[whometense]

9. I know what you mean.

Perhaps whenever I see someone overgeneralizing I should challenge them to name names. Then the few who are sticking their necks out (Kerry and Boxer and...umm...) can get credit for what they are doing. And maybe that would help focus some necessary attention on those who are hanging back and playing it "safe."

[ginnyinWI]

4. the real focus should remain on the prez

Like you said, they may consider this a distraction, and showing up more damaging than helpful. I trust Reid on this.

They need to keep an eye on the big picture. I think this does go all the way to the top. Heres' why: in Worse than Watergate, John Dean describes Bush--I'm paraphrasing from took notes when I read the book:

Bush is a great actor, plays the doofus for the press. He's mentally shallow, intellectually lazy, and incurious, but not as dumb as he looks. He has few real friends, is aloof (!), and has no interest in everyday people.

Like Nixon, he's outwardly proper, privately profane. And like Nixon he is involved with all the dirty politics his campaigns produce. He takes revenge on those who tell family secrets. He plays the "role" of president, thereby removing himself from the responsibility, as Nixon did. (Evidence is in the way both refer to "the president" in third person rather than first). They both stonewall--refuse to provide information on their personal lives, past personal lives, or business lives.

So I think it would be totally in character if he did sign off on the outing. He wars against the CIA anyway, so here was a chance to kill two birds with one stone. I hope our Dems keep following this thing right to the top, and topple the Imposter if at all possible!

[whometense]

5. It's hard to keep all the bits of

information in your head at once. But what you just wrote reminded me of what was said about Bush's role in his father's campaign - he was the official enforcer/punisher. So that makes him a natural to be in this up to his eyebrows.

It is impossible to believe that Scooter Libby and Rove cooked this up all by themselves. I believe Cheney is certainly heavily involved. But now I'm thinking Bush may be too.