The Democratic Policy Committee strikes again

Way back in December, Senate Dems came up with a brilliant solution to a nagging problem. The Bush administration continued to flout various laws and ethical guidelines, but Republicans in Congress refused to exercise their oversight responsibilities under any circumstances. No hearings, no questions, no problem.

So Dems decided to create a mechanism whereby they’d hold their own hearings and oversee their own investigations. Using the Democratic Policy Committee, Senate Dems announced shortly before the current Congress began that they will provide oversight of the executive branch if Republicans won’t.

“The fact is, with one-party rule — the presidency and the House and Senate — there is no oversight on anything,” said Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Byron Dorgan (N.D.). “The oversight function … is non-existent.”

There’s a catch. Because Republicans have abandoned any pretense about government accountability, they won’t endorse the DPC’s hearings. This means that the events aren’t officially sanctioned by the Senate, and more importantly, do not have congressional subpoena power.

But that hasn’t stopped the Dems have organizing some excellent hearings, with detailed testimony from expert witnesses. The first set of hearings dealt with employees at the Social Security Administration who were pressured to toe the White House line. The second was in February, examining serious financial abuses — with our money — in Iraq. The next one is tomorrow. Guess what the topic is.

On Friday, Senate and House Democrats will hold a joint hearing “to examine the national security implications of disclosing the identity of a covert intelligence officer.”

The hearing is not an official Congressional proceeding since Democrats are not in the majority and are not empowered to call hearings. But Senate Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Byron Dorgan (N.D.), who is co-chairing the proceeding, said it is still important for Congress to look into the matter even as special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald conducts his own investigation.

“People think this is a political game of gotcha,” Dorgan said. “It is not that at all. These issues are life and death.”

This is an excellent idea for a number of reasons.

First, as Dorgan noted, we’re talking about national security here. When classified information is leaked intentionally by the White House, this can have a sweeping impact. If Republicans aren’t interested in having a thorough discussion about this in Congress, it’s up to Dems to be the grown-ups. Again.

Second, the hearings will offer an outlet for experts who have an important message to share. Among the witnesses at the DPC hearing will be several former CIA officials, including Larry Johnson, who have unique insight into the consequences of the White House’s conduct in the Plame scandal.

And, finally, there’s the politics to consider. As the White House crudely tries to knock Karl Rove off the front page, it’s only reasonable for Dems to make an effort to put him back. Previous DPC hearings have been broadcast on C-SPAN and generated some print articles. Considering the recent interest in Rove’s role in the Plame scandal, this one is likely to spark some interest as well.

More of this, please. We should have these hearings at least once a month. It’s not like we’d have to look hard for subject matter.

  • Great idea, but the way this is being carried out is paradigmatic of our entire problem.

    Why in the hell would they hold such an event on a Friday…the day that traditionally is end of the weekly news cycle? At best, the paper media covers this for their Saturday editions; most likely it’s not covered at all.

    Sunday papers? Forget it. And by Monday it’s not only yesterday’s news, it’s day before yesterday’s news.

    TV you say…well, what cable news shows actually air on Friday night and/or Saturday? Of those, which ones cover the news of the day and aren’t recaps of the previous week’s news items?

    Hell, why not hold it on a Tuesday? What’s the harm in waiting a couple of more days? Not only do you get the opportunity to have more C-SPAN viewers (if C-SPAN does indeed cover it), but on the chance that something particularly sexy comes out the possibility arises that you might get an A-3 headline in the Wednesday paper (Wednesday, as most of you know, is the day that most daily papers issue their second the biggest edition of the week…and that’s particularly true in small to medium size news markets). Hell, you might even get 10 mins. coverage on Hardball or a pro-con debate on the Newshour, neither of which will happen with a Friday hearing.

    My “dis-ease” with the party mainly lies in areas such as these (eg. not planning important events down to the smallest detail). Oftentimes, planning down to the most minute details…aka “good planning”…is THE determining factor as to whether the “issue” even gets to be an issue at all, much less one worthy of good coverage and therefore nationwide attention on what is a very, very important story.

    With things like this you get one, and only one, shot. When that’s the case you make damn sure not only that your aim is true, you make double-damn sure people know that someone is in the bullseye and they’re about to take a hit.

    As it stands, chances are not near as many folks will even hear the gun go off.

  • CB, do you know WHERE the hearing will take place? Are they going to be stuck in a basement broom closet again like Conyers was with his DSM hearing?

    On your main point, I think these public “meetings” are a great idea for all of the policy implications, not just the political ones. I suspect that tomorrow’s hearing will be both well attended AND widely discussed in the not-so-much-lately CCCP — the Compliant Complicit Corporate Press!!

  • Comments are closed.