The LAT has an interesting article on the results of tort reform in Texas that led me to highlight it as a particular example of how to successfully take advantage of the fact that the people on the whole support the Democrats on issues. I add that they a shot on character too, if they do it right.
The Senate did as expected and quickly (and by a large majority of 77-17) confirmed the President's appointee for CIA head, Porter Goss. As the NYT noted:
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, a Democrat and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said today that as chairman of the House intelligence panel Mr. Goss had said and done things that "seemed designed to protect the administration" while placing blame on Democrats for intelligence failures.
Mr. Rockefeller, acknowledging that Mr. Goss had pledged in his confirmation hearing to set partisanship aside as director, said in today's debate: "I must vote on his record. I cannot vote on his promise."
Goss went out of his way to criticize Kerry, questioned the need of a 9/11 Commission, and for the longest time provided little true oversight over the intelligence agencies. He was seen by many as way too political, especially given the need for the CIA to regain the trust of the American people and prove it is properly independent of the President.
This might be too generous; as one person suggested "one source of the Democrats’ difficulties in articulating a coherent case against Goss is the overabundance of reasons that he’s a bad choice: There are questions of partisanship, questions of competence, and questions of temperament." In other words, probably not the best choice, and one Democrats could have showed some spine and opposed. In fact, quite often competence alone could be a useful way to attack the Bush Administration and their allies, a strategy perhaps better than cries of partisanship or similar appeals that can be tarred as emotional and subjective. [Updated paragraph]
After all, there is no pressing need for a permanent director before the election. The hope, of course, is that John Kerry is elected, allowing him to choose his own. This is no gimmee and a somewhat similar strategy backfired in 2002 -- the Democrats gave Bush his authorization (without even a token safeguard added) and lost the Senate in November anyway. Sen. Carl Levin voted against him, raising concerns about political pressure. Sen. Clinton did so as well, while Kerry and Edwards did not vote.