Bill Nelson?

I was watching Bill Nelson's questioning, and found myself surprised by how impressed I am. He's not much of a progressive hero, but he definitely seemed to be on his game, and several other people watching said the same thing to me. Spencer Ackerman has the transcript but the crux of the matter is that Nelson eschewed the kind of preening that you often see from a Senator and opened with a strong rat-a-tat of brief, pointed questions that underscored the surge's inability to achieve its stated goal of political reconciliation.

Later, I thought he veered off course, but he deserves some props.

Comments

Florida represent!

Posted by right | April 8, 2008 1:36 PM

The whole "let me use my allotted time to make a speech" during committee hearings is one of those things that makes no sense to those of us who are not involved in politics on Capital Hill. Can someone explain why this kind of preening is the first resort of senators and congressmen? Most of us, I think, imagine that we would use such an opportunity to give a good grilling of a witness if we had the chance. Why to senators typically use the opportunity to talk about themselves?

Posted by Tyro | April 8, 2008 1:39 PM

It's doubly odd because the pointed questions and heated exchanges are the only things that get played on the news. Don't senators and congressmen want more face time?

Posted by Gabriel | April 8, 2008 1:47 PM

Come on, Matt. That's called "good staff work." He veered off course once his prepared (i.e. provided) questions were finished.

Posted by Mark | April 8, 2008 1:48 PM

I don't make a habit of watching these things, but the ones who just go right for questions come off looking a lot better than the preeners to me. I understand that most people don't watch these hearing either, but I wonder who it's supposed to impress? Why waste the opportunity to ask the questions? Are the just so full of themselves that they need to give a three minute speech before asking a question?

In that vein, I was impressed by McCaskill and disappointed in Webb.

Posted by J.W. Hamner | April 8, 2008 1:52 PM

I vote against Nelson in the primaries but for him in general elections. He ran against Katherine Harris last time; it wasn't like I had a choice. Overall, he's a disappointment. He sides with Republicans on important issues like torture bans, the estate tax, etc. That said, I'm glad to hear he did well in the Senate today.

Posted by Betty Cracker | April 8, 2008 1:57 PM

I just found where you can watch it online:

http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS

Armed Services just finished, right? Has Foreign Relations gone yet?

Posted by 55 | April 8, 2008 1:57 PM

I wonder who it's supposed to impress?

That's what I'm trying to figure out. There must be some social reward that these Senators and Congressmen receive for their preening moments. However, those of us who don't work on the Hill have no idea what those social incentives are to engage in the mock-worthy preening.

Posted by Tyro | April 8, 2008 2:08 PM

i missed it, did he talk about space? if he didn't, then perhaps he's improved

Posted by Andrew | April 8, 2008 2:28 PM

The whole "let me use my allotted time to make a speech" during committee hearings is one of those things that makes no sense to those of us who are not involved in politics on Capital Hill. Can someone explain why this kind of preening is the first resort of senators and congressmen?

I think the initial reaction is say, "Oh, they're such prima donnas." Really, I think it's for them to have a good record of them stating their position in more detail than the types of questions they ask can only lead you to infer.

If they say "I'm against the war and I think continuing it is a bad idea because..." then they've got it on record as such, instead of having to point to the types of questions they asked. I mean, Hillary Clinton made what, a 15 minute speech about her vote on Iraq in 2002? All that mattered was that she approved of it.

I think it's true that asking more questions and spending less time making stances would get to the details and the truth of the matter a lot more quickly, which would serve our interests best, but I think a politician is always thinking about re-election and how great their speech is going to look in a youtube clip on their re-election website. They could even call it "Senator Numbnuts Stands Up To __________________"

Posted by socctty | April 8, 2008 2:58 PM

Socctty, Hillary gave that infamous speech on the floor of the Senate in the context of senate debate on the resolution. A committee hearing when a witness is sworn in is an opportunity to question the witness. So the contexts are completely different. When was the last time a congressman or senator used their extended speech during a committee hearing in an ad? There are plenty of opportunities to make those sorts of speeches on the floor.

I can't help but thing there's some other social/political incentive at work.

Posted by Tyro | April 8, 2008 3:09 PM

I was just driving with NPR's coverage of the testimony on the radio, and I'm listening to this senator with a southern accent asking very good questions, and making some excellent points. It was a bit weird - I kept thinking that Cornyn or Shelby or one of those guys had finally come to their senses. But then he finished up, and Levin or whoever said "thank you Senator Nelson." Aha!

Posted by Pinson | April 8, 2008 3:21 PM

That's what I'm trying to figure out. There must be some social reward that these Senators and Congressmen receive for their preening moments.

I sit on an appointed board in small county. In retrospect, I know I've said a few things so that I could feel like I was contributing something, when I hadn't reviewed and edited some proposed ordinance I was given at the last meeting. At other times, I've flattered myself into thinking that if I bring a subject up, someone (else) will do something about it.

Posted by cmholm | April 8, 2008 3:29 PM

Andrew, he didn't mention space even once! LOL! You reminded me of another thing that annoys me about Nelson: that he pretends to be a real astronaut, which he's not. He's been a politician since 1972 and was a lawyer before that. He hitched a ride on a Shuttle back in the '80s during one of NASA's "politicians in space" boondoggles, and he's pretended to be an honest-to-god astronaut ever since, much to my irritation.

Posted by Betty Cracker | April 8, 2008 4:12 PM