Should Congressional Dems hold "unofficial" hearings?

[Stinky The Clown]

The new rules in the Republican controlled Congress only allow debate on issues the Republicans deem of import. What the Dems may want simply doesn't matter. When bad news comes out, like Rumsfailed's little secret spy group and knitting circle, the debate moves on to important stuff .... like gay marriage.

My question today is:

Should the Dems hold hearings in spite of what the Republicans want? True enough, they do not, by themselves, have subpoena power. True enough, they cannot, by themselves, compel testimony under oath. But such hearings could well serve as a way to get issues out in front of the public. Getting things in front of the public might spur some real debate, even if only among the people. Any seed of doubt planted now will surely have sprouted by '06 and '08.

What do you think?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. Only The Majority Party Can Initiate Investigative Committees..

I guess a group of Democratic senators or congressmen can get together and discuss anything they want...

[Stinky The Clown]

3. I can easily see something like what John Conyers' did with

the voting issues in Ohio. That was not an officially sanctioned hearing, but it got attention ..... and that, after all, would be the goal.

[Skidmore]

2. Couldn't this be done under the auspices of the

Democratic Caucus? What type of authority rests with the caucus as an entity for debate and consideration of policy and law?