Regarding Monica Goodling's testimony, the NY Times writes, "She gave Congress all the reason it needs to compel Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, to testify about what they know....Since the list was by all accounts a joint Justice Department and White House effort, Congress has no choice but to question under oath the two people who are in the best position to shed light on the mystery."

Do you think the Dems have the spine to play hardball and go after Rove and Miers? This after the cave-in job Reid masterminded? The goodwill may be turning for the Dems, and if they continue to be wet noodles to the point where Rove is probably giggling, then they'll completely deserve the turned tide.

Dick Polman comes up with a few questions to be asked:

Goodling’s attempt to offer mitigating circumstances merely prompts more questions. Was she aware of the civil service bar on partisan screening? Did her Bush superiors indicate to her that she was expected to abide by those rules? After she breached them a few times, did anybody flag her behavior and tell her to stop? Can she credibly argue that she “didn’t mean to” cross the line - when in fact she was a repeat offender, doing so on roughly 50 occasions? (Best defense: She just couldn’t help it.)

Here’s the short answer to all of the above: Goodling was merely an instrument of the Bush administration strategy to politicize the nonpartisan institutions of government.