Perhaps, but I noticed something a little different. It seems that in these hearings, the chair has enormous influence to push the discussion in a certain direction, and even direct those opposing his views to be a lot more "neutral", instead of opposing him, if they truly do disagree with him.

I haven't watched a lot of these hearings, but I know that with SOPA, chaired by the infamous Lamar Smith, the witnesses were 5:1 pro-SOPA, and the NSA hearings, chaired by pro-NSA people, were also NSA circle-jerks.

So it seems the rule of thumb, more than anything, when you want something passed, is to get a chair that strongly supports your view - and then everything else will fall into place.