IMHO, this is a place to show Democratic competence. Since corruption, competence, and Iraq formed the basis for the backlash against Republicans, I think both Harman and Hastings are bad choices. We should go with our best here. This Committee will be our public face in the #1 issue of the next two years. I say go with Holt to avoid both bad choices. JoshB

David Corn and Joe Conason have offered a compelling case for Rep. Rush Holt. I would be interested in reading an argument from anyone who doesn't think he is the best choice.

But really it's about ABH: Anyone But Hastings.

I'm no Hastings booster: I don't know that he's as bad as he'd be made out to be, nor the truth about his impeachment/acquittal, but he certainly has no obvious credentials wrt intelligence to outweigh the problems his nomination would invite.

Harman called Bush's warrantless domestic spying program "essential" and said that the NYT reporting on such programs was deplorable: Next. We worked so hard for 11/7 to get rid of people who thought the Constitution only counted when it was convenient.

Holt or Reyes would make fine substitutes for these two from what I can see.

I would elevate Jane harman to the chair. I am hoping the Democrats can rise above pettiness such as personalities and what has happened in the past. A Chair is the majority and as such will follow the will of the majority. The fact Harman didn't question the voracity of the pre-war intelligence can fall on 2/3 of the House and over 90% of the Senate. Republicans are already calling this a 'cat fight' and it is up to Pelosi to show them wrong. A Harman Chair would put both the senior and most experienced Representative in the job and avoid criticism ( It will come from some. It always does.)and show cohesiveness. Doesn't she have the best resume'? And isn't that what should count?

Let me see, let me see, let me see. The number one foreign policy priority we have is reaching some kind of accord with the Arab world based, one would assume, on respect. And we are going to put this Harmon person in a position that relates directly to that topic, a person who has a long and public history of kissing the ass of AIPAC and that Arab favorite, Ariel Sharon? Makes about as much sense as nominating Bolton, an avowed U.N. hater, to be ambassador to the U.N.

Harman is the wrong person for the job at this particular time. If we are too lily-white pure for Hastings, then get somebody else in there -- anyone but Harman.

Your comment is well-nigh incoherent.

Is the job of the Speaker to "avoid criticism" from the wingnut chorus?

Does defending illegal spying make the "best resume"?

What does "rise above pettiness such as personalities" mean, and if Harman is un-petty, why not take herself out of the running in favor of a less divisive figure?

What's needed is someone with high credibility (which Hastings is lacking) and who's on board with the reform agenda (which Harman is not). Preferably, someone with proven investigative mettle, because there's a lot of work to be done.

Exactly. I think a lot of folks who are missing the point on Harman are the same ones who missed the point on Lieberman.

Its not about "personalities", its about disempowering GOP enablers like Harman and Lieberman. They undermine the party.

Speaker Pelosi should pick the intelligence chair based on what is best for the country, not seniority. Harman has demonstrated that she's not up to the job, which at this time is to serve as a check on the president's abuse of power. Hastings has been so damaged by the controversies over his impeachment that he wouldn't be effective as a leader, and neither he nor Harman is "owed" the position because of their seniority.

It appears that Holt would be the best choice. I see no reason why Hastings shouldn't continue to serve as a member, but if we can have an intelligence chair with a PhD in physics and expertise in arms control, who was smart enough to vote against the Iraq war, let's take the most qualified person.

please email Nancy Pelosi:

AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov or visit

http://www.housedemocrats.gov.

Constituents should contact either her DC or San Francisco office directly by phone, email or fax. For best results give phone & address.

That must also be why Democrats are working to stop John Conyers from chairing the Judiciary and Charlie Rangel from chairing Ways & Means!

Oh, wait a minute....

Kevin Drum writes (and Josh apparently supports):

There also seems to be more than a whiff of retribution here against any Democrat who supported the war resolution, and that strikes me as pretty counterproductive.

Actually Kevin, there is a huge difference between supporting the war resolution and enabling the President. Harman supported the war (forgivable) and was a cheerleader for all kinds of other Bush initiatives (NSA spying, etc. . . ). Holding people to account for consistent bad judgement is at the core of representative politics, democracy. Anything less would be like giving Bremer a Medal of Freedom.

Rep. Hastings was found not guilty by a jury, but I think you make a mistake when you treat that as a character reference. He was also impeached by the HR and convicted by the Senate for bribery, and this was after he was found not guilty. I notice you didn't mention that at all in your gusher of praise for Rep. Hastings.

Would you buy a hail-damaged car that they say has been nicely repaired and repainted for list price? Would you hire a babysitter who was charged but found not guilty of child molestation? Would you hire John Gotti (the Teflon Don) to watch your money? He was found not guilty, too.

Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on his criminal case and his impeachment:

"In 1981 Judge Hastings was charged with accepting a $150,000 bribe in 1981 in exchange for a lenient sentence and a return of seized assets for 21 counts of racketeering by Frank and Thomas Romano, and of perjury in his testimony about the case. He was acquitted by a jury after his alleged co-conspirator, William Borders, refused to testify in court (resulting in a jail sentence for Borders).

In 1989, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. Voters to impeach included Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers and Charles Rangel. He was then convicted by the United States Senate, becoming the sixth Judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate. The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so. Alleged co-conspirator William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by Bill Clinton during the end of his Presidency [2]."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings

Pelosi would be wise to pick some fresh face. Rush Holt comes to mind.

Harman: too much of a Bush administration enabler - she hardly stands up when it really matters.

Hastings: the last thing we need is a a congresscritter with an ethical cloud hanging so close to his head. Please no.

Someone tell Pelosi- anyone but Hastings or Harman. We need a fresh, pure face to chair the intelligence committee.

I think if you were to draw a pie-chart of the discussion of the House Intel Chair on TPM so far, it would be dominated with the posts on Hastings. I think that Joshua and DK should admit that. But isn't it more fair to start the discussion with Harmon? She's the ranking member and the presumptive choice.

So is she the right person for the job? After 3 and a half years of a war that has been poorly chosen, planned and executed, it seems that the choice of one of the Democrats chief enablers would be a poor one.

I think you can only call the anti-choice, pro-gun, quasi-official Congressman for the Pentagon Murtha 'liberal' if, like most of the current media, you have exactly one criterion: How vocal somebody is on opposing Bush's stubborness in Iraq. I haven't checked any of the specific votes, but I'd be surprised if on social issues Murtha were to Hoyer's left, and I think as far as DLC-style corporatism, they're pretty close.

I firmly believe it has to be someone whose last name begins with H.

Seriously, as a current physicist, I support Holt. Everything I see from him shows him to be a member of the reality based community who thinks deeply about the issues and appears to be squarely on the progressive side.

Hastings may well fit the bill here in the same regard. The problem is that the first thing that comes up and anyone remembers about Hastings is that he was impeached. Regarding previous posts, I dismiss the issue of race playing a role- Charley Rangel and John Conyers will clearly get chairs and clearly deserve them. They have none of Hastings' baggage. If the next in line after Harman were ANYONE with similar life history I would be similarly concerned. I will be dismayed if the Congressional Black Caucus pushes this solely because of a desire to increase participation by african americans in positions of power in the congress, because Hastings has baggage and should not be pushed without further consideration.

My feeling is this--if a case can be made that Hastings' baggage is far in the past and that he has served admirably on the Intelligence community, then I might support him. However, this is no small deal, and unfortunately in a world where the press is controlled by the right at worst and beltway loungers at best, the perception matters a great deal.

In the absence of that, select Holt.

Rush Holt looks like a great choice.

I haven't read or heard an argument against him.

There is a strange breeze blowing which seems to say we have to accept all the crap that Lieberman/Harman/Beinart and the other Democratic neocons dish out and I do not understand why. If someone makes a mistake and supports the war resolution but backs off it when it is clear that this war and occupation is based on lies and manipulation and has aims that are not morally acceptable, i say we welcome these people with enthusiasm. But Hillary still supports the war; Harman is a Democratic neocon. Lieberman has shown exactly what he is. If we disagree with this policy and support the person because they are in the Democratic Party, what does that say about us?

To be fair, Hastings would be "jumped" over Harman.

If you truly believe in democracy, the kind of secrecy we have in this country has to make you feel uneasy. The only excuse for voluntarily giving up your right as a free person to know what your own government is doing is the faith and trust you have in your representatives to act in your best interests and protect your rights and your good American name from unspeakable actions that can't stand the light of day.

The best reason to vote against Harman is that she simply cannot be trusted. You cannot believe her. She can't be relied upon to act as the straight, strong moral compass able to carry the burden of secrets denied to a free people.

That is if we still are a free people. Are we?

The job of Chair of the House Intelligence Committee is not one of the very top posts in the government.  Traditionally Congress operates on a seniority system, where newcomers serve on committees, sometimes for years, until the old guys retire or get defeated.  Then they move up.  As pointed out above, anyone unsuited for a committee should have been removed early in their service on that committee long before they accumulate the seniority to chair the committee.  So, in my opinion, both Harmon and Hastings should be considered qualified to chair the committee.  If Pelosi believes that Harmon failed her duty in the run up to the Iraq invasion, then it should be Hastings.  If both are considered to be wrong for that position, neither should be left on the committee.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Exactly. That must also be why John Conyers was instrumental in Hasting's impeachment, despite Conyers explicitly stating that he was both looking for and expecting to find racism but did not find any. If anyone in the history of the Republic ever got a fair impeachment hearing, it's Alcee Hastings, a Democratic appointee tried by a Democratic Congress.

Assertions to the contrary are simply crying wolf. If you really think Hastings was impeached b/c John Conyers is a racist who had it out for him, then there's no point in having a conversation.

I read the same papers as everyone else so I'm conditioned to subjectively not want Hastings to get the position. Assuming he get's it , I'll cringe at the stepped up level of attacks. That has nothing to do with what's a good decision for Pelosi .

As with Murtha there are some reasonably credible allegations against Hastings . Which BTW pale in comparison with the allegations against Kennedy re Chappaquidick , which haven't prevented him from being an outstanding senator.

If Hastings doesn't get it (write this down!) whoever get's it instead will quickly be attacked with allegations over his or her background.

I subscribe sufficiently to the underlying legal principles of this country to believe you are innocent until proven guilty.By a jury ,not
by the sort of political process which impeached Clinton and has a long noxious history going back to the Bills of Attainder.

Whether you're Jon Benet Ramsey's parents , OJ , Scooter Libby or the alleged dem perps mentioned above if the jury hasn't convicted you , you're
innocent. So for my money Hastings is innocent .

Now on to the CBC. They vote right . In technicolor ! They're our guys . They're our base.Political parties which diss their base become ex political parties.

The commentariat is falling all over itself explaining the reasons why the democrats should now reward those sections of the electorate who've just switched to us after electing Bush twice along with assorted mean- spirited , hard-faced conservative congressmen who've been happily voting for a a massive shift of the country's resources into the hands of the ones who need them least. Believe me , whatever "credit" we earn now by catering to these ex- Reagan Democrats will be trumped by the next Republican crusade on the "death tax".

So go for it Nancy. If you want Hastings , you've
got my support.

Hastings was impeached by a Congress controlled by his own party, and John Conyers played a key role.

The allegations against Hastings are far more serious than those against Murtha. If true, they are basically the difference b/t having the intent to commit a crime and not having the intent to commit a crime. Saying I might take a bribe later (allegedly Murtha) doesn't LOOK good, but it is not a crime.

1) Ah, but you are wandering into the deep canyon between the common Democratic voter --whose votes and volunteer efforts actually win the elections -- and the few people who think they own the Party because they cough up much of the money that finances Democratic campaigns.

2) That's why all the huffing and puffing about Alcee Hastings' alleged "corruption" has me almost pissing my pants with laughter. Whatever Alcee might have done 20+ years ago, he did not send almost 3000 of our sons to their deaths in Iraq. Or thousands more to those wards in VA hospitals reserved for deeply crippled amputees.

3) The New York Times kinda acknowledged the Twilight Zone in the Democratic Party a few weeks ago in an October 1, 2006 article on Howard Dean.

The New York Times was shocked--shocked!-- to discover that the national leadership of the Democratic Party has become "a service organization for a few hundred wealthy donors, who treated it like their private political club. "

4) What the Times did not explain is that some of those Billionaire patrons are strong supporters of Israel. People like S Daniel Abraham (who blew Howard Dean's presidential campaign out the water with a 527 attack after Howard told Joe Lieberman in a debate that the US needed to be more evenhanded in the Israeli-Palestian conflict.)

People like Israeli billionaire Haim Saban.

They're allegations . It doesn't matter how serious they might be if they were true. If my mother had four wheels she'd be a Mack Truck.

Wikpedia :

 Hastings filed suit in federal court claiming that his impeachment trial was invalid because he was tried by a Senate committee, not in front of the full Senate, and that he had been acquitted in a criminal trial. Judge Stanley Sporkin ruled in favor of Hastings, remanding the case back to the Senate, but stayed his ruling pending the outcome of an appeal to the Supreme Court in a similar case regarding Judge Walter Nixon, who had also been impeached and removed. Sporkin found some "crucial distinctions"[3] between Nixon's case and Hastings', specifically, that Nixon had been convicted criminally, and that Hastings was not found guilty by two-thirds of the committee who actually "tried" his impeachment in the Senate. He further added that Hastings had a right to trial by the full Senate.

Would I prefer that Hastings did not have this allegation hanging over him. Sure. I'd  also prefer that Kennedy hadn't swum from  Chappaquidick to Martha's Vinyard.  

Neither of them was convicted by a jury. See above. 

Let's talk about the REAL agenda behind the smear campaign on Nancy Pelosi and Alcee Hastings. Starting with why a bunch of pundit whores in major newspapers (cough cough Washington Post cough) are suddenly sniping about how that highly competent Jane Harman being done in by that vengeful bitch Nancy Pelosi.

1) The most damaging aspect of Jane Harman's ties to the Israel lobby
is not her dealings with AIPAC -- it is her ties to an Israeli billionaire named Haim Saban.

2) Haim Saban used part of his immense fortune to create the Saban Center
for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institute. In 2002, the Director of Research at the Saban Center, Kenneth Pollack, was scaring the hell out of US voters by warning that Saddam Hussein
was mounting a major effort to acquire the nuclear bomb. In his best-selling book "The Threatening Storm" , Kenneth Pollack said:
--------
page xxvii(Introduction): "Today, we have information from key defectors and
a consensus among knowledgable experts that the Iraqis are hard at work on
such a [nuclear weapon development] program and that they have all the know-how and
the technology to do it. The only question is how long it is going to take them.
...Because Iraq has natural uranium deposits, all the Iraqis need to do is
build a process to enrich that uranium to weapons grade and then enrich enough
to make one or more Hiroshima-sized weapons"
---------
3) December 19, 2002: In a Los Angeles Times op-ed "Lock and Load", the
Directors of Haim Saban's Center for Middle East Policy ,Martin Indyk
and Kenneth Pollack, continued the drum beat:
----------
"Saddam Hussein has failed to come clean. His denial of possessing any weapons of mass destruction makes that clear ... As former U.S. government officials who had access to the most sensitive U.S.
intelligence on Iraq, we are well aware of Iraq's continued efforts to retain and enhance its weapons capabilities" They then advocate launching a war on Iraq.
[See http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20021219.htm ]

4) Subsequent investigations have not just discredited George W Bush and Dick Cheney -- they have also discredited the equally alarmist claptrap being put out by Haim Saban's Center in 2002. Which raises an interesting point: was the Iraq invasion done to deal with a credible threat to the USA --or were the American people conned into dealing with a threat to Israel?

5) Why Was the Democratic leadership in Washington DC so inarticulate in dealing
with Bush's push for war?

Was it because they were looking at Democratic finances vice Democratic values?

Because Haim Saban has used his money in other ways: In the 2000-2002 election cycles, he was the Democratic Party's largest donor, with him and his wife giving almost $14 Million.

6) In my opinion, The Jane Harman nomination raises the following questions:

a)The Democrats won the election with the meme that "Bush lied us into the
war in Iraq and our soldiers died as a result"

b) Should the Democrats then turn around and reinstall as HPSCI chairwoman the very person who was responsible for warning us of Bush's lies in 2002 and who failed to do so?

The very person who had the clearances, resources, and personnel to have refuted the Saban Center's alarmist bullshit in 2002 but failed to do so?

c) Israeli billionaire Haim Saban's $14 million campaign donations bought him access to Democratic leaders. Should it have also bought him the lives of 3000 of our sons to deal with a threat to Israel? Under the guise of dealing with the non-existent WMDs so loudly proclaimed by his Director of Research, Kenneth Pollack?

d)Who are Judith Miller's friends?

e) Is it really intelligent for members of the Israel Lobby -- e.g. Marty
Peretz of The New Republic -- to now advocate so forcefully for the reappointment
of Jane Harman?

6) The October 20 TIME article re the FBI investigation into Jane Harman's dealings
with the Israel Lobby's AIPAC is here:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1549069- 3,00.html
Most people have focused on the AIPAC connection.

But the REALLY interesting information is toward the end of the article:
-------
"But congressional sources say Pelosi has been infuriated by pressure from some major donors lobbying on behalf of Harman ...
...A congressional source tells TIME that the lobbying for Harman has included a phone call several months ago from entertainment industry billionaire and major Democratic party contributor Haim
Saban. A Saban spokeswoman said he could not be reached for comment"
-------

7) The TIME article closes with the following quotation of Jane Harman:
------
"When the Saban Center talks, I listen," Harman said at a Saban Center briefing in February on U.S. strategy in Iraq. Harman quipped that, in order to attend the session at Brookings, she had to "blow off" a senior intelligence official's appearance before a House committee.
-------

8) Are Haim Saban and other members of the
Israel Lobby pushing so strongly for Jane Harman's appointment so that Jane
can give uncritical support to future bad intelligence justifying a US attack
on Israel's next enemy --Iran?

Is Kenneth Pollack waiting to put out
another book -- "The Threatening Storm in Tehran"?

Just like Jack Murtha! Do you think anyone would have made an issue out of corruption issues which he was not convicted of if Murtha was a white man? Of course not, so it must be a race thing.

Jesus, what a worthless suugestion, that the choice is between an impeached judge and George W. Bush.

You actually said: "Whatever Alcee might have done 20+ years ago, he did not send almost 3000 of our sons to their deaths in Iraq."

By that standard, you would approve of Randy Cunningham for the job.

Holt.  Neither Hastings nor Harmon is suitable.  The list of other members doesn't present any obvious alternate candidates.

double post, deleted

There was a lot of controversy early on in that Bush wouldn't always let Dems know everything. In fact, Dems were livid because more than usual were left completely out of the loop. I have not seen enough info to fully indict Harman on her complacency, but few others do either.

I normally defer to Harman--I don't need and don't want everyone with my same views running the country, diversity of opinion is vital, IMO. However, given the investigation that she may be under, I prefer someone else. Same with Hastings and his dubious, though not completely indicted, past. Dems ought to try to be as clean as possible.

The favorable DC District court ruling never reached another court. A parallel case regarding a different impeachment of a judge (Judge Nixon) reached the Supreme Court first and the Rehnquist court ruled that impeachments are non-reviewable. I'm not sure the legal terminology but I think Hastings case was vacated at that point.

From Cornell's Annotated Constitution Law Reference:

Supreme Court consideration, held the challenges to be nonjusticiable, that the Constitution’s conferral on the Senate of the “sole” power to try impeachments demonstrated a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of trial procedures to the Senate to decide without court review.784

Supplement: [P. 591, add to text following n.784:]

Upon at last reaching the question, the Court has held that a claim to judicial review of an issue arising in an impeachment trial in the Senate presents a nonjusticiable question, a “political question.” 11 Specifically, the Court held that a claim that the Senate had not followed the proper meaning of the word “try” in the impeachment clause, a special committee being appointed to take testimony and to make a report to the full Senate, complete with a full transcript, on which the Senate acted, could not be reviewed. But the analysis of the Court applies to all impeachment clause questions, thus seemingly putting off– limits to judicial review the whole process.

Note 784: Nixon v. United States, 744 F.Supp. 9 (D.D.C. 1990), affd. 938 F.2d 239 (D.C.Cir. 1991), cert. granted, 112Ct.1158 (1992). However, in Hastings v. United States, 802 F.Supp. 490 (D.D.C. 1992), the court did reach the merits and held that at least in the instance of Judge Hastings, who had been acquitted in court of the criminal charges for the conduct relied on by the Senate, he was entitled to a trial before the full Senate without the interposition of the trial committee.

The Miami Herald had a piece on Hastings impeachment last Thursday that included the original statements in favor of acquittal by Sens. Specter, Bingaman, and Hatch as well as the District Court rulings on the Hastings impeachment.

Sen. Hatch on Hastings:

Given the degree to which the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence; and I would also note that there is little, if any, direct evidence; and given the fact that Judge Hastings has provided, in my view, plausible explanations for each of the fact situations presented by the House managers, I believe that the benefit of the doubt must be given to Judge Hastings . I do not believe that the House managers have met their burden of proof, regardles of whatever standard of proof my colleagues might wish to apply.

For me, the circumstantial evidence that exists in this case does not provide the kind of clear and convincing proof which demonstrates that the judge should be removed from the bench.

Sen. Specter on Hastings:

On the totality of this record on Article I, weighing the incriminating circumstancial inferences against the exonerating factors and giving due weight to his other unblemished lifetime record, I conclude there is insufficient evidence to convict.

Articles II-IV. For the same reasons that I think the verdict should not be guilty on Article I, I reach the same conclusion with respect to the charges that Judge Hastings lied in his 1983 trial. Virtually all the matters that are contained in Articles II-XV, as allegedly false statement by Judge Hastings , were argued by the prosecution to the trial jury as false. Obviously, the jury did not accept those arguments. Of course, it is not inevitable that we reach the same determination on these articles, or any of them, as Article I. There is always the theoretical possibility that although Judge Hastings may not have been proven guilty of conspiracy to solicit a bribe, he might have been proven to have lied in his own defense. In my judgment, however, such a verdict would be not only wrong but unseemly. To simply prosecute an acquitted man for perjury because he testified to his own innocence violates principles of fairness which have been emphasized as the underpinnings of our constitutional ban on double jeopardy. The courts have recognized that perjury prosecutions following acquittals can be tainted by prosecutorial vindictiveness and subject to dismissal for that reason. 11 It seems to me that if we are not convinced that Judge Hastings conspired to accept a bribe, for the same reasons we ought not to be convinced of the falsity of his testimony in stating that he did not so conspire; and we also ought to accept his testimony that, to the extent he said anything incorrect in his own trial defense, those mistakes were inadvertent. For those reasons, I will vote to acquit on Articles II-XV.

Article XVI. As discussed above, the case against Judge Hastings on the wiretap disclosure article was neither convincing nor substantial. While there was direct evidence in the testimony of Mayor Clark, a number of factors made Mayor Clark a less than wholly credible witness; and a host of contradictory evidence, much of it undisputed, proved convincingly that what Mayor Clark said happened could not have occurred, certainly not in the way that he said it occurred.

Article XVII. Article XVII contains no independent allegations and has no independent evidence to support it. Inasmuch as I intend to vote against impeaching Judge Hastings on the substantive charges against him, I will vote the same way on a `catch-all' article which reiterates previous charges.

Read the whole thing. More on Senate impeachments at Senate.gov.

Josh, I am incapable of understanding your dismissal of Hastings as unfit when nobody has done more to demonstrate the impeachment and conviction of Hastings was an atrocious injustice. I do not mean to attack you. Just my statement of my own incomprehension. I would love an explanation.

I doubt anyone can top the code expert claiming the "uh's" in the wire tap were secret codes. This kind of thing would have been too silly for even Monty Python.

I read John Conyers' statement in the impeachment as saying Conyers was hell-bent on convicting Hastings BECAUSE he was a fellow African-American. Recall that John Conyers piously stated that he didn't want to believe the evidence because Hastings was a fellow ethnic. Shouldn't Hastings have been treated the same as any other? Too much to ask but then I expect more of people than most are able to deliver.

In my humble opinion there is a large measure of racial prejudice in the current lynching of Hastings. Even Hastings' significant debt remaining from his lengthy defense is held against him.

As one who has worked in various facets of intelligence (no, I was not a spook), Hastings comes across to me as a dream candidate. I fear it is not to be. Most unlikely Pelosi will stand against the mob I think. Probably shouldn't hold that against her.

Best, Terry

Do a swap. Or swaps. Hastings should become a committee chairperson. . But it doesn't have to be of this committee.

Pencil in all the chairs . As a first approximation , exchange Hastings for one of the other chairs with a "better" record on Iraq than Harman. If Hastings doesn't "fit" well into that assignment e.g.if it were Judiciary , do a second swap.

Leave Harman in Intelligence to ride shotgun.

That way CBC will have gotten an extra chair but the commentariat will have been deprived of the argument they'd tee'd up about Hastings in that assignment. Of course they'll whine. What else is new? .

You say race is the issue. Have you read the material at TPMucraker regarding John Conyers' take on the Alcee Hastings impeachment? Conyers essentially said that, even if there was not enough evidence to convict Hastings in a course of law, the preponderance of the circumstantial evidence implicated Hastings, and with that being the case, Hastings needed to be impeached.

Hastings is not being opposed because he is black. He is being opposed because the past impeachment suggests that he would not be the best candidate.

I agree his impeachment was valid. I disagree that it doesn't matter that it was an impeachment rather than conviction by a jury.
We were all reminded of the difference in 98.

"There also seems to be more than a whiff of retribution here against any Democrat who supported the war resolution, and that strikes me as pretty counterproductive."

"Harman supported the war (forgivable) ..."

This is all fine and good, I am generally supportive of forgiveness and productivity (as opposed to counterproductivity). But I hope this Congress eventually gets around to tackling the problem of how to prevent wars being started on false pretenses. I think more is required than the equivalent of "oops, we were wrong." That's why, politically impalatable as it may be, I support Charlie Rangel's draft proposal and any other structural change that will make going to war a more difficult decision next time. How about legislation that requires an automatic tax increase anytime troops are sent overseas?

Add my 2-cents for Rep. Holt.

Most importantly, he's free from ethical taints - ABHH!

But also he's smart (Rocket Scientist) and disciplined (Rocket Scientist) so there's at least a chance he'll be able to answer the important questions in a fresh and realistic way.

New Theory

Pelosi isn't going to name Harman. Isn't.
Pelosi isn't going to name Hastings. Can't.

Pelosi is triangulating in order to get someone like Holt.

I'll take Reyes, too. Never heard too much about him, either... 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Hell, did you see the coverage of the Lamont campaign?
Maxine Waters! Al Sharpton! BOO!
and that after LIeberman had asked for Sharpton's endorsement.

It is amazing how blatant Kristol and everyone else at FoxNews is about the Nee-gro Committe Chairs and the gay-loving San Francisco Liberal girl speaker.

I'm not saying race (and racism) isn't a factor in politics, I'm just not convinced that it's a factor here.

Harman is totally unacceptable and I have a vain hope that the MSM will stop spinning this as a cat fight between women. By providing cover for the patently false claims made by Bush in the run up to the war, NSA wiretapping, rendition, etc., she made sure that opposition to the war, and questioning unconstitutional activities were not subjects to be discussed in the intel committee. She had the platform to highlight the outrageous lies and selective reading of intelligence that supported the Iraq invasion, but she parrotted Bush talking points instead. She has forfeited her credibility and lost the right to be the chief democratic spokesperson in the House for intelligence matters.

I think Hastings with his experience as a judge would be an adequate choice especially dealing with NSA spying, rendition, habeas rights, etc. His ethics problems were long in the past and not that relevant, but it is still a stain on him as a candidate.

Either Holt or Reyes would be excellent choices. Holt as a scientist would have credibility and the knowledge to understand the complex way Bush is subverting the constitution with NSA wiretapping, data mining, etc. Reyes with his military background is also very qualified.

Before commenting I must declare an interest in this issue. I first met Jane Harmon more than forty years ago (she was then Jane Lakes) at Smith College on a Sunday afternoon after a skiing weekend at Mad River Glen. I was won over at once. Let me share the reason why.

My skiing pal had invited me to join some of her housemates (Smith is a very cozy place) for hot chocolate when we were joined by the President of the Smith Democrats (a distinct minority on campus)--Jane.

Jane was hugely more politically engaged than most of her classmates and shifted the conversation-over-cocoa from the relative challenge of the moguls at Mad River Glen vs Killington to the duplicity of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

Although leading the campus dems, Jane was having none of LBJ's posturing. I was impressed. Four decades later I remain impressed by the totality of her record.

Allowing for my 40 year bias, I cannot comprehend why Nancy Pelosi would choose Hastings over Harmon. Jane is well respected both within the official intelligence community and amongst national security professionals for her command of this complex brief.

Given her long tenure on the committee, not everyone will agree with every position she has taken over the years, but she knows the business inside and out.

Jane Harmon is smart, tough, a quick study, and altogether suited to lead the committee.

In terms of credentials and capabilities, Mr. Hastings rates a C+ against Jane’s A.

Professor John Stuart Blackton

|

Professor John Stuart Blackton

I wouldn't mind seeing Holt or Reyes with the job.  I would prefer Reyes.  Since he was/is so vocal in his criticism of the war I think he would be prone to want oversight to the nth degree... 

House and Senate had no doubts about Hastings guilt and no major intelligence agency had a doubt about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction.

By now we should know that institutions may commit terrible howlers once "the ball gets rolling".

Harman is disqualified because she was a tool. I discussed the issues of WMD a lot (back then, at tabletalk@salon), and to conclude that Powell's presentation in UN was impecable one had to be either (a) not following the issues, or (b) not intelligent, or (c) had to be a tool. Harman was supposed to be the top Democratic expert here, so no explanations would wash. AIPAC related accusations do not help.

I think that Hastings should be a good candidate, but if Pelosi would pick him, she cannot pretend that impeachment happened so long time ago that it does not matter. It does. If Hastings would be a pick, he would have to be defended, preferable by some of the Democrats who impeached him and who could explain why they reconsidered. If such a defence is not available, find another guy, and/or administer an aptitude test to candidates!

Essay question: "How you respond to 'All intelligence agencies were convinced that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction'? How such a debacle can be avoided in the future?" Or a question with a bit longer perspective: "In the hindsight, the assesment of Soviet military capabilities was enormously overblown, leading to wrong decisions about our military budget etc. How such intelligence debacles can be avoided in the future?"

I would add some standard contemporary history and geography. Meritocracy, anyone?

Thinking about it, an aptitude test should be given to candidates for all committee chairmanships. Idiots or senile representatives should be content with ranking positions.

I really like the idea of aptitude tests.

I bet that some academicians would volunteer to help, either by preparing the syllabus of the test and reading materials, or by offering free tutoring to cramming legislators, or by helping to grade the answer.

The contrast with the idiocracy (and hypocracy) that we just had would be breathtaking.

Professor,

at the risk of being a nitpicker, your post is undermined somewhat by the fact that you repeatedly misspell Jane Harman's last name.

Since Alcee is now out, and Pelosi cannot stand Harman, my bet is on Silvestre. But my heart is on Rush Holt.

Good lord.

Although you are not, I presume, a member of the Beltway Establishment, you certainly speak with their voice. "Why, I know her and like her, so why on Earth would I take her actual positions into account!"

Let me illustrate the difference between Jane Harmon and Jane Lakes:
Jane Lakes was offended by the duplicity of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution.
Jane Harmon was complict in the Saddam-WMD duplicity.

Jane Lakes was "having none of LBJ's posturing".
Jane Harmon has been a prime booster of GWB's unconstitutional adventurism (the warrantless domestic spying that Mrs Harmon considers "essential").

Jane Lakes spoke, apparently, with impressive conviction about her political ideals.
Jane Harmon calls the NYTimes "deplorable" for informing the American public about the conduct of their government.

Professor Blackton, if you want to have Jane Lakes Harmon over for a reunion barbecue to discuss cozy long-ago days spent with other Ivy League Trust Fund Babies at Mad River Glen, go for it. Send me your address and I'll have a case of buttery chardonnay delivered to facilitate your nostalgia and complement the jerk-mango-jumbo-prawn kebabs.

But don't let your fond fuzzy memories (and here's hopin' you left out some of the good stuff!) cloud your judgment as to what's best for this country. It ain't Jane Harmon.

Senator Rockefeller was briefed on the NSA program at the same time Harman was. At the time the Democrats controlled the Senate. Rockefeller could have held oversight hearings on this if he wanted to and declined.

I think Rockefeller is also part of the Lieberman-Salazar pro-torture caucus, too. One thing I'll say for Harman, she didn't vote for that piece of shit. Neither did Hastings, Reyes, or Holt.

BTW, am I THE ONLY reader who is annoyed that this website replaces double spaces after a period with the hard-to-read and gratuitously parsimonious single space? Goddamn!!

Unfortunately I believe that is part of the HTML specification, not a decision of this site's designer. WWW typography was assumed to be proportional from the beginning and the Linotype single space vs. the typewriter double space was chosen as the standard.

If you do a "view source" on many sites (depending on how much validation the site engine does before accepting your text) you will see that your double spaces are still there, but your browser renders them as a single. This is one way to track down anonymous posters via text analysis in fact.

sPh

You know.  Kennedy is 74 years old.  With any luck he will cut his losses in the next one or two election cycles, let's hope it is this one. His crime, whatever it was, has single handedly hobbled the Democrats for 45 years.  I personally think he stands in the right place on a great many policy debates.  And, I don't see where the entire national policy and every local candidate from coast to coast is responsible for the candidate that Mass. decides to vote for.  But, there comes a time when you want to cut your losses.

The Dems need to clean house.  There are a number of question marks from West Virginia, Louisiana, Florida, Ohio, New Jersey, Nevada - the names are pretty obvious.  But, perhaps some older problems need to go too.  If the Dems would take the house cleaning seriously, perhaps that would help solidify the standing with the base.

I personally do NOT see a strong link between bringing home the bacon (earmarks) and VOTER behavior.  The link is between earmarks and contributor behavior.  It is quid pro quo, even if it is so diffuse you cannot show a clear bribery trail.  I am just plain tired of it myself.

If the Dems cannot cleanup their act, we aren't going to get the policies we really care about very far through the process before we face another "revolution."

I am getting tired of the scientist comments. Holt seems to be okay, but I find scientist worship to be misguided.

You know. Kennedy is 74 years old. With any luck he will cut his losses in the next one or two election cycles, let's hope it is this one. His crime, whatever it was, has single handedly hobbled the Democrats for 45 years.

His "crime" was not a crime. Ted Kennedy was making love to the young campaign worker in a lover's lane when a police car was spotted in the area. Kennedy got out of the car and sent Mary Jo Kopechne driving off to her death.

The Kennedys thought it better to confess to a crime that was not committed than admit to an affair that was considered more lethal to Kennedy's plans to run for president.

Voters are amazingly tolerant of actual criminal activity while displaying total contempt for the truth other times. The Hastings lynching is a prime example.

Be sure to watch the "uh's" if you think your conversation is being recorded. They could be a secret code proving you are taking a bribe or involved in some other nefarious conspiracy.

Best, Terry

Re above comment "Say no to Reyes.
He will embarrass you. He will imperil the country."

ha ha ha
Are you a Harman supporter , by any chance? One down, three to go??

The burden is yours, why do you think a "REAL SCIENTIST!?!?!!!?" is of special qualification?

By the way, I only chose yours to respond to because you were the last of too many to bring this up. 

The nit is fairly picked. It was, indeed, careless of me not to spell her name correctly

p>Professor John Stuart Blackton

You are wrong. Mary Jo was in the back seat, remember? She climbed in there to sleep it off during the wild party. Ted and his "girl-friend" drove off not knowing that Mary Jo was even in the car. When the car went off the bridge, Ted & "miss x" got out and saved themselves, not knowing anyone else was even in the car. They found out later. He didn't want to admit his affair -- or implicate miss x, and the rest is history. But you are wrong, and you don't even have a credible explanation, so get over yourself.

Your ridiculous remark that Kennedy sent Mary Jo driving off to her death says it all. Right. Mary Jo jumps into the back seat after the car goes into the water; Teddy, the pedestrian is standing around in a lover's lane by himself while his car got driven into a river would have made alot of sense to the police (who by your scenario) he KNEW were there.

Jan Knaus