Posted on 11/12/2006 9:31:47 AM PST by grayhog
It would be a mistake for incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi to set aside fellow Californian Jane Harmon and give the House Intelligence Committee chairmanship to Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings.
Harmon has been the ranking Democrat on the committee and an effective spokeswoman for her party's interests. But Pelosi believes she has been insufficiently partisan and has made it clear Harmon won't be chairman.
Instead, Pelosi is considering appointing Hastings, who as a federal judge in 1989 was impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate after Congress concluded he conspired to solicit a $150,000 bribe, lied under oath and manufactured evidence during a criminal trial. To give him the chairman's gavel would be untenable
It's true that Hastings was acquitted by a jury, but that doesn't mean he was innocent of the crime. Indeed, members of Congress thought otherwise.
Unfortunately, Hastings has the support of the Congressional Black Caucus, which is pressuring Pelosi to elevate him to the chairmanship.
Pelosi has promised under her leadership the most ethical, honest Congress ever. She would send a signal she means it by appointing Harmon and forgetting Hastings.
She could always give him the chair of the Judiciary Committee...
A voice of reason fromt the mildly conservative Tampa Tribune editorial board. I'm not optimistic that their advice will be followed, but at least a fairly major Florida daily is out their with a plea for some common sense.
Doesn't there still have to be a vote on Pelosi? Can't the pubbies come up with a more moderate Democrats name who actually represents mid-America, not like the TeleTubbies from Aldebaran or something?
Jeez, even SNL was taking shots at her last night. And most hit the mark. Can't we at least make this an uphill battle?
Lawance O'donald said on the McGaughlin Group that if she does this that the Dems will have the majortiy in the house only to 08. So dems are warning her not to do it.
Jane Harmon's office was the source of the intelligence leaks. She should be prosecuted, not made chairman of the committee.
It's going to be a long two years.
You've got that backwards; the moderate Democrats might come to us. Actually, some of the Blue Dog Democrats are threatening to not support Pelosi. They would run Dan Boren as Speaker if Hastings is allowed to chair the House Intelligence Committee.
This is ideal. Just what I want to see from Nancy Pelosi. Put Hastings in. Put Rangel in.
I want to see Big Daddy Bird as head of appropriations in the Senate. I want Kerry and Kennedy in powerful positions in the Senate. And please, Harry Reid, for the love of all that's good and holy, let Senator Clinton have all the power you can give her.
I want the voice of the Democrats to ring loud and clear for the next two years. It's the best thing that could happen for our side.
Here are some theads about the Blue Dogs who are considering running Dan Boren for Speaker of the House.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1736853/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1736475/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?s=Dan+Boren&ok=Search&q=quick&m=all&o=time&SX=45576079acaf7a96c96f2b881b4d014057473e38
So do you value your party more than the saftey and security of your country?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=i8MvSMW9WHc
To even consider him should remove consideration of San Fran Nan as Speaker.
It would seem so. I've seen that same type of sentiment on alot of threads. It's disgusting.
"Since I can't have it my way, I want the other guys to screw up bad so I get to play I-Told-Ya-So"
We have a chance here to try and find some middle ground with the Dems.
Providing we don't act like we're two years old.
I'm sick of politics. Can't we just do what's right for a change?
If Pelosi attempts this, Jane Harman can use her influence to garner sufficient Blue-dog democrats to support an alternative for Speaker. Ms. Harman would have the support of the republicans.
Please note: Ms Harman is the wealthiest Representative, by far! (Harman sound system...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman
"Harman is currently the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and is also a member of the Blue Dog Coalition."
What is your evidence for this? I thought it was Jay Rockefeller's office. Jane Harmon made her mistake in defending the program when she was first interviewed about it. She must have had her chain yanked back to the party line.
You know, there are enough RINOS in the House that even if a group of them did put up someone to oppose Pelosi, the RINOS would vote against that person, thus making the gesture nothing but a joke.
One of Harmen's aides on the house intel committee had his security clearance pulled under investigation that he released info from the NIE just before the election. Rocky's is under suspision of leaking the NSA terrorist surveillance program information, not to mention his outrageous memo that said the dems would release classified info to undermine the WOT. It would be great if these investigations were concluded by the end of this year and some heads rolled over these leaks. Here's hoping.
One of her staffers had his clearance pulled over the leaked excerpts of the Iraq Intel Assessment. Nothing conclusive, yet.
Who cares who she appoints? All of them will leak anything they're told to the press and commit treason, so why pick on him? Democrats have a very long record of doing this.
See, but that's just more of the us-against-them philosophy. Try saying this for a change:
"We Americans ______" (fill in the blank)
It's getting to be a pretty damned dangerous world out there. Freakin Islam doesn't have to defeat us, we're in the process of defeating ourselves.
What a ridiculous question. It's not an issue of "party." It's an issue of long-term viability of the country.
If conservatives are going to retake the House, Senate and WH, in '08, it's going to take a combination of factors to defeat incumbency.
1. The GOP is going to have to nominate conservatives, not moderates or RINOs.
2. They're going to have to get the message out that the candidates are true conservatives, not moderates or RINOs, interested in reducing the size and scope of the federal government and fighting a proactive War on Terror.
3. They're going to have to have a platform, to include a true agenda of tax reform (not just cuts) and reduction in the size and scope of the federal government, that the candidates are willing to support and then enact.
4. The incumbent Dems are going to have to spend the next two years promoting their causes of liberalism.
I believe the long-term viability of the country depends on a conservative government. A vital component of achieving that in two years is for the Dems to go hog wild. If they are on their best behavior for the next two years, the moderates in the country will vote for the incumbent and Nov. 5, 2008 will feel like Nov. 8, 2006. Then we'll be dealing with multiple-term incumbents who will be harder to beat; the Dems will be better positioned if they grow their majorities and take the WH to increase social spending, make cuts to the military, grow the power of government, increase the tax burden, etc. etc. etc.
What middle ground are you going to find with Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel and Hillary Clinton? There is no middle ground with them, as we should have learned over the last six years.
It's finding middle ground with the Dems that has led us to the current level of social spending we have. If this country is going to continue to be a place of hope and freedom, we've got to shrink government, not continue to grow it by finding middle ground with the Dems.
Here's hoping...
Dan Boren would be a much better Speaker than Pelosi... member of Blue Dog Democrats and an ACU score of 64.
http://www.acuratings.org/2005all.htm#OK
The long-term viability of the country depends on a conservative people. The government will follow.
I heard multiple exit polls asking those who had voted democrat. Most actually said they felt the dems would be more fiscally responsible than the pubbies. Most actually said they felt the dems would do a better job on controlling immigration.
The dems didn't win the election. The pubbies gave it to them. In truth, the average American, away from the major urban areas is fairly conservative.
But if the republican party wants to make promises of conservatism and not deliver, don't blame the dems.
Agreed.
The Rats just need to be themselves for a while.
They are our best PAC.
Do you think this is true?
In '94, the national debt was a tad more than 4 trillion. It's almost 9T now, and it has skyrocketed almost 3T in the last 3 years.
Who controlled Congress for the last 12 years and made the spending choices?
Do I think it is true that the exit polls were conducted and people said that?
In fact I do. I have a sense that alot of people felt that government was way, way too damn more worried about the rest of the world than they were about what was going on at home.
LOL ... I'm not arguing whether or not the Republicans deserved to lose.
But do you honestly believe that the Democrats are going to be more fiscally responsible and come up with an immigration policy to stop the flood of illegals coming into the country?
You're claiming to be able to find middle ground with the Dems. I'm arguing that's not going to happen.
What's the Tampa Tribune Editorial Board got against democrat crooks? So he takes a bribe here and there - tinks with the evidence - acts like a scumbag... He's a dem! I thought all dems got passes -- right?
No, I don't agree with those polls.
But maybe we can win the lottery and the dems will do it.
The pubbies already PROVED they won't.
:-(
My hope is that after Tuesday, the Republicans will adopt a platform of conservative issues and follow through with it. I made that clear. If they don't, then it doesn't really matter what the Dems do or don't do, because we've reached a point where the two-party system is unresponsive to the will of the people (which I believe is still conservative), and that's a whole new set of problems.
Harman is my rep and she was a pretty good one until the classified leak came out from her office. Maybe the RATS set her up for a fall by leaking?
Maybe you can refresh my memory, but has there ever been a time when a significant number of Democrats ever bucked their system? Republicans will do that, and have done it often, but Democrats seem to be in lock-step with each other. In addition, I've heard that Pelosi contributed to a number of candidates, thereby pretty much owning them for the next two years.
The Democrats haven't been in this position in decades. There's no guarantees they'll get reelected in 2008, and they've been out of power on the Hill for over a decade. If people think the Democrats put partisan spoils ahead of the security of the US, they will be out of power in two years. The Bluedogs know this.
Alcee Hastings is the poorest member of Congress with a debt of $7.3 million he owes. As chairman of the intelligence committee, and a former federal judge impeached and convicted for bribery, he has both the lack of ethics and need for money that could lead him to betray our country. Unlike Jonathon Pollard, he would sell intelligence to our enemies.
Pelosi voted to impeach Hastings. If she appoints him Chair of the Committee, it's like pouring gas a smoldering embers...
I don't remember what the guy's name is, but it's her legislative aide, that leaked to the NYT. It was all over FreeRepublic last week. Harmon made a big deal of opposing the leak, when it was really coming from her office. Harmon isn't any better than Alccee Hastings, maybe worse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.