Blue Crab Boulevard

LA Times Endorses Harman

The Los Angeles Times is trying to warn Nancy Pelosi that it would be a really bad idea to pass over Representative Jane Harman for chair of the intelligence committee. They are strongly advising that Alcee Hastings would be an extraordinarily bad choice for that job. They are also telegraphing here. It will be hazardous to Pelosi's future press coverage if she does this.

The argument most often cited for bypassing Harman is that under House rules, her rotating membership on the Intelligence Committee is about to expire. But Harman's supporters note that since 2003, term limits on the committee (which in any case can be waived) don't apply to the chairman and ranking member. They also point out that the independent 9/11 commission called in its recommendations for longer tenures on congressional intelligence panels as a way of fostering continuity and institutional memory.

Then there is the claim that awarding the chairmanship to Harman rather than Hastings would offend the sacred principle of seniority, as well as the sensibilities of the Congressional Black Caucus (Hastings is African American).

Seniority has never been the only criterion for the awarding of committee chairmanships in either party. As for black representation in the leadership, two other African Americans, Reps. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) are slated to head the Ways and Means and Judiciary committees, respectively.

The most substantial — and alarming — speculation regarding the Harman-Pelosi rift is that the speaker may consider Harman too moderate. If one of the reasons Pelosi backed Murtha was because he took it to Republicans on the war in Iraq, Harman — who initially supported the war — may be insufficiently partisan in Pelosi's eyes.

Pelosi, who has vowed to lead the House from the center, should think twice before indulging in a witch hunt of colleagues who can work well with Republicans.

Alcee Hasting's name is not a common household item of discussion. Yet. I read this as saying that the name and Pelosi's decision if she proceeds will become a common item of discussion. This could well turn into another lose-lose for Pelosi in a hurry. Frankly, having Hastings, a man who was tried, convicted and removed from office by the Congress for official corruption, would be a real blow to Pelosi's stated goal of running a clean shop. And the press will make sure the world knows it if she continues. Hastings could do the party a favor here and publicly withdraw before putting Pelosi in that particular box.

Politics | Gaius November 17, 2006

By James, November 17, 2006 @ 10:25 am

I wouldn’t be surprised if Pelosi bypasses both of them.
By daveinboca, November 17, 2006 @ 1:05 pm

Harman fell afoul the nasty biyotch somehow and now must avoid the swamp that the Ogress of the House is refilling with ancient hacks and outright crooks like Hastings.
By Rusty Austin, November 17, 2006 @ 4:38 pm

Sounds more like a lose lose for Bush, either one of these candidates is going to hammer the administration, and all this foo fa ra about how the Democrats organized their caucus will be quickly forgotten, once impeachment proceedings, proceed.
By andy phx, November 17, 2006 @ 4:57 pm

he wasnt tried and convicted of anything! he was however impeached. for once i agree with a right winger that this would be a bad choice. funny but you never have criticized bush for making bad choices out of loyalty. look how long he held on to Ruinsfeld.
By andy phx, November 17, 2006 @ 5:00 pm

rusty, even though pelosi said that impeachment is off the table, i cant help but think they have created so many skeletons the public out cry for impeachment would be deafening.
By Gaius, November 17, 2006 @ 5:03 pm

Perhaps you should learn what the terms mean, andy. He was impeached by the House and tried in the Senate, convicted and removed from the bench. That is the process as specified in the constitution.

Impeachment is roughly the same as an indictment. Clinton was impeached but not convicted and removed.
By W.B. Reeves, November 18, 2006 @ 11:39 am

From Wikipedia:

“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”[2] 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.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over Senate impeachment matters, and Sporkin’s ruling was vacated, and Hastings’ conviction and removal were upheld.”

So to re-cap, Hastings was indeed impeached, albeit by an irregular proceeding, on the basis of accusations of criminal activity prior to any actual finding of guilt in a court of law. When Hastings finally had his day in a real court of law, he was acquitted of all charges. Yes, such a scandal. Imagine, a man who has never been convicted of a crime being allowed to serve in government. It should be enough that his political enemies engineered his legislative lynching.
By Gaius, November 18, 2006 @ 11:43 am

Gee, WB, you mean the Democrats who overwhelmingly voted against him?
By W.B. Reeves, November 18, 2006 @ 8:16 pm

“Gee, WB, you mean the Democrats who overwhelmingly voted against him?”

Yes and the Republicans who voted against him as well. Your point?