Harman: Yes; Hastings: No
TNR makes the argument for Jane Harman and against Alcee Hastings for the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Choosing Hastings over Harman would be a decision of such monumental stupidity and pettiness that I can't really worry too much about it, since I don't believe it will really happen. If it were to happen--which, again, it won't--this should send a chill down the spine of anyone--like me--who expended sweat and treasure to help the Democrats recapture the legislature.
TNR makes the argument for Jane Harman and against Alcee Hastings for the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Choosing Hastings over Harman would be a decision of such monumental stupidity and pettiness that I can't really worry too much about it, since I don't believe it will really happen. If it were to happen--which, again, it won't--this should send a chill down the spine of anyone--like me--who expended sweat and treasure to help the Democrats recapture the legislature.
posted by Winston Smith at
6:06 PM
6 Comments:
Tuesday, September 27, 2005, from your drug of choice, WS, the WaPo.
Of course, Harman has her hot water, too.
[TVD editorial deleted here, as a gesture of good will...]
If the Dems do wrong and allow Hastings a leadership post, how does that compare with McConnell and Lott?
Yup, but Harman knows what she's doing on that committee.
The Dems are, of course, riddled with corruption. It's only being better than the Republicans that makes them the Great Blue Hope.
Better than McConnell and Lott, of course...but can't we as a country hope for leaders who can be praised with something more inspiring than "Better than McConnell and Lott"? I mean...faint praise indeed...
Yes, better than McConnell and Lott is faint praise, but it's only a floor, so there's considerable praise that's still in order. I'm a meliorist, not a perfectionist, but I do hope and work for better even if the Dems hold Congress.
I just wanted to be clear about whose eye holds the mote and whose the log, because the parties are not equally corrupt. They may be in the future, but they aren't now.
Agreed in principle--though I might suggest a slight reformulation in terms of whose eye holds the log, and whose the whole damn F-Troop-style fort.
But I quibble.
TVD -
playing footsie with AIPAC seems to be congressional SOP--you'd be hardpressed to find any Senator, Dem or Repub, that hasn't done business with them.
And in the case of Harman vs Hastings, it's arguable that there would not need be quid for the quo. Hastings is just an awful choice, so money going to Harman may be more in the lines of extortion than bribery.
-mac
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home