Pelosi-Harman: This Time It’s Personal
Of course, it was personal with Jack Murtha, too:
Pelosi indicated as early as last year that she intended to oust Harman from the Intelligence Committee — where Harman expected to become chairwoman if Democrats won control of the House — in favor of someone more to Pelosi’s liking.The move has created dissension within the party. Some Democrats and foreign policy experts argued that Harman, a centrist on national security, is the most credible person for the job. The Congressional Black and Hispanic caucuses countered that it was time for one of their members on the committee to take the helm.
Fresh from Pelosi’s fierce and unsuccessful lobbying effort to install antiwar ally John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania as her No. 2, the coming battle over the Intelligence Committee leadership is turning into a showdown where the political has turned personal. And it could undermine the unity that the Democratic Party has hoped to show as it prepares to take the reins of power.
The falling-out between Pelosi and Harman offers a window into how business gets done on Capitol Hill, where personal friendships are often as important as policies and politics. Pelosi in particular is noted for remembering who has been on her side and who hasn’t, as evidenced by her support of Murtha for House majority leader over her one-time rival Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, even though Hoyer was widely preferred by the party caucus.
The prospect of conflict between two such powerful Democratic women is tantalizing to gossipy Washington. But the split is so toxic that Democrats in California and Washington won’t go near it.
“I don’t want to talk about it,” said Roz Wyman, the doyenne of California Democratic fundraising and a friend of both.
Most people contacted for this article spoke only on condition of anonymity, not wanting to get on the wrong side of two formidable politicians.
If Pelosi wants to lead, she had better put this schoolyard stuff behind her. There is no compelling reason relevant to anyone besides Nancy Pelosi to replace Harman. Everyone is watching this, and if impeached ex-Judge Alcee Hastings is appointed over Harman for no better reason than his skin color, Pelosi may be driving the nail in her own coffin…
Let’s be frank here. Alcee Hastings has no business on this committee, period. Putting him up for Chairmanship, along with the Murtha debacle shows that the “culture of corruption” is alive and well in D.C. Pelosi seems determined to mold her Speakership role into the “Corruptress-In-Chief”.
Because there was no “schoolyard stuff” during the past 12 years? This reminds me of the classic scene at the end of Slapshot where the two teams are fighting on the ice and Ned Braden goes out there and starts stripping. Tim McCracken then complains to the official that “this is a serious game” and hits the offical. The Chiefs are awarded the trophy. The end.
Maybe I should call you “Dr Hook”?
Mike, this election was about change (and I’m a Republican telling you that, so you know the message came through loud and clear). What do you want, more schoolyard stuff because you think there was already schoolyard stuff before?
Think about looking forward instead of back; that’s my advice…
Maureen Dowd said the same thing in her column last weekend — regarding Murtha and Harmon, she said that now that we have our first Speaker, she gets on the mound and “throws like a girl” — Gail Collins wrote a similar editorial — one would think that leftist women would be Pelosi’s core constituency, but she seems to be pissing them off too –
[...] Meanwhile school is in session. If Pelosi wants to lead, she had better put this schoolyard stuff behind her. [...]
peter: MoDo isn’t a leftist. She’s a tabloid “journalist”.
Mark: Ok Mark “Dr. Hook.” Coffey. I want politics to be seen as politics. If they engage in it you cannot blame them for it. Just make the case and let it speak. Why demonize someone for being political? If she doesn’t think Harman is good for the job argue the merits. Where was your outrage when Bush appointed political allies to posts of substantial responsibility? The current administration is all about politics. Why point at two instances of political actions and call them schoolyard? Can’t the same be said for at least three recent Bush acts? (Kerouac, Bolton, judges).
Oh, and playing the race card in your last sentence is also “schoolyard”, IMO. And yes, the “if” doesn’t make the race card disappear somehow. Nice try though.
It’s not playing the race card, Mike, to acknowledge that the only reason Hastings is even on the table is that Pelosi promised the Congressional Black Caucus he would get the job. Who’s playing the race card, the CBC and Pelosi, or me?
I’ve got no problem with qualified appointees of any sex, race, age, or sexual preference. Hastings is not one of these…
At Whirlpool “diversity with inclusion” is a new phrase they’re using to substantiate what some might consider “reverse discrimination”. However, there is quite a bit of value in hiring people of certain groups for the very reason of gathering different viewpoints. If they were good enough for the CBC why not for this committee? If she makes deals with political organizations, what’s the problem? Why is it any different than the current administration hiring people who make up whack arguments about women who have too much sex are no good strumpets (which is basically what Keroauc says without saying it)? Does that concern you as well? Is it “schoolyard”? Furthermore, if you’re so interested in his issues 25 years ago, why are you not concerned George W. Bush was a drunk? Oh yeah, because it was 25 years ago!
“This reminds me of the classic scene at the end of Slapshot where the two teams are fighting…”
Another brilliant analogy from our resident Poindexter; but Mikey seems not to notice that he winds up reminding one of the infamous Hanson brothers instead – just another ‘Tard with a big stick. Let’s see what other deep thoughts he’s expressing today from his cave of knowledge:
“Ok Mark “Dr. Hook.” Coffey”
Reading = Comprehension, but in your case it’s more like Talking = Without Cognitive Recognition. Your continued inanity (expressed through a particularly virulent form or Tourette’s Syndrome) is always appreciated here.
“you’re so interested in his issues 25 years ago, why are you not concerned George W. Bush was a drunk? Oh yeah, because it was 25 years ago!”
Actually, Mark should be more concerned about Mikey’s safety at a time like this – running with scissors is never a good idea when you’re spewing spittle out of the sides of your mouth. Neither is talking while chewing RedMan vigorously.
Mike, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is a crucial government function in the post-9/11 world. It’s not a place for a diversity seminar. If Hastings were more qualified than Harman, I wouldn’t give a damn if he were a gay albino Eskimo. The simple fact is that his impending selection, if it happens, is a simple ‘horse trade’ among political factions, and that’s exactly the kind of crap voters signalled they were sick of.
If you want to keep looking backward, go ahead, but I’m not joining you on the journey, nor will I be baited into pointless sidebars such as Bush’s former alcoholism (whatever the hell that has to do with anything)…
Mike, if this was just a spat between two giant egos, it’s fine to view it as a mere Washington trifle. The fact that both sides engage in such pettiness hardly makes it acceptable, but so be it.
But the thing that makes this story stand out is Pelosi wants to dump her rival for a man who was booted off the federal bench for taking bribes. And he’s not being put in charge of the Subcommittee on National Park Signage; he’s being put in charge of the most sensitive subjects in our government. That’s why this story has risen above the usual Washington nonsense, and if you can’t see that, I must conclude your ignorance is willful.
If there’s any racism here, it’s in the fact that Nancy Pelosi seems to be taking all the heat. I’m disgusted by the lack of outrage over the CBC’s role in insisting this guy get a job like this. Their collective feet should be held to the fire, too.
The concern for Democrats that Pelosi’s actions create is about a lack of judgement and understanding. It’s fine to play politics with these things (committee appointments and such) including rewarding allies for their loyalty. But to attempt to do this with two individuals (Murtha & Hastings) against the will of the majority of the party you supposedly lead simply shows a lack of judgement. If Harman and Hastings, or Heyer and Murtha, were being supported by something near a 50/50 split, then chosing one over the other would show leadership and send a positive message. Pelosi’s approach simply leads to disquiet and alienation among the troops.
Time will tell if this is just a bad couple of weeks or a permanent condition.
I agree that it shows a lack of judgment on Pelosi’s part – but I think that it also shows the good judgment of the majority of Democrats who voted against her. I would rather have the Democratic caucus do the right thing than have it rubber stamp whatever the leadership dictates.
As for the GOP: they elected Trent Lott and Roy Blunt, both of whom epitomize the ways of K Street and pork barrel spending. With DeLay gone, they elected DeLay lite instead when Blunt was picked. Which party do you think has made the wiser choices thus far?
Agree. SSDD.
Peter,
I’ve got no love at all for the leaders the Republicans have chosen, but any praise for the Democrats breaking ranks get tempered by this inescapable fact – they chose Pelosi. If you have to keep rescuing your chosen leader from herself, why choose her in the first place?
I’ll echo the ‘no love lost’ for the Republican congressional leadership…God, what an uninspiring lot (pun intended)…
Dennis: agreed — but I would also give her a little more time before making a final judgment — after all, she’s not even Speaker yet –
Abit OT but the recent behavior of the two parties as they pick their leadership leads me to question my lifelong opposition to mandatory term limits. Setting aside the constitutional issues, it does seem like the only way to get new people into Congress.
I’m strongly in favor of term limits. I know that in some ways they’re undemocratic. But as the old saying goes, the graveyards are filled with indispensible men, and I think it’s healthy to have a society in which no one gets to hold onto power for too long.
The fact that even in years of big switches, be it 1994 or 2006, still only a few dozen seats actually change hands, should be an indication that incumbency has become too cemented.
Term limits! Yes!!!
But I’d go further and say repeal the 17th Amendment. These psuedo-princes in the Senate are more concerned with their ‘degrees and pedigree’ than the people who sent them there. In fact, repealing this amendment could well make term limits moot, not that I wouldn’t like to see both in play.
The power of incumbency makes them beholden to none, other than the occassional ‘throw the bums out’ cycle. Bringing it back under the State’s Legislative branch is a cure to the incumbency trend. To wit, observe the more frequent turnover in State politics.
There’s also an element of State’s Rights that exerts a certain dynamics on the Senatorial priorities.
And finally, it was also a measure of checks and balances designed by our Founding Fathers to help keep the legislative branch in check.
I think there are enough people who have had distinguished Congressional careers for many terms – Pat Moynihan, Sam Nunn, Sam Rayburn, and Bob Dole come to mind – that to limit their terms would, in my opinion, do much more harm than good.
If we are to change the way officials are elected, my suggestion would be for all fifty state legislatures to require their electoral college votes to go to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. The electoral college is a mockery of the principle of one-man-one-vote, and this would effectively abolish it without changing the Constitution.
No, no, no, no, no. I brought it up to talk about Congress, not the President (who is term limited) and certainly not the Electoral College. I want to argue about the EC but just don’t have the time or energy right now.
Let me leave you with this: the tyranny of the majority as it relates to the President and the Senate – Discuss.
Peter, the Electoral College is what keeps the nation a nation…without it, the Presidential election might just as well be held in Los Angeles and New York…but there’s this whole big country in between…
Well, okay, ONE of the things that keeps this nation a nation…
True, there is a big country between New York and Los Angeles — but why should the votes of a New Yorker or a Californian count less than a voter in Ohio or other swing states? Since more people live on the coasts than between them, why shouldn’t they have a greater influence on national elections?
In my opinion, the electoral college is an archaicism which has outlived any usefulness it may once have had.
(There is a benefit to this: as a Californian, we get ignored in the national elections, so we’re less bombarded with political ads than others are).
Oh, come now, California and New York votes matter immensely…but if you were to take away the Electoral College, Montana, Rhode Island, and Idaho wouldn’t matter even a bit…
Nope, it’s a brilliant move, and it’s as relevant today as it ever was…
Well, the smaller states would matter in proportion to their percentage of the population — which is, I think, as it should be –
You make my point Peter. Our nation is a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. Thus the one truly national office, President of the United States, is elected by the States, not directly by the people. Because the President governs nationally it is important for each State to have a, relatively, equal say in who is elected. Thus the framers created the Electoral College. And there is a modicum of weight given to the population size of each State in that the number of Electoral Votes is based on the State’s population. But if you forced the States to allocate Electoral Votes proportionate to the popular vote you would, if effect, defeat the whole purpose of the Electoral College. It would become moot.
To me the Electoral College is not an anachronism but a tried and true stroke of democratic genius.
Ok, back to work.
And yet the republic has survived their departures from the halls of Congress. I’m sure it would survive if they had, say, just 12 years to serve. Twelve years is a long time, and I have a hard time believing their good service is outweighed by the legions of hacks who stick around for decades.
I’m against this for the same reason too many steves is: we’re a federal republic, not a direct democracy. But I’d be even more against this because I can’t for the life of me figure out why you’d suggest the ridiculously cumbersome notion of keeping the electoral college but requiring it to ratify a anational popular vote. If you want a direct election, just say so.
I also think that a direct election would be far more vulnerable to vote fraud, which is bad enough already.
I disagree with the statement that “because the President governs nationally it is important for each State to have a, relatively, equal say in who is elected. Thus the framers created the Electoral College” – I just don’t see why this should be so. I prefer the statement “because the President governs nationally, each citizen should have an equal vote.” I don’t see why the state should have primacy over the individual.
Small states already have a disproportionate share of power in Congress. Before this month’s election – when Democrats had 45 Senate seats – there were far more voters who voted Democratic for their Senator than Republican. However, because Republicans carried more small states – and the votes of GOP Senators in Montana and Utah count as much as Democratic Senators in New York and California – the balance was tilted in their favor. I’m not arguing against the way power is distributed in the Senate – rather, I think that when you add the disproportionate power small states wield in both the Senate and the electoral college, the result is an unfair one.
The best example of this, of course, is the 2000 Presidential election, when 513 disputed votes in Florida nullified 500,000 national votes.
As for term limits: the question is whether the “hacks” who are elected to more than two terms are better or worse than those who are kicked out by the voters after one or two terms. My guess is that the ones who stay are at least marginally better than those who lose their re-election battles.
As for vote fraud: I would think that a national vote would be less susceptible to vote fraud simply because the margin of victory is much larger than, say, in the 2000 Florida election.
Peter, you do understand the concept of federalism, correct?
Why even have states, under the arguments you are putting forward?
I think you’re seriously missing the point behind the Electoral College. Here’s one quick quote:
Or to put it another way: why does Idaho even want to belong to a nation that ignores its concerns? The (partial) answer: the equality of states in the Senate and Electoral College…
I don’t think we’re going to be able to resolve this one: the concept of federalism is opposed to the concept of one man, one vote. You give primacy to the former, and I give primacy to the latter. I think that the electoral college leads to a distortion of democracy, where battleground states have a disproportionate power to decide national elections. You think that the diversity of regional interests justifies the system. The 2000 election reminds me of the Woody Allen movie “Matchpoint,” where the tennis ball is bouncing up and down above the net. Is this any way to decide who will be President?
Are the results of one close election any reason to change the way the most successful democracy in history chooses its president?
In my opinion, yes — I think we would have a better democracy if we did — there have been numerous improvements on our democracy which have been made since the writing of the Constitution (e.g., giving the vote to blacks and women) and I think that abolishing the electoral college will be an additional improvement –
Well, I think you’re right, then – we’ve reached an impasse. On this one, we must agree to disagree…
Peter, that’s the nub of the arguement. We are NOT a Democracy, we’re a Republic. Democracy under a Republic precludes one man, one vote as choices percolate to the top. To change to a true democracy would require a constitutional amendment and the small states ain’t gonna sign on.
To wit, it requires ratification to make it so. The fact that a certain % of voters can say NO and stall the process is in effect ‘non-democratic’. That’s why in many of our processes, a simple majority is not enough, one must have 60% or 2/3s.
This is a prudent countermeasure to temper irrational enthusiasim for certain laws or candidates.
Be real. If the tables were turned, would you be arguing for eliminating the EC? Some rules are meant to be and yes, you win some and lose some, but in the long march, the nation as a whole reflects the majority’s desire.
The thing I detested most about 2000 were the overt attempts to change the rules in mid-stream. In my mind, you play the game as the rules are written prior to the event. If something comes up that highlights a supposed deficiency, then do a comprehensive review and if necessary (agreed to by a vote of the concerned parties) adjust the rules for the NEXT season.
What happend in 2000 was the equivalent of playing Calvin-Ball where rules get made or tossed on the fly. No thanks. That said, seeing Gore’s reaction — piss poor sportsmanship — I’m glad he lost. I’d feel the same if the tables were turned, because my mantra is ‘follow the rules and be a sport’ trumps partisanship.
To wit, note the excessive and hyperbolic wailing and gnashing of teeth over ‘we wuz robbed’ in 2002 & 2004 when Dems losts, and the sound of silence last month, even tho there were credible reports of malfunctions & fraud. It’s easy to be a good sport when you’re winning, tougher when you’re down and in that regard, the dems are lousy sports.
Well, then I’ll cop to preferring a democracy to a republic. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. And if the tables were turned, I would still be in favor of abolishing the electoral college. The idea is to level the playing field, not tilt it towards your team.
As for 2000: without getting in the muck of that election, let’s just say that there are reasonable grounds to question the way Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris handled the recount, and if the levers of power were in other hands the results could very well have been quite different. If I remember correctly, there were 23 decisions which Harris had to make, and all 23 leaned to the Republicans. So I don’t think it’s poor sportsmanship to take exception to the results.
As for “credible reports of malfunctions and fraud:” the only reports I’m aware of are in Katherine Harris’s old district, where 18,000 votes in a Democratic district were lost and the Republican won by 350 votes.
peter wrote: “…let’s just say that there are reasonable grounds to question the way Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris handled the recount…”
Name 3 grounds, scratch that, name 2.
As for level playing field, how did we “tilt” it towards our team? The rules were set in place over 200 years ago before the modern day DNC & RNC ever came into being. 2000 was not the first time that a popular winner lost. That said, I think there are a number of other steps short of eliminating the EC that can deal with incumbency, corruption etc so that the Will of the People are better reflected.
Compared to cancer treatment, you’re calling for a full body exposure to radiataion when targeted treatment would suffice. In any case, I don’t think anyone can ever make your case such that the small States can be induced to go along and ratify such an amendment, even if the ‘majority’ agrees.
There is something to be said for mechanism to temper or damper wild swings in the public mood. Do you even know exactly what the Founding Fathers were afraid of when they came up with the EC? Hint slavery, go look it up.
Without devices like the EC and super-majorities, who knows how long slavery would have continued? Certainly wouldn’t have ended sooner. Why? Till the bitter end, slavery & Jim Crow were supported by the majority of the people. So much for the wisdom of conventional wisdom.
Just consider the EC as part of the overall checks and balances embedded in our political system and you won’t lose any sleep over it. If indeed Gore was the better man, and the EC ‘mistakenly’ elevated Bush, then Gore, by proof of his superior ideas could have com back in 04 to take it back. But here we sit, 6 years later waiting to see if he is indeed.
PS, seems to me that I recall the original FL brohaha erupted in a county dominated by the DNC with ballots designed by same. That and the Central Time Zone voters gave up on voting during the last couple of hours (after work) when the votes were called prematurely based on the EST sampling.
And if Ms Harris was a Dem, she wouldn’t have tilted the other way at the expense of the RNC? Give me a break. Why not go further in the past and blame the Donk who lost the position to the GOP?
How about trying to deny the votes of the absentee ballots, particularily from overseas?
Like I said, stuff happens, just as in sports. If a ref misses fouls, just press on.
Anyhoo, the proof in the pudding is the margin of victory in 04 more than accounts for any population shifts in the interim.