Decision ‘08

Defending The Indefensible

It’s official: Glenn Greenwald’s mail is now addressed c/o The Cocoon. In the world according to Greenwald, no one who doesn’t share his view on every issue can possibly have any integrity, so if there is opposition to placing ethically compromised politicians (i.e., criminals) in positions of great importance, there must be a serious conspiracy at work:

…[W]hat is really responsible for this amazing obsession with undermining Nancy Pelosi before she even starts — over matters as seemingly irrelevant (in the grand scheme of things) as Steny Hoyer and Jane Harman, no less — is that institutionalized Beltway personalities fear a repudiation of the rotten system on which they depend and of which they are such integral parts.

Oh, yes, Glenn, you’ve nailed it: all the Pelosi opposition is because she is changing the ‘rotten system’ with a plan so diabolical that it could only be lifted from an old Batman TV episode: by favoring such paragons of virtue as John ‘Abscam’ Murtha (the guy who called the upcoming ethics bill ‘total crap’) and Alcee ‘Impeached Ex-Judge” Hastings, she hopes to overturn the whole culture of corruption that surrounds Washington by…

…Umm…

…That is to say…

…Hmmm…guess I’m just not as smart as Glenn. But hey, who cares! Steny Hoyer and Jane Harman are only up for ‘irrelevant’ posts like House Majority Leader and chair of the House Intelligence Committee…it’s not REALLY important - Glenn says so! Besides, the whole Hastings angle was just made up!

There is no seniority on the Intelligence Committee, so Harman is not being “demoted” by being “denied” this seat. Hastings is not the “alternative,” since Pelosi can choose anyone she wants and, as far as I know, has never said that the “alternative” to Harman is Hastings. The media has just invented this dichotomy in order to foster the drama of the Serious/Substantive v. Frivolous/Bitchy choice they have decreed is what Pelosi must navigate.

JHC…yep, Glenn, Pelosi didn’t promise the Congressional Black Caucus her support for Hastings…and we FOUND the WMD stockpiles…and Paris Hilton is a virgin…and…

UPDATE 8:29 p.m.: The MinuteMan graces the comments and is nice enough to link to this post, but I’m not just logrolling here; he also points us to this rebuttal of Glenn Greenwald from the left (Josh Marshall, no less):

You cannot ignore the fact that the two people who opposed Hoyer and Harman were two people surrounded by ethical clouds just after the Democrats won an historic election in which congressional corruption was one of the two main issues.

Let me add a few other points.

First, I should say that the issues surrounding Murtha are qualitatively different from those with Hastings. Murtha’s an old style pork barrel politician who’s played the congressional appropriations game up to the edge and maybe gone over it. There’s good reason to believe that Hastings accepted a cash bribe to turn a case when he was a federal judge. Those are just two totally different things.

But for the purposes of considering who should get top posts in the new Democratic Congress, I think they’re both sufficient to merit serious consideration and pause.

That’s right on target. This need not be a partisan issue, by the way; I WANT Pelosi to succeed, because, as I’m fond of saying, I’m an American before I’m a Republican…

18 Responses to “Defending The Indefensible”

1 Glenn Greenwald Says:
November 27th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
Glenn, Pelosi didn’t promise the Congressional Black Caucus her support for Hastings

Do you have any proof of that?

Do you have any proof at all that the alternative Pelosi is considering to Harman for Intelligence Chair is Alcee Hastings? I didn’t see any in your post, but I’m sure you have it.

But hey, who cares! Steny Hoyer and Jane Harman are only up for ‘irrelevant’ posts like House Majority Leader and chair of the House Intelligence Committee…it’s not REALLY important

Good point. The fate of the Republic depends on these appointments. Everyone knows that the country was run by John Boehner and Pete Hoekstra for the last year. People shuddered at their power. Who replaces them is the matter of the gravest importance. This has nothing to do with trying to create a personality drama surrounding Nancy Pelosi. It’s that the Beltway media has suddenly developed a fascination with intelligence oversight and wants to know who will be Chairing this Committee.
2 Mark Says:
November 27th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
And do you have any proof that the opponents of Hastings and Murtha weren’t sincere in their desire to see someone with cleaner hands in these positions? Your bread and butter these days is divining motives of those who don’t see eye-to-eye with you…
3 Mark Says:
November 27th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
But since you asked, as far back as October 21st, the Washington Post reported on the pledges Pelosi had made to respect seniority to the Congressional Black Caucus, and specifically, the tight bind that put her in re: Hastings…

Readers of Mickey Kaus and ABC’s The Note (whose work I know you greatly admire) know this was a issue even before the election…it was not just invented afterwards to ’smear’ Pelosi…
4 Mark Says:
November 27th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
Also, even further back, on September 3rd, the Miami Herald quoted Democratic lawmakers who declined to be identified as saying Pelosi had indicated she was replacing Harman with Hastings….
5 Glenn Greenwald Says:
November 27th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
And do you have any proof that the opponents of Hastings and Murtha weren’t sincere in their desire to see someone with cleaner hands in these positions?

(1) Their support for individuals (Hoyer and Harman) who are hardly symbols of clean government; (2) their utter lack of interest in who occupied those positions previously; and (3) the endless wave of assertions about Pelosi — all in order to foster juvenile depictions about her motives — would be another.

But since you asked, as far back as October 21st, the Washington Post reported on the pledges Pelosi had made to respect seniority to the Congressional Black Caucus, and specifically, the tight bind that put her in re: Hastings…

I’ve read that article before and I just read it again. The very first line is this:

If Democrats win control in November, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) has decided to award committee chairmanships based almost entirely on seniority,

“Almost entirely on seniority” means that there will be exceptions. If you really believe that that article contains any evidence that Pelosi promised to appoint Hastings to that position, please identify it. You’re being very evasive about what evidence there is to support the claim that Pelosi intends to name Hastings, because there is no such evidence, which is the point of my posts.

Readers of Mickey Kaus and ABC’s The Note (whose work I know you greatly admire) know this was a issue even before the election…it was not just invented afterwards to ’smear’ Pelosi…

It was always an issue that Pelosi didn’t want to appoint Harman to that position, and Harman was lobbying for it, so it became an issue. Nobody disputes that she doesn’t want to appoint Harman. I don’t blame her; she has good reason for not appointing her (that have nothing to do with some bitchy, womanly personal conflict, as all sorts of people keep claiming).

The point is that there is no evidence that she intends to appoint Hastings. That is just made up. And the “sources” you cite (again with no links or specific evidence) specialize in trafficing in gossip and petty innuendo, which is all this is about. The attacks on Nancy Pelosi for Alcee Hastings are not only based on something she hasn’t done, but also based on something for which there is no evidence she has even considered doing. That’s what makes the whole “controversy” and all the snide, personal attacks on Pelosi and her motives so dishonest and substance-free.
6 Mark Says:
November 27th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
Both of my comments have links in them…and you ignored the Miami Herald one…but I could have given more…the assertion that Pelosi didn’t intend to point Hastings flies in the face of reality.

If you want to pretend I didn’t provide cites, my readers can trust their own eyes…
7 Glenn Greenwald Says:
November 27th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
When I posted my comment, your third comment (with the Miami Herald link) was not yet visible. The original post itself and the references to Mickey Kaus and The Note had no links, and the Wash Post article had no specific citation to where it supposedly reported that Pelosi had promised to support Hastings. The Herald article specifically labels its report “Speculation,” which is exactly what it is.

We’ll see if she appoints Hastings. I’ll be happy to bet that she won’t.
8 Mark Says:
November 27th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Well, there we are in agreement…and for the record, though I prefer Harman, I’ll settle for any of the other candidates being bandied about. Believe it or not, some of us really ARE concerned about Hasting’s past…
9 Mark Says:
November 27th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
When I say agreement, I mean that she won’t appoint Hastings…I think she WAS going to, but I think the uproar has probably derailed his chances…
10 Mark Says:
November 27th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
As for the Kaus and Note citations, this post of mine contains both…
11 Wake up America Says:
November 27th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Nancy’s Preference

So, she among QUITE a few others, vote to impeach him for leaking sensitive information, and now she wants to give him a position to be privvy to even more sensitive information.
12 Tom Maguire Says:
November 27th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
Back in Sept 2005 Charles Babington of the WaPo had this:

Harman May Get Boot in ‘07

The widely praised Sept. 11 commission recommended that members of the House and Senate intelligence committees stay for several terms to build expertise. But the top Democrat on the House committee may be booted in early 2007, and the reason has more to do with internal party politics than intelligence matters.

Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.) has been the House intelligence panel’s ranking Democrat for three years. She would like to hold the post several more years, and a January 2003 House rules change would seem to work in her favor. At the time, the GOP-controlled House exempted the intelligence committee’s leadership from term limits in a bid to keep then-Chairman Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), now the CIA director. The rule change applied to the ranking minority member as well.

Nonetheless, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has told colleagues she plans to replace Harman with Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.) when the 110th Congress convenes in January 2007, assuming all three members are reelected next year. Hastings, the committee’s next-most-senior Democrat, is African American, and the Congressional Black Caucus strongly backs his claim on the post.

The CBC is an influential player in Pelosi’s 202-member Democratic caucus, and its members are sensitive on this issue. They remember that black lawmaker Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.) lost his January 2003 bid to be the intelligence committee’s ranking Democrat when Pelosi gave the post to Harman. Bishop and his allies said he had greater seniority, noting that Harman had quit the House in 1998 to run unsuccessfully for governor. But Democratic leaders, in persuading Harman to reclaim her seat in 2000, had restored her committee seniority.

Bishop was placated with a coveted spot on the Appropriations Committee, but black Democrats do not want to be passed over again. Hastings said in an interview that Pelosi has signaled he will be the intelligence committee’s top Democrat after the 2006 elections. “If we follow the pecking order, I’ll be the ranking member or the chairman,” he said.

Steve Clemons wrote this at the time:

I learned — in great detail — about Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi’s intentions to unseat Representative Jane Harman as Ranking Member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence on Saturday, the 17th of September but sat on the story, both because I wanted to dig a bit deeper and also because I was being crushed by some other deadlines.

All that said, the story is out, and the Washington Post’s Charles Babington has the best run down at the moment. Here is a longish excerpt of yesterday’s story…

I don’t know if that is “proof” of anything - maybe we could invite Alcee in for a lie detector test - but Clemons is independently confirming a WaPo story which quotes Alcce as saying “If we follow the pecking order, I’ll be the ranking member or the chairman”.

One of the many odd (yet oddly predictable) omissions from the Greenwald post was links to the notable and significant supporters of Jane Harman, to wit, the LA Times and the NY Times; can we agree that (no disrespect intended) they have more clout in Pelosi’s world than MacRanger? Most of his other links were to Hastings-bashers, although I emerged as a Harman supporter for pointing out Greenwald’s lies (or ignorance) about the status of the investigation into the Harman investigation. Other than that, I don’t think I have ever attempted to argue that Harman was an objectively excellent candidate, although I prefer her to Hastings (I predicted Reyes would emerge, but who knows?)

So, per Greenwald’s post, neocons and Lieberman backers, like the Times, are supporting Harman. It seems unkind to note that the Times endorsed Lamont in both the primary and the general election. All part of their subtle conspiracy, no doubt.
13 Mark Says:
November 27th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
Many thanks, sir…as always, I bow to the greater wisdom of the MinuteMan…
14 Fargus Says:
November 28th, 2006 at 8:26 am
I told you a while ago that TPM and TPMMuckraker were doing really good coverage of this stuff. Where’s my love, Mark?
15 Mark Says:
November 28th, 2006 at 8:29 am
It’s true, you did…so kudos to you.

Actually, I do check ‘em out from time to time…the quality level is pretty high, for the most part…
16 Dennis Says:
November 28th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
It seems to me that if all this stuff about Hastings was some evil conspiracy or bored blatherings ginned up by the VRWC/media cabal, wouldn’t be fairly easy to defuse it? Couldn’t Pelosi come out and say “i’m not appointing Hastings”? Couldn’t Hastings come out and say, “I’m not interested in the job”?

And yet instead of putting an end to all these apparently baseless accusations, they let the story continue to twist its way through political coverage, undermining the new Democratic majority every day that the refuse to quash it. Gosh, why is that? I guess those VWRC/media cabal conspiracies are especially tricky.
17 Andy Says:
November 28th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Dennis; don’t you realize that the MSM is powerless against our evil VRWC?

Glenn; ever feel like the protagonist in a dream where you’re running as hard as you can, but going nowhere fast? I mean it’s absolutely blood-curdling, bone-chilling and hair-raising horrifying that that Pelosi/Hastings just can’t get any traction and make their escape from that there Black Lagoon Creature from Texas. bwhhahaha

With condolences to Winnie The Pooh And The Blustery Day Song: Heffalumps And Woozles.

They’re evil
They’re red
They’re up
They’re undead
They’re in
They’re out
They’re all about
They’re far
They’re near
They’re gone
They’re here
They’re quick and slick and insincere
Beware
Beware
Be a very wary Speaker

A HeffaGOP or FOXzle is very confusel
The HeffaGOP or FOXzle is very sly
- sly - sly - sly
They come in ones and twoosels
but if they so choosels
before your eyes you’ll see them multiply, - ply - ply - ply

They’re extra-ordinary so better be wary
Because they come in every shape and size, - size - size - size

If Steny isn’t what you covet you’ll find that they love it
Because they nuk-lear the things you prize

They’re green
They’re blue
They’re pink
They’re white
They’re round
They’re square
They’re a terrible sight
They’ll tie you in horrible knots
They paint you in stripes or yeller polka-dots

Beware
Beware
Be a very wary dear (Nancy)

(sKerry musical interlude minus punchline)

They’re extra-ordinary so better be wary
Because they come in every shape and size
- size - size - size

If Janey isn’t what you covet you’ll find that they love it
Because they nuk-lear the things you prize

They’re evil
They’re red
They’re up
They’re undead
They’re in
They’re out
They’re all about
They’re far
They’re near
They’re gone
They’re here
They’re quick and slick and insincere
Beware
Beware
Beware
Beware
Beware ….

Sorry Mark
18 PMain Says:
November 28th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
My God, Greenwald asking for direct proof of anything or dismissing any point as speculation is almost laughable. This coming from the guy who blankets all conservatives or Republicans by citing a singular conservative blogger to make his point or has called all supporters of Bush, cultists, has taken speculation to the far extremes of unadulterated conjecture or pure fantasy. His arguments - or lack thereof - tend to be overly simplistic or drawn out & follow the simple pattern, employed by most ligitation attorneys who advertise on TV, build a carefully constructed straw man to destroy.