Nada, just that I have a feeling that he's going to be getting his ass kissed by Democrats for a while. I forgot he could play tie breaker in the Senate... I'm dumb.
Er, no. That's why I asked for clarification. At best it is a non-sequitur that affects my point that vindictiveness is not a good leadership quality not at all. hmmm....like, uh....almost ALL of Congress, lol. There is nothing to indicate she is incompetant. Voting FOR the intervention is not an indication of incompetance. However, not giving the ranking member the chair because that person didn't cowtow to Pelosi is NOT a reason to promote a lesser qualified individual. IF that is the case, as I indicated in my earlier response.
No, lol - calm down. I was responding to canoner's view that Pelosi was 'taking out those who...' and reminding him/her that such a criteria would include most of Congress (ie those who voted for the war in Iraq).
IF the position that LEADS oversight of the national security apparatus is filled for political expediency rather than on qualifications, then how is that a stupid statement or fearmongering?
..but the flip side, the position to lead oversight (on every committee) is based on seniority rather than qualifications or performance, so that's something else to consider.
If Pelosi believes Harman has been lax in holding Bush's feet to the fire then not selecting her is perfectly legitimate. The implication that not selecting Harman will provide incompetent oversight is idiotic. The fear mongering on Dem competence on the war on terror is SOP for conservatives when in reality it's probably not possible to have screwed up the war on terror as badly as Republicans have to date. Conflating Iraq into the war on terror has been a complete disaster. Any oversight that comes from Pelosi's selection will exceed anything we've had the last six years. Where was the oversight on rendition? Where was the oversight on the secret CIA prisons? The oversight on warrantless taps? The oversight on Iraq intel?
I think the idea of seniority originated out of the belief that the longest serving Senator on the committee would be in a better position to lead the committee. Of course, that could or could not be true - but as least as far as the speculation both about the black caucus and about pelosi getting back at harman, neither of those have pelosi making a decision based on who could best lead the committee. I agree with you though that strict promotion based on seniority might also not lead to the best head of the committee.
I think your apparent rage issues are idiotic. All of this discussion is framed on the premise that Pelosi is giving the committee to someone other than Harman (which would be SOP) either because of the black caucus or because of a grudge over working with the Republicans. IF either of those are the case then you don't have an argument. IF they aren't the case then no one is arguing the point so calm yourself. As far as Harman holding Bush's feet to the fire, that's a laughable position for a couple of reasons: first, Harman wasn't leading the committee. If you know anything about committees then you already understand there is little to do when the chair controls the agenda. second, most all of Congress voted for the intervention and the Patriot Act so if Pelosi is going to torch Democrats who 'cooperated' with the Republicans she should be setting fire to most of the party.
The Intelligence Committee is a bit different than most committees... the members of the Intelligence Committee are appointed by the Party Leader. You could campaign for it and I suppose you could make deals for it, but ultimately, it was the Speaker or the Minority Leader's call. That's why it is called the Permanent SELECT Committee on Intelligence... because the committee members are selected by the Speaker. It is not like most of the other committees where members are decided by the party caucus.
Ranking member? You mean those who kissed Bush's ass? What qualification do they have after making such monumental mistakes? This is called holding people accountable!
First off, the congress did NOT vote for the war in Iraq. Secondly, after it became clear going into war was a total mistake, some dem in the congress didn't stand up and go against the administration. Those, though not as guilty as Bush and his gang, should not be forgiven until they redeem themselves.
It's Pelosi's call as to who sits on the committee. Elections have consequences. If she doesn't want Harmon on the committee, Harmon's not on the committee. End of story. And again, in spite of the headline, Harmon is the only one we're talking about... there is no ideological purge going on.
This is GREAT news.... Why should she put Hawkish dems into prominent positions? The public has spoken, we want a new direction, get as many who supported this administration out of positions as quickly as possible. Great job Pelosi !! DD
And you could thank him for explaining it to you, instead of going for the cheap sarcasm, Hayes. Unless, of course, I somehow misunderstood you. I'm really finding the reaction to the results of the election here fascinating. You have a basso meltdown, frantically starting threads about anything that might remotely be spun as negative towards the Democratic victory. Not really a surprise, although it would has been nice to see some graciousness in defeat, like halfbreed exhibited. There's your reaction, Hayes, which I'm still trying to figure out. Do you not see the election as a referendum on Iraq and Bush Administration policy there? More than anything, that drove the election. Bush acknowledged it himself by immediately sacking Rumsfeld. The American people obviously want a new direction with regards to the war, and they want our troops out. The method with which that'll happen remains unclear, but that they want our troops out of the current situation, if not completely out of the country, it perfectly obvious. How do you see that playing out? I'm curious. I saw a tired Chris Mathews on MSNBC, very late on election night, I believe, say in what may have been an unguarded moment, "Why should we stay? What purpose does it serve? The American people clearly want us out, the sooner the better. You know, Nixon was elected in '68 saying he'd end the war in Vietnam. We lost more Americans after he was elected, while "getting out," then we did during the entire time before he took office. 25,000 before, and 30,000 dead "getting out." Why? Because he wanted to be able to declare a "victory." What did that "victory" get us? What possible difference would it had made if we had left much sooner, besides 10's of thousands of American lives saved, and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese?" I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of what he said, and it made me think... with regard to Vietnam, he was right. All those people, from both sides, were killed and maimed so that Nixon could declare "victory," Kissinger could get his Noble Peace Prize, and we could then promptly lose the war. Today, Vietnam is a trading partner, with ever improving relations with the United States. Food for thought. Keep D&D Civil.
