Comments on: Pelosi comes to her senses

By: KH

KH — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 04:25:06 +0000

So hawks are best because it�s better, pour encourager les autres, that it be seen that it�s a hawk who�s doing the right thing? That presupposes that she�ll actually do the right thing, that her conservatism won�t cause her to act any differently from a more liberal alternative, that the only difference is that what she does can�t be attributed to a liberal. Maybe, but I wonder. Her likely official acts are of at least as much interest as her potential appeal to conservatives.
CA-36 is a swing district in the sense that the good people of Palos Verdes & Venice elected a Republican (Steve Kuykendall), what, once in the past 20 elections? That hardly makes them median voters, or argues for Harman.

By: liberal

liberal — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 20:54:57 +0000

I agree with all the commenters above who claim that Harman isn’t right for the job.
Last I saw Glenn Greenwald was in the process of re-checking his claim that Harman is “term-limited.” Something about the Republicans changing that rule in 2003.

By: Barry

Barry — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:24:11 +0000

Chad: “Of course, Nixon went to China.”
Brad DeLong had an excellent saying, ‘only Nixon could go to China, because only Nixon could go to China without being called a communist by Nixon’.

By: rilkefan

rilkefan — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:41:36 +0000

I take it you've seen Rush Holt's bumper? More Greenwald: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/11/end-of-epic-harman-hastings-drama.html

By: KCinDC

KCinDC — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:53:56 +0000

Well, I suppose saying Pelosi has come to her senses — as if she were a deranged supporter of Hastings and had a conversion experience, when the reality is that no decision had been made yet — is a step up from talking about how she’s threatened by other strong women. I’d still prefer that Mark stop the Pelosi bashing, at least until she actually takes office. This negative honeymoon is getting tiresome.

By: Cranky Observer

Cranky Observer — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:26:43 +0000

In the corporate world, 3M long had a policy of rewarding people who succeeded but not punishing people who failed, as compared to (say) Emerson Electric which strongly rewards those who succeed and severely punishes those who fail. Different theories, both of which have worked at different times and places.
Now, can you name for me a single organization which has prospered by rewarding those who FAIL and punishing those who SUCCEED? Because that is what rewarding the “liberal war hawks” amounts to.
Cranky

By: phastphil

phastphil — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:59:17 +0000

I’ve read at other blogs that Rush Holst is out of the picture. What is the basis for this?

By: The Navigator

The Navigator — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:58:20 +0000

Mark,
You’re typically a very sharp analyst but I think you’re off the mark here. In what way would having Harman, as chair, criticizing the Bushies (even assuming arguendo that she’d do so) have any effect on swing voters? Who the heck has ever heard of Jane Harman outside of her district? Unless she’s a long-time Marine Corps vet who also looks like a grizzled Marine Corps vet, I can’t see how criticism coming from her would be viewed as anything other than “typical Dem whining and partisanship.”

By: Prior Aelred

Prior Aelred — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:49:33 +0000

Sorry Mark, I agree with everyone else (who all seem to disagree with you) — for the same reasons they give — the only reason Harman started to act like a Dem was because she faced a surprisingly strong primary challenge (IMHO).

By: Pudentilla

Pudentilla — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:18:40 +0000

1) According to House Rules, Harman is term-limited. Even were she not term limited, under the rules, she does not, by virtue of seniority, have any special claim to the chair. Harman and her supporters are asking Pelosi to change the rules for Harman’s benefit.
2) Harman is not simply “hawkish.” She provided political cover for Republicans by slavishly supporting the Bush administration’s misuse of intelligence in the run up to war. A hawk on a committee which does not bear the charge of intelligence oversight is one thing. A willing political tool for the mendacious bags of excrement who promoted George’s excellent Arabian adventure, on the intelligence committee is quite another thing indeed – quite a bad thing.
3) Harman describes herself as “the best Republican in the Democratic Party.” (see 3/23/98 LA Times story quoted in MyDD post. Why any Democrat should support someone who self-identifies as a Republican for a leadership position in the Democratic Congress remains a mystery to me.
4) Greenwald has tthe better analysis today.

By: aimai

aimai — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:57:39 +0000

Mark, I disagree on harman and it looks like the other posters do, too. Frankly, the hawkishness of a dem never gets the democratic party very far with the hypothetical swing voters–who in any event have swung, on the war/defence issue, much much farther to the center left than even the dems now in power. We don’t need to keep pretending that the only “serious” people in power are those who are willing to sacrifice our civil liberties, national honor, intellectual rigor, and blood and treasure in an endless war with Iraq. We need to start showing the country that democrats stand for something–like democratic virtues, like no warantless wiretapping. Harman gave bush cover when he needed it, and she needs to be put off into a corner and the position given someone who is willing to be smart, strong, and publicly, partisanly, democratic.
aimai

By: pireader

pireader — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:36:18 +0000

About Jane Harman. I must disagree. You’re making this be all about politics; but there’s also personal accountability for massive incompetence.
Maybe Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld actually believed their own rap about Saddam’s weapons programs and ties to al-Quaeda. But they outright lied when they claimed to have solid proof.
And those lies got a lot more credence across America because respected people with very-different political/ideological affiliations endorsed them. People with broad access to the intelligence and specific responsibility for assessing it, notably Colin Powell and Tony Blair and George Tenet… and, down the list, Jane Harman.
Why would the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee do such a thing, instead of blowing the whistle to her fellow Congressmen and the public? Either because she didn’t do her homework or because she found the lies to be politically/ ideologically convenient.
Well, that says she can’t, or won’t, do the most-important job of an Intelligence Committee chair, now doesn’t it?
This isn’t just about Harman. Powell, Blair, Tenet, etc. have earned our permanent contempt too [as have, needless to say, the original liars].

By: joseph duemer

joseph duemer — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:04:39 +0000

Note to Hastings: God may not be done with you, true, but don’t presume you know what He has in store. Your statement reeks with sanctimony & sour grapes.
Jane Harman is not going to be the Chair of the Intel Committee, nor should she be. She went along with the WMD game of three card monte in the run up to the war & she has not stood up to Bush on the warrantless wiretapping issue. How about someone who knows the intelligence landscape and voted against the war: Rush Holt. The fact that he is a fully paid up member of the reality based community also should make him an effective Chair.

By: chad

chad — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:11:38 +0000

Of course, Nixon went to China. But Humphrey nad Mcgovern could have done that and ended the Vietnam debacle sooner, too.

By: Jake

Jake — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:42:55 +0000

Harman was a vocal defender of Bush’s illegal warrantless domestic wiretapping program. Is that really the kind of person we want chairing the Intelligence Committee? I think not.

By: Christopher M

Christopher M — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 05:51:26 +0000

I never thought Hastings seemed like a good pick, but I also thought Yglesias was convincing here, arguing that
“people should take the fact that Harman was sitting on that committee and didn’t reach Holt’s conclusion [that Saddam did not pose an immediate WMD threat] more seriously. What was she doing? What intelligence was she looking at? I was looking in part at the fact that all these Democratic leaders — people like Harman — were for the war, and assumed they wouldn’t be doing so without good reason. But, obviously, they were. So why were they? Why was she?”