by skeptic06, Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 04:35:07 AM EST
I'm aware that there are many in and around this blog who view with favor the candidacy of Alcee Hastings for the chair of the HIC.
As a matter of public service, I bring to their attention the nauseating hoax perpetrated by certain evil-doers in circulating a letter, purportedly from the hand of Hastings himself, but which, from its general tenor and its every detail, is clearly the work of an vicious prankster and satirist.
I'm shocked at the way a former officer of the court should be lampooned in this way.
by skeptic06, Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 05:01:56 AM EST
A straw in the wind.
A Post piece today touching on Harman/Hastings has this nugget:
One alternative, according to a senior Democratic staff member who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak for his boss, would be for Pelosi to give Harman the chairmanship of an intelligence panel subcommittee, rather than just dropping her from the committee.
Sidney enjoyed some good lovin' this morning on the strength of that, I reckon!
It's a crazy idea that Harman will tell Pelosi to shove: being demoted to be under Hastings - don't go there... - is far worse than simply being kicked off the committee. But it's clearly a concession.
Could the Blue Dogs be sensing that din-dins will not be long in arriving?
by maconblue, Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 05:56:06 AM EST
Wearied from the Pelosi-Hoyer-Murtha blood-letting? Well now it looks like we may well have a reprise of precisely the same imperfect storm of the personal vindictiveness and possible ethical improprieties in the selection of the intelligence committee chair. The personalities here are even less familiar than in the majority leader race, but from what I've read, the Alcee Hastings-Jane Harman controversy looks like a yet worse nightmare for both Pelosi and the Democrats. Primer and observations follow. . .
by skeptic06, Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:21:58 AM EST
I started on this line with a piece by Chris on Friday, which included this (referring to a Time piece from October):
There are two other major pressing reasons that Harman should not be the chair. The first is that Harman is under investigation for illegally trying to use AIPAC in order to become the chair...
As it happens, that's not true. Or, rather, is grossly misleading.
I pointed out in a comment that the Post amongst others had, a few days after the Time piece came out, confirmed from FBI sources that the Harman investigation had been inactive for months.
I then come across this blog piece which links other lefty web scribes who tell half the truth.
by skeptic06, Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 03:57:31 PM EST
The story so far: Pelosi hates Harman and wants to suck up to the CBC; she proposed to install Hastings as HIC chair; Hastings was a crooked judge; lots of folks have been saying Don't do it!
I've tracked the saga here since May.
All this time, there seemed to be a safe compromise candidate available: Silvestre Reyes, #3 Dem on the HIC now. I had no information on the guy - mostly because I never looked - and was happy to pencil him in as the tertium quid (or should that be deus ex machina?).