You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Salon: Dump Pelosi?
2006-11-18
H/T for this and the NYT "Pelosi Tempts Disaster" article to LGF.
Let's put the new House speaker on probation.
Timothy Noah
I'll admit my timing could be better, since the incoming House Democrats, on a unanimous voice vote, just made Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., speaker of the House. But I think her party should give serious thought to dumping her.

The proximate reason, of course, is that she tried (and, thankfully, failed) to install as House majority leader Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. It's bad enough that Pelosi promoted Murtha (over the perfectly acceptable Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., who won the caucus vote) in spite of Murtha's having once been named an unindicted co-conspirator in Abscam, a 1980 FBI sting operation in which G-men posing as representatives of an Arab sheikh offered $50,000 bribes to members of Congress. Even worse is that Pelosi persisted even after a videotape of Murtha's Abscam performance ("I'm not interested Â… at this point") turned up on the Web, and Democrats began fretting that they were about to erase all distinctions between themselves and the Abramoff-tainted Republicans from whom they'd only just wrenched a House majority. Almost before it began, Pelosi's honeymoon is over.
Posted by:.com

#13  The fact is, he's not a felon.

Facts! Shmacts!

Look, .com, I've already made up my mind. So there!
Posted by: Almost Anonymous5839   2006-11-18 20:33  

#12  .com,
Respectfully sir, I'm going to disagree with you. An impeachment - whether by the Senate or the full house - is still a Federal conviction, or at least that's the way I've always been taught. We might end up agreeing to disagree on this one.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2006-11-18 18:43  

#11  RE: # 7 - the exception to the rule was Michael Steele, a Maryland Republican candidate for US Senate, who did not gather a great number of black voters, and lost the election.

He was just too republican - an Oreo. For our overseas readers, that's "black on the outside and white in the middle", like an Oreo sandwich cookie.
Posted by: Bobby   2006-11-18 18:06  

#10  But only as a democrat. All corruption, all the time, your democrat party.
Hey, felons need representation too.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-11-18 17:37  

#9  Right, .Com. The Senate convicted and removed him, but the criminal court jury acquitted him. The sad thing is that the articles of impeachment did not included any disqualification clauses, as specifically allowed by the Constitution, and so he was able to run for his House seat.
Posted by: Eric Jablow   2006-11-18 13:09  

#8  The Black Caucus will be dead along with the rest of us. They don't believe we're in a war, you see.

I hope to see a Pelosi-Hildebeast cat fight.
Posted by: SR-71   2006-11-18 11:54  

#7  he's being pushed by the Black Caucus, strictly due to his race. They should be ashamed, but with a group containing Conyers, Waters, Rangel, et al, shame, patriotism, and conscience is not a factor. Black first
Posted by: Frank G   2006-11-18 11:41  

#6  He was impeached and convicted by the Senate, but not in court and not even by the full Senate. He was acquitted in his criminal trial. Wiki. So...

The fact is, he's not a felon.
Posted by: .com   2006-11-18 11:37  

#5  Hastings - as an impeached Federal judge - is a convicted felon. Were he applying for a GS or military job that involved the handling of classified material and getting a security clearance, he couldn't do it. - and I unfortunately have no doubt that REP Hastings' first actions in charge of the HIC will be to leak as much as he can to anybody he can.

I agree, Mike K. Hastings' potential appointment should represent grounds for Pelosi's (and his own) removal. This is simply outrageous.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-11-18 11:30  

#4  correct, Mick. Alcee's a crook, not a spy. The Chicoms will have to pay cold cash for secrets, which will decrease our trade deficit with them. See, he's doing a public service.

Democrats began fretting that they were about to erase all distinctions between themselves and the Abramoff-tainted Republicans

apparently Noah doesn't read the papers. Hello, Harry Reid! Waiting for the other shoe to fall on the "eight or nine" Democrat senators
Posted by: Frank G   2006-11-18 09:43  

#3  ...and I unfortunately have no doubt that REP Hastings' first actions in charge of the HIC will be to leak as much as he can to anybody he can.

But, for a price, of course!

Posted by: Mick Dundee   2006-11-18 09:27  

#2  ...I'm of really mixed emotions here. I think we're about to find out just how far out of her depth Grandma Marxist really is when she tries to appoint REP Hastings to run the House Intelligence Committee - after all, Napoleon said "Never interrupt your enemies when they are making mistakes." OTOH, the fact is that Hastings - as an impeached Federal judge - is a convicted felon. Were he applying for a GS or military job that involved the handling of classified material and getting a security clearance, he couldn't do it. - and I unfortunately have no doubt that REP Hastings' first actions in charge of the HIC will be to leak as much as he can to anybody he can.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2006-11-18 08:42  

#1  Hoyer's victory is already being portrayed as a humiliating defeat for Pelosi, which it was. But it would have been an even greater defeat for Pelosi to push Murtha through and then suffer the consequences of her own idiotic decision. I doubt she understands that.

The danger now is that Pelosi will honor that promise, creating precisely the same impression that she threatened to create with Murtha, i.e. that House Democrats who engage in bad behavior but manage to escape indictment or beat the rap in court are welcome to positions of high responsibility. In the case of Hastings, we lack videotape, and the evidence is circumstantial. Nonetheless, it is still, as Marcus wrote, "too much to explain away"


If this is any indicator of what to expect from democrats over the next two years, I'd say that the 2008 presidential race is completely wide open.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-11-18 04:39  

00:00