"Sorry Haters"
Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided that Representative Alcee Hastings (D-FL) will not be the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Republicans were making a big deal about the possible Hastings chairmanship, because he was removed from the federal bench for taking a $150,000 bribe back in 1981. Republicans were pounding the Hastings situation as a sign that Democrats were no different then Republicans. Two thoughts: 1) taking a bribe 25 years ago is not the close to the corruption of the modern-day acts of Republicans; 2) even if they were equal, Democrats did not promote Hastings, showing they are different. While Republicans put criminals like Tom Delay, the Democrats showed a distinct difference.Pelosi made the prudent decision by turning down Hastings. Now the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) is sort of pissed, along with Hastings. Hastings explained, "sorry, haters, God is not finished with me yet" - easily the most random comment from a Congressman in a long time. Hastings has vowed to continue to work hard for the Democrats and work with Speaker Pelosi. I hope he and the other CBC forget about this. Really, the guy could not be promoted. The real "haters" that should be upset are the Republican naysayers - this Democratic House seems to be running smoothly.
Pelosi now decides between Jane Harman (D-CA) or some other miscellaneous Democrats. Harman is actually first in line for the position, but Pelosi has previously said she will not get the post. Harman laid down for Bush & Company during the Iraq lead up, and Pelosi seems poised to punish Harman for her failures. Imagine that: being punished for sucking.....just think if the Republicans had ever done that, ever.
Overall, this is not the most exciting story, but it is important. In my estimate, the Pelosi-led Democrats have been flawless. The Hoyer versus Murtha battle was nothing more then healthy. The Hastings "problem" was dealt with. And most importantly, the Democrats seemed poised to follow a series of rational steps once they take office.
By Chuck - 11/29/2006
20 Comments:
Somewhat Related: Talking about Pelosi reminds me of a great bumper sticker I saw recently. It read, "Pelosi 07." I don't think Democrats should waste their time with impeachment (but I do think he is impeachable, but it just ain't happening, so why bother), but I love the concept. Think how incredible it would be to have Bush and Cheney impeached, leaving Pelosi to be President. The only downside would be that President Pelosi would then interfere with Barack Obama's 2008 campaign.
She made the right decision despite CBC pressure. The person who will get the job wil either be Reyes of Texas or someguy from Washignton State - I think his last name is Kent.
Question for day:
Keith Ellison will be sworn in using the Koran. Would anybody have a problem with someone using whatever he/she wanted,say Mad Magazine or Mein Kamph?
Bill of Rights, Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
I have no problem with an elected official who is a Muslim using a Koran just like I would have no problem with a Jewish person using a Torah. In a Democracy, people of faith should be allowed to use the religious text of their choosing when they are sworn into office. Their constituents will pass judgment on the actions of Ellison in the next election.
Fred, I have not read Mein Kampf or the Koran. It is good to know that you have. I'm sure you would agree that it would be pretty wreckless for someone who hasn't to make such a slanderous analogy. Could you elaborate on the similarities for those of us not familiar?
Fred please verbalize why you feel being sworn in with the Koran is so onerous. I also do not think your analogy comparing the literary history and foundation of the worlds two greatest religions to a satirical comic and the autobiography of one of the twentieth century's largest murderers is appropriate.
The democrats must be doing well if this is what you are railing against today. NOr are you even commenting on the posts central theme-that the new leadership in congress understands credibility-and in order to maintain that they did not allow a man of questioable ethics a position of power. I find this quite refreshing in contrast to your parties creation of a veritable cottage industry of sleaze during the Delay years. But alas you will just continue to be a hack for your political allegiances.
Kyle and RTT:
1.no, but I have read a few bios of the Prophet and numerous works on the religion and the mideast.
2. I was not slandering Islam merely asking a question, I in no way connected the 3 works. I was interested in if there is a limit to what one can choose.
3.My compliments to the Dems for not choosing Murtha and denying a corrupt judge/legislator the chair.
4. I thought Delay was an arrogant power hungry asshole that deserved to be brought down.
5. I currently hold no political allegance to either party and merely question those who either ignore or do not believe there is evil and therfore refuse to confront it.I also question those that always percieve things as "we are right and you are wrong" based on some idelogical label.
Kyle aptly broke down the situation. Fred, those were absurdly reckless words.
i have read much of islam and the koran is much less violent than the old testament of the bible.
the terrorsits who hold up korans are just the same as abortion clinic bombers who hold up bibles.
"i in no way connected the three works" - except by putting them in the same sentence to make some kind of point....????
I didn't know there was a statute of limitations on taking bribes concerning a persons current moral character. Chuck, why are you so ready to defend democrats illegal acts, but go after republicans like a pitt bull going after a neighborhood kid? Criminals are criminals despite having a D or R after their name.
fred, i was thinking and I decided to take your word and that it was a misconstrued joke, or something. no big deal regarding the whole koran/mad magazine comments. i retract my "absurdly reckless" comment. if i think about it, i get the q. not sure why it was brought up here and now, but i get your question. that said, its not that hard to draw a line/distinction.
BJ, fair enough.....except, i am unaware i defended Hastings.....
i compared his conduct to Tom Delay - a pretty big insult. and i said he should not get the position of power.
I guess you can say i defended him, but in fact, I weighed his 25 year old conduct and said he is not as bad as much of the current GOP. Its true, so what should i say? do i have to ignore that reality?
but again, i did not say anything positive about him, so you can draw whatever inference you want, i suppose. but i do not see where i defended Hastings criminal acts.
Wrong Chuck, it's worse than anything the republicans have done today.
1) He took cold hard cash directly as a bribe.
2) It was $150,000! 25 years ago!
Let me introduce you to a little friend of mine. Name is inflation. That bribe in today's dollars is staggering.
Keep your blinders on Chuck, it makes for fun reading.
wrong mike. he did something while not in his political capacity. regardless of the money, that's my main difference. Tom Delay, Noe, Cheney, Bob Taft, etc., used their current position of power to get money. Hastings did something very bad at his old job.
and you are so smart with that inflation fact.....never thought of that.
or i did....and I know $150K in 1981 equals about $350K now.
So lets Hastings took $350,000
Is that more then Duke Cunningham who took over $2 million?
Is that more then Tom Noe who took over $10 million?
But i might be too dumb to understand inflation, and maybe Hastings did take more then the Dukester, etc.
but fine, maybe i am wrong. i dont care about hastings. he is an idiot and a crook. I AM NOT DEFENDING HIM. But i will defend myself against all these incorrect personal attacks.
just for the record Chuck, that was a different mike than me.
I never would have called inflation my friend.
I'm with Ben on this - she made the right decision in spite of knowing she would get a lot fo flak from the CBC.
I didng know wether to laugh or be insulted when I am asked if I am implying that all 3 works are similar. The question seemed obvious to me but I will try again. Should a person be able to take into the chamber the thing of his choice, not matter what he wants,for the ceremony? If the answser is there is a limit --who decides and using what criteria?
mike d, thanks for the much needed clarification.
fred, the answer is no. no, you cannot take anything. what's the line to draw? well, its arbitrary, and i am fine with that. courts and law-makers have drawn some definitions of what a "true religion" is. i probably don't agree with a lot of it, but i don't see any other way. an arbitrary line is fair.
its sort of like the Justice Stewarts definition of obscenity....."i know it when i see it"
that will not make a perfect system, but what's the alternative?
But Chuck,
Are you telling me the court says I have to have a religion? If I dont have one why cant I take whatever I want or nothing at all?
Seems to me to be denied to do whatever the hell I wanted at the swearing in ceremony would be violating The First Admendment and numerous of my civil liberties.
Yea a little tongue in cheek but the questions I pose seem to be the same as those people trying to eliminate "in god we trust" etc.
fred do you really feel there is overwhelming sentiment to remove In God We trust. I am as secular as a stone, and I don't care
Look it up there are constant court chalenges to this prhase as well as all other relgious trappings that are a part of government or public funded. But that is not central to my question. Would a line be drawn? If so by whom and where?
I guess the line would be drawn at what constitues the written portion of your practicing religion-If you don't practice any you don't get a bible or other such thing to swear on
Post a Comment
<< Home