It seems like only last week that President Bush was quipping about giving House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi the name of a Republican interior decorator to help her pick out curtains for her new office.
Oh, that's right, it was only last week.
That was a long time ago.
This week we quietly suggest that
The New Republic Online reports that
(I fear the same would be shown to be true of our own Federal ALP, if they make it over the line any time this millennium.)
"In one of her first important acts since Democrats recaptured Congress, Nancy Pelosi is about to make a decision that is both substantively foolish and politically tone-deaf. The decision involves the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee. For obvious reasons, that post has serious implications for national security--as well as the image of a Democratic Party seeking to convince the public it can be trusted to govern. But it appears alarmingly likely that Pelosi will spurn both with a decision based on petty personal and identity politics.
The current ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee is Jane Harman of
. Harman is one of the most respected Democrats in the House on national security and intelligence issues--a widely acknowledged expert in a field that Democrats as a whole are woefully unfamiliar with. Given her current seniority on the committee, Harman is the natural choice to become its chair in the Democratic Congress--and she has made clear that she wants the job. California
All indications are that Pelosi will deny Harman the job and appoint in her place Alcee Hastings of
, a former judge who was impeached on bribery charges--and someone who has left no discernable mark upon the critical intelligence debates of the post-September 11 era. Florida
was awfully unrepentant after his impeachment: "Everybody thinks that to get to be a judge is supposed to be the biggest doo-doo on earth. It aaaiiiin't! It ain't! It's just something else to do," he explained to The Washington Post in 1988 with a reverence for the judiciary befitting his alleged behavior. Hastings
Some have noted that
might flunk a basic FBI background check for a sensitive government job, making him a curious choice to oversee the nation's most sensitive secrets.” Hastings
So, why the peculiar decision making by
Well, in high office one must make difficult and carefully considered decisions in the interests of the nation everyday, and one must do so with consideration to a depth of factors and a level of morality that most of us common folk would find difficult to fathom.
In other words:
It seems that the Democrats might not be up to the responsibility of governing.
[Access to full article on The New Republic Online requires sign-up.]
Meanwhile, the Democrats have already rejected Nancy's choice for majority leader, in lieu of, well, probably someone far more suitable.