An excellent summation: Thank you.

I've been reading about this situation on a variety of blogs, but I have not seen anyone explain one little point that intrigues me. The story is that Pelosi is being pressured by the Congressional Black Caucaus to appoint Hastings to the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee because they want revenge over William Jefferson Clinton (Pelosi asked him to step down from something or other because he is being investigated for criminal conduct). Why would the CBC focus so strongly on Hastings and on this particular committee? Surely, to preserve their own reputation if nothing else, they could have sponsored a better black Congressman/woman for this or another committee. Why is Hastings in particular so important to them? And why is chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee so important to them? Is it just that this committee is susceptible because Pelosi hates Jane Harman, whose seniority otherwise entitles her to the chairmanship? Are all other committee chairs destined for specific individuals so that neither Pelosi nor the CBC has a prayer of appointing Hastings to any committee except the one that rightfully belongs to Harman?

So please explain why the CBC is pressing for the elevation of the execrable Hastings, rather than for another black Congressman/woman with a better reputation, and why they are so focused on the Intelligence Committee in particular, rather than on another less-sensitive committee (some one of which might be given to Hastings with less criticism).

Thanks for the kind words. You raise an excellent question. I suppose only someone within the CBC could answer it definitively, but permit me a (somewhat) educated guess.

There are two aspects to it: 1, why does the CBC stand behind ethically challenged members and 2, why the fight for this particular member (Hastings) and this particular committee chair?

1. Since its inception, the CBC has existed to strengthen the voice of black members, as long as they are Democrats. In the early days, their numbers were fewer, and solidarity was their only weapon to squeeze concessions from leadership, and it remained a tradition as the caucus grew larger and stronger.

On ethics matters, many CBC members have been around long enough to recall when the spotlight was not so bright upon minor perks like lobbyist-paid meals, trips, gifts, jobs for relatives, and the like. These things meant more to members who were not personally wealthy, which includes most of the CBC, so in some respects they see tightened ethics rules as directed more at them than other members. When one of their own is accused, they stand by him until the end. It's part of the solidarity commitment, and the resentment overcomes any qualms about applying it to ethical or legal charges.

2. Hastings is the beneficiary because Intel is the only committee where the Chairman is appointed without regard to seniority. Republicans did away with the strict seniority system for their own assignments after 1994, but Democrats have not. Hastings is therefore the only member with a chance to snag another chair for the CBC, which would further increase their power and influence.

Hoyer's influence not far behind Pelosi's? I think that by winning by a convincing margin against her hand-picked candidate, his influence may now be as great as hers.

Knowing that he could muster nearly two-thirds of the caucus against her choice is going to keep her constantly looking over her shoulder at her rival. And watch for Republicans to bypass her and go straight to Hoyer when looking to compromise on certain key issues.

Good point, Dan.

Hmmmm . . . now that you mention it, while the caucus votes first, the actual organization of the House is a floor vote. If Hoyer could muster about 30 loyalists, and all the Republicans joined him, he could still be elected Speaker . . .

It won't happen, of course - but it's still a pleasant thought, and one which probably has occurred to Pelosi, too.

Sweet dreams, Nancy!

:-D

Jim:
Thank you for giving such close attention and a thoughtful response to my question. I think you are correct. I just wish that politicians could put principle ahead of identity politics and personal pique. (And what planet do I live on, you ask?)

In regard to your response to Dan:
I hope bloggers on both sides will push for Hoyer to be elected Speaker. When even the New York Times criticizes Nancy for an incredibly bad start, then surely both sides of the aisle (and those of us in the audience at home, who also play to win) can recognize that someone else would be a better choice for America. That said, I don't know anything about Hoyer, except that he can't possibly be worse than Nancy.

I know that many folks online have been crowing about how the bad job Nancy is doing will lead to Republican gains in 2008. But I really think we are in such danger now that even a short period of bad decision-making in the House will be ruinous. I would like to see the Democrats defeated, but I would like more to see America win. And for that we need better leadership than Nancy.

Oops. In my original post, I wrote "William Jefferson Clinton." I meant William Jefferson. I can't image how I came to make a mistake like that.

I see that the dim's first 100 hours have became the first 10 years. Everything they are now considering will raise the price of fuel, raise the price of electricity, raise your taxes and raise your taxes. Nothing new there for the democrats.

Still smiling and laughing at the fools that voted all of the major increases in cost of living and less money in the pocket on themselves.

Word up Scrapiron: the Dems are not in charge yet. And I don't see how a minimum wage increase, bargaining for cheaper drugs, and cutting student loan interest rates is gonna hurt the average person.

I know you are eager to damn Pelosi, to find fault, but I think American would work a lot better if instead of blind party loyalty, we focused on balanced, decent policy and accountability.

Blogs like this, and to some extent others, make me wish people were more concerned about how government is working, the unchecked power of corporations, and all of the things that leave people like you and I (assuming you are not worth more than $200 million or on the CFR) struggling to keep up while the rich and powerful "play games" with troops, spending, tax law, and corporate accountability.

I'm a center-left progressive, you seem like a rightist conservative, but I bet we want a lot of the same things:

Effective public schools
An end to religious intolerance/fundamentalism
A steady job market (with REAL wages)
Fewer abortions and STDs
An open government (who is lobbying congress? how much are they getting? Why did they change their vote at 2 in the morning?)
a fair taxation system
more coverage and efficacy for health care dollars

The list goes on and on. To me it's like a Pistons fan and a Pacers fan arguing about who dunks better or punches fans better or fights harder, while the game becomes more boorish, less entertaining and more about "the player" or "the team" than the actual game.

Civility is a good start. Calling 37,000,000 Americans fools, or Pelosi a "wicked witch", or Bush an alcoholic, does nothing. It distracts from the real game, the game that has existed since we formed a group: Making sure we don't let the people in power tell us how to live our lives, and taking them out when they do a horrible job.

For whatever you might mock about the Dems, your time is best spent holding your party accountable, keeping an open mind, and remembering that NOT voting for change when things are broken and corrupt is even more sad and depressing for mankind.

Civility and civics. What an idea.