Nothing Really Changes

Defeat?  What defeat?

The depleted House Republican caucus, a minority in the next Congress, convenes at 8 a.m. in the Capitol Friday on the brink of committing an act of supreme irrationality. The House members blame their leadership for tasting the bitter dregs of defeat. Yet, the consensus so far is that, in secret ballot, they will re-elect some or all of those leaders.

In private conversation, Republican members of Congress blame Majority Leader John Boehner and Majority Whip Roy Blunt in no small part for their midterm election debacle. Yet, either Boehner, Blunt or both are expected to be returned to their leadership posts Friday. For good reason, the GOP often is called "the stupid party."


Meanwhile, our new overlords aren't any better.  Nancy Pelosi is moving ahead with her plan to pass over Rep. Jane Harman for House Intelligence Committee in favor of Rep. Alcee Hastings, a former federal judge impeached for taking bribes.  The decision apparently boils down to little more than a catfight between Pelosi and Harman.  No word yet on what the speaker-to-be plans to do with Rep. Mollohan and his seat on the Appropriations Committee.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    "The decision apparently boils down to little more than a catfight between Pelosi and Harman."

    Sure. It's got nothing to do with Harmon supporting the Iraq War and carrying water for the Bush administration's shady intelligence practices for five years.

    It's just girls being catty.

  • thoreau||

    I can see the wisdom of removing Harman.

    Here's my question about Hastings: Was he convicted by the Senate after being impeached by the House? I thought that under the Constitution you couldn't hold federal office after being convicted by the Senate.

    As far as the House Republicans re-electing failed leaders, the most obvious explanations is that Boehner and/or Blunt have pictures that involve House Republicans and goats.

    That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

  • ||

    Thoreau,

    According to Wikipedia he was convicted by the Senate in 1989. Personally, I see nothing wrong with allowing someone who we know took bribes as a judge head the House Intelligence Committee, but YMMV.

    Apparently, the Senate did not exercise its option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office.

  • ed||

    a catfight between Pelosi and Harman

    I would pay to see that.
    Double if it's in a mud pit.

  • ||

    YMMV? And for what it's worth, former Sen. Bob Graham (who seems credible to me anyway on intel. issues, if hawkish) wrote a letter to the editor in Saturday's? Wash. Post supporting Hastings, so take that for what it's worth.

  • ||

    That catfight comment is really over the top.

    Can't Pelosi just be a politician who doesn't care for/agree with another politician? Because they are women it has to be a "cat fight"?

  • ||

    I think when it involves Congresswomen, it is a catfight.

  • ed||

    Because they are women it has to be a "cat fight"?

    Only if you view Congress as a Seinfeld episode.
    Which is how I prefer to do it.

  • thoreau||

    Hey, don't insult the cast of Seinfeld by comparing them to Congress.

    I have a big problem with a guy who took bribes as a federal judge holding any position of authority again. Especially one where he's privy to classified information.

  • Meyer||

    I'm with joe. Who cares what Hastings did in the past? He won't sell out our civil liberties like Harmon did, and as a libertarian that's what is most important.

  • ||

    That catfight comment is really over the top.

    Can't Pelosi just be a politician who doesn't care for/agree with another politician? Because they are women it has to be a "cat fight"?


    Agreed!

    Language matters, especially when you're writing for an audience all too willing to turn every post about a woman into "hot or not?".

  • ||

    He won't sell out our civil liberties like Harmon did, and as a libertarian that's what is most important.

    For some reason I'm tickled by the use of the word "sell" in a defense of a convicted bribe-taker.

  • ||

    Amen; why, we're not really facing any security threats. Corrupt judges, national intelligence, nothing to see here, just move along folks. I love the sober, pragmatic thinking on this comment board.

    I too am offended by the catfight remark. If you're going to bring up catfights at least choose hotter chicks for the analogy.

  • R C Dean||

    Personally, I see nothing wrong with allowing someone who we know took bribes as a judge head the House Intelligence Committee, but YMMV.

    I chose to read this remark as being written in a tone of deadpan irony.

    Simply because I try not to believe that any of my confreres here at H & R are such complete partisan tools as to believe that someone impeached by his own party for corruption in office should head any committee, much less the House Intelligence Committee.

  • ed||

    at least choose hotter chicks for the analogy

    OK...ummm, Hillary and Barbara Boxer?

  • ||

    OK...ummm, Hillary and Barbara Boxer?

    Aaaaaghhh! NO! NO! NO!

    *sound of drill going through skull to remove images from mind*

  • ||

    On a more serious note, I'm surprised Radley didn't notice that Pelosi is supporting John "Earmark" Murtha for Majority Leader...

  • ||

    And I, for one, welcome our new feline overlords.

    RrrrrROWRRR...hisssss....

  • ||

    I see. Impeached for bribery, corruption, and perjury is okay. Um, right. Voters are stupid, politicians are venal.

    So much for cleaning things up, huh?

    Incidentally, it's Harman, not Harmon (it's right in the posting, intermittently wrong in the comments).

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    the cat fight comment was over the top...........

    I hate to break the news, but at least half the remarks appearing on these pages are over the top.

    However, using the term cat fight is no more denigrating or (your term of choice goes here) than using the term pissing match to describe two hard headed men who can't agree about ending an argument.

    Besides, the point is that Pelosi IS pissy about Harman and cat fight gets the point across nicely.

    She's also under pressure from the CBC and doesn't have the intestinal fortitude (should I have said cajones?) to tell them to pound salt.

  • ||

    is referring to the disagreement between two women as a catfight more offensive or less offensive than Julian's post last week on the yumminess of Santorum's daughter's tears and the concomitant comments filled with dead baby jokes?

  • ||

    should I have said cajones?

    No, but it would have been OK if you'd said "cojones."

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Okay, cojones then. That word isn't in the spell checker. But, you DID know what I meant. :-)

    The difference between guts and cojones:

    GUTS: After a late night out with the guys you arrive home fully plowed. As you stagger through the front door you're assaulted by your wife with a broom. You then demand to know, Are you still cleaning? Or flying off somewhere for the night? That's guts.

    COJONES: After a late night out with the guys you arrive home reeking of alcohol and perfume with lipstick on your collar and a ring of hickeys around your neck. Stumbling through the back door, you slap your wife on the backside and say: You're next, Babe. That's cojones.

  • ||

    Silent lurker just proven to be a minority,

    "Amen; why, we're not really facing any security threats."

    It is the severity of the security threats we're facing that makes an adversarial intelligence committee so important.

    The Iraq Debacle, and the sidelining of the war against Al Qaeda that attended it, have done tremendous harm to this nation's security. We simply cannot allow any more WMD or Saddam/bin Ladin scams to be perpetrated upon the Congress and the American people. The stakes are too high. The people who let those scams happen need to be put out to pasture.

  • ||

    The decision apparently boils down to little more than a catfight between Pelosi and Harman.

    It has more to do with the Congressional Black Caucus demanding someone with darker skin for the Chair, than a personal disagreement with Harman. The CBC seems to think it is owed something for the 'insult' of removing Congressman William Jefferson of the 2nd District of Louisiana.

  • ||

    We simply cannot allow any more WMD or Saddam/bin Ladin scams to be perpetrated upon the Congress and the American people. The stakes are too high. The people who let those scams happen need to be put out to pasture.

    Already been done, joe. Bill Clinton has been out of office for almost 6 years now. ;-)

  • R C Dean||

    The Iraq Debacle, and the sidelining of the war against Al Qaeda that attended it

    If Iraq is "the sidelining of the war against AQ", then how come we're fighting AQ in Iraq?

    Just askin', is all.

  • ||

    You're right, RC.

    "Retreat" from the war against Al Qaeda would have been a better than "sideline."

    They're fighting us in Iraq, so they don't have to fight us where their global operations centers are.

    I think that was very nice of us, to leave off chasing bin Ladin.

  • ||

    Joe is always agitating for us to invade Pakistan.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement