Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   USA Today praises Pelosi for withdrawing nomination of impeached judge; not so much for nominating him in the first place   (news.yahoo.com) divider line
24
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

184 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Nov 2006 at 12:02 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



24 Comments     (+0 »)
 
PatMcCroch
2006-11-30 11:27:25 AM  
Thats the difference between repugs and dems.

Repugs talk about being moral and not corrupt and dems actually do what they say. Alcee didn't get the Nod and Murtha didn't get the nod (even tho he didn't take a bribe but that doesn't stop the right-wing hate machine) and looks like jerfferson is getting voted out.

The repug never seemed to do anything like that. They just would keep spinning and blaming. What say you now cons?
 
Puppeteer_23
2006-11-30 11:29:50 AM  
In other news, George W. Bush appointed convicted Iran-Contra felons in the early days of his administration, and didn't withdraw their nominations.
 
TheConvincingSavant
2006-11-30 12:00:32 PM  
But, but Bush...
 
PatMcCroch
2006-11-30 12:07:19 PM  
>>TheConvincingSavant

That argument doesn't work when you are showing the hypocracy of the right. You really don't get it.
 
Manfred J. Hattan
2006-11-30 12:17:31 PM  
not so much for nominating him in the first place

Except that the Speaker doesn't "nominate" people to the Intelligence Committee. She just names them or doesn't. There's no caucus vote like there is for Majority Leader. She was thinking of naming him and she didn't. That's a good thing and Rep. Pelosi should get credit for it.

In other news, everything in the article about Rep. Harman is true, but what it leaves out is that there has long been an informal term limit for service on the Intelligence Committee, which limit Rep. Harman would exceed if she continued service on it. So even if Pelosi and Harman were BFF, it would be normal for Harman not to remain on the committee.

Bad article, no cookie.
 
flavor of the month
2006-11-30 12:17:47 PM  
methinks submitter is not exactly up to date on the procedural aspect of chairman selection
 
TofuTheAlmighty [BareFark]
2006-11-30 12:19:38 PM  
What a horrible editorial. Mind-numbingly factually inaccurate. Hastings was never a candidate, he was only the second-longest Dem on the intel committee; "seniority" isn't recognized so as to facilitate emplacing the most capable chair. Also, Harman has served as ranking Dem for 4 of the last 6 terms, meaning she'shiat the term limit for "most senior" Dem on the intel committee. Had Pelosi chosen Harman for chair, she'd have been showing Harman special treatment.

This intel committee dustup is nothing but a smear campaign against Pelosi.
 
HappyDaddy
2006-11-30 12:20:31 PM  
PatMcCroch: That argument doesn't work when you are showing the hypocracy of the right. You really don't get it.

The repug never seemed to do anything like that. They just would keep spinning and blaming. What say you now cons?

In a world with so many beautiful colors, it is a shame that you see only black and white.
 
HappyDaddy
2006-11-30 12:22:08 PM  
TofuTheAlmighty: This intel committee dustup is nothing but a smear campaign against Pelosi.

Waged by whom, the CBC?
 
moops
2006-11-30 12:23:24 PM  
What say you now cons?

They'll just whine about Patrick Kennedy.
 
pistol1557
2006-11-30 12:26:22 PM  
Smitty

Reason number one you are an idiot: This is not a position for which the Chair is "nominated." They get picked. So Pelosi did not nominate Hastings. There are no hearings or confirmation proceedings for this position. You can't withdraw a nomination you never made.

Which dovetails nicely into reason the second: Pelosi never said she wanted to pick Hastings. This is a story that is entirely made up. Point me to direct attribution please, no innuendo, or rumor, where Pelosi says that Hastings is her guy.

I guess it is to much to ask of you wingers to actually take a look at the facts before you fly off the handle about something. How do you pack so much dumbness into one little headline?
 
bmasso
2006-11-30 12:27:17 PM  
PatMcCroch : Thats the difference between repugs and dems.

What, that we don't mispell Democrat for reasons of juvenile humor as much?
Or that we get elected on a platform of ethics reform we at least wait
until actually taking office to try to go back on it?
BTW, the 9/11 report the Dems were DEMANDING the Repubs impliment
without changes - the Dems have decided not to impliment the report
themselves - as it applies to Congress.

Repugs talk about being moral and not corrupt and dems actually do what they say. Alcee didn't get the Nod and Murtha didn't get the nod

Which is a GOOD thing.
But why consider them at all?

(even tho he didn't take a bribe but that doesn't stop the right-wing hate machine)

And it's members like Nancy Pelosi, and Ted Kennedy and everyone ELSE in the (then) DEM House & Senate who impeached and convicted him FOR asking for bribes. Asking is sufficient, if your co-conspirator is arrested with the money before he can pass your cut on - asking still counts.

and looks like jerfferson is getting voted out.

Good thing, if it happens.

...... They just would keep spinning and blaming.
What say you now cons?

Alcee is elected, it's been decades since the bribes,
I say, OK, let the voters elect who they want.
But leadership positions? Nu uh.

I'm not sure what's more unsettling, that Pelosi
actually seriously considered appointing as HEAD
of the Intel Com. someone who couldn't (sans congessional seat)
get the clearances to sweep floors at a classified location...
or that she almost did it out of personal spite against a qualified fellow Dem.

Not a good start.
 
LocalCynic
2006-11-30 12:29:27 PM  
Sorry, haters, God's not finished with Alcee Hastings yet.
 
PatMcCroch
2006-11-30 12:31:43 PM  
>>bmasso

its a great start. The dems are follwing thru on their promises of being less corrupt. Those accused mostly didnt' do any corrupt in year and even them some didn't do anything at all and they were refused positions. It shows that even if they are accused they are considered unfit for duty.

Can the repugs say that? No of course not they get promotions.

Also the dems are going to implement most if not all of the 9/11 comission report just not some of the un-needed things.
 
kregh99
2006-11-30 12:37:58 PM  
I'm sure when this judge was approached by Pelosi, he came right out and said that he was impeached.

She did the right thing.
 
HappyDaddy
2006-11-30 12:39:18 PM  
pistol1557: Which dovetails nicely into reason the second: Pelosi never said she wanted to pick Hastings. This is a story that is entirely made up. Point me to direct attribution please, no innuendo, or rumor, where Pelosi says that Hastings is her guy.


All I can tell you is that the notion that Hastings was Pelosi's guy was reported by the "mainstream" media, including MSNBC and the New Republic. I haven't found her quoted as saying so, but they usually don't just make up stuff, or rely on Republican sources for what the Democrat Speaker will do.
 
LocalCynic
2006-11-30 12:39:51 PM  
bmasso: Not a good start.

Just for a little reference, Newt Gingrich didn't have a "good start" either. He picked a fight over the majority whip and backed the losing person. For the record, the person who won that leadership post was Tom DeLay.

But hey, keep playing up your non-story about so-called Democratic in fighting. Your guys still lost, get over it.
 
HappyDaddy
2006-11-30 12:42:14 PM  
PatMcCroch: just not some of the un-needed things.

Like the reorganization of Congress's oversight of intelligence operations, which the Commission said was the most one of the most important recommendations it had?
 
HappyDaddy
2006-11-30 12:43:55 PM  
kregh99: I'm sure when this judge was approached by Pelosi, he came right out and said that he was impeached.

If I remember right, Pelosi voted to impeach Hastings, so she already knew.
 
pistol1557
2006-11-30 12:56:33 PM  
HappyDaddy

All I can tell you is that the notion that Hastings was Pelosi's guy was reported by the "mainstream" media, including MSNBC and the New Republic. I haven't found her quoted as saying so, but they usually don't just make up stuff, or rely on Republican sources for what the Democrat Speaker will do.

If you take an objective look at the evidence, it is all innuendo. It popped up in a lot in op-eds, but not as much in the actual reporting. That's what p1sses me off about this story, it follows the same form as a junior high game of telephone.

You really have to do better than "The media kept saying it, so it must be true," to prove your point. The Hastings v. Harman narrative was a nice vehicle for taking shots at Pelosi. That's what drove it. And still drives it.
 
Fakk
2006-11-30 1:17:53 PM  
TofuTheAlmighty: This intel committee dustup is nothing but a smear campaign against Pelosi.

Amazingly, it's still not nasty enough for submitter.

But anyway...back on message...LIBRUL MEDIA! LIBRUL MEDIA!
 
HappyDaddy
2006-11-30 1:25:36 PM  
pistol1557: You really have to do better than "The media kept saying it, so it must be true," to prove your point.

It isn't my point. I don't know what her plans were. Hastings has taken his name out of consideration and I am glad. I hope that Speaker Pelosi wouldn't have given him the job in any event.
 
2wolves [TotalFark]
2006-11-30 1:48:49 PM  
Harriet Myers.
 
AntiNerd
2006-11-30 4:09:15 PM  
Fun facts to know and tell: Pelosi never said she wanted Hastings for the job.
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments


Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

Total access
Total knowledge
Total Fark

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.