The point being that if it was a done deal, why isn’t Pelosi out there stating her support publicly? If Reyes doesn’t have a chance because Pelosi has already decided, why not end the vying with a public announcement? Pelosi went on record with her support for Murtha, afterall, depsite all the critcism piled on his candidacy.

You’re just stirring up shit because you want to paint Democrats in a particular light, before anything has even been announced or decided.

I’m reserving judgement to see what Pelosi ultimately does. You’ve already judged her. Why? Because you’re a fucking hack. It’s that simple.

Pelosi’s office said that Hastings and Reyes are “vying for the chairmanship,” not that Pelosi is considering both of them. Look up the word “vying” in the dictionary. Hastings and Reyes are the subjects of the verb “vying,” not Pelosi.

And who’s reporting “second hand what they say they were told by an unknown source”?

The leadership told us a long time ago that it was going to happen, and I believe it’s going to happen.

Are you calling Melvin Watt a liar?

Jesus Christ. I guess we should just throw out the whole concept of “presumed innocence” or “innocence” altogether because of OJ fucking Simpson.

You went to trial and were acquitted? Fuck it. You’re still guilty — because of OJ Simpson.

They investigated Bob Gates and but didn’t charge him wiht anything? Fuck it. He’s still guilty because of OJ Simpson.

Tomlinson was investigated, found to have broken the law but no charges were ever filed by the Bush Justice Department? Fuck it. Still guilty because of OJ Simpson.

You guys are a real brain trust.

Um, dipshit, you “forgot” to quote the actual response from Pelosi’s office:

Pelosi’s office declined to comment on Hastings’s possible appointment, except to say that he and Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Tex.), a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, are vying for the chairmanship.

So what you have, again, is someone reporting second hand what they say they were told by an unknown source while the person actually making the decision reports that their are still competing candidates.

Which goes again to my original point which is not that Hastings should be the chair of the Intelligence Committee but that you have been totally dishonest in your representation of the factors at play in the process.

Oh, and I love it that you nevertheless felt the need to defend Tomlinson by attacking the democrats. Like I said, you’re a hack.

Your response is here in another thread.

Meanwhile, frameone five days ago:

Not only has nothing been confirmed about Hastings appointment, it’s all just anonymous sources and rumors

The New York Times today:

Black Caucus Chairman Melvin Watt (D-N.C.) said the Hastings decision should be a done deal. “The leadership told us a long time ago that it was going to happen, and I believe it’s going to happen,” he said.

Shooting fish in a barrel.

Alcee, I think you’re history.

This is hilarious. Watching people already making excuses for corrupt Democrats in leadership positions. OJ was acquitted too Frame.

Hastings was acquitted of bribery charges in criminal court. But he was impeached and removed from office by the House of Representatives and the Senate on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

Read the bill here. It’s laugh out-loud funny. Sections include: SEC. 503. ENDING 2-DAY WORK WEEKS. and SEC. 504. KNOWING WHAT THE HOUSE IS VOTING ON. And Murtha’s most despised (I’m sure) SEC. 502. CURBING ABUSES OF POWER.

I guess Murtha’s been sucking on the crack pipe of payola for so long, he’s getting the shakes just thinking about getting clean.

Maybe we’ll see him on next week’s Intervention.

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) told a group of Democratic moderates on Tuesday that an ethics and lobbying reform bill being pushed by party leaders was “total crap,” but said that he would work to enact the legislation because Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) supports it.

“Even though I think it’s total crap, I’ll vote for it and pass it because that’s what Nancy wants,” Murtha told the Blue Dogs, according to three sources who were at the meeting.

Lip service to ethics and lobbying reform. But remember, Murtha has a (D) after his name, so it’s all A-OK with OW.

However, in all fairness to OW, the rest of the Left blogosphere (here and here) is starting to fall in line behind Murtha as well.

Tomlinson signed invoices worth about $245,000 for a friend without the knowledge of other board members or staff, used the board’s office resources to support his private horse racing operation and overbilled the organization for his time, according to the report. On a few occasions, the report said, he billed for the same time worked on both the Broadcasting Board of Governors and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, on whose board he was a member until resigning in November 2005.

Ya, Tuco, maybe if you stayed up with
current events instead of obsessing over shit that happened 20 years ago you’d have more of a clue.

And I love that “if.” Please by all means, blast away:

A report by the State Department’s inspector general, released Aug. 29, said Tomlinson misused government funds for two years as chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. Tomlinson disputed the allegations in the report.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Washington concluded that a criminal investigation was not warranted, according to the State Department report. At the same time, the report said a civil investigation related to charges that he had hired a friend as a contractor was pending.

Unless you want to tell me that we should give Tomlinson the benefit of the doubt, despite what the inspector general’s report said, but we should give no credence to the fact that Hastings was acquitted of all charges in court 20 years ago.

Hopefully, not at the same time you’re posting here (I say this because some of your comments seem a little out of whack).

I was looking for a link to a story about “BUsh” making a nomination, but got a year-old story instead.

Help me put the pieces together. But you still don’t get it. If this guy is dirty, I’ll be the first to blast the appointment.

You, however, are such a knee-jerk defernder of anything with a “D” next to it, you look foolish.

First you go into high dudgeon because I dare suggest that Pelosi might appoint Hastings. Even after it’s quite clear that she’s been telling people that she’s thinking about it.

Then, you defend her in the event she actually does appoint him, with some weak argument about how impeachment and conviction by the Senate is just a mere technicality.

Draw whatever conclusions you want.

Also please send money for porn, since apparently it keeps the terrorists from attacking.

Also look up “Post hoc ergo propter hoc.”

In the last 5 years (post 9/11), there has not been a single terrorist attack taking place in the US. During this same time frame, the Republicans (whether or not they’re still conservatives) have been in power. The Democrats have not been in power.

Draw whatever conclusions you want.

Naturally. Are you telling me that we have yet to actually see what conservatives would do to keep us safe?

So everything I’ve been hearing for the last 5 years that Bush’s record proves conservatives are better at national security has been total bullshit?

Awesome, drone. Awesome.

Murtha, Godfather of hte Culture of Corruption

I didn’t support them, and even if they had somehow won, it would hardly have been a conservative victory. It would been a victory of “business as usual”.

But hey, don’t forget that new myth “the-election-tsunami-of-2006-means-that-America-has-solidly-rejected-conservative-values” that’s going around:

“But the great Democratic wave of 2006 is nothing remotely like the great structural change some are trumpeting. It was an event-driven election that produced the shift of power one would expect when a finely balanced electorate swings mildly one way or the other.

This is not realignment. As has been the case for decades, American politics continues to be fought between the 40-yard lines. The Europeans fight goal line to goal line, from socialist left to the ultranationalist right. On the American political spectrum, these extremes are negligible. American elections are fought on much narrower ideological grounds. In this election, the Democrats carried the ball from their own 45-yard line to the Republican 45-yard line.

The fact that the Democrats crossed midfield does not make this election a great anti-conservative swing. Republican losses included a massacre of moderate Republicans in the Northeast and Midwest. And Democratic gains included the addition of many conservative Democrats, brilliantly recruited by Rep. Rahm Emanuel with classic Clintonian triangulation. Hence Heath Shuler of North Carolina, anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-tax — and now a Democratic congressman.

Moreover, ballot initiatives make the claim of a major anti-conservative swing quite problematic. In Michigan, liberal Democrats swept the gubernatorial and senatorial races, yet a ballot initiative to abolish affirmative action passed 58-42. Seven out of eight anti-gay marriage amendments to state constitutions passed. And nine states passed referendums asserting individual property rights against the government’s power of eminent domain.”

Need more? Look no further than these post-election poll results:

…a bare majority of 51 percent called the Democrats’ victory “a good thing”

That’s more like a tide change than a tsunami.

You know if you guys want to argue that the Republican leadership aren’t really conservatives and never have been, could you please tell us whose been supposedly “keeping us safe” these past years?

Frankly, I’m not really sure who those guys are, since they fell away from conservatism over the last 12 years. All I can tell you is what they haven’t been: Democrats.