Let me return briefly to this issue of who is going to be the chairman of the House Intelligence committee under the Democrats starting in January.
First, though, a brief bit of backstory. In the outgoing Congress, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) was the senior Democrat on the committee. Speaker-elect Pelosi has made it clear that she doesn’t want Harman to continue in that role. And the next most senior member of the committee is Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) of Florida. There are various explanations for why Pelosi wants Harman out, ranging from interpersonal animus to disappointment over her unwillingness to push back hard enough against the White House in the intel wars. I’m honestly not sure which. And I don’t really care.
Going back to well before the election, Harman has been lobbying aggressively to keep her post (which would make her chairman in the new Congress). And Hastings and the Congressional Black Caucus have also been pushing hard to make sure he isn’t passed over.
Now, I’ve noticed in some emails and on some blogs that some are saying that because we’ve been reporting on the ethics cloud over Hastings that this must really mean we’re really secretly pulling for Harman to hold the post. That must be a convenient read for some people. But, alas, not a correct one. TPMmuckraker is a different sort of site than TPM. It focuses on reporting, not opinion. My issue with the intel chairmanship, however, has nothing to do with Jane Harman. I just think it’s a bad idea to have someone chair the intel committee who has previously been impeached and convicted by Congress for corrupt acts.
To the extent that it matters, I’d be happy if the chairmanship went to Harman. I’d be just as happy if it went to Rush Holt — who has less factional backing, but unique qualifications for the position — or someone else. Indeed, if there were some showing that Hastings wasn’t compromised by the incidents that happened in the ’80s, I’d be happy to see him get it. And he might end up being good at the job, notwithstanding. Who knows? People change.
But it’s not about Jane Harman. It’s about Alcee Hastings.
