I think it is important to have an inclusive Congress.
We have a particularly distinguished member of Congress that represents a unique constituency. He is the only living former judge to have been impeached, and by a Congress controlled by his own party. He successfully beat the criminal charges for bribery when on the bench. He has liabilities according to his disclosure reports of about $2,000,000 and assets of about $15,000.
Try as you might, you just won’t find another guy like Alcee Hastings. He is my choice for the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. I hope he is Pelosi’s choice as well.
Just curious: he’s been re-elected to Congress a whole bunch of times (now there for 14 years?). Seems like his actual constituents want him in Congress. Do you think his actual constituents would like him to have power, or not? Why do they keep re-electing him?
The districts of people like Hastings, Jefferson, Rangle and the like are contorted so that they can only elect a black Democrat. Those districts are not going to view bribery as anything other than a resume enhancement. So what if they stole? They stole from “the man.” That is OK, even laudatory. These guys could get elected from a prison cell.
I am guessing you would vote again for Bill Clinton, given the chance, despite his perjury, and that you voted for Menendez, despite his corruption, and would have voted for The Torch had he not been forced aside. If I am mistaken about that, please accept my apologies in advance.
I don’t actually have any problem with this. That is democracy at work, and democracy is not often pretty. That doesn’t mean a guy like this should be Chairman of our Intelligence Committee though.
Sorry, but I don’t have a link to the financial disclosure statements. I am repeating a blog report from somewhere that looked credible, but could be wrong.
Edited to add: You can follow the links from here to get the disclosure form: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/h000324/
My summary was inaccurate. It should have been $1,500, not $15,000 in assets, and over $2,000,000, but perhaps as much as $7,000,000 in liabilites.
He keeps getting elected for the reason most incumbents get elected. The congressional districts are drawn so there is very little competition. Then there is hardly ever a primary challenge, so an incumbent cruises to victory in the primary then the odds are stacked that they win the general elections.
People talk about the BIG changes in Congress from this election. 6 percent of the 435 are gone. Not a very big change.
The districts of people like Hastings, Jefferson, Rangle and the like are contorted so that they can only elect a black Democrat. Those districts are not going to view bribery as anything other than a resume enhancement. So what if they stole? They stole from “the man.” That is OK, even laudatory. These guys could get elected from a prison cell.
Nobody is forcing any voter to pull the lever for anyone. In Jefferson’s district, there were a whole bunch of people running, including a Republican. If you meant to say that the districts are established to ensure a majority of likely supporters, I’ll agree, but they still have to choose to pull that lever. And to inject “black Democrat” seems a bit racially tinted, as I understand that all districts are contorted to best serve the party in power, independent of the racial makeup of the candidate.
I am guessing you would vote again for Bill Clinton, given the chance, despite his perjury, and that you voted for Menendez, despite his corruption, and would have voted for The Torch had he not been forced aside. If I am mistaken about that, please accept my apologies in advance.
Yes, I’d vote for Clinton. I voted for Menendez despite the alleged corruption. I listened to an interview with Kean, Jr. the week before the election (WNYC interviewed both candidates at length), and his defense of the corruption charge was really weak (he had nothing to say when told that the person in charge of such things at the time has publically stated that she approved of the rental agreement.
I don’t actually have any problem with this. That is democracy at work, and democracy is not often pretty. That doesn’t mean a guy like this should be Chairman of our Intelligence Committee though.
Seriously, why not? Has he done something in the intervening 17 years or so that has confirmed his lack of suitability? Would you say that, for instance, someone who shows a flagrant disregard for the well-being of others (say, a drunk-driving arrest) is not suitable for an elected position that would put said person in charge of the well-being of many people?
Sorry, but I don’t have a link to the financial disclosure statements. I am repeating a blog report from somewhere that looked credible, but could be wrong.
Disappointing.
“to inject “black Democrat” seems a bit racially tinted”
Well, I will actually agree with the racially tinged observation, but that applies to the district more than my statement. If you follow my link above, you will see the district is 62.5% minority, as compared with the US as a whole of 25%. Save your racist insinuations for those that drew the district.
“Has he done something in the intervening 17 years or so that has confirmed his lack of suitability?”
Not that I know of, no. No bribery in 17 years of which I am aware. As far as I am concerned, it happened yesterday. No admission. No remorse. No forgiveness. They guy should still be in jail.
“disappointing.”
See my edit above.
As with Hastings’s voters, you are happy to overlook crime and corruption when it suits your purposes. So why ask the questions in the first place, since you obviously knew the answer? You would have voted for the Torch too, admit it.
He keeps getting elected for the reason most incumbents get elected. The congressional districts are drawn so there is very little competition. Then there is hardly ever a primary challenge, so an incumbent cruises to victory in the primary then the odds are stacked that they win the general elections.
People talk about the BIG changes in Congress from this election. 6 percent of the 435 are gone. Not a very big change.
Your explanation is certainly as, if not more, plausible than Art’s, where he claims that bribery is a resume enhancement in heavily black districts because it’s “sticking it to the Man.” Of course, a serious analysis would require looking closely at the actual facts of each case, including the specific issues raised and discussed during the successive campaigns, the competition, funding issues, etc. It’s much easier to simply resort to a racial stereotype.
I hope you didn’t think I was racially stereotyping. I was making a comment on how we elect officials, and the fact that our system is set-up for limited competition and our party system that doesn’t want any competition in the primary’s. This isn’t a racial thing, but more politician stereotyping for pretty much everyone above city council.
No, not bent out of shape at all really. People pretty much get the leaders they deserve. Elections have consequences. People make good decisions and bad, and they learn from both. They try to make the best decisions they can going forward. We can ask no more than that.
If Hastings becomes Intelligence Chairman, so be it. We all knew that was a real possibility on November 7.
Hastings was convicted on Article 1. Among those voting to convict were Sens. Harry Reid, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller (who will soon chair the Senate Intelligence Committee), Robert Byrd, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Daniel Inouye, and Frank Lautenberg.
Neat! The usual suspects.