Pelosi decides not to appoint Chairman Hastings...thank goodness!

[elprincipe]

http://www.corruptionchronicles.com/2006/11/alcee_hastings_dumped_by_pelos.html

Well, I guess this was inevitable after the Hoyer/Murtha vote. She doesn't need another loss, especially so soon. Hastings would have been a dreadful mistake to put in charge of such an important committee.

These are the kinds of decisions we could do more with. I don't expect them too often from a polarizing force like Nancy Pelosi, but if her now-more-moderate party continues to force these kinds of issues on her it could work out very well for the country. Remember, Blue Dog Democrats now number 44, easily making them a check on the more ultra-liberal instincts of the likes of Pelosi.

 

[mykevermin]

I'm not a big fan of the link you provided (judicial watch is a conservative, non-partisan group? who would be so foolish as to give themselves subsequent contradictory adjectives?), but Hastings wasn't right.

What I don't quite grasp, however, is the discussion of his liabilities. His judicial impeachment is enough to show he's not trustworthy; what's all this other shit about?

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='mykevermin']I'm not a big fan of the link you provided (judicial watch is a conservative, non-partisan group? who would be so foolish as to give themselves subsequent contradictory adjectives?), but Hastings wasn't right.

What I don't quite grasp, however, is the discussion of his liabilities. His judicial impeachment is enough to show he's not trustworthy; what's all this other shit about?[/QUOTE]

They are suggesting that since he has big debts he is more likely to be influenced through financial means. As they correctly state, there is no way he could get a secret clearance with those types of issues, not even bringing in his impeachment.