Less than 24 hours after claim to be "ready to lead", Nancy Pelosi demonstrates that she really doesn't have a clue what the concept means.

"Nancy Pelosi wants total party discipline," a source in the Democratic Party leadership said. "If you played ball with the Republicans during this session, then you're not going to be given an important chair in the next session."

As the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Ms. Harman was expected to become chairman of the powerful committee. But Ms. Pelosi is expected to pass over Ms. Harman for either Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida or Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, the second- and third-ranking Democrats on the intelligence panel.

The 42-member Congressional Black Caucus has been pushing for Mr. Hastings, an impeached federal judge, to become chairman. Earlier this year, the caucus was upset by Ms. Pelosi's decision to expel Rep. William Jefferson from the committee after he was accused of accepting bribes.

"There is no seniority on the Intelligence Committee," Ms. Pelosi said. "The leader or the speaker can appoint a whole new set of people."

The sources said the 61-year-old Ms. Harman, regarded as the best informed House Democrat on intelligence and technology issues, angered the liberal Ms. Pelosi by supporting the Bush administration’s policies on defense issues, particularly the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act. They said Ms. Pelosi has rebuffed lobbyists in the pro-Israel community and defense industry that sought a chairmanship for Ms. Harman.

"If Nancy Pelosi's apparent determination to deny Jane Harman the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee to appease the Black Caucus is any indication, Democratic control is not going to be good news for those who believe in competent oversight of the national-security apparatus," said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute.

Obviously anyone who believes a word that comes out Ms. Pelosi's mouth is a fool, which I guess explains the news media. Even as she is spewing crap out bi-partisanship, she is engaging in Soprano's-style revenge on Jane Harman for--that's right--for not being partisan enough.

Alcee Hastings? The Democrats are completely shameless. Not only is it possible for a impeached former federal judge to get elected a Democrat, but you can become chairman of the House Intelligence Committee because you've been a good soldier, and oh--you're black.

Corruption among Democrats we take for granted. Now apparently we'll add incompetence.

The media is full of mewling about bi-partisanship. Either they're stupid or they think you are.

Bi-partisanship simply means that a policy has so much popular support that the minority party can't realistically oppose it and maintain political viability--that is of course why Democrats voted for the war even as they planned to say they were "tricked" into it. Only when popular support was waning could the Democrats express their normative position on national security. I don't blame them for that--its just smart politics even if most Americans think its slimy.

The Democrats have a big problem of course--no mandate, which of course means no policy, or such policy as can be expected to be as inoffensive as possible to the electorate. As economically-stupid as raising the minimum wage is, the reality is that an ignorant public doesn't like "the boss", and believes he has all sorts of money hoarded away ready to be taxed or mandated away. That one will get "bi-partisan" support.

Its far less clear what other policy measures could conceivably steamroll any opposition. Joe Lieberman's victory in the one race that was clearly and unambiguously a "get us out of Iraq" campaign, a northeastern state of the bluest hue, is a pretty clear indication that there will be no support for the Vietnamization of Iraq.

Democrats find themselves in a very tough position--they can't get out, and they can't stay in.

So yes, in a manner of speaking we'll see "bi-partisan support" for policy in Iraq. On the pet issues Democrats have run and lost on since the 1970s, Republicans should obstruct them with the same vigor Democrats demonstrated since Bush was elected. I want to see Pelosi and Reid cry.

Not surprising since prominent Democrat officials like Murtha have called them murderers, rapists, bullies, etc...

No doubt many are worried that they'll be sacrificed to Molloch for Crat political advantage. Put a few of them on trial, frog-walk them in front of the country, call them "baby-killers".

Its tempting to dismiss the possibility until you realize that the very people running the show were responsible for the vilification of our troops in the Vietnam era.

Troops expressed little pleasure at the departure of the man responsible for their protracted deployment to a hostile country where 2,839 of their comrades have died.

Indeed, some members of the 101st Airborne Division and other troops approached by The Times as they prepared to fly home from Baghdad airport yesterday expressed concern that Robert Gates, Mr Rumsfeld’s successor, and the Democrat-controlled Congress, might seek to wind down their mission before it was finished.

Mr Rumsfeld “made decisions, he stuck with them and he did what he thought was right, whether people agreed with it, liked it, or not”, Staff Sergeant Frank Notaro said. He insisted that Iraq was better off now than before the war.

Staff Sergeant Michael Howard said: “It’s a blow to the military. He was a good Secretary of Defence. He kept us focused. He kept the leaders focused. It’s going to be hard to fill his shoes.”

Because its a British newspaper, it was necessary of course to call the war a disaster and find counterpoint in a coward unnamed colonel's remarks.

But one US army colonel, who did not want to be named, said that such positive views were uncommon in the higher ranks of the US military. “We are the ones closer to the problem. We are the ones who have the broader picture,” he said.

The colonel criticised Mr Rumsfeld for sending too few troops to Iraq, and for refusing to listen to the advice of his generals. He noted that General Eric Shinseki, the former US Army Chief of Staff, was dismissed for demanding more troops, while General John Abizaid, the commander of Central Command, was the sole general to have differed publicly with Mr Rumsfeld and survived.

What a weasel. No better than a terrorist sniping from cover.

Speaking of weasels--the Democrats are turning to none other than George McGovern for advise on running and hiding from the enemy.

George McGovern, the former senator and Democratic presidential candidate, said Thursday that he will meet with more than 60 members of Congress next week to recommend a strategy to remove U.S. troops from Iraq by June.

If Democrats don't take steps to end the war in Iraq soon, they won't be in power very long, McGovern told reporters before a speech at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

"I think the Democratic leadership is wise enough to know that if they're going to follow the message that election sent, they're going to have to take steps to bring the war to a conclusion," he said.

McGovern will present his recommendations before the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a 62-member group led by Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee.

"The best way to reduce this insurgency is to get the American forces out of there," McGovern said. "That's what's driving this insurgency."

McGovern told the audience Thursday that the Iraq and Vietnam wars were equally "foolish enterprises" and that the current threat of terrorism developed because _ not before _ the United States went into Iraq.

McGovern's plan _ as written in his new book, "Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now" _ also calls for the United States to remove hired mercenaries from the region, push for the removal of British troops and establish a temporary transitional force, similar to police, made up of Muslims from the region.

"I've talked with a lot of senior officers _ generals and admirals _ in preparation for this book, that say this war can't be won, that the problems now are not military problems," McGovern told reporters. "There isn't going to be any decisive victory in Iraq."

No names again.

Greed will be the downfall of the Democrats--a surprising statement perhaps since the Crat victory is only a few days old, but its already abundantly clear that the "remarkable unity" the drive-by media was gushing about, was a temporary truce by strange bedfellows.

Even as Nancy Pelosi is pledging bi-partisan cooperation, she is penalizing Jane Harman (D-CA) for having acted in a bi-partisan way during the last session of Congress.

But now we're to the main event--the smoldering grudge between the nutroots and the Clinton machine.

Some big name Democrats want to oust DNC Chairman Howard Dean, arguing that his stubborn commitment to the 50-state strategy and his stinginess with funds for House races cost the Democrats several pickup opportunities.

The candidate being floated to replace Dean? Harold Ford.

Says James Carville, one of the anti-Deaniacs, "Suppose Harold Ford became chairman of the DNC? How much more money do you think we could raise? Just think of the difference it could make in one day. Now probably Harold Ford wants to stay in Tennessee. I just appointed myself his campaign manager."

The nutroots are apopletic about even the suggestion that Crazy Howard would be turned out. Kos makes an appearance and tells Carville to "shut the f**k up..."

Chris Bowers at MyDD stops to think--could Carville actually manage it?

I honestly don't get this. How exactly are they going to push Dean out? Aside from spreading nasty rumors and cutting off big donors, which they've been doing for years, what leverage do they have on Dean? I'm not defending Dean's tenure, I'm just curious why these people seem to think that they can oust him. What do they know that I don't? Or do they just think that the world works through dishonest rumors spread in the CNN green room?

As Bowers later notes--yes they can push Dean out--if they get a majority of delegates to do so.

I don't know squat about the DNC delegates and what winds their clocks, but Carville has a point--Dean probably keeps as much money out of the party as he brings into it. Moreover, the Clintons have always seen value in controlling the DNC. Terry McAuliffe was there man--Howard Dean is not.

There of course is the larger issue which the nutroots simply can't or won't appreciate--the country has rejected them lock, stock and barrel.

Ned Lamont's loss can only be interpreted as a revelation that the nutroots are a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. You can raise money with them, but you can't get elected with them. That makes them a lobby group no more consequential than Emily''s List, not a competitior for power.

From Carville's perspective, Dean has got to go. From Kos' point of view, Carville is the problem. I think they're both right. On one hand you have he mafia--dedicated to power over all other considerations, on the other hand you have crusading liberals completely out of touch with reality--neither has a sustainable basis for being trusted to run the country in the long term.

Nancy Pelosi seems to have two left feet.

Less that a week after being elected, and after promising the most ethical Congress ever, she endorses Jack Murtha for House Democrat Majority Leader over Steny Hoyer.

Now that might not seem too surprising--when she desperately needed a hawk to give the "get-us-out-of-Iraq" some credibility, Jack Murtha stepped up--if stepping up means accusing our troops of murder before the investigation was complete.

Yet until Murtha declared Iraq a lost cause, he was best known for being an unindicted co-conspirator in the ABSCAM, an FBI sting operation conducted in the late 1970s.

Murtha was videotaped "deferring" the bribe until he got to know his new benefactors a little better.

The fact that Murtha did not report the bribe attempt to the FBI both implied that he was indeed planning to take it at a later date, and ran afoul of House ethics rules. He was not censured as a result of a vote down party lines, but the panel's special counsel resigned in protest. Murtha avoided prosecution by throwing over a number of other Congressmen and has been reelected 12 times in his district since.

By contrast, Senator Larry Pressler (R-SD) replied when offered the same bribe, "Wait a minute, what you are suggesting may be illegal." He immediately reported the incident to the FBI. When Senator Pressler was told Walter Cronkite referred to him on the evening news as a "hero" he stated, "I do not consider myself a hero ... what have we come to if turning down a bribe is 'heroic'?"

This is obviously "ancient history", but Murtha also gets a dishonorable mention from Beyond Delay which notes the all-too-cosy relationship between Murtha and various defense contractors.

Paul Magliocchetti worked with Rep. Murtha as a senior staffer on the Defense appropriations subcommittee for 10 years. After leaving the committee, Mr. Magliocchetti founded the PMA Group, which has become one of the prominent Washington, D.C. defense lobbying firms. In the current campaign cycle, the PMA Group and 11 of the firm’s clients rank in the top 20 contributors to Rep. Murtha, having made campaign contributions totaling $274,649.2 In the 2004 and 2002 cycles, PMA and nine of the firm’s clients ranked in the top 20 contributors having made $236,7993 in contributions and $279,074, respectively. In turn, many of PMA’s clients have benefited significantly from Rep. Murtha’s earmarks. In the 2006 Defense appropriations bill, PMA clients received at least 60 earmarks at a total of $95.1 million.

That is just the tip of the iceberg.

KSA Consulting miraculously retained the bulk of its defense contractor clients after hiring Jack Murtha's brother Kit. The resulting "coincidences" between defense contract awards and campaign contributions are too numerous to ignore.

It might be tempting to dismiss all of this as "gotcha politics", but Democrats are looking askance at Pelosi's endorsement as well.

It doesn’t help matters that Murtha was one of exactly four Democrats to vote against their own caucus’ motion last month promoting a tougher ethics reform bill than a sham Republican version. Abscam may be ancient history, and no sinister confluence between Murtha’s work and his brother’s lobbying has been established. Still, Murtha may not be an ideal leader symbolically, at least-for a party determined to reform a “culture of corruption

That's Democrats for ya--deeply concerned about the symbolism, and let the substance be hanged.

While its clear that Pelosi owes Murtha, as House leader she has larger loyalties, or should. A smart leader would have simply stayed out of it. Pelosi's early missteps strongly suggest that she has no real conception of her responsibility to the party, much less the country.

In a demonstration of wiishful thinking, the Republican-lite quality of the freshman class of House members was supposed to moderate the agenda of the moonbat leadership. If you believe that, this should help to crush your hopes.

The intense lobbying has put some freshmen in uncomfortable situations. The Murtha camp was infuriated Friday when Rep.-elect Paul Hodes (D-N.H.) signed a letter with other freshmen supporting Hoyer, charging that Hodes had told them he would remain uncommitted.

“I really can’t comment on what anybody else thought,” Hodes said yesterday. “I consider my word as my bond and I am continuing to support Congressman Hoyer.”

Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a Murtha supporter, said Monday night that Pelosi is playing for keeps.

“She will ensure that they [the Murtha camp] wins. This is hardball politics … We are entering an era where when the Speaker instructs you what to do, you do it,” he said. “Yes, she’s making calls to people. She is contacting people and letting them know that it’s an unequivocal letter.”

Hoyer’s camp was aware of the calls, said one lawmaker supporting the Democratic whip.

“She’s making calls, so don’t be shocked,” the lawmaker said.

Another House Democrat supporting Hoyer was incensed that Pelosi was exerting her influence in the caucus, asserting that it will further divide House Democrats.

“It’s an incredible display of hubris,” the member said, using a phrase Pelosi herself sometimes employs. “It’s incredibly egotistical. We all got us here. We all got us to the promised land and Steny’s not going to the promised land?”

The member said regardless of who ultimately wins the Thursday election, the effect of Pelosi actively getting involved in the race would reverberate for some time.

“Either way, it’s damaging,” the member said. “She will have a tremendous road to hoe to repair the damage she’s done.”

Why the hell do they call themselves Democrats when they have such totalitarian instincts? Pelosi seems to have forgotten if she ever knew it, that these are elected representatives, not a bunch of illegals working at her winery.

I'm not complaining really--Pelosi's errors smell sweet on this side of the screen, but I'm still shocked at how incompetent this woman is. Supporting Murtha is a no-win situation, because whether he wins or loses, there will be recriminations, and if Pelosi is serious enough about imposing Murtha on the caucus, she is going to have to rap some knuckles to do it. That in turn will be a serious blow to morale and unity. The only thing that could really save her would be stupid Republicans--a distinct possibility

My own theory is that she promised this to Murtha in exchange for his rather uncharacteristic "get-us-out-of-Iraq" position. Uncharacteristic? Why yes, Murtha was always known as a hawk. He voted for the war and nothing in his background and Congressional record would have predicted such a backflip--except of course that the man has always been for sale to the highest bidder.

She bought the whore's services, now she's got to pay up.

In a demonstration of wiishful thinking, the Republican-lite quality of the freshman class of House members was supposed to moderate the agenda of the moonbat leadership. If you believe that, this should help to crush your hopes.

The intense lobbying has put some freshmen in uncomfortable situations. The Murtha camp was infuriated Friday when Rep.-elect Paul Hodes (D-N.H.) signed a letter with other freshmen supporting Hoyer, charging that Hodes had told them he would remain uncommitted.

“I really can’t comment on what anybody else thought,” Hodes said yesterday. “I consider my word as my bond and I am continuing to support Congressman Hoyer.”

Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a Murtha supporter, said Monday night that Pelosi is playing for keeps.

“She will ensure that they [the Murtha camp] wins. This is hardball politics … We are entering an era where when the Speaker instructs you what to do, you do it,” he said. “Yes, she’s making calls to people. She is contacting people and letting them know that it’s an unequivocal letter.”

Hoyer’s camp was aware of the calls, said one lawmaker supporting the Democratic whip.

“She’s making calls, so don’t be shocked,” the lawmaker said.

Another House Democrat supporting Hoyer was incensed that Pelosi was exerting her influence in the caucus, asserting that it will further divide House Democrats.

“It’s an incredible display of hubris,” the member said, using a phrase Pelosi herself sometimes employs. “It’s incredibly egotistical. We all got us here. We all got us to the promised land and Steny’s not going to the promised land?”

The member said regardless of who ultimately wins the Thursday election, the effect of Pelosi actively getting involved in the race would reverberate for some time.

“Either way, it’s damaging,” the member said. “She will have a tremendous road to hoe to repair the damage she’s done.”

Why the hell do they call themselves Democrats when they have such totalitarian instincts? Pelosi seems to have forgotten if she ever knew it, that these are elected representatives, not a bunch of illegals working at her winery.

I'm not complaining really--Pelosi's errors smell sweet on this side of the screen, but I'm still shocked at how incompetent this woman is. Supporting Murtha is a no-win situation, because whether he wins or loses, there will be recriminations, and if Pelosi is serious enough about imposing Murtha on the caucus, she is going to have to rap some knuckles to do it. That in turn will be a serious blow to morale and unity. The only thing that could really save her would be stupid Republicans--a distinct possibility

My own theory is that she promised this to Murtha in exchange for his rather uncharacteristic "get-us-out-of-Iraq" position. Uncharacteristic? Why yes, Murtha was always known as a hawk. He voted for the war and nothing in his background and Congressional record would have predicted such a backflip--except of course that the man has always been for sale to the highest bidder.

She bought the whore's services, now she's got to pay up.

Count me in for Jack Murtha as majority leader. I figure if you can't handle a softball interview with Chris Matthews, you're just about right to lead the Democrat party into a 2008 debacle. Matthews preps Murtha for a discussion on the strategic elements of retreat.

MATTHEWS: ... is the hardest thing in the world to pull off, because you’ve got to protect your rear the whole time you’re getting out. As you get weaker and weaker as you redeploy, you’ve got to make sure the last guys out aren’t attacked. Is that a threat?

MURTHA: That’s always a threat, but it’s much worse just to leave the troops there and the mission to be—deteriorate and the military to deteriorate, our strategic reserve deteriorate, and the whole world, the credibility of this country deteriorate. That’s the thing that’s happened.

I wonder if Murtha even had a clue that he was openly talking about retreat? I mean we all know that what the Democrats are about, but to my knowledge, this is the first time I've seen it put so baldly--we've got to cover our asses as we bug out.

I used to think that the lunatic rhetoric of the Democrats was a put-on, a show for the constituents who didn't work hard in school, but lately I'm not so sure. Murtha is worried about the deterioration of our military, our strategic reserve? The nation's credibility if we stay in Iraq? Has he given a moment's though to what happens if we leave? Nevermind the lamentable human rights reprecussions, or the strategic considerations. There won't be any U.S. military and other countries in the world will use their defense treaties with the U.S. as toilet paper.

Gen. Colin Powell referred the military's post-Vietnam situation with the term "the army is broken". Gen Tommy Franks referred to the post-Vietnam era the following way in his autobiography "American Soldier".

For years, these troops had seen the Army's sense of purpose deteriorate, and its tradition of discipline along with it. In fact, the whole U.S. military--and especially the Amry, had been wounded in the paddies and jungles of Vietnam. Like the nation it served, the Army had begun to doubt itself. We had found a long, costly war to a stalemate, and then had withdrawn claiming "peace with honor." Pessimism and negativism extended from the Pentagon down to the infantry rifle squads and artillery gun crews serving out their time in Germany. And there was a vicious strain of criminals in uniform, like the dope dealers in my Battery, who were more than willing to exploit this bad situation. (page 124)

Jack Murtha undoubtedly knows this and just doesn't care.

Murtha then goes on to lie about his role in the ABSCAM affair.

MATTHEWS: Let’s talk about what’s being said against you. Not just by your opponents, but in the newspapers. Let’s talk about Abscam. Back 26 years ago, I went through the numbers. Five members of the United States Congress, a United States senator, Pete Williams from New Jersey were convicted of accepting money from these undercover FBI agents, posing as Arab guys trying to make an offer to congressmen so he’d cut a deal, put some money in the pockets of these people.

All these people are convicted, you weren’t. Does that mean you’re innocent?

MURTHA: Well, I’ll put this way. I had 24 percent unemployment, I was looking at investment. I told them I wanted an investment in my district, they put $50,000 out on the table. I said I’m not interested in that, I’m interested in investment. The ethics committee cleared me completely, unanimous vote.

I guess he's never heard of the internet.

In November 1980, the Justice Department announced that Murtha would not face prosecution for his part in the scandal. In July 1981, the House ethics committee also chose not to file charges against Congressman Murtha, following a mostly party line vote, after which Republican E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., the panel's special counsel, abruptly resigned in protest. House ethics rules require members to immediately report any bribe offers to the FBI.

He also made it very clear that he would be interested in the $50,000.00 "later", presumably after he had satisfied himself as to the bona fides of his new benefactors.

Matthews then tries to lead Murtha out of the woods on his "total crap" comment with respective to ethics reform.

MATTHEWS: But that’s not what you said. Didn’t you say it was total crap, what she was proposing?

MURTHA: What I said was, it’s total crap, the idea we have to deal with an issue like this, when—and it is total crap that we have to deal with an issue like this when we’ve got a war going on and we got all these other issues -- $8 billion a month we’re spending—

MATTHEWS: So when this came up in the Blue Dog meeting the other night, you felt that that was a ridiculous—you thought that wasn’t the right issue to be talking about right now.

MURTHA: Exactly. I—what I’ve been trying—

MATTHEWS: And that’s really what you meant when you said total crap, because this is all over the wires as if—it sounds to me like you’re saying, I think all this goo-goo, good government stuff, is a joke.

What an idiot--he's perfect to lead the Democrats. Matthews' behavior on the other hand is so fawning, so turgid with love, that its fair to characterize it as aural sex.

Its been amusing to see one liberal opinion bastion after another echo my comments from earlier this week. The Times appears to imply that this was a simple misstep for Pelosi rather than a sign of incipient incompetence. We'll have a better indication in how she deals with the House Intelligence Committee.

Lawrence O'Donnell--someone to whom the title "reliable liberal" is a massive understatement (and also one of the most insecure men on television...), makes the following observation:

But the damage Murtha's ethics history can do to the Pelosi Speakership is nothing compared to what Alcee Hastings can do. Pelosi is feuding with her California colleague Jane Harman who is in line to become chairwoman of the House Intelligence Committee. Pelosi wants someone else. Next in line is Alcee Hastings, a member of the Black Caucus, which is championing his candidacy for Intelligence chairman. No one outside of the Black Caucus would be happy to see Alcee Hastings in a chairmanship. I first saw Alcee Hastings in his impeachment trial in the Senate.

Hastings was a Florida federal judge who was indicted for extortion and bribery and was found not guilty by a jury. A judicial panel then recommended his removal from the bench, which, for a federal judge means impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate. Hastings was convicted by the Senate in 1989 and removed from the bench, whereupon he ran for Congress and won. That's where Alcee's sweet revenge story should end. But Pelosi is actually considering him for the chairmanship.

How bad is this guy? John Conyers couldn't even defend him.

In the speech, Conyers looked back to civil-rights days, when corrupt judges sometimes twisted and ignored the law. “We did not wage that civil rights struggle merely to replace one form of judicial corruption for another,” Conyers said. “The principle of equality requires that a black public official be held to the same standard that other public officials are held to.…Just as race should never disqualify a person from office, race should never insulate a person from the consequences of wrongful conduct.”

The black caucus is pushing hard for Hastings, and once more Pelosi finds herself in a trap of her own making--the chits are due and one way or another, she has got to pay.

What a lot of the commentary--well all of it--is ignoring is that this is less about Pelosi and more about the nature of the Democrat party--a coalition of special interests rather than any ideology. How you get bluedogs, dyed-in-the-wool liberals, the black caucus, union flacks and everyone else singing from the same songbook would be a challenge for Allah, much less a housewife from Baltimore.

When you voted for your Republican-lite Democrat candidate a couple of weeks ago, you were really voting for a bunch of political dinosaurs with museum-quality political views.

Case in point: Charlie Rangel.

Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) has long advocated returning to the draft, but his efforts drew little attention during the 12 years that House Democrats were in the minority. Starting in January, however, he will chair the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Yesterday he said "you bet your life" he will renew his drive for a draft.

"I will be introducing that bill as soon as we start the new session," Rangel said on CBS's "Face the Nation." He portrayed the draft, suspended since 1973, as a means of spreading military obligations more equitably and prompting political leaders to think twice before starting wars.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," said Rangel, a Korean War veteran. "If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft."

Rangel has drawn modest support for his draft proposal in recent years and it has been unclear whether its prospects might improve in the 110th Congress.

Rangel got no support for his proposal back in 2004 (2 votes for, and Rangel didn't even vote for it...), and demonstrating that Democrats clearly understood the political implications of the draft, John Kerry took to ominously predicting that George W. Bush had plans in the works to reinstitute it. So what is going on now?

There is always the temptation to believe that Charlie Rangel is an idiot, but Harry Reid?

Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who will be the Senate majority leader, agrees that the U.S. military is stretched too thin and that "the burden of meeting the nation's security has not been shared equally by all segments of our society," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley. But Reid "believes that these problems are best addressed by making needed adjustments in the all-volunteer force," Manley said.

Its still early in the game, but here are somethings to consider.

When Reid points out that the burdens are not shared equally, he's absolutely right. The military is overwhelming recruited from red states. Not many Yankees in the military. The effect is that a major U.S. institution is overwhelmingly dominated by young, male Republicans and conservative Democrats. As the media has noted, the military is dead-set against retreat in Iraq. How do you transform a military who wants to fight into one that doesn't want to? Right--draft a whole whack of liberal slackers to balance out the patriots from Texas and Florida.

McCain continues to sound like a broken record on the issue of more troops, ignoring the very good reasons why the generals reject that idea. Its possible that the Democrats are simply cutting Senator McCain off at the pass by making the point that more troops implies a draft

As usual, the Democrats are exploiting public ignorance to the maximum extent. Rangel should know, and probably does, that the U.S. military is simply incompatible with the draft. The draft is an outmoded artifact of a theory of war that accepts the idea of human-beings as cannon-fodder. All the casualties in Iraq don't come close to what we experience in one major battle of the second world war--saw Iwo Jima, where 26,000 soldiers were either killed or wounded.

The modern military requires a highly-trained, highly-disciplined soldier capable of working in teams to accomplish military objectives using very high-tech equipment. The reality is that the military rejects all sorts of recruits because they don't meet physical and intellectual standards--and these are motivated volunteers.

Both Rangel and Reid want to create the inference that the military is made up of the poor and the black--the same lie Democrats told during the Vietnam war. The facts are that the modern military pretty much mirrors the ethnic composition of the country, and whites are over-represented in front-line positions. Several recent studies bear this out.

In summary, we found that, on average, 1999 recruits were more highly educated than the equiv­alent general population, more rural and less urban in origin, and of similar income status. We did not find evidence of minority racial exploitation (by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). We did find evidence of a "Southern military tradition" in that some states, notably in the South and West, provide a much higher proportion of enlisted troops by population.

Discussing the draft is a big risk, and big risks are taken in the face of big danger. I believe that danger--at least for the Democrats, is how they handle the war in Iraq. I believe you just saw the first glimmers of a butt-covering operation.

Just as big though, is the risk of blowing the first impression. Right now, the media is constructing a "frame" for the newly-empowered Democrats. The narrative the media is developing at this moment will characterize the Democrats for the next two years and perhaps beyond.

Its not going well.

Pelosi has been tripping over her own feet right out of the gate, and other senior Democrats are following her down, Keystone Kops fashion. The media has a lot of goodwill for the Democrats, after all they are uniformly liberal and far-left, but they don't like being embarrassed and right now, its all pretty embarrassing.

...and its only been two weeks.

UPDATE: Joe Gandelman demonstrates that its the Democrats that hate this thing worse than anyone.

From the standpoint of Rangel and the image of his party, this is shoot-yourself-in-the-foot politics. It (rightfully or wrongfully) smacks of precisely the kind of power-trip-run-amok that Republican doomsayers were saying would occur if the Democrats got into power and return to control key committees. Democrats: just watch your poll numbers if you shove this baby through Congress (it is unlikely to happen).

Read the whole thing.

Eric Stepp, TPM Cafe:

Second, I hate the idea of reverse-psychology being used on a military level. I'm sure millions of American families don't want their kids being used as pawns for a game of chicken between Democrats and Republicans.

Man oh man... This... Ok. I need time to process this one.

How are the Republicans involved? This is completely a Democrat sideshow--conservatives are simply content to watch.

UPDATE: Pelosi and Hoyer nix Rangel's draft plans...for next year.

Its unlikely we'll get an apology from Charlie Rangel for echoing John Kerry's characterization of the troops as academically-challenged losers.

I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.

Is he right? The truth as usual, is that the liberal-left is lying. What is perplexing is that they lie even when they don't need to. I've quoted the Heritage report on military recruiting demographics before:

In summary, we found that, on average, 1999 recruits were more highly educated than the equiv­alent general population, more rural and less urban in origin, and of similar income status. We did not find evidence of minority racial exploitation (by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). We did find evidence of a "Southern military tradition" in that some states, notably in the South and West, provide a much higher proportion of enlisted troops by population.

The household income of recruits generally matches the income distribution of the American population. There are slightly higher proportions of recruits from the middle class and slightly lower proportions from low-income brackets. However, the proportion of high-income recruits rose to a disproportionately high level after the war on ter­rorism began, as did the proportion of highly edu­cated enlistees. All of the demographic evidence that we analyzed contradicts the pro-draft case.

That squares with my anecdotal experience. Far from being the much abused underclass Democrats love to mock, some of the brightest people I've know opted for military careers. They do it because they are patriots, and Charlie Rangel's inability to even conceive of such a motivation says more about him and his fellow Democrats than anything else. As I've stated previously, my son in nearing the end of his training.

Did he join for the bonus?

That may have had some impact on the MOS he chose, but he had already decided to join before ever reviewing the bonus schedule. He also had employment opportunities that would have earned a lot more money that he can earn in the military (one of my son's friends earned $36,000.00 this summer...)

Did he join for the tuition money?

I was happy to pay for his education even if my wife didn't have a tuition benefit from the university.

Its not clear to me why Democrats perpetuate this myth. The idea that Florida and Texas, two of the biggest sources for military recruits, have high unemployment , is simply ridiculous.

Charlie Rangel is either abysmally ignorant or dangerously stupid, possibly both, but his attitude is pretty much par for the course for the liberal-left. It won't be until we retire the old liberal farts like Rangel that the Democrat party might again find itself in touch with the reality of this country.

Alcee Hastings, impeached federal judge, has allegedly removed his name from consideration for the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee.

I guess this is like those resignations-to-spend-more-time-with-the-family. What Hastings got to bail out Pelosi is of course unknown, but history suggests that while Hastings isn't cheap, he can be bought.

I find it amazing that Pelosi is apparently willing to pay so high a price to avoid naming Jane Harman to the chair. Harman's sin? Too much bipartisanshop in the last session of Congress.

In Nancy Pelosi puerile effort to avoid naming the obvious choice of Jane Harmon to chair the House Intelligence Committee, Pelosi has needlessly embarrassed herself by floating around the name of disgraced former federal judge Alcee Hastings--pointedly reminding us that Democrats practically invented Congressional corruption.

Under a bipartisan assault, Pelosi sought to have her cake and eat it to, once more bypassing the obvious choice of Jane Harmon to pick former border patrol agent Silvestre Reyes for the position.

The question for Pelosi is bound to be--aren't there any Democrats without the taint of corruption you can pick for important committee assignments?

Shortly after getting elected to Congress in 1996, Reyes began pushing for a pricey program to install surveillance cameras along the northern and southern U.S. borders. He also pushed for a certain business, International Microwave Corp., to win that contract, according to the Post, who broke the story in April 2005. The paper gave no details on how Reyes is said to have supported the company's bid.

In 1999, IMC won the contract, worth over $200 million. And at the advice of the Immigration and Naturalization Service official who was managing the operation, the company hired Reyes' daughter, Rebecca Reyes, to be his liaison at the company, the Post reported.

IMC's performance on the program was so bad it verged on criminal, according to later investigations. Millions of dollars in overcharges were alleged, installation was so bad that some cameras never worked properly, and the entire exercise wasted money and "placed. . . national security at risk," according to a GSA inspector general report. "[The program's failures] placed Americans in danger," onetime Border Patrol chief Carey James said, according to the Post.

Despite the failings -- which happened, by nearly all accounts, only because of the near-complete lack of oversight by the company's management or the government -- Rebecca rose to become vice president of contracts for IMC. Oh -- did I mention that the company also hired Reyes' son, Silvestre Jr., to work as a technician?

There are plenty of people on the right who were rooting for Hastings. Now they can root for Reyes for much the same reason--he's a major self-inflicted wound to the credibility of the Democrats as a party serious about national security and ethics.

Pelosi has effectively painted herself into a corner. What could have been seen as a sign of leadership--picking the best person for the job in spite of personal distaste--has now become an unsalvageable mess in which the best case scenario is personal humiliation at having to concede Harmon's appointment.

Pelosi should just do it and get it over with.

Powerline links to a Jerusalem Post article claiming that Democrat officials met with Hamas leaders at a secret location. Following the link though, no reference to such a meeting appears. Did the JP do a quick edit to correct a mistake or excise an embarrassing confrontation with our new Overlords?

Ynet however, has a similar story.

The Palestinian news agency Maan, quoting a senior member of the Palestinian government, reported Wednesday that "ministers of the Hamas-led government recently held talks with European countries and with a delegation of the American Democratic Party.

Considering that its a Palestinian source, this may simply be--what's the word--oh yeah, a lie. The gist of the press release was the Europeans (and presumably Democrats), have accepted Hamas stance towards Israel.

That seems unlikely in the extreme. While left-wing anti-semitism is a given, the Democrat party itself is highly dependent on Jewish money, not to mention the number of high-ranking Jews in its leadership. I just can't see the party throwing over Israel like this.

The Europeans?

I sincerely doubt that as well. While most European nations are clearly pro-Palestinian, its highly problematic accepting Hamas stance for a whole whack of reasons.

Predictably, news media outlets are touting the historical significance of Pelosi being the first "woman" speaker.

I am underwhelmed.

A female speaker at this point in history of our culture seems more like an inevitability than a remarkable event. Women are present in every field of endeavor and female leadership is no longer considered unusual. As usual, no progress in society is official until the Democrats take credit for it.

The test of real equality is equivalent accountability, so on that basis Pelosi can expect no quarter because she's a rich, white chick. Its the only respectful thing to do.

Democrats have great hopes for the first hundred hours, but characteristically its a lot of smoke and mirrors--the minimum wage is direct assault on the poor and the Crats know it. Raise the price of labor, the demand goes down--its simply economics. Just as the Crats were willing to prey on sick people with cynical and false claims about the promises of embryonic stem cell research, they are now sacrificing the poor on the altar of their political ambitions.

Evil dudes.

The Democrat pledges on spending are not actually a pledge to cut spending, but to extract all the taxes they need to pay for their pipe dreams. You are going to be paying more to the government and the rich still won't pay (after all, they're Democrats...). Some might object to this kind of characterization. You are fully entitled to do so. I am willing to wait for history to vindicate my predictions.

I'll reserve judgment of the "full" implementation of the 9/11 commission recommendations. At this point this seems little more than oneupmanship over the Bush administration on the issue of security, but I'm willing to keep an open mind on this.

The changes to lobbying rules are a ruse--pure and simple. The Democrats are corrupt as the day is long and cosmetic changes to the regulation to insure that no one gets taken to lunch won't have any real effect on the millions that go into politicians pockets (Mollohan made millions when he was in the minority--he's set to make a real killing now...)

As for "breaking the link" between lobbyist and legislation--everything the Democrats have proposed is in fact linked to a lobby...

Congressional pay hikes? Only if the minimum wage is approved? Talk about setting the bar low.

..and the Crats promise not to do anything about social security, insuring that the systematic robbery of the American taxpayer continues unabated.

On healthcare, the Crats are wisely holding back on their more ambitious plans and looking to simply do a little tweaking--albeit in the ideological vein of single-payer--i.e. Soviet-style command economy that has failed everywhere its been tried. Ironically, the Democrats are looking to apply the Walmart model of market power to pharmaceutical purchases while of course condemning Walmart as the throne of Satan.

Walmart exerts tremendous market power to drive down the costs of goods it buys. While this is terrific for the consumer, it has one inarguable consequence--it drives businesses to China and other low-cost manufacturers.

The fact that injection-molding is done in China at lower cost doesn't really inhibit U.S. economic development--the future isn't in injection molding. In fact the liberation of capital for low-margin traditional industries means that highly-profitable new industries get more investment.

Pharmaceuticals are a very different story--new drugs have enormous development costs which are paid for by profits from existing patents. Pharmaceuticals will be faced with raising prices on everyone else, or simply divesting--which is what happened to Germany, the former world leader in Pharmaceuticals.

Democrats also promise to halve the interest rate on student loans, which seems like a big gift to struggling students, but will only accelerate out-of-control education costs. Its clear to me that the real problem with education costs are the costs themselves, not our ability to pay them.

Rolling back oil subsidies? I'd have to study their proposals in more detail, but words like "subsidies" are like "budget cuts", "tax credits" and other weasel words--exercises in equivocation. I'm all for energy independence, but let's face it, the Democrat view of energy independence means not using any.

It pretty obvious that I don't have much confidence in the Democrats--leopards don't change their spots. There are some opportunities here, but considering how much of the program is simply rape of the average American citizen by Democrat cronies and allies, I don't have much reason to be hopeful.

Nevertheless, I'll be paying close attention to the details and the devil in them. I'll also give him his due when appropriate.

The celebrating seems a little premature.

Liberal Democrats in the media, represented most nauseatingly by Charlie Gibson were orgasmic in their praise. I don't have the transcript, but Gibson noted that Pelosi was on the floor holding a grandchild. Gibson commented, "...taking care of the country and the children..."

I guess Gibson, because he's "only" a father, doesn't give a damn about his daughters.

Checks in the mail Charlie.

UPDATE: Sister Toldja finds it all a bit much as well. The arm-flexing is simply arrogance beyond the pale.

Imagine you're the Speaker of the House and one of the members of your party is under investigation.

Starting in the 1990s, Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.) chose an unusual way to funnel federal funds into his poverty-ridden district. He set up a network of nonprofit organizations to administer the millions of dollars he directed to such public endeavors as high-tech research and historic preservation.

Over the same period, Mollohan's personal fortunes soared. From 2000 to 2004, his assets grew from no more than $565,000 to at least $6.3 million. The partners in his rapidly expanding real estate empire included the head of one of these nonprofit groups and the owner of a local company for which he arranged substantial federal aid.

Mollohan used his seat on the House Appropriations Committee to secure more than $150 million for five nonprofit groups. One of the groups is headed by a former aide with whom Mollohan bought $2 million worth of property on Bald Head Island, N.C.

Notably, this is almost exactly the same scheme as Abscam Jack Murtha has been using in his district to gorge at the public trough.

For someone whose promised the cleanest Congress in history, you distance yourself and the party from this guy--at least until the investigation concludes--right?

Well, these are Democrat remember, and Mother Pelosi has judgment rivaled only by Michael Jackson.

When asked if it was a good idea to make Mollohan the chairman of a committee that oversees the budget of the very department investigating his malfeasance, Speaker Pelosi replied:

Less than 24 hours after taking over as House speaker, Pelosi took NEWS9 cameras on a tour of the Capitol. There, she said she will still allow Mollohan to hold his powerful position which oversees the budget of the Justice Department -- the very people investigating his financial dealings.

"Quite frankly, I think the Justice Department is looking into every member of Congress. I always say to everybody, 'You're now going to get a free review of your family tree -- past, present and future, imagined and otherwise,'" Pelosi said.

She's not kidding.

The mafia is running the docks again...

Democrats promised a five day work week for Congress--but not right away.

Hill sources claim The House is taking Monday 'off' this week, because of the championship football game between Ohio State and the University of Florida.

Not next week either--Martin Luther King day.

Excuses for subsequent weeks are in progress...

Corrupt Bastard Caught In the Act of Lying to the American People.

If you wrote this story as fiction, everyone would dismiss it as implausible. Harry Reid and Dick Durbin are scrambling to kill an amendment brought by Sen. Jim DeMint on earmark rules. The kicker