Silvestre Reyes

NYT: "Representative Nancy Pelosi, the incoming House speaker, sent a strong new signal on Friday that Democrats intend to confront the White House by naming a Texas congressman who opposed the war in Iraq as the next chairman of the House intelligence committee."

And good for her. The highest profile national security jobs need to go to people who'll put their positions to good use. That doesn't necessarily mean people who voted against the war resolution back four years ago -- plenty of members have shifted their views -- but it does need to be done. As the centrists say, Democrats need to take national security seriously. That means putting actually serious people in place rather than mindless slaves to the conventional wisdom du jour.

12/2/06 10:17AM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

We're already seeing some rather flimsy grounds put forward to protest the Reyes selection:

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/11/post_2089.html

I think it's great we got a guy who had the stones to protest the war when most of our leaders were silent. Unless we see something more substantial, I doubt I'll change my opinion.

Posted by: DC on December 2, 2006 10:46 AM

Mindless slaves of the conventional wisdom du jour?

Are you suggesting Harman did not come to her views on the war through her own independent analysis and careful deliberation?

Posted by: otto on December 2, 2006 10:52 AM

Well, Laura Rozen is particularly close to that issue, since she did some of the original (and very impressive) reporting on Weldon / Ghorbanifar.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf on December 2, 2006 11:50 AM

"That means putting actually serious people in place rather than mindless slaves to the conventional wisdom du jour."

This means you're taking yourself out of the running, Matthew?

Posted by: Petey on December 2, 2006 12:58 PM

This means you're taking yourself out of the running, Matthew?

Petey, ever heard of tu quoque?

In any case, do you have anything to support for your cutesy little snark?

Posted by: Tim on December 2, 2006 01:04 PM

"In any case, do you have anything to support for your cutesy little snark?"

Nothing conclusive, to be sure. But Matthew supported the war when his social circle supported the war, and he opposed the war when his social circle opposed the war.

It could certainly be the case that he was the alpha dog leading the way both times, but I'd guess it somewhat more likely that he is a mindless slave to the conventional wisdom du jour of his social circle.

Of course, I'd find such an accusation out of the bounds of polite discourse were he not leveling it at others...

Posted by: Petey on December 2, 2006 01:59 PM

"Petey, ever heard of tu quoque?"

And FWIW, no I wasn't familiar with that term, tho I was familiar with the broader "ad hominem", of which I now know tu quoque is a subset. I learn something new every day.

Of course, you are correct in one sense. My statement does nothing to defend Jane Harman as chair of intelligence. But in a more important sense, that wasn't the purpose of my statement in the first place.

Posted by: Petey on December 2, 2006 02:15 PM

Everyone is picking on your "mindless slaves" usage, but this one struck me more:

putting actually serious people in place

That you've maybe just doomed Reyes with the Dukakis-passionless-technocrat-bureaucrat label; no more winning higher elections for him outside of a elite constituency. In the world of the House especially, being a competent civil servant is thankless. The grandstanders and the panderers to issue of the moment with agitprop get the glory? Of course, none of this would apply to House Ways and Means. :-)

Posted by: artappraiser on December 2, 2006 02:49 PM

I draw a different lesson from all this.

Reyes name first came to my attention when Matt suggested him as a way to avoid both Harman and Hastings.

So what I conclude is: Yglesias is now the king-maker.

Watch out, y'all. When Matt gives the orders, stuff happens.

Posted by: kid bitzer on December 2, 2006 03:43 PM

Nothing conclusive, to be sure. But Matthew supported the war when his social circle supported the war, and he opposed the war when his social circle opposed the war.

But ofcourse Matt's "social circle" is determined in part by his position on the saliant issues of the day. I'm sure he'd be hanging with the TNR folks if he agreed with them more often. And furthermore, Matt has taken positions that were unconventional at the time but have since been proven prescient. For instance, he asserted (correctly) after each of Iraq's elections that their success hadn't changed the underlying negative dynamic in Iraq and would not make things better.

Posted by: WillieStyle on December 2, 2006 05:35 PM

Are you suggesting Harman did not come to her views on the war through her own independent analysis and careful deliberation?

If she did, so much the worse.

Posted by: neil on December 4, 2006 10:05 AM

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc