One of the minidramas developing in the newly minted Democratic House is who will chair the House Intelligence Committee. Here is a sample of the teeth gnashing going on:

If Democrats win control of the House next week, Nancy Pelosi's first test as speaker will arrive long before the 110th Congress convenes. Her choice to head the House intelligence committee -- unlike other House committees, this one is left entirely up to the party leadership -- will speak volumes about whether a Speaker Pelosi will be able to resist a return to paint-by-numbers Democratic Party interest-group politics as usual. Pelosi is in a box of her own devising. The panel's ranking Democrat is her fellow Californian Jane Harman -- smart and hardworking but also abrasive, ambitious and, in Pelosi's estimation, insufficiently partisan on the committee. So Pelosi, once the intelligence panel's ranking Democrat herself, has made clear that she doesn't intend to name Harman to the chairmanship.

The wrong decision, in my view, but one that's magnified by the unfortunate fact that next in line is Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings. In 1989, after being acquitted in a criminal trial, Hastings was stripped of his position as a federal judge -- impeached by the House in which he now serves and convicted by the Senate -- for conspiring to extort a $150,000 bribe . . .

Of course Hastings was acquitted in his criminal trial but let's consider the issue on the flip.

For the first time, the Bush Administration is using sting tactics in another country to catch terrorists.

In a recent operation, agents from America's Department of Homeland Security set up a suspect by posing as dealers wanting to illegally sell night-vision goggles for export to Iran. The spies arranged a series of clandestine meetings in London hotels, which they secretly filmed as evidence. It is thought to be the first time American agents have been caught using such sting tactics in Britain.

Urgent questions were being asked about whether the British Government had been aware of the operation. If so, it raises issues of the State collaborating with foreign agencies to entrap suspects - and if not it raises the spectre of American spies working unchecked on British soil.

Here's why this is a big deal:

Connecticut voted for the Iraq Debacle. Anyone who saw Joe Lieberman on Meet the Press today must accept this.

He joined McCain in calling for more U.S. troops in Iraq.

Oh by the way, he also did not rule out caucusing with the Republicans though he said he was going to caucus with the Dems. It is Joe Lieberman doubletalk. But to be fair, he was pretty dismissive of the idea of caucusing with the GOP after that. He realized I think that his two-facedness was TOO obvious. He would need some excuse first.

Timmah was funny in that he challenged Lieberman to demand certain action for his support. Joe hemmed and hawed and said he was not going to do that.

The transcript will be available here.

Update [2006-11-12 13:35:43 by Big Tent Democrat]: atrios thinks the Iraq Study Group will say either double down, more troops, or bug out. And that Dems will be forced to acquiesce to doubling down.

I don't know what ISG is going to do, but more troops is politically untenable. It is a nonstarter. Any fool that signs on to that will be voted out in 2008. I completely disagree with Atrios. The Dems will NOT go along with that. Heck, no one will.

Russ Feingold sent out the following letter this morning:

Dear Friends and Supporters,

On Sunday, November 12th in Racine, I will hold my 1000th Listening Session with the people of Wisconsin. Before reaching that milestone, I want you to know that I've decided to continue my role as Wisconsin's Junior Senator in the U.S. Senate and not to seek the Democratic nomination for President in 2008.

In a 7 page feature article subtitled "A Portrait in Power",The Chicago Tribune examines Rahm Emanuel's role in the Democratic victory on election day.

During the past year, the Tribune had exclusive access to the strategy sessions, private fundraisers and other moments that shaped this victory. The newspaper agreed not to print any of the details until after the election. Now that the votes have been counted, the story of how Emanuel helped end an era of Republican rule can be told.

He did it, in large measure, by remaking the Democratic Party in his own image.

I don't think any one person was responsible for the Democrat's win. I'm sure Howard Dean, Charles Schumer and Rahm Emanuel, as Chairs of the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Demcoratic Congressional Committee, as well as the netroots, all played a part.

The article is a major puff piece for Emanuel. As to his basic strategy:

Law Prof Doug Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy:

On Veterans Day, I am thinking about all the veterans who, after serving our country in the military in support of our nation's commitment to liberty and freedom, discover that our sentencing laws give little or no credit for their service.  I specifically have in mind the decorated soldiers Patrick Lett (story here) and Victor Rita (story here), both of whom now have their futures in the hands of appellate courts trying to figure out what Booker really means for federal sentencing.

More broadly, I wonder how many thousands of veterans are subject to all the severe collateral consequences that can often follow a conviction.  For example, I wonder how many veterans are unable to vote because they are disenfranchised by state law or how many veterans cannot live where they want because of residency restrictions or how many can no longer purchase a firearm because of a prior felony.

Pachacutec over at Firedoglake gives 12 reasons not to trust Chuck Schumer. Why is Schumer an issue? Because Harry Reid has asked him to stay on as the Chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) for another two years.

Sources said Schumer has agreed to Senate Majority Leader-in-waiting Harry Reid's request that he stay on as head of the Democratic campaign committee for another two years, partly to counter the growing influence of liberals like Sen. Ted Kennedy and Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

Reid and other party bosses believe Schumer's middle-of-the-road strategy in recruiting a fistful of moderate candidates to knock off GOP incumbents in red states is the only way for Democrats to hold onto or increase their power.

"You have to save the party from not drifting too far over," Schumer told The Post yesterday.

I'll add another reason: Schumer's checkered past endorsement of excessive wiretapping.

With the newly Democratic-controlled Senate, four of President Bush's terrible judicial picks may finally get axed for good, according to Neil Lewis in Sunday's New York Times.

There is a strong consensus that the four most conservative of Mr. Bush’s nominations to the federal appeals courts are doomed. Republicans and Democrats say the four have no chance of confirmation in the next several weeks of the lame-duck Congressional session or in the final two years of Mr. Bush’s term.

• William J. Haynes II, the Pentagon’s chief lawyer who was responsible for the much-criticized military interrogation policies;

• William G. Myers III, a longtime lobbyist for the mining and ranching industries and a critic of environmental regulations;

• Terrence W. Boyle, a district court judge in North Carolina; and

• Michael B. Wallace of Mississippi, a lawyer who was rated unqualified for the court by the American Bar Association.

As to Bush's options at this point:

Conservative blogger La Shawn Barber and I were on MSNBC this afternoon discussing possible 2008 contenders. I got to bash John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. Not surprisingly, La Shawn agreed. They aren't conservative enough for her and are too conservative for me.

We also talked about Hillary and Obama. Both La Shawn and I thought Obama needs more experience and didn't know if Hillary would run. I said I'd like to see a woman in the White House, La Shawn thought she's too polarizing to win. Neither of us were big on Tom Vilsack.

As for who we would like to see run, I said Russ Feingold and John Edwards. La Shawn said Tom Tancredo, at which I burst out laughing.

If you'd like to watch the segment, you can do so here, courtesy of Hot Air. It was fun because I like LaShawn, and even though normally we don't agree on a lot, we did today.

In response to Greg Sargent's strong piece on the lesson of 2006 on Iraq, Ed Kilgore tries to rewrite the DLC history of support for Bush's Iraq Debacle. First Sargent:

Early on, anyone who suggested that Dems shouldn't be afraid to call for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq or to oppose President Bush on wiretapping or torture was subjected to a steady stream of withering scorn from allegedly in-the-know pundits. Those who backed Ned Lamont's antiwar candidacy were dismissed by David Broder and others in the D.C. opinionmakers guild as crazy, extreme, beneath contempt. In one typical example last February, Marshall Wittman charged that opposition to Bush's warrantless wiretapping program showed that "the Democratic Party is increasingly under the influence of modern day McGovernites," warning: "Let's get serious." It's a good thing indeed that Dems didn't heed the advice from Wittman and others that they get "serious," now isn't it.

That is exactly right. Kilgore tries to rewrite history.

I was reading WaPo's writeup on Jim Webb and it provides two perfect examples of the silliness of the Media and its labels and David Broder's independent centrism. First this:

Webb, a former Republican and Reagan administration official, said he might be a bit of a maverick in the Senate, which could frustrate Democratic leaders who poured more than $6 million into his campaign. "I have my own views, and I have a lot of experiences, and I think I can bring the experiences I had to issues rather than having to read off a party briefing sheet," Webb said Friday in an interview.

Of course that is true, but Webb became a Democrat because he agreed with Dem positions. He is an economic populist who is against the Iraq War. The word maverick, also applied stupidly to John McCain, shows how dumb this all is - Webb disagrees with McCain on virually EVERY issue, but they are both mavericks? It is so symptomatic of the Media that rather than look at positions on issues all they can think of is in terms of labels.

It is pretty funny that the Media is trying to turn the Democratic Party into the conservative party and I am all for it. But they have run into a tough reality - the common theme of Democrats is economic populism:

[M]any of these freshmen Democrats are hard to pigeonhole ideologically. Even among the most socially conservative, there is a strong streak of economic populism that is a unifying force.

It's as if William Jennings Bryan won. I am a free trader so this is not really good news for my economic views, but facts are facts.