An interesting suggestion from The Nation’s David Corn on his Capital Games blog. Corn, the magazine’s Washington editor, puts the fight over the House Intelligence Committee into perspective.
On the one hand, you have a candidate at odds with the new speaker and who has been a weak link the party’s attempts to challenge the Bush administration on intelligence issues — a huge consideration given that the Democrats won two weeks ago because of the war in Iraq — and an ethically compromised former judge. Neither offer a particularly palatable choice.
A third choice, Representative Silvestre Reyes of Texas, is an interesting possibility — but might not fly with the Congressional Black Caucus, according to Corn, making him a problematic compromise.
Another option may exist, however, one that locals should be able to rally around: Rush Holt. Here is how Corn explains his choice:
He is a former Princeton University physicist and past intelligence analyst at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. He specialized in nuclear matters. He knows much about the intelligence bureaucracy and about weapons proliferation and loose nukes, critical national security priorities. First elected in 1998, Holt has not been shy about confronting the administration and the intelligence agencies. He voted against granting George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq. He has challenged the administration’s policies on the detention and questioning of suspected terrorists, arguing the White House has not been mindful enough of civil liberties. He also was one of the few Democrats to charge on to the House floor to oppose the Republicans when they sought to intervene in the Terri Schiavo affair. The Courier News of Bridgewater, New Jersey, endorsed Holt’s reelection this year and noted, “Holt offers the kind of intelligence, reasonable and decisive voice that has been all too lacking inside the Beltway during the partisan wars of recent years. But Holt’s value in Congress goes beyond that; he has developed a reputation as a thinking man’s congressman, a scientist by trade who provides more thoughtful analysis on issues than most lawmakers.” Holt calls for beginning a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. He has warned the administration not to hype the intelligence on Iran’s nuclear weapon program, noting the “intelligence on Iran is poor, contradictory, or both.”
Tapping Holt, the seventh-ranking of the committee’s nine Democrats, would be an unconventional move. The CBC would be agitated–even though its members are already claiming three major chairmanships: Conyers at the judiciary committee, Rangel at the tax-writing committee, and Representative Bennie Thompson at the homeland security committee. The Hispanic caucus could be peeved, too. Other House Democrats might be uneasy about such a sharp slap at the seniority principle (though younger members would be heartened). But this would be a chance for Pelosi to send a signal: the Democrats do regard national security seriously and are willing to put aside political concerns to do the right thing. She would be saying, merit matters most when it comes to protecting the United States. Yet if she sticks with Hastings, she is going to have to defend the quasi-indefensible. It will appear–rightly or wrongly–that she cannot shake free of racial politics and institutional imperatives. She ought to instead adopt a radical stance and give this most important job to the most qualified person.
Seems like a good idea.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
Hank Kalet 
I am with you 100%. Holt is the perfect choice.
Just so you know, I posted on this at my site and also just put up a diary up at Daily Kos about it. Anyone who likes the idea of Holt holding the HIC chair should go to Kos and recommend that diary.