America does not torture.

Mr. President-Elect, do not shift from this position. Please.

Digby of Hullabaloo:

They've just successfully moved the goalposts. We are now engaged in a battle to persuade Obama that he must unequivocally and publicly disavow what those two jaded, decadent sadists just suggested was necessary lest he risk Americans being killed. Good luck to us on that. Considering Obama's propensity for consensus, I would guess that he will find some way to appease them. (Maybe he'll vow to make sure that the torturers don't enjoy it, as a sop to the liberal freaks.)

But I would suggest that Obama contemplate one little thing before he decides to try to find "middle ground" on torture. It is a trap. If he continues to torture in any way or even tacitly agrees to allow it in certain circumstances, the intelligence community will make sure it is leaked. They want protection from both parties and there is no better way to do it than to implicate Obama. And the result of that will be to destroy his foreign policy.

If the man who represents the second chance this country's been given around the world to repudiate the horrors of the Bush years is revealed to have perpetuated the same horrors, his credibility and foreign policy will be in shambles. And there are many people buried in the intelligence and military establishments who would be happy to make sure that happens.

Pelosi says no to both Harman and Hastings.

"The fight over the top spot on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has exposed the kind of factional politics that bedeviled House Democrats before they were swept from control in 1994. Harman, a moderate, strong-on-defense "Blue Dog" Democrat, had angered liberals with her reluctance to challenge the Bush administration's use of intelligence. Hastings, an African American, was strongly backed by the Congressional Black Caucus but was ardently opposed by the Blue Dogs, who said his removal from the bench disqualifies him from such a sensitive post."
[snip]
"In the end, Pelosi's pledge to clean up Congress after two years of scandal made Hastings's appointment impossible, Democrats said.

Likewise, Pelosi was not willing to bend the committee's unique term-limit rules for Harman, who she believes had violated a promise to step aside, according to Democrats. Harman had angered some Democrats with a tough management style that helped drive away longtime Democratic staffers."

Um...Harman has been a DINO in many things. She is not a centrist. Supporters of Bush, his vanity war, and his attack on the Constitution are not exactly welcome in the Democratic Congress. The Democrats were voted into power because they are NOT Republicans.

We need to turn the country hard to the left to keep it on the road, because staying the course by turning to the right or to the center still takes us off the cliff.

Update:
Harman in her own words. Says it all.

Update:
Glenn Greenwald:
"Quite transparently, none of this ever had anything to do with "concern" over who will lead the House Intelligence Committee (which is why one searches in futility for all the in-depth media debates and analysis over the all-powerful Pete Hoekstra), but instead was all driven by the increasingly intense commitment to destroy Nancy Pelosi's ability to lead the House. It was all based on imaginary "facts" and assumptions that were completely unwarranted by the evidence, and fueled by the caricature that Pelosi is both inept and intent on destroying the Democratic Party. The entire Hastings-vs.-Harman contest was an illusory media drama from start to finish."

Update: More on the smearing of Pelosi and her vineyard in Napa:
"An ABC News reporter asked Peter Schweizer “if he had researched those facts before he called Pelosi a hypocrite.” Schweitzer responded, “It’s not my responsibility to go and find out how every single particular circumstance is handled on the Pelosi vineyard.” Why burden yourself with the facts?"

When there are no boundaries, how do you define the center?

Steve Bates collects the blogs that have defined centrism.

Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake:

"In fact "centrism" is not antithetical to populism, and both are, in pure abstract terms, measurements. If an axis of opinion can be established with two discernable poles, then your opinion is "centrist" if there are equal numbers of those who stand to one side of you as another. If more people feel their interests lie on one side of the spectrum rather than another, it is generally assumed to have a populist base of support (as I believe Kevin is using the term here, contra elite "blue ribbon commissions"). And as Atrios notes, imposing a right/left dichotomy on most issues thus abstracted is both awkward and frequently misleading.I don't think I've ever rejected a position simply because it was "centrist," it would be like having a problem with long division. Rather, I get a bit irked with the smug certainty of pundits and politicians who think the wisdom of their position should be respected because it is "centrist" when they have not in fact established that such a measurement is applicable, or why (if it is) this should lead to some knee-jerk assumption of validity."

[snip]
"Aesthetics are not metrics. John McCain's ability to laugh casually and tell a good joke on the Daily Show does not mean he is not morphing into a cynical right-wing wacko before our eyes. And those who want to invoke the "centrism" of their ideas are going to have to try a little harder to establish both that they are, and why we should care."

Ezra Klein: (my bold)
"Guys like Sebastian Mallaby, Robert Samuelson, and David Broder make a play at pushing marginally useful, technocratic ideas as a way of dismissing progressive ones. In these instances, the idea is subordinate to its perceived position on the ideological spectrum. When "centrist" ideas become a navigational device rather than a policy proposal, that's wankery. And it should be opposed. When a good idea emanates out of a centrist, or even conservative, source, that's a good idea."