While I have been writing a few sharp words about Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings, for example here and here, Seattle Times staff columnist Kate Riley was attacking a different Hastings, Republican Doc Hastings

Hastings rode into Congress on the wave of the 1994 Republican revolution and, from day one, swallowed Newt Gingrich's Contract with America Kool-Aid.  Ever since, Hastings has been entirely complicit with the GOP leadership's shameless efforts to secure, protect and exploit their majority — an overreach that likely will cost them House control this year.  Good riddance.

Riley, whom I generally respect, goes on and on about Doc Hastings, making her dislike for him clear, but not giving enough specifics so that I can understand why she dislikes him so much.  Until, that is, she gets to this point:

He's reportedly scarce in the district during the campaign, and his staff is sometimes openly hostile with the media.  Hastings sent The Seattle Times-owned Yakima Herald-Republic, which sometimes has not endorsed him, a signed fax, saying he would not be stopping by the newspaper office in the heart of his district.  It read: "In my case, since I'm not seeking the Herald-Republic's endorsement, it won't be necessary to include me in your endorsement interview schedule this year."

". . . openly hostile with the media".  Well, we can't have that, can we?

Let me reveal a secret to Ms. Riley.  Most Republicans are hostile toward the "mainstream" media.  What makes Doc Hastings different is that he is open about it.  And if she will forgive for saying so, Republicans have many legitimate reasons to be hostile to the "mainstream" media.   Many.

Ordinarily, I would have just let this column go, as an unfortunate slip by a journalist I mostly admire.  (And regular readers will know that I am not an easy grader when it comes to journalists.)  But I won't because of this fact:  A vote against Doc Hastings is a vote, most likely, to make Alcee Hastings chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.  Whatever Doc Hastings' sins may be, they are trivial compared to those of Alcee Hastings.  To advocate the defeat of Doc Hastings while ignoring the elevation of Alcee Hastings to chairman of the Intelligence Committee is to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.

(Riley may not know about the controversy over Alcee Hastings.  A search on the Seattle Times archives found just one reference to it, in this article.

In addition, minority-group members would gain power in a Democratic House. Black legislators are in line to become chairmen of the committees on taxation (Charles Rangel of New York), the judiciary (John Conyers of Michigan) and intelligence (Alcee Hastings of Florida).

Republicans are spotlighting that lineup and portraying it as extremist.  They jumped on Conyers for calling for impeachment hearings against Bush, an idea Pelosi flatly dismisses.  Republicans note that Hastings, before becoming a House member, was impeached as a federal judge.

That's all, and even that little bit is misleading, since Hastings was not only impeached by the House, but convicted by the Senate, and removed from his position as a judge.  All that was done by, as I have mentioned before, a Democratic Congress.  And it is downright deceptive to imply that only Republicans are disturbed by the idea of putting a man who was convicted of perjury and corruption in charge of the Intelligence Committee.

One of the legitimate reasons that Republicans are hostile to the "mainstream" media is their treatment of Democratic scandals, as in that article.)