So it turns out that Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi’s preferred candidate for Majority Leader, John Murtha (D-PA), was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam scandal. You can watch the entire painful video here. (Some of the good stuff starts at about 15 minutes in. Also, a special BMG shout-out to whoever correctly tallies up the total number of Murtha f-bombs!)
Murtha has complained that dredging up Abscam constitutes “swift boat-style attacks” on him. Sorry, John, but that’s not how it works. It doesn’t constitute “swift boating” to bring up unethical behavior that you have engaged in. Did he actually take any money? No — that’s why he wasn’t indicted. But he was there, he was interested in working with the fictitious “investors,” he left the door open to taking money in the future, and he ended up testifying against two other congressmen as part of a deal with the FBI.
Fortunately, reports are that Steny Hoyer has the votes to be elected Majority Leader, despite Pelosi’s backing of Murtha. Go Steny.
UPDATE: TPM Muckraker has some good stuff on Murtha’s role in Abscam, as well as his highly questionable position on ethics reform and his general reputation as a porkmeister. Murtha came out strong on Iraq, and good on him for doing it. But that alone — and that’s all he’s got, AFAIK — shouldn’t get you the #2 spot in the leadership.
Totally agree with your reasoning, David. Thanks for the video link.
<
p>
My Question: Are you sure Hoyer has the votes? It seems like Pelosi is doing more than just the “pro-forma” support, she’s doing the arm-twisting. Seems fluid.
Not only does Murtha appear to have some ethics problems, and not only is Murtha the king of the earmark, apparently he told a bunch of moderate Dems that the ethics reform bill that Pelosi has been pushing as one of the first legislative acts of the Democratic congress is “total crap.”
<
p>
Now, this is shocking for a couple reasons. The Democrats ran this year, to some extent, on the issue of ethics and talked up this bill as what they would do if they got power. Now, the man who wants to represent the party as the Majority Leader in the House is saying that the bill is “total crap?” Huh? This is made even worse when you consider that the bill is Pelosi’s pet and she went way out on a limb in endorsing Murtha over Hoyer. Nice way to pay back the soon-to-be Speaker’s loyalty.
<
p>
So beyond raising further questions about how ethically challneged Murtha is, his comment really raises questions about how effective he would be as Majority Leader. If he is willing to step out of line on one of the first issues the Dems propose and stab his good friend in the back in the process, makes you wonder what would be in store.
Um, wasn’t ABSCAM a sting operation? Don’t you realize how during sting operations it is very very easy to paint someone who is not prone to criminal behavior as a criminal?
<
p>
The fact that he TURNED DOWN the bribe is what is important here. At the time he was representing a district with 24% unemployment and rather than take any bribe, as you can see from the video, he sought investments in his district. Not money for himself.
<
p>
Is it pretty? No. But if you are going to let matters like 26 year old ugliness determine your opposition to him, then I’m sure you are also opposed to seeing Senator Kennedy sit as Chairman in the new Senate?
“total crap” attitude toward ethics reform? That dates from, oh, yesterday. And there is no shortage of other ethics problems with Murtha, who had the distinct honor of being one of only four Democrats in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington’s list of the 25 most corrupt members of Congress.
<
p>
As for Kennedy, far be it from me to defend Chappaquiddick. But at least he’s not running for leadership.
But you are headlining your opposition to him based on the abscam story. Not fair, imo.
<
p>
The “total crap” story – according to him his comments have been twisted. Maybe, maybe not, but he said he will vote for it.
<
p>
The CREW link is more troubling to be sure, but in the end, only two candidates have announced they are in the running for the position, and I have yet to see what makes Hoyer a better candidate, even considering Murtha’s warts.
Steny Hoyer, who will work to undermine Pelosi at every turn, after having down his best to make her life miserable as minority leader.
<
p>
Neither one of them has much to offer, not nearly as much as would many other caniddates. But these are the choices they have…
I wonder if some republicans see this a a 2-fer:
<
p>
1) Hurt the Dems at when they are riding the ‘reform’ wave, and Murtha by bringing up something from so long ago (I know, some of the allegations are recent); and
<
p>
2) A shot across the bow of Sen. McCain as he tries to position himself for another run at the White House.
<
p>
<
p>
And yes, I know he was supposedly less culpable than the other four, but we all know the machine of the Bush wing of the Repub party can make Santa look corrupt. Besides, most people only remember that he was part of the group.
Bringing up a serious mistake that John Murtha ALMOST made 26 years ago (he did so NO) but ignore his recent act of conscience is grossly short sighted. Murtha gave the anti-war movement the creditability it needed and gave other Democrats the cover they needed to oppose the war. Like Tip O’Neil some forty years ago, an old school Democrat who had the courage to oppose a bad war and gave legitimacy for the anti-Vietnam war movement, John Murtha gave legitimacy to all anti-war candidates last Spring and Summer–giving them the strength to stick to their guns against the assault of Rove’s weakening attack machine.
<
p>
Ya, I’ve met John Murtha and heard him speak fondly about earmarks (saying something like “that’s how you get things done). He did cross an ethical line 26 years ago, but he has not since. But any distaste I may have for these actions pales to the fact that he stood up and said this war was wrong.
<
p>
John Murtha for Majority Leader and I’m damn proud to say it!
I wouldn’t have chosen Murtha for M.L. specifically because of the appearance of the ethic problems. However, now that Pelosi has gone and done it I’m not going to be terribly upset.
<
p>
We face a choice: we can have a strong Speaker of the House, who can push policy forward and get things passed that otherwise wouldn’t have a shot in hell. Or, we can be divided, barely effective and probably lose control of the House in 2 years. I’m gonna go with strong and aggressive.
<
p>
So Murtha stays, Mrs. Speaker.
What is the proper way to refer to her, Mrs. Speaker or Madame Speaker? It will be fun at the next SOTU when the doorkeeper of the House announces the president to whichever it is.
“Mrs. Speaker” sounds funny, as though she were the wife of Philbert J. Speaker.
And Pelosi has her first (self-inflicted) black eye.
Let’s hope it’s not a sign of things to come…
I personally have been very confused by the Progressive support for Jack Murtha: I understand the ambivilance about going with a New Democrat like Steny Hoyer, but why the excitement over a conservative Blue Dog just because of his leadership on Iraq? I get that with a Progressive Speaker, the Majority Leader and Whip should be one from each of the other two major caucuses, but I’m not sure either of them are great for the job.
<
p>
I think I’d rather have Hoyer as a passive behind-the-scenes kind of majority leader, letting Nancy Pelosi lead the House in the strong Speaker PM-like model that Gingrich seemed to pioneer. Murtha would be a strong leader on Iraq, but is often too fiery as a public figure, and I think would be less likely to defer to Speaker Pelosi on setting the agenda on domestic issues: though I think Murtha’s social conservatism would be helpful in keeping the Blue Dogs in line with the party, his opposition to ethics reform, a campaign cornerstone, is very off putting to me.
<
p>
PS: Though I understand the concern about “fighting amongst ourselves”, I think the shift of the debate to being within the Democrats is an excellent change of pace, from just being able to complain about the oppositions actions. A lively debate within our new majority nationally is important to preserve, just as it is domestically in Massachusetts. So set the goals we all agree on, and then let’s debate to figure out how to get there.
…but condede she may rise again!