Murtha For Majority Leader

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2006
Posted on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 07:37:58 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I was not that engaged with the House Majority Leader battle. Don't get me wrong, I preferred Murtha, both for the unity he has with Speaker-to-be Pelosi but also for his brave stance on Iraq. But if Hoyer was returned to the position, I would not have cried about it. Hoyer has his problems, but we're a Big Tent party.

But this from Fred Hiatt and the WaPo Editorial Board bothered me immensely:

On the merits, Mr. Hoyer is by far the better choice for the job. He is a moderate and highly capable legislator whose selection would reinforce Ms. Pelosi's announced commitment to govern from the center. Mr. Murtha's candidacy is troubling for several reasons, beginning with his position on the war in Iraq. A former Marine, Mr. Murtha deserves credit for sounding an alarm about the deteriorating situation a year ago. But his descriptions of the stakes there have been consistently unrealistic, and his solutions irresponsible.

If this election is going to be about Iraq and WaPo's idea of centrism, then Murtha MUST win. WaPo has been wrong wrong wrong every step of the way on everything. BTW, when has WaPo ever issued endorsements in House leadership races? Never, that's when. Incredibly poor decision by WaPo.

< Update on War Crimes Complaint Against Rumsfeld | The Dem Majority and The South >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Murtha For Majority Leader | 52 comments (52 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by aw on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 08:07:28 PM EST

Mr. Murtha deserves credit for sounding an alarm about the deteriorating situation a year ago.

They are a major news organization. Why weren't they sounding the alarm? What are they good for?

Rotten (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by kdog on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 05:39:45 PM EST

I agree with Murtha on Iraq....but from the facts I see he's a slimy politician in a House full of them.

This is what you get when you vote for incumbents.....entrenched corruption.

Corruption (1.50 / 2) (#1)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 08:00:19 PM EST

If the Demos are truly concerned about corrruption, then Murtha can't possibly be considered for any leadership position.

I would like this comment to be deleted (1.00 / 1) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 08:05:34 PM EST

It persists in repeating a GOP lie that Murtha is corrupt. That is false There is not one shred of evidence to supprt this false charge.

Lies are trolling.

This comment is despicable.


Video tape (none / 0) (#5)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 06:52:51 AM EST

BTD - They have him on video tape.


: Not taking the bribe (1.00 / 1) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 07:56:06 AM EST

Being TEMPTED is not being corrupt.
Your lies persist.

Here, BTD (none / 0) (#6)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 07:05:02 AM EST

Here, Big Tent. Link it and read it.

But the reluctant Murtha wouldn't touch the $50,000. Here on secret videotape was this all-American hero, tall and dignified in a disheveled way, explaining why he wasn't quite ready to accept the cash.
"All at once," he said, "some dumb [expletive deleted] would go start talking eight years from now about this whole thing and say [expletive deleted], this happened. Then in order to get immunity so he doesn't go to jail, he starts talking and fingering people. So the [S.O.B.] falls apart."...
"You give us the banks where you want the money deposited," offered one of the bagmen.
"All right," agreed Murtha. "How much money we talking about?"

He did not take the bribe (1.00 / 1) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 07:56:41 AM EST

Ergo you are lying regarding Murtha being corrupt..


Just say no?? (none / 0) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:47:47 AM EST

He didn't refuse the money, he merely put it off. He didn't condemn the action he expressed concern over being caught.

And before he did that, he said:

"I want to deal with you guys awhile before I make any transactions at all, period.... After we've done some business, well, then I might change my mind...."
..."I'm going to tell you this. If anybody can do it -- I'm not B.S.-ing you fellows -- I can get it done my way." he boasted. "There's no question about it."...

Now that sounds like a guy saying he wanted more... Note the "After we've done some business.."

Note the "I can get it done."

He then says:

You give us the banks where you want the money deposited," offered one of the bagmen.
"All right," agreed Murtha. "How much money we talking about?"

"Well, you tell me."
"Well, let me find out what is a reasonable figure that will get their attention," said Murtha, "because there are a couple of banks that have really done me some favors in the past, and I'd like to put some money in...."

So why didn't he just say no, damn them for the insult and storm out yelling for the police?? That he didn't plainly establishes what he was doing.

Note the "..let me find out what is a reasonable figure...."

Okay, $50,000 isn't enough, so I'll get back to you.

You're banking on the widely shown 13 second snippet. When the whole tape is looked at, it is clear. And in todays world, it can't be ignored like it was the first time around.

Big Tent, even Nancy P is pulling back from Murtha.

Now, if the Demos want to put this guy in a leadership position it just shows that they are not serious about cleaning up Washington, and they will deserve the WHOLE tape being used in the Presidential elections in 2008.

Big Tent, I know that you are a partisian Demo, and that you are anti-war and that you are celebrating the win. But when you do things like this you make yourself look bad. Give it up. Start yelling, "We said we would clean it up, and we are!"

That might make the Demos more than two year wonders.


: Funny (1.00 / 1) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:15:07 AM EST

how it was never offered again.
He turned it down period. I am not interested were her words.

BTW (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:01:06 AM EST

The American Spectator is not a credible source.

But its spin is not going to prove your lie.

Murtha turned it down.


: You are losing (none / 0) (#43)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 04:21:31 PM EST

Big Tent - More attacks. What we have here is a transcript from the video, which is available.
AND THE TRANSCRIPT IS FOR THE WHOLE TAPE. NOT THE 13 SEC0NDS YOU WANT TO USE.
But hey, the tape is available. Google it up and prove them wrong.
You can't. All you can do is try and bully.
You are losing. Big Tent, you are really hurting yourself.
Sad, you know. Here everyone thought you were about getting rid of corruption and bringing Independents into the fold.
Now we know the truth.

Give it up, BTD, you will never convince... (1.00 / 1) (#40)
by Bill Arnett on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 01:25:11 PM EST

...the trolls here of anything.

My god, here they are harping on something that happened a generation ago and ignore the FACT that although a few congressmen got caught up by Abscam JOHN MURTHA WAS NOT AMONG THEM.

The DOJ wasn't shy about prosecuting every congressman possible, so the FACT that JOHN MURTHA WASN'T ONE OF THEM just goes whoop! right over their heads, but does establish that HE WAS NOT PROSECUTED.

Jeez, why don't we try to find out if John Murtha ever cheated on a test while he was in second grade-it would be just a relevant.

co= (none / 0) (#45)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 04:34:00 PM EST

Bill, DOJ named Murtha an unindicted co-conspirator.

The Washington Post referred to the incident as "an ethical scrape" in which Murtha was "named as an unindicted co-conspirator and testified against two House colleagues."

Can you guess what the deal was??


: Interesting choice (none / 0) (#52)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 09:11:49 AM EST

Murtha was "named as an unindicted co-conspirator and testified against two House colleagues."
as the cornerstone of Pelosi's "most ethical congress in history."

If the WaPo's upset (none / 0) (#2)
by scribe on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 08:00:46 PM EST

the choice that upsets them is the right one.

They've shilled for the Repugs for quite a long time.

It's false to say there is no evidence... (none / 0) (#7)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 07:13:27 AM EST

was it evidence sufficient to warrant a prosecution? No, pondering committing a crime and then not following through should not be the subject of a prosecution.

When the issue is ethics and not criminal culpability, however, ther same standards do not apply. As Murtha's biggest issue with the offered bribe seemed to be the repercussions of getting caught and not the fact it is wrong, I'd say that episode is fair game for questioning his ethics.

Judging from what Murtha said, it seems he realized that at the time.

Of course you would (1.00 / 1) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 07:57:40 AM EST

I think the fact he did not take the bribe is the basis for calling Jim a trolling liar for saying h did take it.

Of course I have no expectation that you would agree with that.


Wrong again, BT (none / 0) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:01:58 AM EST

Big Tent - You like to make personal attacks, don't you? I think that was made plain several days ago.

I had commented before that you, as a leader on the blog, should not do that and you embarass yourself when you do so.

Especially when you are wrong.

You wrote:

Some advice. Put your temper and ego in your pocket, Big Tent and go back read my comments, because I did not say "h(e) did take it."

In fact, I provided a link and quotes and even noted that the video take is available.

Now, if you want to bandy the "liar" term around, do so. It just defines you and reduces your creditability.


So you accept that Murtha (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:16:14 AM EST

is not corrupt then? Then why do you write he is?

Jim, you just checkmated yourself.


: Mouse trapped by his own words (none / 0) (#37)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:14:33 AM EST

What?? I provide links detailing his ethics problems, and you say I checkmate myself.
Take a deep breath Big Tent and give up. People can read the details of what he did, not the 13 seconds you and him want them to know about.

All right," agreed Murtha. "How much money we talking about?"
"Well, you tell me."
"Well, let me find out what is a reasonable figure that will get their attention," said Murtha, "because there are a couple of banks that have really done me some favors in the past, and I'd like to put some money in....["]

Those are not the words of refusal.
He has been mousetrapped by his own words.

I don't see where (none / 0) (#12)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:04:27 AM EST

he said Murtha took the bribe. He called him corrupt but that's a word amenable to broad interpretation and many (including me) would find it a fitting description of someone known to have engaged in such conduct. That he unlike those ultimately prosecuted in Abscam was smart enough to grasp the risk/reward calculus involved makes him smarter but it doesn't necessarily speak well of his ethics.

Then (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:18:22 AM EST

you choose to do so.

As I expected you to frankly.

Let me ask you this, is Steny Hoyer corrupt in his dealings with lobbyists and political contributions?


Do you have oroof? (none / 0) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:50:41 AM EST

I don't know.

Now, do you have a video tape showing the same, or similar?

Inquiring minds want to know.


It is no secret Jim (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:59:03 AM EST

It is legal corruption.

Your videotape is of a man turning down a bribe.


Do they (none / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:05:41 AM EST

Well, throw Hoyer out.. Surely the Demos have at least one suitable person for that spot.

They do, don't they? Well, don't they?

Big Tent? ?? Don't they?


I dunno (1.00 / 1) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:17:00 AM EST

Maybe not.

It does interest me that the entire Republican PArty is intent on swiftboating Murtha. As are you.


Swiftboating? (none / 0) (#28)
by Slado on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:38:29 AM EST

That's a copout BTD.

If it was a republican with this shady past would you be defending them so ardently?

Come on. Murtha has dirt on his hands and simply pointig out the facts of his past is not swiftboating.

Is that what happened to Delay? Was he swiftboated too or is he really guilty even though he hasn't been convicted of anything yet?

Repulicnas are not the ones who coined the phrase "Culture of Coroption". When you claim yourself to be high and mighty you can't balk when people point out your obvious shady past.

Your partisanship is showing.


Murtha the Brave (none / 0) (#30)
by Slado on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:42:11 AM EST

Here's another article pointing out the double standard on display by BTD.

For those interested here are more "lies" being spread by Republicans (and democrats).

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009248


: John Fund (none / 0) (#33)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:44:11 AM EST

A pattern emerges.

All Republicans have shady pasts (none / 0) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:43:44 AM EST

Heh.

are you exonerating Hoyer then Slado?

Why Murtha and NOT Hoyer?


Poster Child (none / 0) (#36)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:57:03 AM EST

Nope. Wrong again. I haven't said throw him out, and you can't show that I have.

Do you have difficulty in reading?? I mean really.

I just said he has some major ethics problems and that the Demos shouldn't put him in a leadership position.

But if you really want to, fine. The Repubs will make him the Demo Poster Child in 2008. If you haven't figured that out I wonder about your expertise as a writer about politics.

Remember, I'm an Independent who has clearly said that he puts up with the Repubs only because they are better on national defense, not because he likes them on other issues...


I don't know (none / 0) (#14)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:26:29 AM EST

I can't say that I'm familiar with any specific examples. If you want to provide me with some examples of what you consider dubiouis behavior on his part. I'll give you my opinion on those.

Do you find it interesting (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:58:17 AM EST

that Republicans have not dug them out?

Let me give you one clue - think Bankruptcy bill.


BTD the Murha apologist (none / 0) (#21)
by Slado on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:04:18 AM EST

BTD,

Seriously. The wash post had a devestating article today...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111401230.html

Tom Delay hasn't been convicted of a crime and probably won't. Is he as innocent as Murtha or are you simply holding repulicans to a hirer standard then you do Democrats as long as democrats push for your hot botton issues?

Come on. He is a classic Washington insider and his nomination proves to the public at large wheter you want to admit it or not that Democrats will run the show just like the republicans did.

"Open under new management"


That is an opinion piece (1.00 / 1) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:41:56 AM EST

From the WaPo cabal doing the GOP's bidding.

They have nothing and their willing to stopp to the lowrst levels to swift boat Murtha.

Steney Hoyer is now their paragon of virtue.

This is precisely why I am strongly for Murtha now.

I was not much caring before.


: Your position re-ethics (none / 0) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:51:18 AM EST

This is precisely why I am strongly for Murtha now
.
So it matters not what Murtha has done, Hoyer is just as bad? Wow. Would you accept that from a child?
"Johnny does it, so I can too."
Come now Big Tent. I ask again. If Hoyer is also corrupt, and I have no informant that he is. But if he is, surely a non-corrupt Democrat can be found to fill the position.
That you don't take that position says a lot about your position re-ethics.

Look-- put your cards on the table.. (none / 0) (#23)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:09:33 AM EST

or fold.

It's not possible to know even a fraction of the dubious action by folks in Congress unless you eat, sleep and drink congressional politics, and I don't.

As you have stated that you don't think Murtha's actions in Abscam are indicative of a lack of ethics, you have set the bar low enough to be subterranean, but if you have information that Hoyer has done things that you do consider corrupt and unethical despite your low standards lay them out and I will tell you what I think-- if you really care and are not just engaging in silly posturing as per usual.

I'll tell you upfront, that I think the "system" is corrupt and that in my ideal world money (including legal campaign contributions) would not be traded for favorable treatment. Of course, applying that standard would likely make it difficult to find 10 folks in Congress with "clean hands," so I reluctantly concede it isn't particularly fair in this environment to single out a particular individual just for doing what everyone does. I wish everyone would stop it but I know that isn't going to happen so I apply a relative standard.

Even by that relative standard, Murtha's ethics appear poor.

: If you are uninformed on the topic (1.00 / 1) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:42:48 AM EST

Maybe you should be more circumspect in your opinions.

You mean like Harry Reid did? (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:17:26 AM EST

You admire Reid do you?

BTD (none / 0) (#34)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:50:30 AM EST

The absurd gyrations in which you engage and utter noinsense you are willing to write seem boundless.

One need not be aware of anyone else's actions to have the opinion that the actions by Murtha of which we are aware reek.

Evidently, discussing bribes with people who outwardly express to you their desire to bribe is just fine and dandy. It's not fine and dandy with me-- whether everyone does it or hardly anyone does it.

I'm not saying that Murtha is the most or one of the most corrupt politicans around. I'm saying it appears inarguable that he got caught engaging in behavior that most reasonable people would consider highly unethical.

The battles you pick sometimes make me wonder if YOU are not the Republican troll masquerading as a Democrat so the Republicans can point to you as an example of what is wrong with Democrats.

If you want to say Murtha made a mistake a long tome ago but there is no evidence that he didn't learn his lesson and that he deserves a second chance, I might consider you something more than an unprincipled apologist for corrupt politicians with whom you happen to agree on an issue impertant to you. When you cross the line to absurdly lame defenses and denials, i can consider you nothing but someone who supports corruption as long as it is on your side.

: Good point (none / 0) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:16:45 AM EST

Decon writes:

The battles you pick sometimes make me wonder if YOU are not the Republican troll masquerading as a Democrat so the Republicans can point to you as an example of what is wrong with Democrats.
Hmmmmm, you know......
Naw..... The Demos will do it for them
;-)
Glad I'm an Independent.

I'm sure ... (none / 0) (#39)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:26:37 AM EST

that the presence of people like BTD in both parties is a cause in both the rise of indenpendent registration and the decline in party loyalty. "A pox on both houses" has a lot of appeal when each side shrilly derides the other's corruption but excuses its own.

I choose to stick it out but I do sometimes despair at what i see. I just still believe the best hope (and that's all it is-- a hope) lies with the chance the Democrats will right their ship and begin to govern effectively and honestly (mostly).

: Tried for years (none / 0) (#44)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 04:29:15 PM EST

Decon - I tried for years to remain a Demo... I even voted for Carter...
Sooner or later I hope you stand up and say. Hey. I am a social liberal who believes in National Health Care, Gay Rights, Women's Rights, Drug Law Reform, Tax Reform... but I'll be damned if I'll let my name have "Democrat" automatically attached to it.

Is that the standard? (none / 0) (#41)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 01:30:12 PM EST

Gee, let's all wave the "not prosecuted" banner proudly.

Henceforth, we will defend all politicians invloved in questionable activities unless they are prosecuted (successfully, I assume?).

You know, given all the problems Republicans have, they might jump on that offer. Maybe you're on to something. Brilliant!

"Have you ever been... (none / 0) (#42)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 01:51:28 PM EST

...convicted of a crime?"

"Convicted? No, never convicted."

Bill Murray, Stripes

Fantasy land (none / 0) (#46)
by Slado on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 05:06:18 PM EST

There are sevearl liberal advocacy groups that are named by the WaPost as going after Murtha. BTD would not like you to read these article or the one in the WSJ which I linked. They all paint a picture of a classsic Washington Insider. he's faught reform tooth and nail, is know throughout the house by both Dem's and Repub's as the man you cut deals with etc... None of this has anything do do with his non convicted crime of 30years ago.

If you don't want to knowa bout Murtha take BTD's word for it. If you do just read up on him.

It's buisness as usual in the House.

The Reasons For Supporting Murtha are His Opponent (none / 0) (#48)
by msobel on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:56:35 PM EST

When you have the WaPO, The New Republic, a smear Job in NYTimes and the DCL supporting your opponent, what more do you need to decide. Kicking up this much dirt against Pelosi's choice is by definition disloyal. The Netroots didn't make this a public fight, the Beltway Cowards did, (WAPO TNR, NYTimes, and the DLC) feeding a "Dems in Disarray" story. These are the people who have been wrong wrong wrong from the getgo. The DCCC tried the "culture of corruption" and it didn't fly. It's Iraq and we owe our victory to Murtha and Pelosi and how they played it. The Beltway Cowards are already showing themselves to be untrustworthy.

Another Swiftboat against Murtha (none / 0) (#49)
by msobel on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:18:23 PM EST

DailyKos has it Murtha's being swiftboated, MSNBC just debunked smear. These guys (WAPO TNR, NYTimes, and the DLC) are acting like Republicans.

: Watch the WHOLE tape... (none / 0) (#50)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 08:32:34 AM EST

No, they are like the Demos they are and don't want to give the Repubs a killer issue for the next election.
Watch the tape. The WHOLE tape and not the 13 seconds Murtha wants watched.
Then tell me the Repubs aren't just giggling at the thought of him being number 2 in 2008.

I'll see your (none / 0) (#51)
by Deconstructionist on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 08:47:24 AM EST

Jack Murtha and raise you a Trent Lott.

The Hill sometimes seems to operate in another dimenstion. Who's next in line for leadership positions, Alcee Hastings and John Doolittle?

: I'll take that bet (none / 0) (#53)
by Slado on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 12:39:09 PM EST

And raise you one Robert Byrd...
"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." -- Former Klansman and current US Senator Robert Byrd in a letter written in 1944, after he quit the KKK.
"I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties of the state .... The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia .... It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state of the Union. Will you please inform me as to the possibilities of rebuilding the Klan in the Realm of W. Va .... I hope that you will find it convenient to answer my letter in regards to future possibilities." -- Former Klansman and current US Senator Robert Byrd in a letter written in 1946, after he quit the KKK.