I don't begrudge Pelosi from supporting her friend Murtha. Actually, she had to. Murtha ran her campaign in 2001 to become the second-ranking member of the minority leadership, behind Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MO). Her opponent in that race was... Hoyer. So there is some contentiousness there. I get it. And Pelosi reportedly believes that Murtha, having so loudly railed against the status quo at the Pentagon vis-a-vis Iraq (a position which was not incorrect), spurred the Democrats into focusing their position on Operation Iraqi Freedom. This, she believes, was the catalyst for the huge gains their party made last week.
For the record, I don't believe this to be true. I think the war was certainly a major issue at play and dissatisfaction with the way it is run was paramount in that, but I think the gutter-low approval rating of Congress at large is what gave the Democrats the edge in the election.
So I understand Pelosi's relatively late support (Hoyer has been canvassing for votes for months and has been storing up his chits for just this moment). But what I don't understand is why Pelosi had to go out of her way for such a losing cause. It is clear that Hoyer has the votes -- more than he needs in fact -- so why did Pelosi write a letter of support to Murtha and then release it to the press? Does she really want the first thing she attaches her name to to be a losing gambit? She could have worked up support behind the scenes and saved face for herself and her agenda when Murtha loses.
An unintended consequence of Murtha fighting for this position has been the stories about his unethical acts as a member of Congress. Murtha was embroiled in the 1981 Abscam scandal in which members of Congress were offered bribes by undercover FBI agents posing as Arab businessmen. Some took the bait and were later tried in court. Murtha was caught on tape taking a meeting with the agents, hearing them out, and then saying that he wasn't interested at the moment. He further suggested the Arab men invest in his district. He was not charged with a crime but did testify against fellow Congressmen who were tried. There was speculation he had cut a deal with the Justice Department. He was investigated by the House Ethics Committee, that non-partisan bastion of credibility (sarcasm dripping off the screen) and, along a party-line vote, was acquitted. The chief counsel of the committee immediately resigned in protest.
Further, a Democrat-funded (Drudge says George Soros-backed, though this is only a loose fact as Soros funds larger groups that have trickled money down to this organization) "think-tank" or whatever they call themselves, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), have included Murtha in their 2006 "20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress and 5 to Watch" compilation. The claims against him include giving earmarks to companies lobbied for by his brother Kit Murtha, and misusing his authority as a ranking member of an Appropriations sub-committee to trade earmarks for campaign funds.
From a NY Times article about the intra-party leadership fight:
He helped block changes in ethics policies that Democrats proposed last year. He
has also been an astute backroom-deal maker known for trading votes for the pet
projects known as earmarks. He has had family members who lobbied on issues
under his control, and he was caught up in the Abscam corruption scandal more than 25 years ago, though he was never charged.
So Murtha blocked ethics reforms in the past. Is this because such reforms would be used against him? Or is this just one of those muddled Beltway PR fights and Murtha didn't support the proposed reform bill because he supported a different reform bill? I don't know, but I doubt any member of Congress is truly against ethics, even if there's a chance he'd be affected by them.
But what is really unsettling is Congressmen writing off of ethics questions in the Abscam mess because they happened a long time ago:
And some of his backers say the Abscam scandal of 1980 is ancient history.
... “It was 26 years ago,” said Representative Kendrick B. Meek, Democrat of Florida and a former Florida state trooper who is supporting Mr. Murtha.
Hoyer is the right choice in this election. He is a solid Democrat on many social issues, but is considered pro-business (whatever that means nowadays). More than anything, though, he is practiced in bipartisanism and will be a good team-player. Murtha, it goes to reason, could devolve into a naked partisan and isolationist when it is the conservative Democrats that truly have the power to sway a vote after this last election.
UPDATE (11/14/06): The press is really covering this story. Some quotes from a WaPo article today:
Andrew Koneschusky, a spokesman for Murtha, declined to discuss ethics
issues, saying: "We are focused on the future. We are focused on electing the
best candidate to lead our party and deliver the change the American people
want, and that is Jack Murtha. We are looking forward, not backward."At issue is Murtha's relationships with two defense lobbyists. Paul
Magliocchetti of the PMA Group is a former aide to the lawmaker, and Robert
"Kit" Murtha is his brother and was a senior partner at KSA Consulting from 2002
to 2005.
The PMA Group has become the go-to firm to approach Murtha as
ranking Democrat on the Appropriations defense subcommittee, CREW charges. In
the 2006 defense appropriations bill, PMA clients reaped at least 60 special
provisions, or "earmarks," worth more than $95 million.
The PMA Group and its
clients have been top campaign contributors for Murtha: $274,649 in the 2006
campaign cycle, $236,799 in the 2004 cycle and $279,074 in the 2002 cycle,
according to CREW's tallies.Taxpayers for Common Sense identified more than $103 million in earmarks in
the 2006 defense spending bill that Murtha requested for his home district in
southwestern Pennsylvania -- nearly $80 million of which cleared President
Bush's desk."...For years, he has used his powerful perch as the ranking Democrat on the
defense appropriations subcommittee to dole out earmarks to build influence.
Hoyer raises campaign cash; Murtha taps the taxpayer for influence." This was a
quote by Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment