So are all our libs happy with the way the House leadership went today? Nancy didn't get here wish but says she is now ready to get on with things, is she? Man, this place has sure calmed down since you guys ain't pissed any more, or are you just temporarily out of breath?

Like Will Rogers once said, " I don't belong to no organized party. I'm a Democrat." :)

Hopefully they'll work things out.

Like Will Rogers once said, " I don't belong to no organized party. I'm a Democrat." :)

Hopefully they'll work things out.

"The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that's out always looks the best."

He had a lot of them. :)

"The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that's out always looks the best."
Sheesh, Snake. I don't know if I'd go that far. They're just shaking things out right now.

Will: Politics is applesauce. :)

As I said in another thread, this was a dumb mistake Pelosi made and fortunatley for her, the Democratic Caucus was smarter than she was (even the liberal wing)...but her and Murtha got thumped by almost 2 to 1 and it turns out that every phone call she made to get support was rebuffed. Hoyer said he had 140+ votes on Friday...and then had that amount yesterday.

The last things the Dems needed was a bombastic majority leader...that on Friday said he didn't see any compromise on the war...but it will be precisely compromise that eventually brings our men and women home. (maybe unfortunate, but think this is also the truth)...

So let Murtha continue to do what he does best, stir the pot. Then let Hoyer make sure he herds enough of the cats to get a vote done when it is needed.

I think Pelosi was going with Murtha out of personal loyalty, partially. Early reports said she was supporting Murtha, but not really trying that hard. It was later reports that said she was working the phones hard. Hoyer and she have worked together fine in the past, so I expect it to be the same going forward.

But I suggest you consider that this might have been a show. Consider that Pelosi is known as both a smart pol and a tough pol. If Murtha had won, the press would be screaming that the dems were going to cut and run, pull out fast of Iraq (aka redeploying over the horizon). But now the dems have rejected that position for the leadership. They can still go that way, but they won't be seen as going that way yet. More options are open to them.

Was that how it was planned? I don't know. But the leadership is probabably going to do fine with Hoyer and Pelosi working the system.

Edit:

interesting how this compares to 1994 and Newt. Liberal press my tushie! The dems are in disarray because the speaker did not get her way! The dem wave is over!

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116373868117148 083

It's worth noting that the last time the House turned over, in 1994, Tom Delay beat Newt Gingrich's handpicked choice for majority leader and somehow the whole town didn't interpret that as Newtie's waterloo. As a matter of fact, the press was giving him such wet slurpy (deleted) they could hardly come up for air.

I think out of loyalty and the fact that Murtha lead the charge for Iraq reform. He was kinda 'owed' at least the nod. But the Dems chose another route, Nancy can say "I tried, now let's move forward'
I find it funny that Cons find this internal debate amongst the dems 'a bad thing' after the absolute mess that 'rounding the wagons' has bestowed upon our country.
People are supposed to disagree and debate, if we were all neocon line towers this site would have died as all we'd do is agree with each other. Debate is the most Democratic ideal out there and key to our Republic. The Cons had drawn the 'supoport a Con right or wrong' mentality since Reagan and what did it give us? Scandals, corruption on unequaled levels and a Congress that did NOTHING about it. It also gave us a Congress that rubber stamped some of the worst legislation in history, didn't override the one veto it should have and let a WH run rough shod over the nation without a hint of resistance or inquiry. That is allowing an Imperial Presidency and methinks Mr Jefferson would NOT be pleased.

I find it funny that Cons find this internal debate amongst the dems 'a bad thing' ...

Debate, sure. But Pelosi and Hoyer go way, WAY back you know. They met in the 60's in Maryland interning for Senator Daniel Brewster.

So let Murtha continue to do what he does best, stir the pot. Then let Hoyer make sure he herds enough of the cats to get a vote done when it is needed.
Yep, this is how I see it. I think (hope) it will work out best this way in the end.

about Murtha being a symbolic gesture. and Hoyer representing a more moderate tone
when I was talking debate, I didn't mean over Murtha, but the Dems as a whole.
the Cons seem to think having ionter party disagreement is 'bad' while their 'unified party' which they thought was a 'good things' has brought us to the mmess we are in today

Bio/profile of him here:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0611.roth.html

Very long.

I think out of loyalty and the fact that Murtha lead the charge for Iraq reform.



Well, if you call an immediate redeployment "reform".




I find it funny that Cons find this internal debate amongst the dems 'a bad thing' after the absolute mess that 'rounding the wagons' has bestowed upon our country.
People are supposed to disagree and debate, if we were all neocon line towers this site would have died as all we'd do is agree with each other. Debate is the most Democratic ideal out there and key to our Republic. The Cons had drawn the 'supoport a Con right or wrong' mentality since Reagan and what did it give us? Scandals, corruption on unequaled levels and a Congress that did NOTHING about it. It also gave us a Congress that rubber stamped some of the worst legislation in history, didn't override the one veto it should have and let a WH run rough shod over the nation without a hint of resistance or inquiry. That is allowing an Imperial Presidency and methinks Mr Jefferson would NOT be pleased.

An admirable attempt at spin. Nice try.

It isn't disagreement that is "a bad thing", it's the hypocracy of backing Murtha after campaigning on ethics.

Remember the word hypocracy? You used to be real big on it.

interesting how this compares to 1994 and Newt. Liberal press my tushie! The dems are in disarray because the speaker did not get her way! The dem wave is over!

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116373868117148 083

It's worth noting that the last time the House turned over, in 1994, Tom Delay beat Newt Gingrich's handpicked choice for majority leader and somehow the whole town didn't interpret that as Newtie's waterloo. As a matter of fact, the press was giving him such wet slurpy (deleted) they could hardly come up for air.

The difference being that Gingrich didn't really campaign for his choice. Other than saying who he was voting for, he stayed out of it.

It isn't disagreement that is "a bad thing", it's the hypocracy of backing Murtha after campaigning on ethics.



What did Murtha do besides turn down a $50,000 bribe during the ABSCAM sting?

Well, if you call an immediate redeployment "reform".

An admirable attempt at spin. Nice try.

It isn't disagreement that is "a bad thing", it's the hypocracy of backing Murtha after campaigning on ethics.

Remember the word hypocracy? You used to be real big on it.

uh what unethical thing was Murtha convicted of again? oh yeah right can't convict a guy of turning down a bribe

second: you did notice he didn't get the nod, so his party must have thought him NOT the right choice.

this is alot different than changing the ethics rules so that Tom Delay who was under criminal investigation could remain speaker

What did Murtha do besides turn down a $50,000 bribe during the ABSCAM sting?

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001993.php

Ultimately, six lawmakers went down on corruption charges stemming from the operation, nearly all of them Democrats. Murtha wasn't one of them -- but not, as Murtha implies, because his innocence was ever demonstrated.

You can see for yourself why that may have been hard to do. The American Spectator got ahold of the FBI's ABSCAM tape of its meeting with Murtha, and you can view it on the magazine's Web site. It's 53 minutes long, but a representative sample can be seen if you start at around 15:23 and watch for a few minutes.

"I'm gonna be blunt," an FBI man says to Murtha after laying out what favors he was looking to buy. "Are you telling me now. . . you don't want any money on this thing?"

"There's some places I'd like you to invest some money, in the banks, in my district," Murtha responds. "I'd say some substantial deposits." He explains later how he does so many favors for people that, if they weren't all for individuals in his district, "people would say, that son of a *****. . . is on the take."

"Once they say that, what happens?" Murtha asks the FBI men rhetorically, ignorant of the fact that he was explaining his own M.O. to agents trying to bust him for corruption. "Then they start going around looking for the goddamn money. So I want to avoid that by having some tie to the district. That's all. That's the secret to the whole thing."

With comments like that, and a zealous special prosecutor for the House ethics committee examining the evidence, how did Murtha avoid even a slap on the wrist? Easy: he was protected from even becoming the subject of investigation by Democratic leadership at the time.

In 1980, Tip O'Neill was House Speaker and the center of Democratic power in Washington, George Crile wrote in his book, "Charlie Wilson's War." Murtha was a member of O'Neill's inner circle.

When O'Neill learned that the special prosecutor, Barrett Prettyman Jr., had set his sights on Murtha, "the Speaker immediately summoned [then-Texas Dem. congressman] Charlie Wilson into his office with an offer he couldn't refuse" -- a seat on the House ethics committee.

Wilson, a man of proudly compromised morals, protested that they would both get "laughed off the [House] floor" if he accepted. But O'Neill wanted Wilson on the panel to stop the probe from reaching Murtha, Crile reports. And he got it -- by promising Wilson a lifetime appointment to the board of the Kennedy Center, which gave Wilson -- a well-known womanizer -- dozens of free tickets to performing arts events.

"Wilson arrived on the Ethics Commitee just as O'Neill had hoped -- like a wrecker," Crile wrote. "He told a Washington Post reporter that the committee was on a partisan witch-hunt and that what was really on trial was not John Murtha but the integrity of the House of Representatives. . . .

"[S]hortly after Charlie's arrival the rules of the game changed completely and before [special prosecutor] Prettyman could fully deploy his investigators to move on the Murtha case, he was informed that the committee had concluded there was no justification for an investigation. 'This matter is closed,' proclaimed the newly appointed Ethics Committee chairman Louis Stokes, another of the Speaker's reliables."

Prettyman was stunned, Crile said, and resigned his congressional post in protest. Murtha kept his -- and, come Thursday's secret ballot election among his fellow Democrats, may take the top seat in the House.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001993.php


Ok, so he tries to get investment in his district? He serves the interest of his constituents, and in return gets political power.... imagine! A politician doing THAT kind of thing!

This is old stuff--the Repubs, especially since Gingrich in the early '90s, debate in private, then march in lockstep to give the impression of solidarity. The Dems debate in public and give the impression of disorganization. Personally I'd rather see the discussions take place in the open, but secrecy has been so successful for the GOP that it's hard to see how the D's can keep airing their differences in public.

This is old stuff--the Repubs, especially since Gingrich in the early '90s, debate in private, then march in lockstep to give the impression of solidarity. The Dems debate in public and give the impression of disorganization. Personally I'd rather see the discussions take place in the open, but secrecy has been so successful for the GOP that it's hard to see how the D's can keep airing their differences in public.

the Dems debate just needs to be sold as 'a good thing'. Pelosi and Co. are evven talking about opening more 'private debates' to the public.
Lockstep should noow be demonized by the left as what led us to where e are today. Lockstep gave us Foley, Hastert, Delay, Cunningham, Ney, Frist etc.....
oh and lockstep gave us
a) this war
b) warrantless wiretaps
etc...
it jjust needs to be mmarketed as such

Ok, so he tries to get investment in his district? He serves the interest of his constituents, and in return gets political power.... imagine! A politician doing THAT kind of thing!

Pretty much my take on it too.

I don't think the Dem. congress could do much if he broke any laws. We're talking gray areas here, and as far as I know, those don't get you ethics violations. Whoever happens to be running it, it's still congress,

Silas