Pelosi pushing for Murtha, but will Hoyer win?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I find it quite amusing that the "conservative" members in here are crying "corruption" on ANYONE.

I don't think Murtha was ever actually charged with an ethics violation or any legal wrongdoing..?

I'm not really versed on the whole incident though, maybe someone can provide some background on the charges leveled against him?

[ballz2wallz]

Hoyer wins, 149-86.

In remarks after being chosen for speaker, the Californian vowed that after 12 years in the minority, "we will not be dazzled by money and special interests." Pelosi also called for unity in the party, but within moments she put her prestige on the line by nominating Murtha.

Pelosi's off to a rough start.

Here's what Bob has to say:

If Murtha loses, as is much more probable, she will be seen as bumbling her first attempt to lead the new Democratic majority. Pelosi could have avoided this dilemma by standing aside as Speaker-presumptive Newt Gingrich did when he voted for his ally Robert Walker as majority whip but did not ask members to oppose Tom DeLay.

Pelosi's mistake confirms longstanding, privately held Democratic apprehension about her abilities. Their concerns do not reflect the Republican indictment of her as a reflexive San Francisco liberal. Some of her most trenchant congressional critics are on the left wing of the party. These colleagues worry that her decision-making may be distorted by personal considerations.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Hoyer wins, 149-86.



Pelosi's off to a rough start.

Murtha was too controversial and had skeletons in his closet. This was probably a smart move on their part for this decision.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

I don't think Murtha was ever actually charged with an ethics violation or any legal wrongdoing..?

I'm not really versed on the whole incident though, maybe someone can provide some background on the charges leveled against him?

No charges were formally filed against him, but he's certainly a questionable man to have as 2nd in command:

Yet Murtha could prove to be a problematic candidate because of his penchant for trading votes for pork projects and his ties to the Abscam bribery sting in 1980, the only lawmaker involved who wasn't charged.

He has been criticized by ethics watchdogs such as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, who have said he exemplifies a "pay-to-play" culture of Washington. The group says Murtha has steered defense projects to clients of KSA Consulting, a lobbying firm that until recently employed his brother Kit. Clients of the firm are generous with campaign contributions.

YouTube Video

YouTube Video

UNDERCOVER FBI AGENT: I went out and I got the fifty thousand, okay? From what you're telling me, okay? You're telling me that that's not what you -- you know, that that's not --

MURTHA: I'm not interested. I'm sorry.

UNDERCOVER FBI AGENT: Okay.

MURTHA: At this point.

UNDERCOVER FBI AGENT: Okay.

MURTHA: You know, if we do business for a while. Maybe I'll be interested. Maybe I won't.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Hoyer wins, 149-86.



Pelosi's off to a rough start.

Here's what Bob has to say:

These colleagues worry that her decision-making may be distorted by personal considerations.

That's exactly what we were saying in the other thread ( Pelosi's Promise ) that Thor was arguing about. I sense he knew we were right but kept throwing silly comments at us to keep us going. Whatever

[Thorgrim]

the democrats in the house did an amazing job in 2004-2006 under Pelosi, shes an amazing leader and to say this questions her leadership skills is ridiculous, she owed murtha and she repaid him, Hoyer said before he completely understood and Pelosi told him beforehand that she was going to do it and why

Trying to make a story out of nothing

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

the democrats in the house did an amazing job in 2004-2006 under Pelosi, shes an amazing leader and to say this questions her leadership skills is ridiculous, she owed murtha and she repaid him, Hoyer said before he completely understood and Pelosi told him beforehand that she was going to do it and why

Trying to make a story out of nothing

How many other corrupt politicians does she "owe" and is she going to "repay" at the cost of America?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

How many other corrupt politicians does she "owe" and is she going to "repay" at the cost of America?

Probably the same as the amount of child predators the republicans "protected" at the cost of America

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Probably the same as the amount of child predators the republicans "protected" at the cost of America

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Trying to make a story out of nothing

But according to you those were stories. In fact, I have about a few hundred posts here from you saying so. So why when the roles are reversed is it not a story?

The child predators of the GOP were overall attacked by the conservative members of this board. Why all of a sudden when the shoe is on the other foot are certain people changing their political stance? You can't just keep running from thread to thread saying it's not a story or changing the subject to things like soldiers dying in Vietnam. These are the current issues of American politics. We are a political forum and we will discuss them. It would be wise if people could apply their political ideology and be willing to discuss these issues regardless of political affiliation. No?

When Bush was appointing people to positions of power the Democrats made it into a story. And the Republicans/conservatives debated Bush's choices. Nowhere did someone try to change the theme of the thread or say it was a non-issue.

You are correct in saying the Republicans did the same thing, however, so many condemned the Republicans for doing the same thing. Now that the roles are switched lets not make hypocrites of ourselves. The conservatives who defended the corruption can't be calling out the Democrats and the Democrats who attacked the corruption can't play the other card now.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

the democrats in the house did an amazing job in 2004-2006 under Pelosi, shes an amazing leader and to say this questions her leadership skills is ridiculous, she owed murtha and she repaid him, Hoyer said before he completely understood and Pelosi told him beforehand that she was going to do it and why

Trying to make a story out of nothing

Well, it seems she tried to get the wrong person for the job. As most Democrats that voted showed. It also seems they were afraid to tell her the truth about how they were going to vote because, as of yesterday, both Pelosi and Murtha thought he had it. It wasn't even close. Her pick got wiped out.

I'm thinking she isn't quite as good (or liked) as you seem to think.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Probably the same as the amount of child predators the republicans "protected" at the cost of America

While that is wrong for them to cover the Foley incident, I dont think it wise for Pelosi to "repay a favor". When you make promises for transparency in government, promises for the most scandal free congress, you dont start by repaying favors. You do it by endorsing the person who would best fill the position. Maybe she did feel murtha was the best man for the job, but that is the way it needs to be sold then. To sell it as repayment for a favor is wrong and is a hint that corruption is possible and might exist on the democrat of the isle. Just because republicans pull favors does not give democrats a free pass.

Personally I am holding them 100% accountable. I preached, bitched, complained, and advocated that we need a democratically controlled government... and I do not want to be made to look foolish. I am in a HUGE red state and I want to prove to them that democrats are a viable government solution because i really believe a moderate democrat holds the best interests for our country. If they go and fuck it up by "repaying favors" here and there instead of actually doing their job, you will find one more registered independent.

If she felt murtha was better, fine say that and go with it. Repaying favors creates questions regarding her ethics.

[motivez]

I would have liked to see Murtha get it. The elections were a referendum on Iraq, and he was the person who helped the Democrats find their sack on the issue.

Going forward as the majority, it should be important to Democrats to paint themselves as a party who places actual combat vets in leadership roles dealing with Iraq and helping to run the nation, rather than a bunch of never-serving hawks who think they're playing with G.I. Joes who got to avoid combat thanks to daddy's money

Murtha would have been a decent choice in that respect, but again, I don't know enough about the other issues with him to say whether or not it should have hurt him or even been an issue.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Murtha would have been a decent choice in that respect, but again, I don't know enough about the other issues with him to say whether or not it should have hurt him or even been an issue.

He came and spoke at my university two weeks ago. Some people asked him some tough questions regarding his corruption and behavior towards the troops. The way he handled them was disgraceful. I didn't like him before that, and I really don't like him now. He got very defensive and rude. He didn't conduct himself maturely as I would have expected. The pictures of him getting mad with the mouth wide open and eyes slanted really portray his personality.

Found an image..

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

But according to you those were stories. In fact, I have about a few hundred posts here from you saying so. So why when the roles are reversed is it not a story?

The child predators of the GOP were overall attacked by the conservative members of this board. Why all of a sudden when the shoe is on the other foot are certain people changing their political stance? You can't just keep running from thread to thread saying it's not a story or changing the subject to things like soldiers dying in Vietnam. These are the current issues of American politics. We are a political forum and we will discuss them. It would be wise if people could apply their political ideology and be willing to discuss these issues regardless of political affiliation. No?

When Bush was appointing people to positions of power the Democrats made it into a story. And the Republicans/conservatives debated Bush's choices. Nowhere did someone try to change the theme of the thread or say it was a non-issue.

You are correct in saying the Republicans did the same thing, however, so many condemned the Republicans for doing the same thing. Now that the roles are switched lets not make hypocrites of ourselves. The conservatives who defended the corruption can't be calling out the Democrats and the Democrats who attacked the corruption can't play the other card now.

Note to self: never discuss Vietnam

Also, if you want to talk about how corrupt Murtha is, someone here posted a transcript of him on Hardball, he answered all the questions and put all the rumors to rest

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Well, it seems she tried to get the wrong person for the job. As most Democrats that voted showed. It also seems they were afraid to tell her the truth about how they were going to vote because, as of yesterday, both Pelosi and Murtha thought he had it. It wasn't even close. Her pick got wiped out.

I'm thinking she isn't quite as good (or liked) as you seem to think.

She claimed she had all the votes she needed yesterday to get Murtha elected?

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by motivez

I would have liked to see Murtha get it. The elections were a referendum on Iraq, and he was the person who helped the Democrats find their sack on the issue.

Going forward as the majority, it should be important to Democrats to paint themselves as a party who places actual combat vets in leadership roles dealing with Iraq and helping to run the nation, rather than a bunch of never-serving hawks who think they're playing with G.I. Joes who got to avoid combat thanks to daddy's money

Murtha would have been a decent choice in that respect, but again, I don't know enough about the other issues with him to say whether or not it should have hurt him or even been an issue.

I can agree with you if the agenda was to put a war veteran in place because that is essentially what the people voted for and he was really one of the first to start a movement for change.

What I have a problem with is endorsing him to return favors.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

the democrats in the house did an amazing job in 2004-2006 under Pelosi, shes an amazing leader and to say this questions her leadership skills is ridiculous, she owed murtha and she repaid him, Hoyer said before he completely understood and Pelosi told him beforehand that she was going to do it and why

Trying to make a story out of nothing

This is her first big defeat. All the media have played it that way so I guess thay are making the "story out of nothing?" If this was just a stunt then why was Murtha on MSNBC saying he had the votes? That is like a football team saying we will win the game!


Now her big problem is the Intelligence Committee!

Will she dump the well qualified Harmon because she does not like her? Make another political payof to the Congressional Black Caucus and put the disgraced ex-judge Hastings in her place? Fun to watch!

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

I would have liked to see Murtha get it. The elections were a referendum on Iraq, and he was the person who helped the Democrats find their sack on the issue.

I think that was Pelosi's real motive. She thought she could turn the tide by backing him. The moderate to conservative Dems just gave her a big shocker! The election was not a liberal mandate.