Clyburn issue solved, Majority Leader race gets ugly

A bitter fight that could have created a rift between Nancy Pelosi and the Congressional Black Caucus has been averted, The Hill online magazine reports. 

Originally, Rahm Emanuel, the architect behind the Democrats' House victories last week, had planned to run for House Majority Whip.  However, South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn had been in line for the job.  Word circulated yesterday that Pelosi worked out a compromise with Emanuel and Clyburn, which would allow Clyburn to be the Whip.

The only messy situation left is over the race for Majority Leader, where the battle between John Murtha and Steny Hoyer just got ugly:

..a Washington watchdog group is questioning the party's sincerity andalleging that Murtha steered Pentagon contracts to businesses thathired his brother as a lobbyist.

"How can Americans believe thatthe Democrats will return integrity to the House when future SpeakerPelosi has endorsed an ethically challenged member for a leadershipposition?" Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens forResponsibility and Ethics in Washington, asked in a written statement."Rep. Murtha is the wrong choice for this job."

Murtha responded, calling these "swift boat" style attacks.  Personally, I have mixed views on all this.  It might just be better if Rahm Emanuel got the Majority Leader position, and Clyburn was Majority Whip -- leaving neither Murtha nor Hoyer in a powerful position.  Obviously this is a preliminary opinion.  But how can you clean up Congress if your newest number-two-guy has a corruption problem of his own?  I am going to do more research on this in the coming days.

Comments

[The Mexican]

Both Hoyer and Murtha are connected to lobbyist influence, so, I think and do agree, Rahm Emanuel, whose showcased this newer authentic, more pragmatic view in politics, should be the Majority Leader; he's a rising star in the Dems party, like Obama.

[Administrator: Todd]

Quite true. If Murtha becomes Majority Leader, I just don't want him to have to owe any lobbyist. Our side got into Congress to help clean up the mess, not reinvent it.

[George]

Murtha voted to give Bush authority to go to war. I appreciate his current point of view, but let's clean house. I dont want anyone who has to answer why they weren't forward thinking enough to vote against that legislation - perhaps the most damning in US history.

(This is primarily why I will have a hard time supporting Clinton in '08)

[ted K]

Many forward thinking people voted to give Bush the go ahead.
They all had the info he did to make an informed choice as to invade Iraq or not.
Its in the 911 report.

You cannot use hindsight to say that Hillary or Murtha should have voted against invading Iraq.

As much as I don't care for Hillary, she, Murtha, Lieberman, Z. Miller, etc, did the right thing with the info they had to oust the madman.

It appears to me that many liberals are against any war, no matter what.

War sucks, but sometimes evil has to be killed.

It would be a great world if everyone did not get offended and we all got along, but my head is not in the sand.

[George]

This was a war of choice. The wrong choice.

If you think otherwise then your head is nowhere but buried in the sand.

I read the 9/11 report. It does not in any way advocate a war in Iraq.

[Administrator: Todd]

Ted, why are you suggesting that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with the 9/11 Commission report? Sorry to use that so-called "liberal talking point." But come on. You can't invoke the 9/11 Commission Report like that unless you are talking about homeland security.

Actually, in an odd way, I am glad that you brought up the 9/11 Commission Report. How come Bush has not fully implemented its findings -- especially regarding port security?

Although I am not as critical as George about the Democrats who supported the war, they still were dead wrong. Then again, contrary to what some in the media say, the Democratic Congress did NOT have the same intelligence as the President. They don't get a daily intelligence briefing...which contains information that Congress rarely sees.

And George, I agree with you about Hillary and many other Democrats. But I do admire John Edwards for at least admitting that he was dead wrong, AND apologizing for it. By apologizing like that, Edwards is setting a good precedent that we don't see in politics too often: politicians admitting they were wrong.

[The Mexican]

whose = who has*

I'm pretty picky about grammar, semantics, and syntax, so I needed to correct myself.

The last paragraph in my response on the Churchill thread was for Ted K on this post.

[George]

Todd,
We need leaders who can analyze a situation by measuring FACTS as well as taking into account what evidence is conspicuous by its absence. Those who voted for the war simply caved because it was unpopular to oppose it. They made what seemed to be the smart POLITICAL decision without proper review.

Situations like this occur in Congress and throughout the business world constantly on a smaller scale. It can be said for each person who voted on this legislation that is was the single most important decision of their careers. Instead of weighing facts, they were persuaded by popular opinion. They got it dead wrong. They dont deserve to continue to lead because of it. Why would you accept this?

Given a choice, I will probably never again vote for someone who voted for this war. Is this not the worst decision in the history of the USA? It may just be.