Anti-war Congressman John Murtha that after the Republicans picks their nominee, the party will suddenly do a reversal and take a different stance on the war:
“As soon as the primaries are over,you’ll see Republicans start jumping ship,†Murtha said in remarks atthe National Press Club.
Murthaalso predicted that, despite the unpopularity of Congress, Democratswill make broad gains in next year’s election because voters are upsetwith the war.
On the Democrats' bid to gain US House seats, Murtha is optimistic -- maybe too optimistic:
“People arefrustrated, but you’re going to see a big Democratic increase,†he toldreporters after his speech. “I think we’ll pick up 40 [to] 50 seats.â€
40 to 50 seats? I am an optimist, but that is pushing it a bit. That means Democrats would have to win 40 seats that they weren't even able to win in 2006. I would be happy with 20 seats. Of course though, it is good to aim high, and I like to see that.
In the post-2004 political era, nothing ticks off progressive Democrats more than when politicians allow boldness to be trumped by political calculation. Voters respect courage, not slogans that went through five focus groups before ever being uttered on camera.
However, even though there certainly is too much political calculation today, having at least some respect for strategy sure beats not having a brain at all. Unfortunately, some Democrats appear to lack both boldness and political calculation. For whatever reason, they are scared of a President whose approval rating is at . The Democratic House majority is drafting a much weaker Iraq bill that would not require all troops to leave Iraq until Bush says so. Even supports this plan:
Early in the week, rumors were spreading that Rep. John P. Murtha(Pa.), one of the first pro-war Democrats to turn against the conflict,was apparently prepared to drop the spring deadline for troop pulloutsthat House and Senate Democrats had been demanding for months.Specifics of his plan were hard to come by, and even Democratic leaderswere in the dark.
Since the surge began, the political and military situations have grown more unstable. So if anything, Democrats like Murtha should be asking for more demands than they did a few months ago, not less.
Congressman John Murtha is furious at John McCain for a joke that he made about IED's while appearing on the Daily Show this week. Here was what McCain said:
STEWART: So what do you want to start with: the bomb Iran song, or the walk through the market in Baghdad? What do you want to start with?
MCCAIN: Uh, let's see. Which one have I seen most on your show? I think maybe, maybe shopping in Baghdad. I had something really picked out for you too. It's a nice --
STEWART: Did you really?
MCCAIN: Yeah. It's a nice little IED to put under your desk.
On the House floor the very next day, Murtha said many of the military families that lost loved ones to IED's would find that offensive. He called on McCain to apologize:
MURTHA: Let me talk a little about IED's. In the last four months, we've lost more troops than any other period during this war. And I'm sorry to hear from a friend of mine's wife, who called me and said there was a joke on one of the shows last night of a Republican presidential candidate who said that he brought an IED back and put it under this guy's desk. That individual owes an apology to every troop that serves in Iraq.
McCain's campaign is a train-wreck. It will be very important for him to rebound during the GOP debate on Thursday.
All I know is that if McCain were a Democrat, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh would have gone crazy because of that comment.
This current debate on the non-binding Iraq resolution is definitely the calm before the storm, to cite an over-used cliche. Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) is about to reinsert himself into the line of fire in the most surgical way possible. As Chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Murtha will into Bush's latest defense bill that could really screw things up for the White House. It would mark the first chapter in an imminent constitutional showdown over Executive war power:
Stepping up his campaign against the White House, Murtha, chairman ofthe House defense appropriations subcommittee, told Tom Andrews, aformer congressman-turned-activist, in the online interview that hewould attach so many conditions to an upcoming spending bill for Iraqthat the Pentagon would not be able to find enough troops to carry outthe president’s “surge†plan.
So just how would Murtha's idea work? It is rather inventive -- and very difficult to argue against. Here are some of the provisions that Murtha plans to add to Bush's defense bill. What a pain in the neck this will be for the Administration!:
Provision #1: All combat veterans could spend one year stateside before returning to the battlefield.
Provision #2: Eliminates the stop-loss program (back-door draft).
Provision #3: Outlaws permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.
Provision #4: Prevents the U.S. from going into Iran without Congressional authorization.
Translation: Murtha is a genius. He is not ending the war by cutting off funds for the troops. That is what the White House naively expected Democrats to do. Instead, he will end the war by offering provisions that are uniquely pro-military. It would force the Administration to treat our troops and their loved ones with more respect. No more stop-loss program. No more keeping troops from their families. Any lawmaker that opposes these provisions would be voting against bettering the lives of those in uniform.
The White House knows if the stop-loss program is ended and troops are allowed to spend one year stateside that there will not be enough military forces for the war to continue. That is exactly what Murtha has in mind.
Robert Kagan, one of the founders of modern-day neoconservatism, wrote an criticizing the Democrats for not unveiling a plan of their own:
Those who call for an "end to the war" don't want to talk about thefact that the war in Iraq and in the region will not end but will onlygrow more dangerous. Do they recommend that we then do nothing,regardless of the consequences? Or are they willing to say publicly,right now, that they would favor sending U.S. troops back into Iraq toconfront those new dangers?
Well actually, if the press actually had paid more attention to before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, than maybe Kagan would not have made such uninformed accusations about Democrats. On Tuesday, Murtha laid out a clear strategy for the region:
To achieve stability and security in Iraq, I believe we first musthave a responsible phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq.General William Odom (U.S. Army, Retired) recently testified, "We arepursuing the wrong war."
Stability and security in the Region should be our overarchingstrategy, not a "victory in Iraq." I agree with General Odom andbelieve that Regional Stability can only be accomplished through theredeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq.
Overall, there were three key points to his testimony:
In order to achieve stability in Iraq and the Region, I recommend
1) The redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq 2) The execution of a robust diplomatic effort and the restoration of our international credibility 3) The repairing of our military readiness and the rebuilding of our strategic reserve to face future threats.
The problem is that no matter what, conservatives do not consider redeployment a legitimate policy. So every time Democrats talk about redeploying forces, conservatives will respond by saying, "They don't have a plan." It makes a great talking point. But is it a cheap smear tactic? Of course.
Henry Waxman - House Government Reform Committee Chairman
John Murtha - House Defense Appropriations Committee Chairman
John Conyers - House Judiciary Committee Chairman
Above are three individuals to watch very closely over the next two years. As chairman of three very important House committees, they are promising investigations into Administration mismanagement and encourage a new direction. Two of the three -- Waxman and Murtha -- are so serious about issuing subpoenas that they have a team of investigators:
Evidence continues to mount that the new Democratic majority plans toinvestigate the war, energy policy, and other Bush policies, as keycommittees have begun hiring lawyer-investigators whose job will be toprobe the administration. In the House, for example, the AppropriationsCommittee under Rep. John Murtha'sdirection is hiring investigators who will be charged with looking intothe administration's war policies and spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.Also, Rep. Henry Waxman,the incoming chairman of the House Government Reform Committee who'sbeen dogging the vice president's energy task force, is also hiringlawyers. A Democratic leadership official said that the plannedhearings and investigations into the war and other issues thelawyer-investigators are being hired to look into will be "veryfocused." In the Senate, officials said similar hirings were underwayin a speeded up effort to have people in place for the start of the newCongress, especially the planned early January hearings into the warand military spending that are set to begin January 8.
The Democrats are set to take the gavel on January 4th. Instead of adjourning until after the President's State of the Union Address later that month like in previous years, this Congress will get to work immediately. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is planning to pass a series of bills in the first 100 hours.
John Murtha gets caught calling his party's lobbyist reform bill "total crap."
After Democrats won the election last Tuesday in hope that they would clean up Congress, both of the candidates running for House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer and John Murtha, have some alleged ethical issues of their own. It is no secret that Hoyer, the U.S. Congressman from Maryland, has had with K-Street over the years. Then again, no one is really expecting him to win. The other contender, John Murtha, was investigated by the FBI less than 30 years ago in a larger scandal that involved other members of Congress. He was never charged, and was cleared by the House Ethics Committee in a unanimous vote.
So whether Murtha is corrupt or not is open to some debate. But his latest about the Democrats' lobbyist reform bill might signal that he is not suited to be the second most powerful person in a new House, whose majority party promised during the campaign season to crack down on lobbyist influence in Washington:
Congressman John Murtha reportedly called a Democratic bill onlobbying and ethics reform "total crap" two days before the HouseMajority Leader election, during a vote-bidding presentation before theBlue Dog Coalition.
"Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) told a group of Democratic moderates onTuesday that an ethics and lobbying reform bill being pushed by partyleaders was 'total crap,' but said that he would work to enact thelegislation because Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) supports it,"John Bresnahan reports for Roll Call.
"Even though I think it’s total crap, I’ll vote for it and pass itbecause that’s what Nancy wants," Murtha said, three sources at themeeting told the Capitol Hill newspaper.
You have got to be kidding me! "Total crap"? See, this is the kind of elitist, entitlement attitude we don't need in Washington. Open government is on the line. I could not care less what his views are about Iraq. In fact, I happen to believe that Senator Joe Biden has a better strategy than he does. But the point is that even though you can't rid Congress of every single K-Street goon, you can prevent them from getting leadership positions. I am not sure that we need this kind of attitude in Washington -- it doesn't matter if you are moderate, conservative or liberal.
While I am not 100% convinced that Murtha should not be part of the House leadership, he has just a few remaining news cycles to explain himself before they vote on the Majority Leader position.
By the way, below you can watch the FBI surveillance tape of John Murtha from years back. You be the judge:
A bitter fight that could have created a rift between Nancy Pelosi and the Congressional Black Caucus has been averted, 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 :
..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.
In January, Congressmen Steny Hoyer and John Murtha will battle it out over the House Majority Leader position. A few days ago, Pelosi officially Murtha. So why, you ask? Pelosi and Murtha go way back together, and now it is for Murtha:
Pelosi told USA TODAY that the two bonded whenMurtha visited her office shortly after her election in 1987 andspotted a carving in coal of a miner. Mining is an important industryin Murtha's western Pennsylvania district.
In 2001, Murtha managed Pelosi's successful campaign against Hoyer to be Democratic whip, the party's chief vote counter.
As will be the case in 2008 with the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, will officially endorse a candidate for House Speaker, House Majority Leader, House Majority Whip, and any contested spot in the Senate. Your feedback that you this site will play a significant role in who is endorsed.
Not that this really means anything. Just interesting. notes on the connection between Bush's nominee to become the next Secretary of Defense and the largest voting company:
Gates was on the board ofdirectors of VoteHere, a strange little company that was the biggestelections industry lobbyist for the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).VoteHere spent more money than ES&S, Diebold, and Sequoia combinedto help ram HAVA through. And HAVA, of course, was a bill sponsored byby convicted Abramoff pal Bob Ney and K-street lobbyist buddy StenyHoyer. HAVA put electronic voting on steroids.
Black Box Voting labels Steny Hoyer as a "K-street lobbyist buddy?" That's interesting. No wonder Pelosi wants Murtha as the Majority Leader instead of Hoyer; Hoyer might try to stall that would crack down on interactions between lobbyists and members of Congress.
Recent Comments