The latest fiasco concerning the Democratic House members elections for leadership positions is bizarre beyond belief, and I think there is more to it than meets the eye. I mean, okay, I get it that Nancy Pelosi, who was elected Speaker of The House by unanimous vote of the Democratic members, felt she owed some loyalty to Jack Murtha, whom she supported for the postion of House Majority Leader, due to Murtha's earlier support of her for House Minority Leader in the 2001 elections.
I understand that there is some bad blood between Pelosi and Steney Hoyer, the Maryland Democrat, described as liberal to moderate, who won the election over Murtha by a vote of 149 to 86-by my estimate, roughly 63 per cent of the vote. This is due to the competition between the two of them for that same 2001 election.
I even somewhat understand Pelosi's position that Murtha's influence on Iraq policy was a huge contributing factor to the Democratic victory in this election, and was worthy of recognition, respect, and reward. I don't agree with that position, as I feel his influence was exaggerated in that regard-but I do understand the sentiment.
What I can't comprehend is why she would go to the extend that she did, actively lobbying for votes for Murtha, even allegedly threatening committee assignments of those members who did not accede to her wishes.
And the mystery of all mysteries-why was she herself rewarded for this over the top dictatorial attempt by being voted House Speaker by unanimous consent, especially when you consider that the voting is by secret ballot?
The only thing that isn't a mystery is the objectives of Jack Murtha. Murtha, the Vietnam veteran and war hero, long a military supporter and hawk, surprised the nation when he came out solidly against the Iraq war and demanded a complete withdrawal of American forces to different areas of the Middle East, and alleged that the war up to that point had become a disaster.
I suspected at the time he was jockeying for position, but I assummed he was looking toward the November 2008 Presidential elections, as a potential running mate of Hillary Clinton. Both had supported the war initially, and both then became vocal critics of the wars management. Of course, the problem is that Hillary has been a staunch advocate of victory before withdrawal.
Have we just now witnessed the true motivations of the Congressman from Pennslvania, a major leaderhship position in the Democratic House membership? Has it suddenly been revealed for all the world to see it, almost as soon as it revealed itself, shot down in flames?
You look at the accompanying photo of the newly elected Democratic leadership, along with Jack Murtha on the right, toward the back, and you tell me if that is a happy, gracous expression.
Looks like "total crap" to me.
But why would Nancy Pelosi have sanctioned and openly supported this run? Was it payback for having engineered or masterminded Murtha's change of position as regards the Iraq war? Had she been instrumental in convincing Murtha, and so felt it incumbent upon herself to reward this loyalty? Or was it something even more sinister?
Murtha did, after all, receive 86 votes. Half of those votes could have theoretically been enough to elect to the House Majority Leader position, Mr. John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican who was elected by his party as the House Minority Leader. I know that is not likely. But not only is it not impossible, it would not be unprecedented for members of one party to vote for the candidate of the oppossition party for a leadership position.
Some might recall that this happenned fairly recently, when Jim Trafficante, the ethically challenged Democratic congressman from Ohio, supported the Republican House Leadership over his own party. It made no difference of course, but it was nevertheless a slap in the face to the Democratic Party that helped to serve notice to the potential of open rebellion. Had Murtha intimated at this potential among his supporters if he did not get the support he sought?
This is a man who came out solidly against the soldiers accussed-not convicted, mind you, but accussed-of atrocities in Iraq, declaring them guilty before there was ever a courts martial convened. This is a man who was investigated in the Abscam cases in his early career, though he seemed to have been too wiley to take the bait, though certainly expressing interest in the potential of the bribe offerred.
He has even gone on record publicly, on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, as considering any Ethics Reform legislation as being "total crap"-yet it is this Ethics Reform that has been the mainstay of Nancy Pelosis' Congressional career as of late. Still, she supported him in a move that was seen as a potentially serious political blunder insofar as her future potential effectiveness as the Leader of the Congressional Democrats and their agenda.
Is it possible that while she was publicly lobbying for Murtha, she was secretly going behind his back and urging support for Hoyer, away from the prying eyes of Murtha's obvious supporters? It does seem odd that Murtha seemed to think he had the votes locked up to become Majority Leader? Or was that, too, just Murtha's own delusions speaking, hoping that if he said it enough, people would believe it, and jump on the train? In his case, the gravy train?
Even his statement that he was going back to his little subcommittee-which handles billions of dollars in defense contracts-seemed to be a veiled threat.
Well, the right man won the job, so as they say, it's time to move on. Or, put another way, time to flush the toilet. But, as total crap will sometimes do, the smell might linger for some time.
