Murtha and ABSCAM, say it ain't so...

I was very skeptical about this when I ran across it on slate today.  http://www.slate.com/...
(Especially given the anti-kos tone of a couple of the items)
This is where being in the majority becomes difficult.

I am not accusing Murtha of anything and I don't have an axe to grind, but the ABSCAM video of Murtha is damning.  

http://video.google.com/...

I watched the whole video (all 54 minutes) and it appeared that Murtha was just trying to push business to his district.  If you don't give him the benefit of the doubt, it appears much worse.  

Maybe, this is the way Congress works.  This maybe common practice, but it does not inspire confidence.  We must avoid the mistakes of the Republican Congress.  I would like to see our leaders without even the taint of corruption.  

I would like to read or hear what Murtha has to say about all of this.  The other question I have is, do we want this to be the story a week after our victory.  It makes us look like them.  I am asking... Watch the video and then comment.  As a final note, if there was not video I don't think I would believe it...

•  i have a hunch

  that if he'd broken the law, he'd have been arrested. others were.

  by Turkana on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:13:34 PM PDT

  •  I don't think he broke the law, but...

    His behavior was disapointing, even dispiriting to me.  It does not look good...

    It raises questions about his character, but maybe this is the way congress operates?

    by hhesse on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:15:57 PM PDT

    •  i don't know

      CREW obviously doesn't like him, but i find it dispiriting that this battle for majority leader is getting so nasty.

      by Turkana on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:19:20 PM PDT

      •  CREW is funded by Hoyer people

        though, I bet CREW hides behind a 501c3 or 4 status, whichever it is.

        Geez, with friends like this...

        by pacified on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:28:59 PM PDT

        •  I don't doubt this is from Hoyer...

          It is too convenient.

          by hhesse on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:30:41 PM PDT

        •  Do you have any evidence for that?

          If not, that's pretty irresponsible of you to throw out there.  CREW was calling out Murtha before the race with Hoyer ever began.

          by MattBellamy on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:32:35 PM PDT

          •  i don't care

            if i have proof.

            This is the stupidest thing in the world.

            CREW can suck it.

            by pacified on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:34:54 PM PDT

            •  CREW does fantastic work...

              they've been a major pain in the @ss to the Neys and Cunninghams of the world long before those guys became household names. Their concerns about Murtha started long before now, and they go way beyond just the ABSCAM business - there are accusations of patronage and "pay for play" going on.

              I'm a fan of Murtha, despite his more conservative tendencies. But these matters need to be addressed. And telling the messenger to "suck it" is pretty childish.

              We absolutely cannot afford a "Dems are corrupt, too" meme to get started or accelerated. Bad enough we've gotta deal with Jefferson (hopefully not for too much longer).

              by snookybeh on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:47:10 PM PDT

            •  Sorry, dude.

              "I don't care if I have proof" is how freepers argue.  You're better than that, I thought.

              by Adam B on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:03:37 PM PDT

          •  I don't have proof...

            It is unfair of me to accuse Hoyer and his people.  I just seemed logical politically, but it could have just as easily come from the Republicans or an enterprising reporter.  

            by hhesse on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:35:11 PM PDT

        •  yeah, I'd like to see...

          any actual connection between Hoyer and CREW.

          When I used to listen to Al Franken a lot, CREW was on there on a regular basis. They do great work, and as said above, they've expressed their concerns about Murtha long before this all started. I think it's a good thing that they're being as strict with Dems and Repugs - no viable accusations of bias.

          I'm a Murtha fan, but I've been uncomfortable with the accusations of low-level corruption. Even if none of it rises above "business as usual," it needs to be addressed ASAP. We can't afford any corruption stink.

          by snookybeh on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:40:17 PM PDT

          •  well, you'll never know

            anything about CREW, because I'm guessing they're a 510c3 or 4, so they can hide their donors.

            by pacified on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:47:07 PM PDT

            •  yeah, CREW is so sneaky...

              they started expressing concerns about Murtha long, long before there was even any hint that the Dems would takeover the House, just because they knew it would happen and Murtha would run for ML.

              They're diabolical, I tell you. And clairvoyant, to boot.

              This is really stupid. Here is an organization that has been working tirelessly for a long, long time to expose corruption in DC - mostly of the Repug variety, of course. You should be thanking them for the work they're doing - we need to hold our guys to the same standards we hold theirs to.

              You have no evidence that there's any kind of bias or impropriety here, not even a hint. Stop being childish.

              by snookybeh on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:00:09 PM PDT

              •  oh please

                $20 million in a $417 Billion bill... um, geez, like 434 other Congressmen didn't use earmarks.

                by pacified on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:39:44 PM PDT

          •  Melanie Sloan...

            ..of CREW was on Franken's show this morning.

            I like Murtha, but I agree that the Dems should avoid any whiff of corruption.  That said, I dont' think Steny Hoyer is a good choice either.  Is there a third option?

            by Vagabond57 on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:54:13 PM PDT

            •  I'd have no prob w/ Pelosi

              I can only guess she doesn't feel she has enough support to win, herself?

              by jbeach on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:02:24 PM PDT

              •  she's gonna be Speaker

                we're talking about Majority Leader. Can't be both.

                by snookybeh on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:22:58 PM PDT

                •  pardon my lack of knowludj

                  I see more information in my future...

                  by jbeach on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:38:57 PM PDT

            •  much as I hate to say it...

              what about Rahm? Yeah, he's an @-hole, but he's OUR @-hole. Glad he's on our team and not theirs.

              by snookybeh on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:22:09 PM PDT

        •  instead of allegations, can we get some facts?

          "CREW is funded by Hoyer people" please back up this allegation.

          I don't remember folks around here being so anti-CREW when they were breaking the Foley scandal or the Hastert land deal or .....

          by edgery on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:05:09 PM PDT

    •  Your question is valid, and it is this type

      of behavior, and the desire to make sure that things get done and do not slide into the abyss as they almost always eventually do, that has prompted talk here on DKos of exerting oversite on our newly elected and long experienced Congresspeople.  It's being called the "Congressional Committees Project", and I would include a link here, but I'm getting an error message when I click on the link for the most recent diary, posted yesterday evening.  I'm on my way out for several hours, but I will try to find the info later and post it in an open thread.  Also, if there's someone reading this and has info on this, please post in this thread for anyone interested in knowing about what is being planned.

      by Got a Grip on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:20:29 PM PDT

  •  rather disturbing

    It made me most uncomfortable to watch the video.  It was a long time ago, and he was not indicted, but he doesn't exactly show them the door, does he?

    I am really grateful to Murtha for standing up against the war, but this does not help Dems cause on corruption issues, wether or not he did anything wrong.

    by whitewidow on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:18:29 PM PDT

    •  don't forget

      mccain was once a part of the keating 5. people seem to have forgiven him. abscam was a long time ago.

      by Turkana on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:20:58 PM PDT

      •  McCain is a Republican!

        Murtha is the man running for the Majority Leader of the first Democratic House since 1994.  I have higher standards than the Republicans.

        by hhesse on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:22:38 PM PDT

        •  obviously

          but i mean the public's reaction. it's getting so nasty between murtha and hoyer that i'm starting to think we need a third option, just in the interest of peace.

          by Turkana on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:24:01 PM PDT

          •  I don't know much about Hoyer...

            The only thing I know about Hoyer is that he is a conservative Democrat.  I don't know if he would be good or bad.  I would like a choice that is not ethically challenged...

            by hhesse on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:27:17 PM PDT

            •  Hoyer is less a conservative than Murtha

              Murtha is anti-choice, pro-gun, converted to anti-Iraq war.

              Hoyer is pro-choice, anti-gun, ~on Iraq.

              Murtha has run other leadership races for Pelosi and won.

              Hoyer has run against Pelosi and lost, but has worked with her well since losing to her in the race for Minority Leader.

              Hoyer has recruited and campaigned for many of the younger members of Congress, and raised lots of money for them.  Murtha, not so much.

              The job is about working with Pelosi to get the caucus to do what is necessary on votes -- remember that's what Tom DeLay's job was, this is his old job.

              Hastert didn't always get along with DeLay but DeLay was effective.

              And for those who think I am supporting either one, I do have an opinion but don't think either is the best choice.  What I do know is that Murtha appears to be Nancy Pelosi's choice.

              As for other choices, how about anti-corruption crusaders like Henry Waxman or Brad Miller?

              by edgery on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:12:57 PM PDT

      •  My own view is that the statute of limitations

        has run on ABSCAM.

        The Keating 5 -- not so much.  But that's really not my big problem with McCain either.

        ABSCAM was a very, very long time ago, and Murtha was not indicted.  I don't find this disqualifying.

        But then, I have no idea of Hoyer is, or what his history is.  Apparently he has the support of most of the caucus -- including Charlie Rangel, of all people, my own Congressman -- but I have no idea who he is or what he stands for.

        by litigatormom on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:44:35 PM PDT

        •  he's a dlc guy

          and, if i remember correctly, was pelosi's main opponent when she ran for minority leader.

          by Turkana on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:53:47 PM PDT

          •  DLC?

            Now THAT'S whtat I call disqualifying.

            by litigatormom on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 05:29:23 PM PDT

  •  He won already...

    ...This video ran for two weeks before the election and he won by 30 points.   It is unseemly but he didn't take the money and by the time any Dems are up for election again the nuainces of this video will be forgotten.   This is the best time for this tape to come out...HE TURNED DOWN THE MONEY is all anyone will remember and he can chant that for the next two years while Abramoff brings numerous red congressional seats into play for 2008.

    by neoeconomist on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:42:09 PM PDT

    •  The public won't make fine distinctions on this

      I think most of the public will feel that he is just another corrupt pol. and the Democrats are the same as the Republicans.  I would like to think we are different and we hold our politicians to a higher standard.

      by hhesse on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:46:07 PM PDT

      •  Public distinctions

        I have a non-politcal friend. He owns a small business, attends a mega-church, is pro-life and a gun collector. He also thinks that Bush is an idiot and the war is a huge, horrible mistake. And he never votes because he also thinks most politicians are corrupt and will do or say anything to get elected. But recently he has decided that he better start trying to figure out who are the good guys and who are the bad guys and vote. Murtha resonates with him. Murtha is a Marine who comes across as a straight talking guy. Hoyer strikes him as just another fast talking politician. He doesn't care about something that happened 25 years ago. He cares about right now and who first called bullshit on the war.

        by Grassroots Mom on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:58:55 PM PDT

  •  I'm old enough to remember ABSCAM pretty well

    Murtha was an named an unindicted co-conspirator. You know what we would say and think about some Repug being named an unindicted co-conspirator in, say, Plamegate...

    Yeah, it was a long time ago, but when has that ever mattered to the Repugs when it comes to our side of the aisle? More to the point now is the taint of corruption regarding his son's lobbying, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, etc.

    I love Murtha, but I'm afraid we may have painted ourselves into a corner on this one with our calls for scandal free leadership.

    by tigerdog on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:11:45 PM PDT

    •  This is great video. I never took

      a PoliSci class that came close to showing Washington makes sausage.  This kind of thing happens a hundred times a minute in that town, and I'd bet my natural ass Steny Hoyer and almost every other member of both parties has had a conversation like this in their careers.

      We are the richest, most powerful, most nuclear armed, most technologically advanced country in the world.  How could this kind of thing NOT go on in the nation's capital since Buckley v. Valeo ruled money is speech?

      [By the way, isn't the opening banter interesting, in which they discuss real estate prices and deals and who got what for what?... You can imagine the Dukestir having this conversation on more than one occassion.]

      by Mogolori on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:50:59 PM PDT

  •  not quite that simple

    Federal prosecutors generally only indict elected officials if they believe they have a strong chance of getting a conviction.  The fact that Murtha wasn't indicted may mean that prosecutors believed he didn't break the law but it could also mean they didn't feel they had enough to ensure a conviction.

    by PBS on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:58:46 PM PDT

    •  given all that they got on tape

      he was either very smart, or steered just clear. either way, it's very old news.

      by Turkana on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 04:03:43 PM PDT

  •  Rush Limbaugh has been pushing this

    On his show for the past year or so. Murtha did not accept the money. It is funny, Rush is saying that the Democrats led by Hoyer's crew is "swiftboating" Murtha. This may be the only time in my life I agree with him.

    by unionboy on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 04:09:57 PM PDT

•  Good thing

  there isn't video of Chappaquiddick or I guess we'd have to get all concerned about that too. Couldn't let Kennedy chair a committee or anything.

  And Monica. Good thing Clinton didn't tape that cigar trick or I guess we couldn't allow him to represent the Democratic Party either.

  How about Alcee Hastings, an impeached federal judge who now is in position to be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee?

  So, when do we start the purge?

  by quaoar on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:25:28 PM PDT

  •  This is about ethics period...

    This is majority leader...

    by hhesse on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:28:07 PM PDT

    •  And

      Kennedy and Hastings are about committee chairmanships and Bill Clinton is the public face of the party.

      If you're going to start dredging up the past, where are you going to draw the line?

      by quaoar on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:34:05 PM PDT

      •  Where would you draw the line?

        What is ok ethically?  Where do we stand as a party? This is over the line for me...

        by hhesse on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:36:57 PM PDT

        •  I draw the line

          at the point where the people who voted someone into office -- knowing full well what ethically challenged actions he/she engaged in -- re-elect him/her.

          The people of Murtha's district long ago passed judgment on what he did or did not do in Abscam.

          Same applies to McCain with the Keating scandal.

          by quaoar on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:47:45 PM PDT

          •  That is not good enough for me...

            by hhesse on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:16:15 PM PDT

          •  By that standard...

            ...John Doolittle is a paragon of towering ethical standards.

            Trouble is, he's a crook.

            by Vagabond57 on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:49:44 PM PDT

        •  as long as you don't start wars

          killing thousands of our troops and hundreds of thousands of others it's all good.

          by NYFM on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:48:35 PM PDT

        •  He didn't take the money.

          Everything else is implications and speculation.

          by jbeach on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:03:51 PM PDT

        •  With starting now to recruit new young

          candidates for local offices to work their way up without diving in the cesspool. No candidate unopposed.
            And financing in some way that they can spend their time actually reading the bills before they vote.  
            I'd be all idealistic to promote running for office to DO THE JOB, with no plan to run again.  Do your time and go home. Citizen legislators. I can dream.

          by Neon Mama on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 04:40:05 PM PDT

    •  It was also 25+ years ago

      He was younger and was approached and wasn't arrested - because he apparently didn't do anything wrong. How many people have been approached about doing something unethical...and walked away?

      Can we get past this and move on to what he's done recently?

      by SallyCat on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:36:21 PM PDT

  •  Hastings should be denied Chairmanship

    With Murtha he wasn't convicted of anything, but Hastings was (hopefully Silvestre Reyes will chair the committee instead.)

    by Progressive Moderate on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:38:19 PM PDT

    •  That's what murray of the

      wapo is convinced of. Reyes will get the nod.

      Wilton, Conn.: Shailagh -- Many thanks for taking my question...which is: Why would Ms. Pelosi take the enormous risks inherent in selecting Hastings to run the House Intelligence Committee?

      With the opportunity to seriously refurbish public perceptions about the Dems strength on national security, appointing someone who has been impeached by the Senate seems to be tantamount to shooting off your foot. Your thoughts?

      Shailagh Murray: She will not select Hastings. He can't do intel and keep  seat on rules, and he won't want to give up rules. My understanding is that she is looking at Silvetre Reyes of Texas for the intel job.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      by dougymi on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:10:11 PM PDT

•  HE REFUSED THE MONEY!

  This was more than 25 years ago. If the feds had thought they had a case against him, they would have prosecuted him. But they didn't. Because they had no case.

  If this was real dirt, don't you think the Repugs would have used it at some earlier point during the last year, as they smeared Murtha, non-stop, because of his opposition to their war?

  This is just a Repug attempt to get us to form a circular firing squad. Don't oblige them. Our speaker has selected Murtha as her majority leader, and her majority leader he shall be.

  by blueness on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:28:03 PM PDT

  •  Have you watched the video?

    The reason I wrote this diary is because I was bothered by the video.  It is damning from a public relations standpoint at a minimum.  

    by hhesse on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:29:40 PM PDT

    •  Public relations standpoint

      If it was that damaging from a public relations standpoint, don't you think the GOP would have used it during this past election cycle? It isn't like this is NEW information. It's old.

      by cwaltz on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:36:19 PM PDT

    •  I would think that the statuate of limitations

      may have run out on ABSCAM (IANAL) however bad it may look.

      by sailmaker on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:37:12 PM PDT

    •  i watched the video years ago

      when ABSCAM was actually news, rather than a ham-handed Republican attempt to disinter ancient history in order that Democrats might shoot each other.

      Want to watch the video some more? Hannity will have it on his TV show tonight. He's been playing the audio on his radio show all day.

      You're being used.

      by blueness on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:38:13 PM PDT

      •  That maybe true...

        I thought for a while before I wrote this diary.  I don't want to repeat Republican talking points.  But I find it disconcerting that few people seem to care that our likely majority leader was on camera with guys obviously trying to bribe him.  His answer was I won't take it now, but let's do business for a while and I may change my mind in the future.  I find it troubling...

        by hhesse on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:41:46 PM PDT

        •  HE REFUSED THE BRIBE!!!!!

          But you repeat EXACTLY what I've listened to Hannity say all day: "I won't take it now, but let's do business for a while and I may change my mind in the future.  I find it troubling..."

          Your quote, by the way, is inaccurate, and does Murtha a great disservice. Steeped as you are in this terrible video, I would think you could quote the man exactly. Guess not.

          But I find it disconcerting that few people seem to care that our likely majority leader was on camera with guys obviously trying to bribe him.

          What you miss, perhaps because you're not old enough to remember it, is that some Congressmembers took the offered ABSCAM bribe, and were prosecuted. Murtha, as the video clearly shows, REFUSED the bribe, and was not prosecuted.

          End of story.

          by blueness on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:48:18 PM PDT

          •  I am old enough to remember

            His behavior simple does not meet the ethical standards I believe a Democratic majority leader should have...  JUST REFUSING THE BRIBE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!  WE ARE DEMOCRATS AND WE SHOULD HAVE HIGHER STANDARDS

            by hhesse on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:57:29 PM PDT

•  what the hell is ABSCAM anyway

  and why should I even care?

  by pacified on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:36:31 PM PDT

  •  FBI sting operation

    The FBI bribed several Congressmen on camera.  It lead to a couple of indictments and convictions.  It is pretty infamous...  

    by hhesse on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:38:24 PM PDT

    •  so infamous

      that I've never heard of it.  So this was 20+ years ago... Jesus.  Bush was SNORTING COKE at the time.

      Youthful indescrition.  Nothing to see here.

      If this is what CREW is bitching about they REALLY need to get a life.

      by pacified on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:39:58 PM PDT

      •  Sorry you never heard of it

        But it WAS a big deal.  

        by sophiebrown on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:47:28 PM PDT

      •  CREW gave Murtha honorable mention not

        because of ABSCAM but because of (from the CREW website):

        http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=178

        The New York Times reported on October 2, 2006 that he has consistently opposed ethics and earmark reform. Sloan continued, “Rep. Murtha’s opposition to ethics reform does not bode well for future Speaker Pelosi’s promise to enact ethics legislation in the first 100 hours of the new Congress.”

        That said, that was then, this is now.  I'll happily support anyone for Majority Leader who pledges to support real campaign finance reform, real ethics in government, and the will of the American people as evidenced by the November 2006 election.

        by edgery on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:22:37 PM PDT

  •  It was 26 years ago

    ABSCAM was 26 years ago, and I hope Rep. Murtha learned his lesson.  I supported John McCain in 2000 even though he was one of the Keating Five.  Note: I won't support McCain today for obvious reasons.

    by rmwarnick on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:42:27 PM PDT

•  gop desperation

  it was 26 years ago, that`s how things were done.It would have been better if Murtha didn`t rock the boat & run for leader but if he wins he will be judged on how he acts now, not in 1980.If he was guilty of something he would have been indicted.

  by JOEL1954 on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:39:45 PM PDT

•  You have to wonder though

  With the Dems trying to prove they're the ethical party, this is a stupid way to start the Congress. Hard to believe Pelosi couldn't find a better (cleaner) person.

  I know she values loyalty -- but so did the people who covered for Foley. And look what happened there.

  by Naturegal on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:47:31 PM PDT

  •  I could not agree more...

    I am worried that we are headed in the wrong direction already.  The Republicans are waiting to eat us alive.  They will attack us no matter what, but it is hard to defend someone on video.  Why make it easy for them?

    by hhesse on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:53:32 PM PDT

•  Make no mistake

  We will have corrupt democratic congresspeople and we will need to deal with them.  I'm not say Murtha is/isn't corrupt, but get your head around the idea that there is A LOT of dirt in DC and not all of it is red.

  It's our job to set up the process while we can such that all sides are held equally accountable, it has long been lacking in our govt.

  by zot23 on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:54:33 PM PDT

•  This HAS to go to the Ethics Committee!

  We cannot prosecute them, if we don't apply equal standards to our own. Having this go referred to the E/C is a win-win. Pelosi starts out by looking like a straight shooter. If Murtha is cleared, we take away their ammo. If not, so be it. I love Murtha, but I don't want ANY crooks in my congress!

  by ronlib on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:58:37 PM PDT

•  This is getting ridiculous

  We don't get a vote in who is majority leader.

  This is, what, the 20 to 30th diary with some smear on either Hoyner or Murtha back and forth?

  Now we are getting to the point of crawling in the sewer over this.

  ABSCAM was 25 years ago. Murtha said 'no'. He was set up in the sting, and said 'no'. So... what? He's guilty of being tested now? Please.

  I don't know who is better for the job, but I do know that the back and forth is getting ugly and its completely unecessary. We don't get a vote. It's inside baseball.

  So all this is, is an excersize in dividing this community in warring camps for no reason.

  Using the logic of this diary I can safely call the diarist a murderer or a rapist who cannot hold an important job 25 years from now if this diarist gave a statement to the police after a crime or if the cops made an accusation that turned out to be false.

  After all, the diarist was interviewed by the cops.

  Same thing as being guilty, right?

  We don't want people thinking that somebody is innocent until proven guilty now would we? After all... its the appearance of being guilty that comes from the cops even trying that is good enough to disquality somebody.

  What will Sean Hannity say?

  This diary is all about being scared of what the GOP will do. Period.

  If Murtha gets the shaft over this, and not becuase Hoyner is the better man for the job, what does this say? It says that Democrats are cowards who make up their minds based on how the GOP will spin things.

  That's crazy.

  Now tell me... how did acting scared, and disqualifying people and positions, just to avoid the GOP saying something bad about the party work out for us over the last five years?

  I don't care which guy gets it.

  But its coming down to a lose-lose no matter who wins... and for no reason at all.

  by LeftHandedMan on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:59:11 PM PDT

  •  oh if only I could give you 10 recs at once! n/t

    by edgery on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:24:19 PM PDT

•  Bring it on.

  If we're talking scandal, how about the Keating Five with McCain, or perhaps let's delve deeper into Jack Abramhoff's dealings.  

  Have fun beating Charlie Brown, Representative Doolittle?  Well, your name will be Trafficant after the Dem House gets through with you...

  by varro on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:02:22 PM PDT

•  Comment worth repeating from previous diary...

  What committee is going to investigate an ancient event in the 110th Congress??  The Rs no longer have a voice, so we can all forgive and forget and move forward with appropriate accountability.  

  Murtha might have done some less than perfect things back in the day, but he is the right guy going forward and we don't have to worry about the GOP slimefest anymore.  

  I continue to be amazed at how folks here have been critical of the RWCM but suddenly believe everything they hear/see/read.

  by viczeba on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:04:30 PM PDT

•  He was acquitted and this is just KKKarl Rove's

  newest scam.  It's now time to smear the Dems with every and anything all over the propaganda machine known as the msm.  LA TIMES mentioned this ABSCAM inquiry from the f'ng 80's this morning and also mentioned he was acquitted.  So let's get it straight and not help their agenda by printing and linking to their talking points for them, shall we?

  by Little Lulu on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:08:27 PM PDT

•  ABSCAM?

    I can't believe we're talking about that old 1970s relic.  Brings me back to the age of disco and polyester.
    ABSCAM was a horrendous case of entrapment.  Sure, it ferreted out a few unethical Congresscreatures -- but it was biased from the get-go, because only certain, selected Representatives and Senators were approached, not all 100 Senators and 435 Representatives.  And gee, isn't it funny that almost all of those targeted were Democrats?
     Trying to make ABSCAM an issue today is a desperation ploy on Hoyer's part.  It really shows a lack of character.

  by WIds on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:37:49 PM PDT

•  Boy, this is old news.

  by Intercaust on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:45:21 PM PDT

•  I watched the video

  It is hard to watch but I thought Murtha came off very well, as a Congressman who is happy to trying help bring investment into his district along with new jobs, but not by doing anything unethical. He doesn't want to offend the men making the offer, but he is very clear that it has to be done his way, "the legitimate" way. When he talks about "doing business" he means that the interest they represent needs to do some business in his district, and only then would there be a legitimate reason for Murtha to help out. Then he goes further and says that in his judgment, there actually shouldn't be any reason for him to be involved because he just doesn't see that there should be any problems.

  Basically, Murtha is saying that there is no reason for them to come to him to get this guy into the country because there should be no problems getting him into the country on the up and up. He keeps pressing them for details and talks about investing in the district. He wants to do business to make sure these guys are legitimate. If there is a legitimate reason, i.e., guy is tied to the district, then he can legitimately do something to help him as a constituent. Of course he wants to help his constituents and his district but he is very clear that he doesn't want to do anything illegal. And he goes on to give examples and say that you probably don't need me. He refuses to be a middleman. He's trying figure out how to help local businesses, but he's clear that he wants to be in Congress for a long time and doesn't want to screw it up by doing something illegal or unethical. He's trying to find some ground to help these guys and help his district, but is very clear that he's not willing to do anything illegal. When he says "let's do business for a while," it's after going around and around with these guys explaining what he can and cannot do. He goes on to say, "I wouldn't do it any other way." All he's interested in helping his constituents. There's small bank that's he's always wanted to a favor for and mines that are going bankrupt, but he's not willing to break the law, he's only willing to do try to help legally.

  They have to know "what a guy can do and what a guy can't do." They have "to do it properly."  He wants the jobs and investments but the only way he can do that is to be completely independent. In other words for 54 minutes Murtha said no, while trying not to offend potential investors in his district. He said that "in politics it's too easy...as long as you have nothing to worry about you can go forward, make speeches..."

  If anything I am very impressed with his commitment to his the best interests of his district but what's clearly most important to him is staying clean.

  by Grassroots Mom on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 04:04:46 PM PDT

•  American Spectator is running this story...

  He didn't tell me he wanted the $50,000 he told me he wanted two favors.

  Weinberg wanted Murtha and the FBI told him it was a rotten thing - there was nothing there.

  So what's there.  He was tempted?  He asked for investment in his district?  

  What I see is he was on the ethics committee and knew that two congressmen were looking to take bribes.

  If this had occurred today he'd be gone.  It is a little uncomfortable.

  by SimplyLeft on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 04:20:59 PM PDT