It looks like we'll have a House majority (at least) going into the 110th Congress, and I am curious to hear what others here think about the possible majority leader slot. From what I've been hearing the past several months, Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) seems to want it, and could pose a credible challenge to Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD).
I think that I, like you, like Murtha a lot since he stood up and started whipping the Democratic caucus into shape on the war. It's embarrassing what they were like beforehand, but thanks to Rep. Murtha, we don't really have to worry about that any longer. This party found its voice on Iraq, and its name was Murtha.
But to be honest I knew almost nothing of him before then, except maybe that he was a kind of conservative Democrat. And I work around DC politics, so I at least knew he was from Pennsylvania, and had been there forever. And now he seems to be angling toward the majority leader in the House. Which if you just asked me at random, I'd say, sure. If you asked me after reading Norm Ornstein in Roll Call this morning, well, here's this diary. It costs $$$ so let me just quote the whole section:
Readers will remember when I wrote about the failure of ethics and lobbying reform back in May that I commented on the failure of the Democrats' motion to recommit, which was a reasonably strong package of reforms, despite the votes in favor of 20 Republicans -- all because of the inexplicable "nay" votes cast by four Democrats, including Murtha. Now we know, according to David Kirkpatrick of The New York Times, that Murtha traded his vote on lobbying and ethics reform to Republicans in return for earmarks.
Step back and reflect on this: Lobbying and ethics reform died because Murtha traded his vote in return for earmarks. The earmarking explosion is, of course, the epitome of the culture of corruption; just consider the stories about the Speaker, Rep. Charles Taylor (R-N.C.) and several California Republicans getting rich from real-estate deals that were enhanced by earmarks they directed. What kind of a message does it send if you install someone who killed ethics and lobbying reform in return for earmarks in a top leadership position?
Recently, right-wing Web sites have posted the full video of Murtha from the ABSCAM sting a quarter-century ago. It is devastating. Unlike several of his colleagues who were expelled, went to jail, or both, Murtha did not take the bribes offered by FBI agents posing as wealthy sheiks. But the video makes clear that he bragged about his own power and his ability to pull strings and make things happen. He also trashed his colleagues who were bribe-takers for their ineffectuality and said to the "sheiks," in effect, "keep in touch."
This story had faded over time, but it is back, even if the larger mainstream media have ignored it. It won't stay faded if the culture of corruption issue, accelerated by the Foley scandal, becomes a driver to a Democratic majority.
I blanche because "right wing websites" are involved. I roll my eyes because it was a QUARTER OF A CENTURY AGO. But call me nervous about it. The Repugs have scarred Reid a little bit this year (boxing tickets) and then just this week (land deal), and I didn't see that coming. I have no faith the Repugs will not start wielding this Abscam video against Murtha now, and in this YouTube age, I'm sure it's already on all of their websites.
So while I'm pretty sure I don't think Abscam is important at all, it still gives me the vapors. As if that was the first thing we wanted to deal with upon taking back the house. So it does make me step back for a moment and ask myself: Why Murtha? Should we reward him because he's been around for awhile and was good for us on one thing? That's the Republican way, it seems. "Who's turn is it?" Well, I am a lot less concerned with whose turn it is than with who is the right person. I will admit, I am a bit anxious about how Nancy Pelosi will do as speaker, again I confess in part because the wingnuts seem to relish the idea -- but I bet she might surprise everyone -- in a good way.
I'm certainly not worried about her being a "San Francisco liberal" running the party -- actually... that doesn't bother me AT ALL. But I am more worried a bit about someone who, as far as I know, is to the right of most of the caucus -- does Murtha represent the caucus well on matters other than Iraq?
Abscam would be a superficial distraction but a distraction nonetheless, but I think also of his conservative tendencies and decades of inactivity in the House. He had one great moment of leadership by speaking up, but I am a skeptic that that one moment also means he is the right guy to lead the majority.
A point in Murtha's favor, although not for majority leader: If he's not majority leader, he could speak out on Iraq just as forcefully and would be able to focus more attention than if he was assuming leader duties and trying to make sure the majority held together. That's a lot of work. It might distract or detract from his ability to make the case for giving the Iraqis their country back. The Mighty Wurlitzer never stops, so we can't either.
So let me make what I think is a lot less controversial suggestion: Rahm for majority leader. I know he has his netroots discontents, but let's face it, if we take back the House, we're going to have him to thank. And his sharp discipline would translate very, very well toward running a majority caucus. Democrats should not just carbon copy the GOP way of promoting the next guy in line, and even if Murtha has put himself next in line, I think I'd rather move past him anyway.
I'm interested in what y'all think. If I'm totally wrong, tell me why.