Comments (55)

oldtree wrote on May 21, 2007 1:31 PM:

oink. oinka oinka oink. )(%*#)(*#)Q%(U*)Q#% OUT OF MY TROUGH.
oink.
disgusting pigs one and all.

megisi wrote on May 21, 2007 1:39 PM:

I live in Rogers' district. If that man was any dumber or any more corrupt (he's one of Abramoff's posse), he'd need regular saliva tests and a new squad of lawyers.

the Goose wrote on May 21, 2007 1:39 PM:

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

Petty attacks on ear marks, and using new rules against the party that made them, shows how, when it comes to money, there is no party line.

Thinkerton wrote on May 21, 2007 1:46 PM:

If Democrats want any authentic, lasting credibility in Washington, they have to do what's right, even if it embarrasses other Democrats. I don't know if there's more detail to this story, but on the face of it, it sounds like the Democrats better be careful about how much they protect Murtha. I am one of those people who supported the Democrats in 2006 because I was sick of corruption, pork, etc. If I see the Democrats resorting to the old Republican tactics, I am going to get annoyed really quickly.

The only way Congress is going to recover its credibility in the long term is to continue to do right by the American people -- and that means Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) will occasionally have to rebuke their own. I don't see it as political suicide, it will just require some guts and patience -- but it will pay off. And a nice fringe benefit is that it's the right thing to do.

buck turgidson wrote on May 21, 2007 1:47 PM:

I don't understand the liberals' fascination with Murtha. He's one of the most entrenched, most right-wing members of the Dem caucus. He's bucked the line and voted with Repubes more often than all but a handful of other Dems. He's been climbing up the Dem leadership ladder mostly because of his seniority and his stance on Iraq. But, people, the man is just a big fraud! You don't have to believe the Repubes' cries of corruption--the scandal they tried to use was over 20 years ago and nothing was proved against Murtha back then, which is why he's still in the House. But the man is closer to the defense industry and pseudo-spooks than anyone--now that Cunningham and Weldon are gone. And, unlike Cunningham and Weldon, he actually has the brains not to be blatantly stupid about it.

If anything, Dems (and non-Dem libs) should campaign to marginalize him on everything other than Iraq. Make the Dem leadership watch him, so he does not make moves like the one above. Keep him on a short leash--and out of the papers. Murtha is an embarrassment. I've been tracking him for eight years and he has done nothing to justify the adoration of the libs and progressives other than standing up against the Iraq war.

Now, he's not alone in this fan club. Another "courageous" statesman is Chuck Hagel. He drew the line on Iraq and on John Bolton--my compliments to him on that. Like Murtha, he's vet. But he's also a Repube. On every issue other than Iraq--including virtually all presidential nominations, other than Bolton--he's been on the GOP side. If he opposed any of the nominees, he's done so privately, but, when it came to vote, went for the easy one. Sure, he's more honest than most Repubes in Congress, but he's wrong on virtually every issue. Wake up and smell the coffee--he's not a good choice for fandom. And he wants to take this "bipartisan" support all the way to the White House. Get real, people! You're being bamboozled by these two.

fred dodsworth wrote on May 21, 2007 1:51 PM:

Mike Rogers(R-MI), "a former FBI agent" is a wee bit like saying, Mike Rogers, "a paid liar and perjurer". Don't attempt to add to his credibility by associating him with an institution of remarkable infamy both within law enforcement and the general public. By the by, Murtha needs to be reeled in on this issue.

davis13 wrote on May 21, 2007 1:51 PM:

"I live in Rogers' district. If that man was any dumber or any more corrupt (he's one of Abramoff's posse), he'd need regular saliva tests and a new squad of lawyers."

That may very well be but this incident sure makes Murtha look like an opportunistic, old school congressman. I am extremely disappointed in the Democrats' so called lobby/ethics reform. It's next to worthless. Backtracking after the election is not acceptable, period.

It's starting to piss me off. They want my vote? Then they better not continue down that path.

anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 1:55 PM:

It's a shame the Dems are going to kill the motion. Letting it proceed and unanimously (well, except for Murtha of course) voting for it would show the country that they are people of principle, that their word on reform means something, and that when they speak people should listen and trust their judgment. In fact, it would likely buy a few more percentage points of support in their efforts to bring an end to the war in Iraq by being willing to rebuke the biggest supporter of that policy for unrelated matters.

Barry Champlain wrote on May 21, 2007 2:03 PM:

You know all the mainstream media attention and TV screen time that hasn't been devoted to the AG scandal?

This is just speculation, but look for this stupid procedural brouhaha to end up on the evening news, as the demon spawn of Watergate, Monicagate and the Teapot Dome.

Not only can the WH push forth the "See? Everybody is corrupt, in both parties!" meme, but the antiwar veteran Murtha can lose all his traction on the Iraq war issue, overnight.

These guys are good.

SamSara wrote on May 21, 2007 2:04 PM:

I live in Murtha's district. Murtha is a fighter and sometimes a bully. He is an effective Representative of Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district. Nevertheless, the Democrats showed good judgment in picking Steny Hoyer as majority leader.

Murtha should have followed the lead of the Vice President or Senator McCain and limited his comments to telling Rogers to F himself.

bobh wrote on May 21, 2007 2:05 PM:

Former Abramoff/Rove aide Susan Ralston requested immunity from Henry Waxman's Oversight & Governmental Affairs Committee.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051602397.html

say what?

Glenn wrote on May 21, 2007 2:08 PM:

Starting to think that the Dems have played us for suckers on ethics reform. I hope I'm proved wrong.

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 2:09 PM:

GOP Targets Murtha: GOP Smokscreen From Their Recklessness [GOP attacks on Murtha -- a wonderful case study of GOP legal counsel hypocrisy.]

GOP lawyers have "no time" to ensure the laws of war are followed, but do have time to push for oversight...not of the President, but those who dare to challenge the reckless GOP legal counsel.

Isn't this interesting: The same GOP that said there was "no time" for impeachment; and that there were "important" legislative issues which could not suffer the "distraction of impeachment," suddenly find the time to go on frivolous ethics violations. It would be lovely for the GOP leadership to explain how they justify arguing, "We have no time for state proclamations for impeachment, we have more important legislative agendas," yet the turn around and go after Murtha. What happened to the "big agenda," GOP?

oh, that's right: "The agenda" isn't governance, but stonewalling to insulate your reckless peers in the legal profession from accountability for their complicity with war crimes planning, illegal memorandum, and refusal to remove themselves from unlawful Presidential violations of Geneva.

Fine, maybe Murtha did something; but if the GOP is going to argue "it does have time to go after Murtha and this does not interfere with the Congressional legislative agenda," they cannot argue the opposite with more serious Presidential impeachable offences.

GOP has time for Congressional ethics reviews, but no time to review Geneva violations of war crimes. Sounds like a problem for the GOP to explain: How can they justify action against Murtha, but have no meaningful war crimes investigations to point to 2001-2007 [rendition, FISA, illegal Iraq invasion, prisoner abuse]?

Comey openly discussed the illegal activity, yet former White House counsel says the legal issues cannot be discussed. Is Berenson saying that Comey is discussing something that would justify charging Comey with revealing a state secret; or is Berenson full of hot air when he says he cannot discuss evidence of what Comey calls illegal activity.

Time for Berenson to explain whether he's been misleading the FISA court on the AT&T litigation; and whether he believes Comey has disclosed evidence that is classified.

A. Where's Berenson's ethics complaint to the DC Bar about Comey for "revealing" classified information that Berenson and others have said before the Judge Vaughn-AT&T litigation cannot be discussed?

B. How does Berenson explain the classification of things that Comey says are illegal;

C. How was this illegal activity classified despite ORCON rules prohibiting classification of unlawful activity?

D. How many more editorials are we going to read from GOP legal counsel who are asserting privilege and secrecy on issues which Comey says were unlawful and cannot be legally protected by privilege or any secrecy rule?

Scales are moving away from Berenson and current-formerly assigned US government/GOP legal counsel.

jack hickey wrote on May 21, 2007 2:17 PM:

Pork is pork no matter who slices it.Murtha is throwing his weight around.Some one better read him the riot act."Whats good for the goose is good for the gander"

Yossarian wrote on May 21, 2007 2:29 PM:

This too shall pass! I think Murtha the War Hero and Murtha the stinky congressman are two sides of the same coin. Question is how far will the dems keep flipping this coin? Time to ask him to straighten out or resign now before he goes and does something even more stupid like really taking bribe from an FBI agent.

Security Code: safe as in he is safe for now

yellowdogD wrote on May 21, 2007 2:29 PM:

Why would Murtha go ballistic in the first place?
It's not as if he needed the repug vote for his earmark to pass. He's making it too easy for the repugs to paint us with the corruption brush.

714Day wrote on May 21, 2007 2:31 PM:

Murtha is hardly going to be canonized for being from the Boss Tweed school of government. It's silly for the Dems to try to muffle this. They need to own their poop, here. As with Jefferson. The implication that ALL of the clay feet are owned by Republicans is disingenuous; they just have MOST of them.
Murtha is only striking for his stand on Iraq, because he IS old boy school.

rmwarnick wrote on May 21, 2007 2:33 PM:

"Murtha is an embarrassment. I've been tracking him for eight years and he has done nothing to justify the adoration of the libs and progressives other than standing up against the Iraq war."

I for one wouldn't be such a huge fan of Rep. Murtha if a couple of dozen other Democrats had stood up in November 2005 and said what Murtha said. But they didn't! He was the only one with the courage to say in public what most of our generals were saying in private.

Englischlehrer wrote on May 21, 2007 2:39 PM:

yeah, but I wonder if we should rebuke him as a sign of fairness. "threatening" another congressman's earmark for not voting for your pet project sounds childish to me and we have big people stuff to deal with ...

bobh wrote on May 21, 2007 2:39 PM:

well at least he didnt tell leahy to fuck himself on the senate floor like you know who - threats schments....change the rule and tell the gop to publicly fuck itself

Cranky Observer wrote on May 21, 2007 2:40 PM:

Of course, Murtha might be Pelosi's designated enforcer for earmarks.

Cranky

JNagarya wrote on May 21, 2007 2:42 PM:

"If Democrats want any authentic, lasting credibility in Washington, they have to do what's right, even if it embarrasses other Democrats. I don't know if there's more detail to this story, but on the face of it, it sounds like the Democrats better be careful about how much they protect Murtha. I am one of those people who supported the Democrats in 2006 because I was sick of corruption, pork, etc. If I see the Democrats resorting to the old Republican tactics, I am going to get annoyed really quickly.

"Posted by: Thinkerton
Date: May 21, 2007 01:46 PM"

I agree. I am absolutely against porkbarreling. Unless your district gets it instead of mine.

Be a saint in politics when it comes to delivering for one's district and be dis-elected.

As do you, I think we should stop all the porkbarreling. You go first.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on May 21, 2007 2:46 PM:

Where the hell is my Congressional website listing the who, what, where and how much of earmarks?

Where is my public financing of campaigns?

Where is the banning of Corporate Cash in politics?

Where are my paper ballots and the smouldering heaps of purely electronic voting systems?

Hermagoras wrote on May 21, 2007 2:49 PM:

Anonymous wrote:

It's a shame the Dems are going to kill the motion. Letting it proceed and unanimously (well, except for Murtha of course) voting for it would show the country that they are people of principle, that their word on reform means something, and that when they speak people should listen and trust their judgment.

I like it.

Security code: "pain," as in "feel the."

Yellow Dog wrote on May 21, 2007 2:55 PM:

One voter's pork is another voter's desperately needed funding.

While the snail sex studies and the lettuce museums get all the press, the vast majority of Congressional earmarks go to worthy local projects and organizations - many of them non-profits - squeezed by cuts in federal and state funding for schools, shelters for the homeless and for battered women and their children, drug treatment centers, etc. Name your social service, it's gotten a congressional earmark.

It's no coincidence that earmarks started soaring in the '80s, after Reagan's drastic budget cuts.

Yes, Murtha's a prehistoric ass, and yes, we desperately need earmark reform.

But eliminating earmarks altogether is going to cause more problems than it solves.

Sam Cohen wrote on May 21, 2007 2:57 PM:

I'm not a fan of earmarks, but this new earmark rule confuses me. Almost by definition, earmarks are not getting into bills based on their merit. So if you can't use earmarks to punish/reward lawmakers, then how do you decide which earmarks to grant?

Yossarian wrote on May 21, 2007 2:59 PM:

I say dems should just start going after all the big Repukes like Congressman "Boner." Somebody needs to go after his seat and send this Metrosexual dirt bag back to where he came from in Ohio. Repukes did the same thing to Daschle, remember? Can somebody please start a campaign to send "Denny" and "Boner" back to where they came from? Please!

Security Code: credit as in take credit for what you got

workaday joe wrote on May 21, 2007 3:01 PM:

In what I'm sure is totally unrelated news:

May 21, 2007 -- 02:20 PM EST
The numbers are in. And the Democratic Party's fundraising edge over the GOP for the 2008 House races continues to grow.
-- Greg Sargent

Must be all those $50 donations from the Midwest.

(major snark)

Thinkerton wrote on May 21, 2007 3:12 PM:

"Be a saint in politics when it comes to delivering for one's district and be dis-elected."

There is some distiction between "pork" and appropriations -- at least in theory. Obviously, the latter is not going away (not that it could or should). Figuring out how to eliminate the former is the goal, and it will be difficult if not impossible to do that. It doesn't mean we can't agree that it's a desirable goal. I think supporting true transparency and accountability in government would be a start. We have very little of either today.

Mike Valentine wrote on May 21, 2007 3:12 PM:

Ya, bad John. Boloney what's good for the goose......

Bugboy wrote on May 21, 2007 3:22 PM:

While Murtha may have swung the bat at a putz who didn't warrant a spitball, I'd be willing to bet there's a back story to Rogers' plan. Like popping in at the last minute "oh, by the way, I know you've been in commitee for 3 weeks, but here's my pork..." Just like McCain parachuting in recently from his presidential campaign and expecting the machinery to stop just for him to fiddle with the cogs.

Orwell's Intuition wrote on May 21, 2007 3:24 PM:

To buck t:

"Get real, people! You're being bamboozled by these two."

Many of us are painfully aware of the reality of Murtha and Hagel. We need them for their strident position against the war in Iraq, but they're not pulling the wool over everyone's eyes.

Code: horse, as in most politicians are a horse's ***

fancydancy wrote on May 21, 2007 3:40 PM:

Where will we go when everything is corrupted? What party will we turn to?

Jphn Wilson wrote on May 21, 2007 3:45 PM:

Watching PBS 'World at War' and noted
FDR's Sending Advertising people to the Pacific
to report positively ...
And FDR called it "Restricted reality"...

plue la change plue la meme chose...

(or something like that...)

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 3:59 PM:

This is war, folks, and Murtha is a combat veteran. Principles have no dietery value, no commerical value, nothing that can be exchanged for down and dirty dealing.
Take the politics away and you have castrated democracy. Repukes thrive in such conditions, as they control so much already.

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 4:08 PM:

i am sure murtha is not a saint but

i am surprised that you see this "he said he said" as a "bad murtha" story rather than another news ballon in repub campaign against pelosi

this ranks with the airplane fiascotight

jamzo wrote on May 21, 2007 4:09 PM:

i am sure murtha is not a saint but

i am surprised that you see this "he said he said" as a "bad murtha" story rather than another news ballon in repub campaign against pelosi

this ranks with the airplane fiascotight

kozmik wrote on May 21, 2007 4:45 PM:

Murtha's right in a sense, it's not as though deal making or pork is going to stop. It's what everybody wants. it's what many voters send their politicians to Washington for: to get back as much taxes as possible. Low population density states get more back than they pay in.

But on the other hand, abuses of the appropriations process are frowned upon when made public. The ethics reform will hopefully set a precedent, symbolically, for this kind of behavior to come to light. But really, it's hard to chastise someone for grudge appropriations blocking unless it's really obvious or unless the person openly admits it, as Murtha did.

Unless the culture changes and unless Congress and voters take these principles seriously, what may come of it is simply better hidden Machiavellian politics.

Ann in AZ wrote on May 21, 2007 6:08 PM:

Here's the way I see it: Dems get upset with the way Repubs use and abuse rules to effect benefits to themselves alone, so when they get into power, the first thing they do is change the rules so as not to favor any particular party. Then, the minute the Repugs are back in the majority, they change the rules back to favor themselves alone, and continue to do business as they did before. So the only ones Dems really restrict is themselves. Seems counter productive to me. The real correlary is as it has always been; with rank comes privilege. Get over it!

Steve5117 wrote on May 21, 2007 6:52 PM:

Ann in AZ,

Hi Ann, I'm guessing that you are a republican. Are you saying that it is okay to steal because everybody else does?

You are really misguided.

Ann in AZ wrote on May 21, 2007 7:49 PM:

Steve,

No, I'm not a repug, and I'm not advocating stealing or taking bribes. But I'm not so misguided as to believe that all so called "pork" is bad. I remember hearing that Murtha's district has undergone some serious economic depression, and it's his job to try to alleviate that. I don't think we're talking about a bridge to nowhere here (at least, I hope not), and Congress does make deals and play hardball at times. I also think that some of the Dems still look as impotent as they did when they were in the minority. That tells me that it will not pay to play "goody two-shoes" and let your opposition walk all over you.

I didn't know that we are trying to elect saints to Congress. If that's the case, we need to remember that they became saints because they're dead, so only prayer will get the job done. Somehow, I would hope we could find an effective happy medium between sainthood and sinner. That is, someone with some muscle who is honest enough not to lie, cheat and steal us all blind. There's a lot of competition out there, and I can't imagine constituents who would elect someone who told them he won't be able to bring any federal money into their community because he'd have to write "pork" into some bills to do it. That's just not realistic.

Steve5117 wrote on May 21, 2007 8:20 PM:

Ann in AZ

I think the internet can speed up the change that is needed, begining by allowing cameras in all sessions (ones that can show the empty seats) and meetings. Lets put them in the WH also so we can see who comes and goes, and when. Fewer people will steal if they know they are being watched.

Ironic that the DC Madam will be prosecuted by whores.

Ann in AZ wrote on May 21, 2007 8:41 PM:

Steve,

Odd, and kinda amusing that you seem to be advocating a sort of reverse "big brother." Your point about the DC Madam being prosecuted by whores is well-taken.

Steve5117 wrote on May 21, 2007 9:06 PM:

Ann

I actually got that from a Christian Conservative friend, the cameras to watch them. He also advocates clearing out prisons with pay per view gladiator fights (to the death).

Ann in AZ wrote on May 21, 2007 9:15 PM:

Heh heh heh! Snuff films as the answer to prison over population. Yep, he surely must be a true Christian.

Orbinalis wrote on May 21, 2007 9:37 PM:

I still don't understand what's wrong with simply using what used to be the normal process for inserting items into bills. If the "pork" is worthy, the process could allow it. If it's a lettuce museum, or a bridge to nowhere, that can be pointed out--and the collective wisdom of our representatives, rather than the parochial concerns of an individual member, can determine the proposal's worth.

That's what they used to teach in civics courses anyway.

And--we should be "trying to elect saints to Congress".

Steve5117 wrote on May 21, 2007 9:38 PM:

I am wondering if the younger generation will discover that their way of life is a stake. I remember demondstrations and acts of civil disobedience during the 60's. I actually burned my draft card, while wearing my Navy uniform on the quad at the University of Maryland in 1965. My draft records had blood poured over them by the Berrigan Brothers (Google "Catonsville Nine")

I was living in Silver Spring, Maryland durning the riots when MLK was shot. I remember the Ohio State incident and many other incidents in this country's history. But of all the things that I have witnessed I must admit that the felons of this administration have been the most devious and dangerous of all.

My prefered form of punishment for them would be keel hauling.

Does anybody know if GI Joe has prostetic limb accessories? I think that should be a real hot xmas gift.

Thinkerton wrote on May 21, 2007 9:50 PM:

Everybody has a different perspective, probably, but mine is that "pork" is an appropriation that's bad. Now I know "bad" is also open to interpretation, but it's a convenient way to refer to the kind of budget appropriations that we can all agree are dubious or objectionable.

It's like that argument from Seinfeld: if you can't tell your fiancee about your date with Marisa Tomei, then it's cheating. If senators are sneaking earmarks into bills and hoping nobody notices, then it's probably pork. If we could start by eliminating all the sneaky appropriations and have more transparency, that would be a good start.

Steve5117 wrote on May 21, 2007 9:55 PM:

I made some typos in previous post. First word 2nd sentance should be "at" and 3rd paragraph should be preferred.

I typed xmas purposely. I used to think the government should make advertizers spell out christmas, but like the lower case c I use in christmas I do this to show my distain for the attempt of this religion to impose their values on others. Just because you think you beleive something doesn't make it true, right or just.

Spud1 wrote on May 21, 2007 10:29 PM:

This also explains why the U.S. will never build very high speed passenger rail service.

Steve5117 wrote on May 21, 2007 10:31 PM:

Ann in AZ

It's not just that our congress earmarks funds for their districts, many of the earmarks were probably awarded on a non-bid basis or specified a particular product and/or service that only one person or company could provide.

Rove and company probably encourages such behavior and worse so they can fill their dossiers I sure they have on their allies and enemies for future negoations, Soprano style.

Jane wrote on May 22, 2007 10:10 AM:

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: the Publican Party indulged in threats to earmarks to control members of Congress of both parties on who knows what issues. So the Democratic Leadership changed the rules to limit their own power to issue specific threats. So Rogers is making a big deal out the an activity that his party thought was perfectly fine.

It is worth remembering that Rogers was elected as a result of voter suppression activities by the rethugs in Michigan. He is from a district with a lot of college students who tend to vote Democratic. The rethugs tied the voter registration to the location of your driver's license: since most students move frequently they kept their license address at their parents and as a result found it very difficult to vote at their school address. Since they were not living at home they lacked knowledge of local issues at home and their total voting dropped off noticeably.

wagonjak wrote on May 22, 2007 11:42 AM:

What a bunch of spoiled crybabies Republican politicians are!

After running roughshod over the minority party for 8 years, they whine like junkies who have had their dope taken away when any Democrat dares to assert himself.

Just take your soiled panties and STFU!

ralph489 wrote on May 23, 2007 2:34 AM:

I'll give him some credit on Iraq, but:
"I for one wouldn't be such a huge fan of Rep. Murtha if a couple of dozen other Democrats had stood up in November 2005 and said what Murtha said. But they didn't! He was the only one with the courage to say in public what most of our generals were saying in private."

seems disingenuous. Murtha was safe in his race; he could say what he wanted. And, notice that he didn't come out against the war early. He was a hawk until it was obvious.

But, more importantly, the Dems have to let Murtha get hit. In fact, Pelosi should give a speech about accountability, and introduce a slightly harsher rebuke to the floor than the one already proposed. Then, behind closed doors, she should let it fly and yell Murtha down. However, she should also go to Rogers and tell him that (and this would not violate any rule) if he ever pulls a cheap political stunt like this again (after all, I think it's clear Murtha was angry and was bluffing), he will never pass an earmark in the house again.

Richard Adler wrote on May 31, 2007 3:35 PM:

It's us against them, folks! If you haven't gotten it by now, you never will.