Murtha up to his old tricks and Pelosi left to defend him

Murtha threatens GOP member's earmarks in retaliation

from JoeUser Forums

It's so nice to know that the U.S. Congress has rules that are designed to prevent such things -- not that rules ever really stopped Jack Murtha from making deals that would benefit himself or his constituents if he could -- but it seems that there's a big flap going on because one GOP congress member tried to eliminate an earmark (designated spending for designated purposes in designated areas) that would have benefited Murtha's constituents when the GOP congress member thought it was unnecessary.

It seems that Murtha got word of the attempt to strike the earmark and was incensed enough to threaten the GOP congress member with *never* getting any earmarks of his own through the congress.  Oooops, that would be retaliation and that would be against the rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, so now we find Nancy Pelosi defending her good buddy and telling us all that Mr. Murtha is more than generous to both sides of the aisles (though she neglects to continue the statement with the words "... when it will benefit Democrats at the polls" or the words "... when it sends even more pork back home to the people in Murtha's district").

Murtha is a wheeler and dealer from way back when (see prior scandals in U.S. history).  That he wasn't caught just means he wasn't given enough opportunity and the proper amount of a bribe.

Pelosi should have sense enough to *run* from Murtha rather than trying to cozy up to him, but she seems to feel some debt to the man.  I guess she owes him some quids for his pro quos.

News article that inspired this rant: Pelosi Defends Murtha Vs. GOP Reprimand

That headline is a bit misleading though.  It's not a GOP reprimand -- it's a congressional reprimand for breaking the rules of the U.S. House of Representatives.  The AP (who provided the news that IWon.com is parroting here) of course can't say that because then they can't bias the article making it seem that the GOP is the evil party here.

politics
2,275 views 4 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

A few words clipped from the original news article:

Pelosi, D-Calif., said she had "no idea what actually happened" during a noisy exchange in the House chamber last week between Reps. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and Mike Rogers, R-Mich.

(It does seem that the madame speaker should find out what happened before rushing to defend the slimeball.... ooops, I mean Rep. Murtha)

More from the news article:

Murtha is a 35-year House veteran who leads the House Appropriations subcommittee on military spending. He is known for a fondness for earmarks - carefully targeted spending items placed in appropriations bills to benefit a specific lawmaker or favored constituent group.

During a series of House votes Thursday, Murtha walked to the GOP side to confront Rogers, a former FBI agent. This month, Rogers had tried unsuccessfully to strike from an intelligence spending bill an item that would restore $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center, a facility in Murtha's Pennsylvania district.

According to Rogers' account, which Murtha did not dispute, the Democrat angrily told Rogers he should never seek earmarks of his own because "you're not going to get any, now or forever."

"This was clearly designed to try to intimidate me," Rogers told The Associated Press on Friday. "He said it loud enough for other people to hear."

House rules prohibit lawmakers from placing conditions on earmarks or targeted tax benefits that are based on another member's votes.

And yet Ms. Pelosi sees no reason to support a reprimand for Mr. Murtha?

Some leadership there....

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lay down with dogs - get up with fleas.  Pelosi seems to be doing a lot of scratching lately!
Star Control: Origins
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
which Murtha did not dispute


very vague statement. he didn't confirm it either. his office did issue a statement tho...

"The committee and staff give every Democrat and Republican the same consideration. We have extensive hearings and every request is given careful consideration. We will continue to do just that."

Rogers claim Murthat said things so loud "others could hear" yet no one has confirmed what Rogers is accusing Murtha of.

i guess "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to Murtha. esp. considering the people make up stuff like this...

That he wasn't caught just means he wasn't given enough opportunity and the proper amount of a bribe.

which is 100% unsubstantiated. murtha was cleared in ABSCAM just like Bush was cleared from being AWOL.


Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Sean, you can ignore Murtha's malfeasance if you want, but it is fairly well known that Murtha got out of ABSCAM because in his discussions with the undercovers he basically said 'not yet' and/or 'when we can reach an agreement....'   It would have been a case of when, not if.

Murtha has never met a quid pro quo that he didn't like, provided there is enough benefit there to outweigh whatever it is that he feels he's doing for the other side.

It reminds me a lot of a friend of mine that always used to be looking for people that were working with him to 'sweeten the deal' just a little more.  No matter how much he (my friend) would profit from a deal, he was always looking for more.  In his world a fair trade was one that benefited him at about a 2:1 ratio compared to the benefits for anyone dealing with him.