demoRAT hero on LIBERAL demoRAT media: Targeting Murtha
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 15, 2006; 10:48 AM
How exactly did Jack Murtha become a symbol of sleazy behavior?
Nancy Pelosi pushes the guy for majority leader and suddenly--boom!--he's on the front page of The Washington Post as being ethically challenged. The New York Times mentions it as well.
And I'm wondering why, if this is a valid news story--the peg is some watchdog groups criticizing the Pennsylvania congressman on the eve of the House leadership vote--I didn't get to read about it earlier. Instead, the stories were written in an "everyone knows this" tone.
I know, because I've been around for awhile, that Murtha was caught up in Abscam, but that was 26 years ago, and besides, he was never charged. (Though it was kind of creepy to see the grainy videotape again on "NBC Nightly News," with Murtha saying to a bribe offer: "I'm not interested--at this point. We do business for awhile, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't.")
When the former Marine declared that U.S. troops should be pulled out of Iraq and redeployed in the region, he garnered all kinds of coverage, but it was mostly about his then-controversial stance, not his ethics.
So here, according to yesterday's Post, is why there is a "furor" on the Hill over Murtha's possible ascension to the No. 2 job:
"At issue is Murtha's relationships with two defense lobbyists. Paul Magliocchetti of the PMA Group is a former aide to the lawmaker, and Robert 'Kit' Murtha is his brother and was a senior partner at KSA Consulting from 2002 to 2005.
"The PMA Group has become the go-to firm to approach Murtha as ranking Democrat on the Appropriations defense subcommittee, CREW [Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington] charges. In the 2006 defense appropriations bill, PMA clients reaped at least 60 special provisions, or 'earmarks,' worth more than $95 million.
"The PMA Group and its clients have been top campaign contributors for Murtha: $274,649 in the 2006 campaign cycle, $236,799 in the 2004 cycle and $279,074 in the 2002 cycle, according to CREW's tallies." Murtha also helped a company that hired his brother's lobbying outfit win some grants and contracts.
Now this is pretty troubling, even if it's become par for the course on Capitol Hill. So why didn't the media jump on this earlier?
Turns out that the Los Angeles Times broke this story in exhaustive detail in June 2005, and it received almost no national pickup. Apparently the media didn't care about Murtha then.
The Post devoted one paragraph to Murtha and PMA in a story last March about a proposal for greater disclosure of lawmakers' contacts with lobbyists. The New York Times, to its credit, did a long piece in October about Murtha rewarding other Dems with pork, or punishing them, based on their votes, and got into some of the PMA stuff.
But that was about it--until now. A Nexis search doesn't even turn up anything in the Philly Inquirer or Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
The curious timing prompts this criticism from Betsy's Page:
"For months, the media has lionized Jack Murtha. But, now after Pelosi has indicated her support for Murtha as the new Majority Leader over Steny Hoyer, the Washington Post has decided to weigh in and throw their support to Hoyer, the more moderate candidate. Not that they're actually editorializing in favor of Hoyer. Instead, they're doing to Murtha what they so often do to Republicans -- review accusations of corruption against Murtha that supposedly other Democrats are bringing up . . .
"Of course, conservative bloggers have written about these accusations of corruption against Jack Murtha since he emerged as the lead spokesman of the Democrats in favor of a pullout from Iraq. But, somehow, these stories that 'people have known about these things for months,' didn't make it to the front page of the Washington Post until after the election. Now they tell us about this story.
"Gee, wouldn't it have been nice if the Post and the Pennsylvania papers had aired these stories before the election, but I guess that would have interfered with the whole 'Republicans are the only corrupt party' around message."
But ethics isn't the only issue in this race:
"Injecting the Iraq war into the escalating fight for the No. 2 spot among House Democrats," says the L.A. Times, "Rep. John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania on Tuesday attacked his opponent for not backing a push last year for withdrawal of U.S. troops.
"Rep. Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland disputed the criticism of his position on the war. Murtha's charge was an effort to turn an antiwar message central to Democratic gains at the polls last week into a wedge issue in determining the party's leadership as it prepares to take control of the House in January.
"Murtha's broadside also raised the prospect that the showdown with Hoyer for the majority leader's post would have a larger ideological element than often is the case. Usually, the leadership contests turn more on matters of personality and style than issues."
Speaking of House leadership fights, the New Republic takes umbrage at Nancy Pelosi's plans to pass over Jane Harman for a key chairmanship in favor of Alcee Hastings, a former federal judge who was impeached on bribery charges:
"So why does Pelosi want him for the Intelligence Committee job? There are two likely reasons. The first is that Pelosi personally dislikes Harman. In part, Pelosi is annoyed because Harman, unlike Hastings, was initially a strong supporter of the Iraq war (though she has since become a tough critic). Pelosi is also reportedly infuriated by Harman's aggressive lobbying for the job (allegedly with the help of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an effort reported to be part of a wider federal investigation of the group). Some also suggest natural tensions exist between two ambitious, sixty-something women in California politics . . .
"There's ample reason to think that Americans cast a negative vote last week--not so much for Democrats as against Republicans. Over the next two years, voters will be watching to see whether Democrats are up to the responsibility of governing, and doing so with the national interest in mind. If Nancy Pelosi bases her decision about such a critical position on a combination of personal feuding and identity politics, she won't just do Republicans a favor by giving them a readymade bogeyman to attack. She will have shown voters that she's unable to push aside petty institutional politics in the name of the national interest."
Joe Lieberman has infuriated liberal bloggers again, as this Kos post makes clear:
"This would make me upset if it surprised me any. But I expected it.
" Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said yesterday that he will caucus with Senate Democrats in the new Congress, but he would not rule out switching to the Republican caucus if he starts to feel uncomfortable among Democrats.
"Here's the bottom line for Joe -- if he leaves the Democratic Party, he'll give the GOP a short-lived 50-50 majority. But in 2008, the Senate map is ALL Democratic pickups. And Lieberman can then enjoy life in a big GOP minority.
"So I fully expect him to jump to the dark side. It's what his voters want, it's what his financiers want, it's what his strategists want. You get elected with Republican voters, money and advice, you sort of end up indebted to the other side.
"Or, he thinks he's being funny and clever by taunting the Democratic caucus."
If Lieberman did make the leap, which I very much doubt, he'd be breaking his word to his constituents.
National Review Editor Rich Lowry tries to explode what he calls post-election myths:
"-- Republican losses were in keeping with typical setbacks for a party holding the White House in the sixth year of a presidency. Conservatives reassure themselves that the 'six-year itch' has cost the party in power roughly 30 seats on average since World War II, so this year's losses aren't remarkable. But as liberal blogger Kevin Drum points out, most of the big 'itches' came prior to the past 20 years when gerrymandering got more sophisticated. Reagan lost only five seats in his sixth year, and Clinton only five (although he had already suffered a wipeout in 1994). For Democrats to win 29 seats despite all the advantages of incumbency enjoyed by the GOP is a big deal.
"-- The conservative base, discouraged by the GOP's doctrinal impurity, didn't show up at the polls. This is the bedtime story conservatives are telling themselves to show that whatever ails the party will be cured simply by becoming more conservative. In 2004, however, conservatives were 34 percent of the electorate and liberals 21 percent. In 2006, the numbers were almost indistinguishable -- conservatives were 32 percent of the electorate and liberals 20 percent. The GOP didn't lose the election with its base, but with independents, who broke against them 57 percent to 39 percent.
"-- Republicans lost because they weren't fiscally conservative enough. Another conservative illusion. A thought experiment: Which cuts in government would have, in and of themselves, increased the party's popularity? Expanding the widely unpopular gap in coverage in the Medicare prescription-drug bill -- the so-called doughnut hole -- to produce entitlement savings? Cutting student loans? Even 'earmarked' spending for special projects back home tends -- sadly -- to be popular with local constituencies...
"-- The GOP was too socially conservative for voters. This chestnut is trotted out every time Republicans lose an election. This time it is even less plausible than usual. Seven out of eight constitutional amendments banning gay marriage passed this year, often outperforming Republican candidates. That Democrats went out of their way not to antagonize social-conservative voters this year was one of the keys to their success."
At American Prospect, Greg Sargent challenges the notion that our soldiers in Iraq want to stay the course:
"Here's a poll of actual troop attitudes taken last February, before some of the worst violence of the war hit:
"An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.
"The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College's Center for Peace and Global Studies, showed that 29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq 'immediately,' while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay 'as long as they are needed.'
"Beware this emerging storyline. If and when the Dems start pushing for a change of course in Iraq, the wingnut spin will be that the Dems and bureaucrats in Washington are out to betray the hard-working troops abroad. When that happens, it'll be interesting to see whether the conservatives claiming to speak for the troops point to any actual, you know, evidence of what the troops actually think."
Doesn't even guilt by association require an actual association? Check out this HuffPost screed by Steve Young:
"Would we be able to hold Bill O'Reilly, in any way, culpable in the case of the Woodland Hills, California man, Chad Conrad Castagana, who was arrested for mailing threatening letters laced with white powder to Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer and 'Late Show' host David Letterman, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and other high-profile political and entertainment figures.
"At first glance, this would seem the case of just a far right kook who wanted to scare the Secular Progressiveness(TM) out of a bunch of left wing moonbats(TM). If blame for placing the Traditionalist(TM) bull-eye on these liberal elites was due, than you'd have to bring in the entire AM talk radio dial for an interrogation, which wouldn't be so bad.
"But at closer look, there is more than a hint that Chad had gotten his marching orders from one Lord of Loud in particular. While Pelosi and Schumer might have shared the wrath from any number of right wing talkers, only one has added David Letterman as embodiment of the Hate America First(TM) SPs(TM) and had laid blame at Stewart's doorstep for the potential killing of Christmas . . . The Culture Warrior(TM) himself . . . BILL O'REILLY.
"And when you add O'Reilly's chief nemesis since Franken had the last legal laugh, Keith Olbermann to the stack, it's not hard to imagine that Bill might have penned the hit list himself."
Gotten his marching orders? Might have penned the hit list? This is ludicrous.
In a new blog, Recovering Journalist, onetime Post reporter Mark Potts observes:
"From San Francisco journalist/lawyer Peter Scheer, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, the dumbest idea I've seen in a long time:
" ' What to do? Here's my proposal: Newspapers and wire services need to figure out a way, without running afoul of antitrust laws, to agree to embargo their news content from the free Internet for a brief period -- say, 24 hours -- after it is made available to paying customers. The point is not to remove content from the Internet, but to delay its free release in that venue.'"
Yeah, that'd go over well.
This may be the most sickening thing I've ever heard:
"In a new TV interview and book, O.J. Simpson discusses how he would have committed the slayings of his ex-wife and her friend 'if he did it,' " says the New York Post.
"The two-part television interview, titled 'O.J. Simpson: If I Did It, Here's How It Happened,' will air Nov. 27 and Nov. 29 on Fox, the TV network said Tuesday."
I thought he was busy looking for the real killers.
Chicago Tribune critic Phil Rosenthal sounds as disgusted as I am:
"Not sleazy enough for you? The interview is to be conducted by publisher Judith Regan, class act that she is, whose Regan imprint for HarperCollins, class act that it is, will put out Simpson's hypothetically confessional 'If I Did It.'
"Because HarperCollins and Fox are both News Corp. companies, it's one hand soiling the other.
"Mike Darnell, Fox's executive vice president of alternative programming, said in a statement heralding 'O.J. Simpson: If I Did It, Here's How It Happened,' 'This is an interview that no one thought would ever happen.' And that's undoubtedly true. For a lot of reasons. Not the least of which is it's tasteless and utterly unnecessary."
Post a Comment
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Your washingtonpost.com User ID will be displayed with your comment.
Comments: (Limit 5,000 characters)
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post. |
