by Jerome Armstrong, Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 11:14:51 AM EST
I've heard from a couple of different Hill sources that Murtha is ahead; that newly elected Democrats favor Hoyer by a 2:1 margin, but that Murtha is ahead by about 25 votes overall, which has come about from the standing members after Nancy Pelosi's letter. The vote is Thursday. Let's hope that sticks and Murtha becomes the Majority Leader.
Tags: Jack Murtha, Steny Hoyer (all tags)
wow, i mean: W-O-W!!!
So Pelosi really went to bat for him!
Mark my words (hey, that sounds sooo arrogant, like something Rahm would say, lol), Murtha is the best choice because he, in and of himself, gives us credibility on the Iraq issue, a man with a track record of toughness and not backing down, a guy who cannot be painted as a "San Francisco liberal", and last but not least, Murtha being Pelosi's lieutenant solidfies and unites the House leadership, which is a very good thing for everyone.
I expect Hoeyr will get a plum commitee assignment as consolation, though.
Unlikely. Hoyer and Pelosi hate each other. If he loses, he will keep his Appropriations Committee slot but will likely be banished to the back bench. It wouldn't shock me if he left Congress.
Murtha is a better choice compared to Hoyer because of his public stand on Iraq redeplyment in 2005 when that was not a politically expedient position. He went to bat and helped change the perception and provided cover for many Dems to take an aggressive position on Iraq. The Dems need someone with military cred as the Iraq issue will get very politcially charged with Bush not really changing course although his rhetoric will.
On the other hand, hopefully Nancy will keep him on the straight and narrow on ethics and earmarks and voting more consistently with the Dem majority on critical issues requiring party unity. It would be a disaster for the Dems going into 2008 if Murtha looks like your traditional porkster doing the bidding of lobbyists representing the military-intelligence complex and having a personal axe to grind.
So I understand he is for redeployment. What does that mean to you? It seems to me if we are going to have troops deployed anywhere, they should be in the Middle East and possibly Korea.
I think many people don't understand the level of troops we have around the world and the fact that our front lines have moved from Germany to Iraq.
Does redeployment mean our troops are all coming home? It seems this redeployment terminology is meant to mean whatever anyone wants it to be. It will be interesting to find out what it all really means.
Nice name, Classical Liberal. :)
Redeployment does seem to mean different things for different people. As I understand it, when Murtha calls for redeployment, he's calling for "rapid-reaction" forces nearby (Middle East/Mediterranean), and other people elsewhere (Germany, Okinawa, etc.)
Pelosi and Hoyer also called for redeployment in July, and again in October, but I think they've called to redeploy the Special Forces-type troops to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. You know, where the terrorists (including Bin Laden) are hiding? But that was a while ago, I think, so that may have changed.
In either case, it would seem that redeploy actually means redeploy. It does not seem to mean, "troops home now" for either Murtha or Hoyer (or Pelosi).
And so does Hoyer.
I'd rather they promoted Jim Clyburn to Majority leader.
Yeah, me too. But he's the whip, for now. But he's definitely in-line for the maj leader role if Murtha fucks it up and/or Murtha gives up being leader after 2008 elections.
We need more minority faces, IMO.
up to him?
But really... hes got the job now, hes not really anyones first pick but it was a 2 person race saddly and we picked the slightly better candidate.
Well, again, if it doesn't screw the dems totally he could have future ethical problems...
Good news?
-- MrMacMan
I just called my congressman, Michael Capuano (D-MA). He's a member of the progressive caucus, and he's with Murtha.
Why do the newbies favor Hoyer? I mean, if they're as progressive as they're supposed to be.
Probably because he campaigned and raised money for them. Leadership races are rarely about issues - they are about personality and loyalty.
I don't think this new group is progressive at all. Rahm Emanuel needed conservative democrats for the fifty state strategy to have any teeth. You can't expect a progressive to win in Virginia or Montana. The party shifted to the right, but the keys are still in the hands of the progressives.
Individuals don't make change in Washington, majorities do. At least that is the strategy apparently taken.
It is the most apparent with the Senate pickups: Webb, Tester, McCaskill, Casey and even Klobuchar.
In MN the differences between Klobuchar and Rowley/Wetterling are huge.
I welcome it and think strengthens the party. Of course I secretly like small government and large freedoms.
His name is Jon Tester. More liberal Democrats were ushered into Congress than conservative Democrats.
Okay - he seemed more consevative then Burns to me, but definitions change. Maybe the parties are flipping.
How is he more conservative (I prefer right-wing) than Burns? If you're a classical liberal, I can see how you would not be pleased with Tester's economics. But I'm not a classical liberal. Historically, Democrats are not classic economic liberals. Hope this doesn't make you flip.
Lets look at his economic policy on his Web site:
1. Restore Fiscal Responsibility
Most of what I get from his web site I agree with, though I would consider a move away from taxing peoples labor toward taxing peoples spending(sales tax).
Durning his campaign and the debates, I thought it was is economic policies that seemed the most conservative.
I'm a Hoyer supporter, but I wouldn't be unhappy if Murtha won. He'll make a fine Majority Leader. I would still point out though that it's nearly impossible to get an accurate vote count for the race since the election is conducted by secret ballot. Few representatives would openly support Hoyer in the face of Pelosi's wrath, but a great deal may ignore whatever pledges they made and simply vote their conscience. I find it hard to believe that Murtha is in front when it comes to standing members, however. Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, John Dingell and other senior members support Hoyer.
BTW, a lot of pro-Murtha posters throw out the talking point that Murtha's stance on Iraq is why the democrats are in the majority now. Obviously it was a brave move-I would never knock Murtha for that. However, doesn't the fact that the freshmen support Hoyer 2 to 1 tell you all you need to know about who they think was a greater help in the election?
The strategic brilliance of Murtha being leader is that if he gets hit on Abscam, the Dems have a giant opening to go after McCain on Keating 5. Two years talking about Saint John's sins is a nice head start. The next round is all about McCain, who's going to be anointed Bush's successor. The more you can piss on his coattails, the more likely we are to retain Congress. And then you have the obvious veteran leader in time of war issue. Never underestimate Mrs. Pelosi.
Jack Murtha is no liberal, neither is Hoyer.
Murtha is anti-choice, pro-gun, and pro-corporate interests. He's against the war, which makes him a good voice, but he and Stoyer are very similar politically.
Staying away from gun control is why we have a majority now. Tester, Webb, McCaskill, etc.
We made inroads amongst rural voters. Let's not fuck it up now with some silly, irrelevant gun-control nonsense.
I'm not sure he was saying it as something he wanted done... just pointing to larger issues of their voting record.
We have a fairly conservative dem -- if he does his job right, it doesn't matter. If his own views stop him... well then we have a problem.
It was a 2 man race, we backed the marginally better candidate... what could we do else?
(yes my grammar was supposed to be like that)
-- MrMacMan
Sorry, Fan, gotta disagree. Let me quote from JRyan (below):
"Hoyer voted no on drilling in ANWR, while Murtha voted yes. Hoyer voted against banning human cloning, while Murtha voted yes. Hoyer voted against restricting gun liability, while Murtha voted for it. Hoyer voted AGAINST banning the partial-birth abortion procedure, while Murtha voted to ban it. Hoyer stood up for the gay community and voted against banning same-sex marriage, while Murtha didn't show his face to vote."
Yeah, that's pretty much the size of it. Hoyer is a pro-choice, pro-environment, minimum-wage-raising, assault-weapon opposing, alternative-energy-supporting "Conservative." Murtha is a pro-life, pro-gun, ANWR-drilling, gay-rights-opposing, coal-loving "Liberal."
Make sense to you? Me neither. The truth is, this race doesn't break down along ideological lines, but personal friendships and shared history, as others have noted. But make no mistake: Hoyer is the liberal that conservatives love, and Murtha is the conservative that liberals love. That's just the way it is.
Ah, but the biggest reason Murtha is viewed as a liberal are positions he has taken on the Iraq war. The American people know who Murtha is and have no idea who Hoyer is.
Love the Franklyn quote -
I wonder what Ben Franklyn would think of federal minimum wage laws. Is it considered giving up freedoms for promise of temporary financial security?
Congressional Quarterly has a solid article on this. http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/11/pelosi _sets_up_early_test_of_h.html#more
The gist of it is not necessarily personal, though many view Hoyer as disloyal. Issuing a press release saying the exact opposite of what your party's leader is saying at the same time shows you they don't have a solid working relationship.
The article cites Hoyer's support for Dick Cheney's energy bill and bankruptcy "reform" bill as points of discord between Hoyer and Murtha.
Mostly, Hoyer is wrong on the war. When Pelosi backed Murtha's call for withrdawl of troops, Hoyer expressed that the US can still achieve "victory" and "succeed" in Iraq.
Interesting that the new members are 2-1 for Hoyer which tells you who did more to get them elected. Neither choice is great but I am not a real fan of the Speaker imposing her will on the caucus in this manner. Traditionally, this has been a vote where the members get to choose and you need some of those. The pre-1994 Dem leadership had become too lax and gave too much leeway to members but this seems to me like it goes too far in the other direction. It will be interesting to see how it plays long term.
Don't you think the Speaker should have the leadership she wants, and should be able to trust her team, rather than worry about Steny constantly undermining her...as well as stabbing her in the back at every opportunity?
In a word: no. Pelosi is not Dictator of the House, she is the Speaker. She is bound to the will of the democratic caucus. The Speaker is primus inter pares, not an emperor (or emperess). The Pelosi/Hoyer team did just fine with only two lapses during their four years together. It is Pelosi who stabbed Hoyer in the back by running Murtha against him, and who undermined and divided the caucus at a critical time when Murtha announced in the middle of election season that he was going to challenge Hoyer (at the time calling Hoyer too liberal to lead the caucus).
Yeah, and this is democracy, with Pelosi pulling for her pick, and everyone else pulling for theirs.
I don't think that threatening democrats with the loss of their seniority and their committee positions unless they vote the way you want them to counts as democracy. Jim Moran said "She will ensure that they [the Murtha camp] wins. This is hardball politics ... We are entering an era where when the Speaker instructs you what to do, you do it." That is not democracy, and you look very foolish trying to suggest otherwise.
Well, I'm not sure how foolish it is to suggest that democracy is entirely incompatible with hardball politics.
Pelosi was democratically invested with whatever politically coercive powers she possesses. Using those powers and threatening to use them both fall well within the realm of 'democracy.' Claiming that one cannot both play hardball and engage in democracy, while not of course stooping to the level of 'very foolish', strikes me as an odd statement.
Calling pelosi a 'dictator' at this early stage suggests that, not only are you being unfair to her personally, but that you have no clue with how the House works.
Your unquestioned support of this move by Pelosi shows you know absolutely nothing about the House. You don't know of its history, its traditions, or even what being Speaker entails. I have also noticed how you have systematically uprated anyone who supports Murtha while you trollrate those who don't. BTW, I am not trying to be unfair to Speaker Pelosi or Murtha, I'm just not being a blind cheerleader like yourself. If you had paid more attention to what I had written, you would see that I was not calling Pelosi a dictator. Nanorich stated that Pelosi should be able to dictate her entire leadership team, when in fact it is the caucus' decision. I simply pointed out that Pelosi was appointed Speaker, and that position has never been used to publicly influence other leadership contests, for very good reasons. I was not insulting her. Why don't you grow up and stop trollrating people who disagree with you.
you must admit that what's needed now is unity. and you seem very visceral in what you think about Pelosi. I am sure she's not the only one "twisting arms."
Where someone stands on any particular issue is irrelevant to being majority leader. However, the majority leader's relationship with his or her speaker is of the utmost importance. I would suggest that if people insist on Hoyer, then perhaps those same people should elect a different speaker. Be careful what you wish for.
(long post)
As you may have guessed, I'm dissapointed by Pelosi's move to publicly support Murtha, an action that breaks all precedent. However, that doesn't mean I don't like Pelosi-she has been a great boon to the democrats. In four years she succeeded in doing what took Gephardt eight years to fail at: retaking the House. She deserves great praise for that, and I support her wholeheartedly as Speaker-and I haven't seen one loyal democrat, elected or not, sing nothing but praise for her accomplishments.
You speak of unity-that is exactly what I desire. Hoyer and Pelosi do not like each other, but for four years, the two of them have done a great job working together-even most of Murtha's supporters admit that. There have been two instances where they seriously diverged-when Hoyer (and Murtha) voted for the Bankruptcy Bill, and when Hoyer initially criticized Murtha's call for withdrawal from Iraq (and he later joined with Pelosi in June to endorse her position).
You say the Majority Leader's relationship with the Speaker is important, which is both right and wrong. Their personal relationship is unimportant. Pelosi and Hoyer can hate each other as much as they want, so long as their professional relationship remains smooth and workable, which it obviously has been. If Hoyer becomes Majority Leader, they will continue to be a great team, even if they cannot stand each other. This whole meme about Hoyer backstabbing Pelosi is absolute bunk. The guy is 67, he knows he's not going to ever be Speaker. He's just trying to survive.
I said I supported unity, and I do. Had Pelosi kept her support quiet, either Murtha or Hoyer could have won, with little resentment incurred. Instead, by making her support public, she makes the race public. Murtha is publicly attacking Hoyer on TV, and Jim Moran is telling everyone that if you don't support Pelosi on this, she'll screw you over. To be absolutely fair, I think that some Hoyer supporters are stoking the ABSCAM fire as a form of counterattack. If my suspicions are correct, shame on them.
In other words, it was Pelosi's actions that have made this contest public, nasty and divisive at a time when democrats should be basking in the glow of their first major victory in 12 years. We aren't talking about what we're going to do anymore, and instead we are desperately trying not to look too divided. Pelosi placed her prestige, and the prestige of the caucus at risk in a bitter dispute that she has no historical right to be in. That doesn't diminish my admiration for her many accomplishments, but it does dissapoint me terribly. The Speaker should never play favorites publicly.
Sorry, this is a little long, but hopefully it summarizes my feelings on the race well. I really don't wish Pelosi any harm, and though I am a Hoyer supporter, I wish Murtha well. Some people are complaining that these are the only two to choose from. I think the caucus is blessed to have a choice between two dedicated public servants.
I wouldn't be the least surprised to find out that Murtha has been the instigator here, not Pelosi.
Murtha can be very nasty when the occassion calls for it - witness his primary campaign against Frank Mascara when their two districts were thrown together in the 2002 PA state redistricting.
Again, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Murtha used his position as Pelosi's minority leader campaign mgr to extract a favor from her now. Really, what could she say? No, I won't endorse you?
Murtha's a very savvy old pol. I'll bet he saw a rising star in Pelosi and decided to hitch his wagon to her. Ask yourself why would a conservative guy like Murtha want to develop a relationship with someone on about the opposite
end of the political spectrum if not for the potential to wield even more power.
Murtha has plenty of ethical baggage and will be
a "target rich environment" for Republicans who
will use him to undermine Pelosi's campaign for
a clean and ethical congress should he win.
btw, I tried to change my rating to "none" but hit "0" by mistake. i am trying to fix it and, for some reason, it is not registering. i'll keep trying. :)
That is really a caucus decision. If you want the Speaker to have his/her choice as Maj Ldr then make it appointive. The Democratic Whip was an appointed position until the mid-1980s. By making it elected by the caucus but then twisting arms and using heavy handed tactics you create resentment amongst people who changed their votes out of fealty to the Speaker.
I am all for party discipline and think the Dems need more but an internal caucus choice is the wrong place to use it. Tip O'Neill was one of the best when it came to understanding how to use the power of the Speakership such as when to twist arms and when not to. Interesting that he used the exact opposite tactic of Pelosi during a 1976 race for Majority Leader which Jim Wright won by 1 vote.
I like Pelosi a lot but I think she has made a mistake wading into this race so publicly. I suspect it is going to be a short term gain with some long term consequences.
Well, then if it is a caucus decision, we will see if Rahm...who, of course, can do anything, can deliver this job to Murtha.
I think Pelosi wouldn't have gone out on a limb so publicly to assert her leadership right out the gate, if she wasn't reasonable sure she would win this one. And I think it was probably a smart move.
We haven't had a Democratic majority in 12 years....and weak leadership back in the day might have been one of those reasons.
But I could be wrong.
Actually, I think the opposite. If Pelosi had it locked up for Murtha, she wouldn't have sent the letter or be twisting arms. She is exerting pressure to get Murtha in.
Also, Pelosi and Hoyer, despite their dislike of each other, seem to make a strong team. Party discipline was tight under them. You don't have to like each other to do your jobs well. Sports teams are the best example of that.
I have no dog in this fight - really could care less who wins. I just think it is a mistake for Pelosi to be so publicly pressuring members on something that has traditionally, on both sides of aisle, been a personal vote.
The netroots is way off on this. If Murtha hadn't said anything about Iraq, you'd be crucifying him. He's with Republicans on almost every issue that is important to DailyKos and the lot.
There are fields of difference between Hoyer and Murtha, politically. What they'll be willing to do for a Democratic majority are two very different things, and I assure you that Murtha's agenda will drive you nuts.
So, let me get this straight. Nancy Pelosi spent the past two years criticizing the GOP for their rampant corruption problems, and then proceeds to push for corrupt Democrats to have positions of power within the caucus?!
Murtha: Veteran. Blunt speaker. I like the guy, but he isn't exactly the poster boy for clean government. He just barely escaped indictment in the ABSCAM scandal. Plus, he has been accused of the same 'pay to play' style appropriations that the GOP was criticized for. But, Pelosi doesn't like Hoyer....
Jane Harman: Pelosi doesn't like her. So, there's talk of her going with Alcee Hastings as chairman of the Intelligence Committee. The problem? He was impeached by a Democratic House and Senate while a federal judge!!
Mollohan: This guy should not even be considered for the chairmanship of the Appropriations or Rules committees....
All that talk about good clean government was bunk. Pelosi wants to put her friends in charge, no matter how corrupt they may be.
It's already a done deal that Pelosi is going with Rep. Silvestre Reyes (TX) for Intelligence Cmte Chm. So Alcee won't be stinking up the place.
Same as the old boss.... I'm disappointed. Oh well, at least we won't be shipped off to Gitmo anytime soon. CREW has the dirt on Murtha over at www.beyonddelay.org
Hoyers the one we've gotta root for... As K-streetish Hoyer is, Murtha is quite a bit worse, and why have our leader be almost as corrupt as Delay?
How about we all have a consensus nominee, like Robert Wexler, so that the dems legalize Cocaine and Prostitution? =)
Both murtha and hoyer are bad. It would be preferential to have murtha because Hoyer's focus will be to push a K-street agenda while murtha's will be to push stuff on Iraq.
Both are about the same on the issues, but the interpersonal relationships between pelosi are what make Murtha better.
No, they are not the same on the issues, but I can see why some Murtha supporters want to push that view. Hoyer voted no on drilling in ANWR, while Murtha voted yes. Hoyer voted against banning human cloning, while Murtha voted yes. Hoyer voted against restricting gun liability, while Murtha voted for it. Hoyer voted AGAINST banning the partial-birth abortion procedure, while Murtha voted to ban it. Hoyer stood up for the gay community and voted against banning same-sex marriage, while Murtha didn't show his face to vote. Which way do you think he would have gone? Murtha has had ethics problems, while it was Steny who specifically stood up and supported Chris Bell's complaint that DeLay had attempted to bribe Nick Smith. On the downside, both of them voted for the odious Bankrupcy bill.
I like Murtha a lot and admire his courage and his dedication to America, but he and Hoyer are not the same on the issues.
I want Murtha to win just so we don't have to read another story about Dems divided and screwing over Pelosi.
Having said that, Murtha's ethics problems will only be a big story if he somehow stops the ethics reforms Pelosi wants (he won't) and in all honesty, he's going to be a lightning rod regardless. That's the job of a majority leader.
Seems to me about the only thing a Majority leader in the House does is stab the Speaker in the back. Ergo, Murtha makes the most sense to me.
As we've seen time and time again...power corrupts. Sad to say that Murtha's track record speaks for itself. Why fix something that ain't broken. As Chair of the Defense Subcommittee, Murtha will still be a leader/leading voice on Iraq but will have less temptation with the Majority Leader cookie jar. The current leaders got us here....why screw it up before the Democrats take control?
I sure hope this info is incorrect. I've been so happy about the election, and now Pelosi rains on the parade.
Our long-term majority is not dependent on the members representing patches of blue America or the flukes representing some red patches. It is dependent on taking care of the members in the purple districts. This is Steny Hoyer country, and he is the key to holding those seats.
I am glad Murtha is on our side, but he is not the right voice for our majority.
I really hope you are wrong about the outcome of this contest.
The Hoyer people are out in full force, huh? They're like scared little chickens.
You know why I believe Murtha is ahead? Because Hoyer is trying to smear him with this whole "ethics" swift-boating.
He would be gracious if he were ahead. It's smarter politics.
By the way, I don't think Hoyer even has a 2-to-1 advantage among the freshmen. I think it's even steven.
Oh, poop.
I haven't done any vote-counting among freshmen members (and all this "horse race" stuff should be taken with a grain of salt, secret ballot and all), but the idea that they're even when 21 of 'em already signed a letter last week supporting Hoyer sounds pretty shifty to me. (How many are there? 39? 40?)
Anyway, I have no idea about 2-1, but from Hoyer's website, there are a lot of people.. he's got all these press releases with people supporting him, etc. Went to Murtha's page, but didn't see anything-- all I've seen in press accounts is the same people (Jim Moran, George Miller, and Murtha's crew named in the New York Times "ethics" article in Oct.)
Who's going to win? Both of them, if you believe their press releases. This would suggest that one of them.. is wrong. Your guess is as good as mine, but I hope Hoyer wins this one- he's waaaay more liberal, and he's good on the House floor (I'm a CSPAN junkie).
Has anyone seen Murtha talk about anything besides Iraq? No? Didn't think so.
P.S. I keep hearing that people who initially supported Hoyer are now reneging and supporting Murtha.
Nancy, who is kicking serious ass, is twisting arms for votes.
I think Hoyer and everyone else will think twice before screwing her over. Women don't forget anything.
Not that I know much about it, but it seems like if Murtha wins it then Pelosi will have put the House on serious notice. The message will be: Do. Not. Cross. Me.
That seems like a good thing to me. The more party discipline the better.
It would be pretty hard to call Murtha a latte drinking,NPR listening,limo driving liberal wouldn't it?
As an unreconstructed lefty, I'm so proud to have the first ever woman as Speaker. A San Francisco Democrat at that! :)
But I'm pretty mad at Pelosi for causing this in-fighting as the first act of her Speakership. I've been reading the blogs but rarely post - and then stumbled on the actual Abscam tape (the nuts at American Spectator or one of those posted it). But I watched it.
It's horrifying. We can't have Murtha leading this Congress - that WE just elected!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid= 2131539854655700584&hl=en
I'm not sure who is going to win - but i think that, if murtha wins, people will need to keep a close eye on him. For the gays, he hasn't exactly been our friend. Let's look at the record --
Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) -- Hoyer is a cosponsor. Murtha isn't.
Hate crimes Protection Act -- Hoyer is a cosponsor. Murtha isn't, though he did vote in favor of an amendment.
I'm not saying that Murtha won't vote for those things if they come up (as he has in the past), but is he going to be pushing for them?
Murtha has uniquely acquired the mantle of being THE voice of the military on capital hill. No republican has it. No other democrat has it. EVERYONE, including republicans and US corporate media recognizes it.
I suggest the democrats treat him nice and take advantage of the HUGE advantage his unique characteristic offers.
Why do people speak of Murtha's "agenda?" Since when will he get an agenda? This isn't a GOP House, where the Speaker is a puppet. This is Nancy Pelosi's show. Everybody's fairly well satisfied about her credibility, right? Is this who she wants? Yes. Then that's pretty much the end of it for me.
This isn't a resume' contest, nor is it a purity test. It's a job opening for the #2, and this #2 needs to be the equivalent of the hockey enforcer.
I don't mean it to be sexist, because there are a lot of men for whom this would be true, but the temptation to mess with Pelosi will result in a visit from Murtha, who can be imposing and personally intimidating. Hoyer? Not so much.
Contrary to Pelosi starting a controversy over a party battle, I think she's trying to defuse one. If she picks a nominee, she knows there will be pressure to go with what she wants...thus helping providing resolution without an all-out brawl in the media.
Leave her be. I think she's doing fine so far.
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
77 Comments