House Majority Leader Hems and Haws About Growing Murtha Scandal
Tags: Democrat Culture of Corruption, House Democrats, Jack Murtha.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
You expected something different?
With the ethics troubles of Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) continuing to make headlines — and headaches for Democratic leaders — Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Tuesday again deferred any action on the matter to the House ethics investigators.
“I’ve historically said and continue to believe the ethics committee should, in fact, look at any specific allegations of rules violations that have occurred,” Hoyer told reporters at his weekly press conference.
And I’m sure that cracker-jack ethics committee is right on this.
Keeping in mind that there is no love lost between Hoyer and Murtha we can still see that Democrats circle the wagon when one of their own is in trouble. The only thing which will possibly move House Democrats to force Murtha out is if a poll comes out showing Murtha would be defeated next year – as we saw with the Jefferson case, even an indictment isn’t sufficient for Democrats to call one of their own to account. This from the party which called for Republican Foley’s head because he wrote a few dirty e-mails! I love the stench of hypocrisy in the morning.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
20 Responses to “House Majority Leader Hems and Haws About Growing Murtha Scandal”
Caucus of Corruption
wait, did murtha have the wide stance?
or was it the freezer full of money?
or something w pages?
hummmm…….
The promised “most ethically led Congress in history”….
ohio, if you have to ask then you have not been paying attention OR, you are just another Useful Idiot.
ohioorrin says:
May 6th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
If Murtha goes does that mean Vitter has to go also?? Isn’t soliciting a prostitute a crime??? I say get rid of Murtha and Feinstein and replace them with better candidates that would give the GOP even more fits than they’re having now.
Two things. Charlie Cook has Murtha down to any Republican right now by 9%. Second those e-mails were to boys who were minors in the eyes of the law in DC. If they’d all been 17 c’est la vie but since they weren’t . . .
bloch
inside trading/ contracting = felony
alleged soliciting…..misdemeanor.
big diff.
bloch
TERM LIMITS
clear house BOTH parties two terms = AMF
fmrmarine says:
May 6th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
I feel Congresspersons and MPs should be beyond any sort of criminal activity.
Term limits are the way to go but I would say make it three House terms equal to one term in the Senate where they should be limited to two consecutive terms. I think the President should be able to run for a third four year term.
blochadvocate says: May 6th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
President – one 6 yr term.
Senator – 8 yrs total
House – 8 also.
Public financing only.
Fixed 30 day Primary season.
Fixed 60 day General w top 3 or 4 vote getters.
Without majority, 30 day runoff elimination of lowest vote getter until majority emerges.
you can guarantee that if any one of us was caught doing what murtha has been caught doing, we would have not only lost our job’s…but would have been arrested for embezzlement and sentenced to prison for it…the man is a criminal…and those who conspire to protect him carry his crime on thier shoulders for using thier influence to avert justice…
bloch,
Nice try, but your side continually re-elected a man who didn’t just send a dirty e mail to a minor page, but who had sex with a minor page…he was applauded, after he was caught, by your side because he puffed it up into a coming out of the closet bit of “bravery” and condemned all and sundry for their attacks on his loving relationship with the minor page…
I think the President should be able to run for a third four year term.
Gee, I wonder why…
I think all Congressmen should begin in the House, where they may serve up to two non-consecutive thirty month terms, following which they shall be eligible for either up to four three year Senate terms or up to six two year House terms. Once at least five years of this second phase has elapsed, they will be eligible to run for one 5⅜ year term as president, provided that the state in which they were born joined (or rejoined) the Union in an even numbered year; if it joined in an odd numbered year, they shall become eligible only after the completion of the maximum number of Congressional terms, at which time, if they choose not to run for president, they will become eligible for nomination to the Supreme Court, provided they are then approved by whichever house they had not just been serving in. This is the only way to guarantee a fair and just system of government.
SA
did you learn all that in AM govt 101?
1luv2h8
I think the President should be able to run for a third four year term.
Gee, I wonder why…
Where was that when Bush was in???????? LOL
way to predictable.
actually I like ohio’s idea, except I dont think we can change the POTUS term with out an amendment to the constitution.
The rest 8 years and out,
not eight in the house then 8 in the senate…….8 years congress period!
I am not convinced that term limits is the answer. I understand the intent is to reduce the possibility that certain individual politicians wield too much power, but the power, per se, will not diminish, only redistributed. Specifically, I fear term limits will have two effects that seem to me close to indisputable: (1) the level of expertise in congress will drop, and; (2) partly because of (1), more power will shift to backroom, unelected, career staff types that often play musical chairs between various politicians, lobbying groups, and other elements of the DC elite.
#2 is already a big problem. I suspect that term limits will only make it worse. This strikes me as a quick fix, “careful what you wish for” scenario. Rather, it seems to me better to change the rules, to shine more light on the interactions that go on, and to hold those engaged in malfeasance accountable. If Murtha is one of those, then bye bye Jack. But rarely do these guys act alone. And more often than not these scandals involve more unelected individuals than elected ones. I think that’s really important to keep in mind.
when expertise is politic’s the way they do in DC…who needs them…a professional crook is not a just governor….
we need to eliminate lobby…eliminate any special interest contributions to any election campaign…by only allowing contributions to one central fund, to be equally divided to each candidate with out any favoritism at all…any congressperson with any affiliation to any specific special intrest/industry/company/corporation or charitable organization who moves to create any “appearance” of misconduct (instead of refraining from action) should automatically lose his job and be returned to his/her state for replacement…cleaning out the cesspool is the first step to cure the disease in DC…
cutting thier ties to the interests of industry and making them work for the people would turn this country around….
js02: we need to eliminate lobby…eliminate any special interest contributions to any election campaign…by only allowing contributions to one central fund, to be equally divided to each candidate with out any favoritism at all…
Again I ask, what’s up with this js02 guy? For someone who claims to be a conservative, this idea is the epitome of heresy, isn’t it? Then again, I’m fairly convinced js02 only masquerades as a conservative — either intentionally or unintentionally.
No, I believe it was in English 245, “Sarcasm and Its Uses”.
That is a very interesting idea, though I suspect that the total amount of money donated would plummet.
Mark Noonan says:
May 6th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Frank’s lover was 17 years old the age of consent in the District of Columbia. The page that Foley sent the e-mails to and the boys he had over to his brownstone were under 17. As different as filet mignon and appple torts in the eyes of the law. It might make you nauseous but in the eyes of the law what Frank did was a legal relationship and what Foley did was use the telegraph wires of the Internet to lure a minor into sexual conversation. Loathing liberalism cannot chnage the facts.