John Murtha, Distinguished Gentleman
Posted January 15th, 2008 by Da King
I'm sure you all remember Nancy Pelosi saying she was going to clean up the "culture of corruption" in Congress when the Democrats took control in 2006. Nancy was referring to the culture of corruption in the outgoing Republican Congress, of course. It was a big campaign issue for the Democrats, and it worked. The evil Republicans were cast out of the temple, and the Democrats, the party of all that is good and holy, the party of light, regained control. Hallelujah, brothers and sisters. A great weight was lifted from the backs of the people, and the shadow removed from the sun. No longer would government be beholden to special interests. Pelosi was going to oversee the "most ethical Congress in history".
Sure. I hope none of you were dumb enough to believe that nonsense for even one second.
You should have known Pelosi was being less than forthright about cleaning up corruption right off the bat, when, about 10 minutes after the 2006 election results were in, she endorsed pork king and unindicted Abscam co-conspirator John Murtha for House Majority Leader. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house. Murtha didn't get that job, but still ended up as the chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, where he became, drumroll please, THE NUMBER ONE HOUSE PORKER FOR 2007. Murtha procured $162 million in pork for his congressional district, surpassing all other House members. Go Johnny. It gets better. Murtha secured earmarks in the defense budget for 26 beneficiaries, and every single one of them contributed to his campaign, giving a total of $413,250. Murtha provides the best government that money can buy. He's like a fast food restaurant. You pay your money at one window and pickup your order at the next one.
Here's Andrew Koneschusky, a Murtha spokesman, 'answering' a question about Murtha's ethical problems back in 2006: "We are focused on the future. We are focused on electing the best candidate to lead our party and deliver the change the American people want, and that is Jack Murtha. We are looking forward, not backward". Thanks, Andrew. Excellent non-response.
Murtha was focused on the future alright. He was focused on YOUR money. Like a laser beam. Providing the "change the American people want". There's that CHANGE word again. The same word that is the key for the upcoming elections. What a coincidence. Sound familiar ? Maybe this CHANGE they are speaking of is what you'll have left in your pockets after the Democrats get done with you. National health care, national day care, etc, etc. Spending to the left of me. Spending to the right of me. A thousand points of fright.
And the most frightening thing of all is, THE DEMOCRATS ARE PROBABLY GOING TO WIN IN 2008, and be free to tax and spend us into oblivion, unfettered !!! Pass the Alka Seltzer. The Republican frontrunner is John McCain, for god's sake ! He's barely even a Republican, though he's playing one on television now. Egads. Even I might vote for Obama. What a sorry state. Say it isn't so. Where have you gone, Ronnie ? A nation turns it's lonely eyes to y…alas, too late.
But I'm getting off the topic, which is John Murtha and the NEW culture of corruption. I liked him better in the role of the crotchety old anti-war loon who wanted to redeploy our troops to Okinawa. At least he was good for a laugh then.
January 16th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Unlike Republicans, corrupt Dim are seldom thrown out of office. Why?
It's because of the nature of the Dim base, so much of which expects its representatives to lie & cheat for them and they figure if elected Dims take a "little" for themselves, what the heck.
+++
"And the most frightening thing of all is, THE DEMOCRATS ARE PROBABLY GOING TO WIN IN 2008"
Agreed. It's the Dims' game to lose. Not only do things look good for a Dim to take the White House, but they can be expected to pick up seats in Congress, too.
The only silver lining here is that if anyone can botch a winning hand, it's the Dims.
January 16th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
A good Dem leader from the city of Pittsburgh told me not long ago that there was no way to replace the "King of Pork" in his district short of death. He said the people there know which side their bread is buttered on and they know that Jack Murtha holds the knife that slathers on the butter for them. How can we expect them to vote him out of office? It isn't going to happen and nobody runs against him.
King, Nancy really did a lot to clean up the operations of the House when she pushed to have Murtha for Majority Floor Leader. She told us all just how clean she wanted things to be when she did that. Consequently the House need a cleaning done now and it can't happen before next January after the people speak out against her in November. I think that some of the Blue Dogs may change the letter behind their name next fall and Nancy will be looking for a job as she won't be the Speaker any more.
January 16th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Slow day in Da King-land apparently. This is an old story. As old as Tom Delay and Ohio GOP Bob Ney's disgraceful departure from Congress because of corruption. If you want to keep the corruption issue alive, that's ok, because the voters approve of the Democrats on ethical issues more than the Republicans.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
That's some defense: 'who cares if my party leadership is more corrupt, the voters don't realize it.'
It pretty much substantiates Ghost's point, which I initially took with a grain of salt.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
"It's because of the nature of the Dim base, so much of which expects its representatives to lie & cheat for them and they figure if elected Dims take a "little" for themselves, what the heck."
Dang, you busted us dims again Vince. What's your excuse for the corruption in your party? Your reps just and lie and cheat for themselvs, and don't give anything back to their constituents. That doesn't stop you from voting for anything with an R behind it though, does it?
January 17th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
This discussion has broken down to a "You do it so why can't we do it too". It has humored me so much the past few years to listen to the Dems make all that noise about the unethical Republicans who have been put out of Congress by the Congress itself. Now we see someone talking about the King of Sleaze and the Dems squeal about things past like the names of opponents of their sleazy kind of government. I guess it must be true that what goes around comes around and they are certainly proving it. All they are saying is that they have a right to get even although the King of Pork was a Democrat during a Republican controlled Congress.
January 17th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
"Now we see someone talking about the King of Sleaze and the Dems squeal about things past like the names of opponents of their sleazy kind of government."
Please help me out……has Murtha been indicted or convicted of something illegal? Is bringing home the bacon…illegal?
Democrats wrote stricter ethics rules over lobbyist gifts and made earmarks more transparent.
When you have an illegal activity that you want to complain about…….then let me know.
Otherwise this baloney doesn't even rise to the level of the pot calling the kettle.
January 17th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
No, roy, what they are saying is where was all this chirping when you were doing it? There has not been one dem on this blog, even the Good Rev, defending Murtha on this point. That's what this is about. Open your mind. And as recently as 2006 there were several articles pointing out that Murtha didn't discriminate; that he delivered democratic votes for republican earmarks. And it also seems you have convienently forgotten all about Randy Cunningham….oh wait, he had an R behind his name, you probably forgot about him.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Tom,
The news about Murtha being the king of pork for 2007 isn't old news. It's pretty new. 2007 just ended, if you'll recall.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Vince,
Speaking about how corrupt Dems stay in office, while corrupt Repubs get tossed, did you get a load of William Jefferson's (D-La) testimony yesterday ? It literally made me laugh out loud, it was so lame. Maybe I should write about that next.
Off topic - Yesterday, I was going to write about how the liberal MSM lauds McCain and Huckabee (because they are barely Republicans and couldn't win the general election), and how that same MSM mercilesly trashes Romney and Giuliani (because they are campaigning as Republicans and COULD win), but Ann Coulter beat me to it, so I didn't write anything.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Roy,
We may end up with all Democrat leadership in the next year or two. As bad as that would be, especially with the way the liberal wing of the Demcratic party is driving the policy, I guess the silver lining will be that a few short years of liberals in charge should swing things back to the Republicans big time. Think Jimmy Carter, only far worse. Jimmy was a moderate compared to the current irresponsible panderers atop the Dem slate. America isn't liberal. Less than 20% of us qualify as liberals. I just hope the libs don't do TOO much damage before they are kicked to the curb, as they WILL be.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Rev, 100% hypocrisy from you, as usual. Unbelievabe. Did you forget to bring your principles to work again today ?
January 18th, 2008 at 11:54 am
da truth,
You said, "There has not been one dem on this blog, even the Good Rev, defending Murtha on this point. That's what this is about. Open your mind".
I guess you didn't notice, but the Rev DID defend Murtha's corruption on this blog. He won't even acknowledge that Murtha has ever done anything wrong. The Rev is the poster boy for double standards, and for ignoring Dem transgressions.
And regarding Duke Cunningham, he was booted out of Congress. Nobody is defending him here. Ditto Bob Ney, Mark Foley. They are gone and good riddance. The same cannot be said for Democrats Murtha, Ted Kennedy, William Jefferson, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, etc, etc, etc. That is the difference. The corrupt Dems just continue on like nothing ever happened, and they even get promoted to positions of increased power.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:56 am
".. did you get a load of William Jefferson's (D-La) testimony yesterday ?"
Yes.
Corruption and misconduct is not a problem to either the Dim leadership or the party's base — just as long as the person does not deviate from the party's socialistic agenda. In this regard, the theives stick together.
One example of this is how the feminists backed Bill Clinton even when he habitually abused women — Monica Lewisnsky, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, etc., etc. [Bill even abused Comrade Hillary by his cheating & lying, but that's a story for another time.] Here was a case where true women's right was sacrificed by the feminists for the sake of the abortion cause. Sick, wasn't it?
Remember, the Dim Party is a creature of the Left, and to the Left lying is an accepted tactic. It's the old amoral the "ends justify the means" story, and to the Dims lying is one of the the "means" to their "ends."
And what is the ends for the libs? In the long run, it's nothing less than changing human nature of man so the "enlighten" [and I laugh at that term when applied to the Dims and the Left] can create Utopia — heaven on earth. This failed in the USSR but the progressives in the Dim Party think it can succeed here.
+++
You're sure right, King, the drive-by media favors Huckabee and McCain and are pulling out off the stops to get either one of those two RINOs nominated.
I don't believe they will succeed, especially in the case of Huckabee. But even so, by pumping these two up now in the primaries, long term damage is still being done to the eventual GOP nominee.
It is unfortuante that the media is 1) still has as much power & influence that it does and 2) it is so unapologitically leftish.
January 18th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Rev Red, you said: ***Please help me out……has Murtha been indicted or convicted of something illegal? Is bringing home the bacon…illegal?
Democrats wrote stricter ethics rules over lobbyist gifts and made earmarks more transparent.***
Murtha has not been indicted or convicted but he is one of the most unethical members of Congress. Is bringing home the bacon illegal? Why of course not and the Dem base that Ghost mentioned won't ever vote him out so he is there forever unless some of his constituents manage to see just how unethical he really is.
What stricter more transparent rules did Democrats write for their operations? By March 2007 there had been 22,000 earmarks proposed and surely most of them were by Dems. It was such a heavy load that they forgot trying to assign them to bills and just decided to assign them after the bills had reached the conference stage. With as many as were being assigned to those few bills it was impossible for anyone to read any of them and transparency went down the drain.
Nancy Peeloosly talked a great game but when it came time to play it nothing changed other than who were the main players. I have heard you and that transparency argument too long and for some reason wonder if you really believe that story. I think you really do believe it but I can't understand why or how.
January 18th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Truth,
It seems to me that you conveniently forget about those unethical Congressmen who have Ds after their name about as much as I do those with Rs. Do you like and respect the one D that I just can't stand? If so, you must really like Dirty Harry Reid a lot. He does have a D after his unethical name, doesn't he?
King,
I fear you are right about the Dems taking over things this fall but it is still some time and the way the Congress operated last year if they don't do something better this time they may lose some seats instead of gaining. People can't remain asleep at the switch long at a time the way they are behaving these days.
Is Congress in session right now? If so why don't they meet as two large groups instead of having only committees investigating everything under the sun other than the Demoncrat party?
I have not given up on the people of this nation for next fall. I am with Ann Coulter and what she said this week about the way the Dems are talking about certain Republican candidates and why they are talking that way.
Hey, yesterday Andrea posted a YouTube thing about Ted Kennedy being for Romney. They are getting so desperate that they are digging the scum off the bottom of the scum barrel. I really think she believes the crap that comes from You Tube.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Roy you said:
"It seems to me that you conveniently forget about those unethical Congressmen who have Ds after their name about as much as I do those with Rs. Do you like and respect the one D that I just can't stand? If so, you must really like Dirty Harry Reid a lot. He does have a D after his unethical name, doesn't he?"
Who have I forgotten about? You have never read anything from me defending Murtha on pork or Mr. Reid on anything. Yet you Rs on this blog sure aren't shy about blaming everything on Ds and ignoring the problems within your own party.
If Mssrs. Reid and Murtha were indictable, I'm sure you would have gotten them between 1994 and 2006, when you had your choice. And there are very clear reasons Murtha won'te ever be indicted; because is almost as valuable to the Rs as he is to the Ds:
"In the last year, Democratic and Republican floor watchers say, Mr. Murtha has helped Republicans round up enough Democratic votes to narrowly block a host of Democratic proposals: to investigate federal contracting fraud in Iraq, to reform lobbying laws, to increase financing for flood control, to add $150 million for veterans’ health care and job training, and to exempt middle-class families from the alternative minimum tax." -NY Times 2006
If you are going to attack my positions, fine, I understand that is what the blog is for. But at least don't misquote me. And at least do some research. Many Rs in Congress love Murtha, or at least they did prior to 2006.
Oh Vince, you forgot "godless." Wouldn't want you to mischaracterize us.
And King, Rev didn't defend, he said Murtha had not been indicted. As for your point on the Dems sticking around rather than being indicted, if you point the finger there are 4 pointing back at you….that's just another reason you should be disappointed in the Rs. If there was something worth indicting over, an elected representative has an obligation to do something about it. So, the only conclusions we can be left with, is that they either weren't doing their jobs or there was something in it for them to not act. Hmmmm……
January 18th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
I forgot nothing.
Being of the Left implicitly means godless.
January 19th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Thanks for the clarification, Vince. Now explain to me again how all lefties are godless but they're not? You do remember saying that, don't you?
January 19th, 2008 at 11:48 am
The truth hurts "da Truth.'
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Vince,
Your point about how Hillary threw over feminism over her hubby's sexual escapades is a great one. When Hillary went on the Tyra Banks show last week to gather more votes from women, why wasn't she asked about how she trashed those women whom her husband sexually harassed/accosted/raped ? She hired private investigators to ruin them. She blamed the Republicans (naturally). She did everything except what an actual feminist would do. Hillary also knew Bill was cheating all along. There's no way she didn't know. It had been going on for 15 years, with lots of different women. Women shouldn't be voting FOR Hillary, they should be voting AGAINST her for covering up for a sexual abuser, all to hold onto power. Hillary is no example of someone who sticks up for women.
But of course, our liberal meda covers it all up, and Hillary gets to play the stouthearted wronged wifey. What a crock.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Roy,
Ted Kennedy is for Romney ? I assume that's only good for the Republican primary and not the general election. They really are out to get Romney, aren't they ? Having Teddy endorse him is the kiss of death. The more the MSM obviously goes out of their way to bash Romney, the more it makes me want to vote for him. The MSM fears him, which means he could successfully turn the country around, to the detriment of the Democratic party.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
da truth,
If Murtha had an R next to his name instead of a D, the Reverend would be calling him a criminal in the pocket of the lobbyists. You know it. I know it. Because Murtha is a Dem, the Rev looks away and can't see anything wrong.
And what Republicans should I be calling for to resign that haven't, like all the corrupt Dems I listed for you ?
March 30th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
There will be so much egocentric and corrupt information that will become public knowledge about the Egomaniac Power Mongers Obama and Hillary that the superdelegates will as an emergency measure nominate Algore, He will accept
Beware the Egomaniacs