![]() ![]() |
![]() |
| |
|
Joe Conason: Draining the Congressional SwampPosted on Nov 16, 2006By Joe Conason While the post-election shoving and shuffling on Capitol Hill sounds dull, parochial and petty to the rest of the world, the choices that politicians make among themselves can be telling. Whether the Democrats elect John Murtha or Steny Hoyer this week to serve as majority leader—second in command to incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi—is unlikely to depend upon their ideological leanings. Decided by secret ballot, this election measures respect, popularity, style and favors owed. By siding openly with her friend and ally Murtha in a letter to her colleagues, however, Pelosi has ensured that the outcome will render an instant judgment on her authority in her new role. She has sent a clear signal that she values loyalty most—and that she is willing to risk embarrassment to enforce discipline. For Democrats who have too often failed to act with any semblance of cohesion, her approach is refreshingly tough and free of timidity. But as a national leader who vowed to clean up Washington’s dirty politics during the 2006 campaign, she may yet come to regret her Murtha endorsement. After promising to “drain the swamp,” she immediately adopted one of the swamp’s hungriest alligators as her pet. Until he won deserved gratitude last year by speaking out against the war, Murtha was best known as an old-fashioned dealmaker who specialized in trading votes for pork projects, and a reliable advocate of Pentagon extravagance. Conservative on social issues but sympathetic to labor, he was the kind of Democrat who often did business with Republicans when that served his narrow interests. More than once, his backroom maneuvering has raised ethical questions. During the Abscam investigation, he was caught on tape discussing investments and favors with an FBI informant. The corrupt congressional pals who introduced him to the phony Abscam sheik went to prison. Although he was never indicted, his presence in this seedy scenario was not reassuring. That incident, which occurred more than two decades ago, never troubled his conservative critics until he spoke out against the war. But more recently, he has profited from the rotten system that funnels hundreds of millions of dollars in defense “earmarks” sought by lobbyists, whose clients then make enormous campaign contributions to the appropriators. According to the New York Times, he assisted the old Republican leadership in defeating Democratic initiatives in exchange for earmarks for his district and his state. He has also regularly opposed lobbying and ethical reforms, and even helped to kill Democratic efforts to investigate contracting abuses in Iraq. The public-interest monitors at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, whose previous targets have included former Reps. Tom DeLay and Duke Cunningham, have denounced Murtha as “one of the most unethical members of Congress.” If he has not quite escaped the capital’s “culture of corruption,” his rival isn’t exactly a paragon of purity either. Hoyer is younger and slicker than Murtha, but he is equally receptive to the lobbying industry. Indeed, he has boasted of his role in creating a Democratic version of the K Street Project set up by Republican leaders to institutionalize their relationship with corporate lobbyists. The usual description of Hoyer as “friendly to business” is a polite understatement. But nobody has accused him of unethical conduct, and he has won the support of such rigorous reformers as Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) It is unfortunate that the race between Murtha and Hoyer quickly became nasty, with accusations exchanged via leak and press release. Open warfare between her aspiring deputies doesn’t represent the orderly, purposeful image that the future speaker prizes so highly, nor does it advance the objectives she set out for the first days of the incoming Congress. While competition was unavoidable, Pelosi might well have tried to constrain her colleagues from acting out their animosity so loudly. It is also unfortunate that the leadership election is turning into a symbolic vote on the issue of Iraq. There was no need to test the party’s fragile unity on that paramount issue before the new Congress is sworn in. Even worse is the appearance of business as usual, after an election in which millions of citizens demanded change. As Pelosi takes up her constitutional responsibilities, she will hear many people say that she is no different from her tainted predecessors, that all politicians are crooked and that Democrats are just as compromised as Republicans. Her most important responsibility is to prove those cliches untrue. If she fails to deliver reform, her historic reign will be disappointing—and possibly quite brief. Previous item: Molly Ivins: Farewell, Rummy Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
By maxine, November 17, 2006 at 1:55 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Neither one of those guys is such a great choice; but leave that aside for now.
Report thisWhat’s up with all the press corps’ hostility to Nancy Pelosi? Is her positition in the leadership election so different from what usually occurs in congressional politicking? Peolosi supported someone who’s supported her in the past, against someone who’s been at odds with her in the past. Doesn’t it happen all the time?
Joe was, as usual, thoughtful and fair-minded in his critique. But many in the Washington journo-punditry cohort have been handwringing or gloating or eagerly circling, clearly hoping for the Democrats to implode. CNN ran shot of Pelosi behind a show teaser reading “Damaged Goods?”—that’s right, “Damaged Good?”; clever, huh? The way they’ve been carrying on over the past few days, you’d think she’d supported a latter-day Dixcrat for an important party leadership post.
Looks like nothing much has changed for the insider press corps. Too bad for us.
By Sleeper, November 17, 2006 at 11:40 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Rabblerozer,
I agre with your take on our government, but I don’t think it is hopeless. A majority of our Congress is bought and paid for by the corporations controlled by a few.
It is obvious. Thats why the vote was so lop sided. How will our Congress wiggle around their responsibility to Clean up our Government? I don’t know but I think it will be hard for them to do it in secret now.
They will show themselves as the vermin they are. All we can do is watch em and point out inconsistencies in their actions.
Report thisBy Linn F Hamilton, November 17, 2006 at 11:13 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Loyalty is the trait that George Bush values above competence and principle. If one values loyality beyond principle and what is good for the country, then we are in big trouble. The Democrats love the big money just as much as the Republicans, so until they get away from the K Street type crowd,and start listening to the people we will have more of the same in Washington, D.C. Picking between Hoyer and Murtha is like choosing between evil and sin, there is not much difference. Murtha is against the war becasue he is a spokesman for the militray which wants out of Iraq before it breaks into pieces. Hoyer, is wedded to the lobbiests by the money he takes from them. Hoyer, will throw the folks a bone or two like the minimun wage hike, but he will not lead the revolution for popular issues like, getting out of Iraq, Universal Medical Care, higher tarrif walls to protect our jobs, or enviornmental measures to heal the planet.
Report thisBy Cathy, November 17, 2006 at 5:44 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
How about the fact that more than one leadship candidate just means that the Dems are not a lock-step group? I say good for that.
What about Newt who supported someone else over DeLay when they picked majority leader? Go back and see what else Newt said in ‘94. One thing of interest was his statement that the Repubs will compromise with no one.
Nancy and the Dems will do just fine if they stick with their plan of over sight.
Cathy
Report thisMichigan
By rabblerowzer, November 17, 2006 at 4:22 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The United States of America is not a democracy, it’s a plutocracy.
The plutocrats, two or three percent of the population, own the government, the military, the media and damn near everything else. They own both political parties, but foster the illusion that we have democracy through their (propaganda) media outlets.
How can anyone still doubt these facts?
Report thisBy Art Durand aka Whitebear, November 16, 2006 at 9:35 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Thank you for the insights. Very valuable.
Certainly the past informs the present but if those politicians who have benefited from past misdeeds know that we are ready to hold them accountable for their actions from this day forward our country and our democracy may still have a chance.
The exposure of Republican corruption caused a Democratic sweep of the elections. Surely certain Democrats will go down in the days to come. Excise the corruption and healing will begin.
This is the work of a lifetime. Let’s get on with it.
In the Spirit of Crazy Horse!
Report thisBy Stram, November 16, 2006 at 6:09 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
You’re dead-on when you state Nancy Pelosi sent a “clear signal that she values loyalty most”.
She showed a lot of class and we haven’t seen any of that from the 109th Congress at all.
What a start!
Report thisBy Spinoza, November 16, 2006 at 8:34 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
>>> As Pelosi takes up her constitutional responsibilities, she will hear many people say that she is no different from her tainted predecessors, that all politicians are crooked and that Democrats are just as compromised as Republicans. Her most important responsibility is to prove those cliches untrue<<<<<
But the cliches are true ---well mostly true and until capitalism is overthrown it has to be true. Pelosi and Murtha are right of center, very right of center. The majority of Ameriscum politicians are right of center and even those slightly left of center have to talk like right wingers and praise the troops and wave the flag. There is no choice in the matter. As to taking big chunks of money, how else are you expected to win????
Report thisBy anonymous, November 16, 2006 at 7:16 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
like deciding between herpes and arthritis
I say it’s time for a compromise candidate!
Report this