Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Ethics
When the first exit polls emerged on election night indicating that voters considered "corruption" as perhaps the most important issue, many Democrats cheered.  This is because we understood, rightly, that the many scandals of the past twelve years were coming home to roost.  We could see that, despite all the Republicans' denials, the Foley coverup, Delay's dirty dealings, the missing billions in Iraq, and a dozen other idiocies were not as forgotten as Rove and friends might have thought.

Democrats, and especially Nancy Pelosi, had anticipated this, running hard on ethics and "draining the swamp."  Revisions of the ethics rules are among the priorities already set for the "first hundred hours."

Unfortunately, John Murtha comes to any discussion of ethics with a considerable smudge against his name.  In the Abscam sting operation, he met with FBI agents who were passing themselves off as wealthy Arabs out to buy influence in American politics.  Rather than turn them away, Murtha suggested that they deposit the money into an account in his district, and that they might have to have further discussions at a later date.  

John Murtha successfully defended himself before the ethics committee (which had more meaning at the time) and the grand jury convened to hear Abscam evidence did not return an indictment in his case.  However, his actions seem at best questionable.

Am I setting a very high standard here by suggesting that a man who was suspected of being inclined to bribery needs to be kept from a top position?  Yes, absolutely.  But though it rankles me to consider anyone not convicted of a crime (yes, even Tom Delay) as still tinged by these associations, if we allow the Democratic commitment to ethics to fall into doubt so quickly, we'll have a hard time being as tough as we need to be in the future.

Earmarks
If there's anything that can alter the face of this congress and show a huge sea change in how things are done in D. C., it's the elimination of the "earmark," the plump piece of pork -- often clipped onto unassociated legislation -- that fattens both bills and budgets.  Many times these items are added to a bill specifically to secure the vote of a reluctant congressman.  While Abscam might have been a singular operation out to test congress' vulnerability to bribes from outside, in a very real sense congressmen bribe each other almost daily by awarding multimillion dollar pork in exchange for a vote.

As much as personal ethics, this congress needs to pursue the extinction of the earmark if it wants to convince the public that the swamp is really starting to dry.

 Unfortunately, Congressman Murtha has been well-known for his insertion of earmarks.   While these items may reflect a sharp ability to bring home the bacon for his constituents, there have also been clouds hanging over several of these items -- including suggestions that some earmarks have rewarded members of his own family.

Earmarks, midnight changes to bills, and last minute insertions of pet projects need to be eliminated, and if John Murtha is setting the legislative tone, this area is unlikely to see improvement.  I don't mean to suggest that Steny Hoyer is likely to champion the case of serious reform, but I do believe he's less wedded to the current gravy train.

Personal Politics
The reasons for (soon to be) Speaker Nancy Pelosi's support for John Murtha are not difficult to understand.  When Pelosi was struggling to take the position of minority leader, her opponent at that time was the same Steny Hoyer who is now challenging for the majority leader role.  In that fight, Murtha was one of Pelosi's biggest supporters.  In short: Nancy Pelosi has every reason to feel gratitude to Jack Murtha, and every reason to think that Steny Hoyer feels like he would be a better candidate for speaker.

The congresswoman's personal loyalty to Murtha has put her into a position of strongly supporting his candidacy.  That's understandable.

However, though there's an automatic tendency to admire this kind of loyalty, isn't this exactly the same excuse that the Republicans have used so often in supporting the wrong man for the job?  A person is selected because they're "loyal."  Bush sticks with them because he's "loyal."  Those Liberty University grads sent to rebuild Iraq's economy might have been very loyal to the cause, but that didn't equip them for their role.  There may have been a lot of loyalty passing back and forth between Bush and Rumsfeld, but that didn't do anyone any good -- even them.

A majority leader is charged with assembling the votes needed to pass legislation.  That person certainly needs to be able to coordinate and work with the speaker to get the agenda through.  That's it.  By those standards, Hoyer's smoozing seems more likely to be able to persuade those who might bristle at Murtha's demanding.    

If it comes to a vote, vote Murtha.
If there is a vote tomorrow, I hope that Murtha wins.  Does that seem completely contradictory?  Here's my reasoning.  Speaker Pelosi has invested so heavily in Murtha's win, that if he loses a vote, it will be an early signal of disunity within the party.  We may have an inter-Democratic gridlock that prevents the reform platform Nancy supports from every moving out of the House.

If there's a vote, I want Murtha to win to preserve Democratic momentum.  And I'm not ungrateful to Jack Murtha for his strong statements against the war.  In fact, I'm quite convinced that had it not been for Murtha's standing within the military community and his strong attack on Bush's policy, there were be no Speaker Pelosi, and no Majority Leader Reid.

But we can't mistake winning for governing.  The Republicans have been all too subject to that confusion.

Jack Murtha played a huge role in getting us this victory.  For that I'm grateful.  I'll be even more grateful -- and astounded -- if he would chose to put aside his personal goals for the good of the party and the nation.