Comments on: Hoyer Defeats Murtha

By: krazy kagu

krazy kagu — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 04:47:06 +0000

Johm Murtha opens his mouth an pays the price thats the great thing about america a person like him can open his mouth and stick his foot in without getting pericuted

By: Greg D

Greg D — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:53:50 +0000

Alcee “Indicted for Bribery” Hastings

Please, that’s Alcee “Impeached for Bribery” Hastings

By: Daveg

Daveg — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:58:46 +0000

For once, I agree with actus. Why burn your bridges right to the old fart’s face when you can make happy noises and vote your conscience later?

he would have been a horrible Democratic Majority Leader because he was either completely clueless as to how the vote was shaping up or he was totally unable to grasp the mood of the House Democrats.

I have no problem at all believing that this is the case. Pelosi has been using that old dimbulb in her cynical political maneuverings since the insipid “redeploy to Okinawa” plan. Murtha took one for the team (unwittingly) and her endorsement was a favor returned. The jury is still out as to whether she believed she had the clout to force this travesty down the throats of the entire caucus or not. I think she believed it, but perhaps she’s smarter and more cunning than she appears.

By: sharon

sharon — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 12:39:16 +0000

He wasn’t the favored candidate

Except by Madam Speaker.

By: paul from fl

paul from fl — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:23:39 +0000

Great,
So the Dems lied/misstated/vacillated their votes-whatever. At least they did something right for once and kept a lying cheat out of a position of influence.
Then again, like Gramps always said;
“Even a blind chipmunk finds a nut once in awhile.”

By: Desert Rat

Desert Rat — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 05:47:10 +0000

I take actus’ analysis at face value that the Democrat House members lied to Murtha.
But if they’re willing to lie about voting for Majority Leader—then what else are they willing to lie about ?

On the other hand, the discrepancy between the final tabulation and the pre-voting “poll” sounds like it may be yet another one of Karl Rove’s Machiavellian conspiracies to screw the Democrats.
After all, I heard that one of Rove’s golfing buddies is the manufacturer of the secret ballots which the Congress uses…hmmm….

Either way, it was a tough choice between Congressman ABSCAM, and Steny “Michael Steele is slavish to the Republican party” Hoyer.

By: DRJ

DRJ — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 05:33:17 +0000

Of course, we’re also ignoring that people could change their minds from when they tell Murtha to when they actually vote.

Thirty-two people changed their mind(s) in the space of 1-2 days? That’s how many would have had to change their votes to swing the election from Murtha to Hoyer. Even half that many would be amazing.

By: actus

actus — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 05:04:59 +0000

If we accept your version of the Murtha voting saga then we have to assume that Murtha was completely surprised by the results.

Its a possibility. He did look sad on TV when I saw him. But that was only a brief look. Or maybe he also figured how much sense it made to tell him, and he wasn’t so surprised.

Of course, we’re also ignoring that people could change their minds from when they tell Murtha to when they actually vote.

By: DRJ

DRJ — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 03:56:36 +0000

Actus,

If we accept your version of the Murtha voting saga then we have to assume that Murtha was completely surprised by the results. If so, he would have been a horrible Democratic Majority Leader because he was either completely clueless as to how the vote was shaping up or he was totally unable to grasp the mood of the House Democrats. If, on the other hand, you assume that Murtha knowingly fudged when he said he had the votes, at least he comes across as somewhat intelligent and a reasonably decent political operative.

Now that I think about it, I agree with you Actus. Murtha and Pelosi probably did think he had the votes.

Patterico,

Are trying to cheer up conservatives like me by suggesting that if Alcee Hastings is the intelligence committee chairman for the next 2 years, at least we will have him to (figuratively) kick around? Because, if so, it didn’t cheer me up but thanks anyway.

By: actus

actus — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 03:45:26 +0000

Either way.

Like i said from the beggining.