If you can watch the Murtha Abscam video, which I discussed this morning, and then watch John Murtha lying about it on Hardball — and you can do all this without retching — why, then, you must be a Democrat.
UPDATE: Commenter Too late notes:
Chris Matthews’s old boss, Tip O’Neill, was in up to his eyeballs in protecting Murtha in 1980. I don’t think Mr. Hardball would follow that lead, though.
Good point.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||
Powered by WordPress.
I love how we toss out the GOP. And leadership scandals turn from “how to treat an about to be indicted leader” into “26 years ago you turned down a bribe.” What a difference huh?
actus (10527e) — 11/15/2006 @ 6:26 pmThat is one of the most disgusting, dishonenest videos (and men) I have ever seen.
Democrats, meet your new majority leader.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/15/2006 @ 6:33 pmThe Culture of Corruption is alive and well and living on the Democrat side of the asile.
mokus (20bd01) — 11/15/2006 @ 6:35 pmI seriously don’t understand how they can be so stupid as to give that man that job.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/15/2006 @ 6:36 pmmind boggling. not.
Vermont Neighbor (1b6983) — 11/15/2006 @ 6:39 pmChris Matthews old boss, Tip O’Neil, was in up to his eyeballs in protecting Murtha in 1980. I don’t think Mr. Hardball would follow that lead, though.
Too late (19e6d3) — 11/15/2006 @ 6:40 pmI love how we toss out the GOP. And leadership scandals turn from “how to treat an about to be indicted leader” into “26 years ago you turned down a bribe.” What a difference huh?
Not so much, with Harry Reid implicated in corruption by Abramoff, and Murtha lying about the Abscam deal today. And actus . . . for shame. Acting like the Murtha Abscam deal is just about him turning down a bribe — without mentioning how he left the door open for accepting the bribe in the future.
That’s good talking points! But it’s also, to channel Murtha, “total crap.”
Patterico (de0616) — 11/15/2006 @ 7:15 pmRight. So the sheik walks away thinking that he can do business, and invests his millions. Why is this so hard to understand?
actus (10527e) — 11/15/2006 @ 7:20 pmAh, now I see. Someone offers you a bribe. Rather than turn it down and report it as ethics rules require, you lead the guy on, and insinuate that you will accept one in the future — all to get him to make *legal* investments in your district.
You really believe that, in your heart of hearts?
Jeez Louise.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/15/2006 @ 7:25 pmRight. Because thats a good thing. Millions for you districts. Gets you votes.
Why would he take a bribe? he spent the entire interview telling the sheik to spend money in his district. Well, other than the part that he could also just get the asylum on its own.
But if you think he should turn an asylum applicant in, and kill his asylum chances, ok.
actus (10527e) — 11/15/2006 @ 7:29 pmMurtha’s a bad choice. His elevation is not the way to “drain the swamp” on K Street.
Same with Republicans sticking with John Boehner who took to the floor and distributed checks from tobacco PACs to those congressmen who put their desire for cigarette money ahead of the health of their constituents.
Or Roy Blunt, the outgoing Majority Whip, whose wife, Abigail Perlman, and his son, Andrew, both lobby for Altria, the former Philip Morris. Blunt tried to insert a provision aiding Phillip Morris into the 2003 Homeland Security Bill. The Washington Post wrote that Blunt had “a close personal relationship with a lobbyist for the firm.”
A few weeks later, Blunt left his wife of 35 years and married the lobbyist.
Both sides appear to have failed the symbolism test.
steve (18814c) — 11/15/2006 @ 8:41 pmAccording to all reports, Murtha’s argument is “Ethics, smethics. Look, over there, Halley’s Comet.”
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/15/2006 @ 9:40 pmActually, I hope they do choose Murtha. Such a target-rich environment….
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/15/2006 @ 9:44 pmIt seemed to me that the FBI was trying to deal Murtha a busted flush and he ended up with four aces.
One more time please; what bribe?
RJN (e12f22) — 11/15/2006 @ 10:25 pmYou could try actually watching the tape. But the bribe offered was $50,000 to help a couple of theiving sheiks immigrate to the country.
Murtha said he wasn’t interested “at this time.”
Patterico (de0616) — 11/15/2006 @ 10:32 pmActually 50 grand per sheik.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/15/2006 @ 10:32 pmI watched a good part of the crappy tape, and I read a good part of the crappy transcript, and then I read most of the analysis offered: So far no smoking gun. This stuff did not occur in a vacuum; congressmen are elected to hustle for their constituencies.
I see a guy dancing for his district, and more or less as corrupt, or not, as any other congressman who was not taped during ABSCAM.
[I had a similar impression when I first read an analysis and watched only part of the tape. Get back to me when you’ve watched the whole thing, if you ever do. In my opinion, anyone who does watch the whole thing will be convinced. People predisposed not to want to believe in his guilt, whether due to a pro-Democrat or anti-law enforcement bias (or both), won’t bother to watch it all — and then will mock the interpretation of those of us who did. — P]
RJN (e12f22) — 11/15/2006 @ 11:37 pmAnd Is that against the rules?
I see him turning a bribe into jobs for his district. And keeping open the possibility that the guy is going to come back with another bribe. More jobs!
He’s willing to do ‘business’ and to talk again, with crooks. Or, rather, with people who come from a place where its normal to do business like this.
I think he handled it quite well. Got something for his district, and got a guy asylum. That he doesn’t walk out and stand up and wreck a guy thats desparate for asylum isn’t too big a mark against him in my book.
That he’s willing to come back and talk to him is part of how he’s handling this transaction, and also part of the fact that next time he’ll get a couple more million into his district. Do you think the deal he made was good for his district? Do you, given that, find a problem with him showing a bit of leg and saying “try again later”? Looks like Murtha gets quite a bit done for his district when people try to bribe him. And it looks like he wants to get bribed again.
But overall, we’re still left with this: We’ve moved from how to deal with a leader under indictment to the fact that 26 years ago a leader TURNED DOWN A BRIBE. Thats the big picture here. And some people don’t want to see it.
actus (10527e) — 11/16/2006 @ 4:53 amThe excuses for Murtha sound reminiscent of the 1990s. This is going to definitely be a fun two years watching certain trolls try to spin, spin, spin for the most open, most honest House ever.
sharon (dfeb10) — 11/16/2006 @ 5:00 amI’m dizzy just reading those donk talking points actus and RJN posted. Sharon is right. The fools they elected already have the Tru-Believers spinnin like tazmanian devils.
simon bar sinister (deecb8) — 11/16/2006 @ 5:58 amIf you guys are going to accuse dems of bias, at least acknowledge your own bias — you’re watching that tape thinking “this is the guy who wants to cut and run from Iraq; he’s going to be making life hell for those of us who want conservative judges; I really don’t like this guy.”
With that background, any behaviour that could be suspicious is really just confermation of what you already know — this guy is acting against your interests. There’s not even the slightest reason to consider exculpatory alternatives, because if he DIDN’T do something improper here, he’s still the guy who wants to pull out of Iraq and block conservative judges.
Phil (88ab5b) — 11/16/2006 @ 6:45 amThe only exculpatory alternative I’ve heard is actus’s, and it’s ridiculous.
Nor does it adequately explain his failure to report the bribery attempt, as ethics rules required him to do.
[UPDATE: I can’t respond to Phil’s long comment immediately below by appending my remarks to his, because his comment is too long for me to do so on the Treo (which also doesn’t allow stand-alone comments on this blog). So I’ll respond here. Shorter Phil: Offering 50 large for legislation might not be a bribe if it’s foreigners offering it. Would Phil approve if I were offered 50 grand to throw a case and failed to report it? I assume he wouldn’t, even if it were foreigners making the offer. Nor should he approve. If I did that, I would and should be fired. — P]
Patterico (de0616) — 11/16/2006 @ 6:57 amYou think actus’s explanation is ridiculous because of your bias. The realities of the challenges a senator faces are only relevant if you actually care about what the senator is trying to accomplish; is there anything that Murtha is trying to accomplish that you care about (as of right now, not something you look up after I ask)?
Next, assuming the ethics rules require Murtha to report the particular type of bribery attempt he faced, how many bribery attempts, as a practical matter, are ever reported? Is this because bribery attempts are never made, or because it’s tough to know what a “bribery attempt” is? After all, if every time someone tried to make a deal with you, you ran to the ethics commission, you’d be a pretty poor representative of your district — nobody would ever deal with you.
Bribery has an intent element to it, and since the Arabs (I know, these weren’t Arabs, but Murtha thought they were) quite possibly lacked the intent, giving their different understanding of business and politics, this might not have been a bribe attempt in Murtha’s eyes — just inept business dealing.
These were FBI agents, whose only object was to bribe Murtha (they could care less about the objectives they pretended to have) so they knew they had intent. But Murtha didn’t know what was going on in their heads (obviously, or he’d have never entered that room).
Anyway, if he was “required” to report this “bribery attempt” how come he wasn’t sanctioned for his failure? If his failure to report was truly a violation, then why didn’t the FBI just throw out the offer and wait to see if he reported it — then attach him if he didn’t?
You guys are trying to catch him on technicalities that result from a set up by people trying to put him in jail. This is not reality — this is a stacked deck, where the prosecutors got to build their case themselves, using fake people who said what the prosecutors wanted them to say, rather than investigate an actual crime. And they still couldn’t convict him.
Yet conservatives are itching, desperately, to discredit him anyway. He survived the most tempting scenario the FBI could think of, but because he showed human weakness, you guys are after that weakness — because this isn’t about guilt or innocence, it’s about bringing down someone whose policies you don’t like.
Phil (88ab5b) — 11/16/2006 @ 7:21 amPhil, yours is a stupid argument (this is a statement I rarely make, btw, so believe me, it’s intended to sound harsh). It doesn’t work when conservatives make it about liberals (remember all the “you just hate Bill Clinton” tirades?) and it doesn’t work now.
What Murtha did was shady. Perhaps not illegal, since he wasn’t indicted. But that doesn’t make him clean. The fact that he’s been a cut-and-run guy on Iraq admittedly doesn’t increase his posture in my book, but these are separate issues. I can disagree with someone on Iraq policy without thinking they look unethical. But it’s hard to watch and read Murtha spinning the Abscam deal into something he thought he could get away with without noticing that he’s scum, even if he was smart scum.
sharon (dfeb10) — 11/16/2006 @ 8:53 amHouse Democrats picked Hoyer over Murtha.
DRJ (1be297) — 11/16/2006 @ 10:15 amIf you guys are going to accuse dems of bias, at least acknowledge your own bias — you’re watching that tape thinking “this is the guy who wants to cut and run from Iraq; he’s going to be making life hell for those of us who want conservative judges; I really don’t like this guy.”
Ok, good enough for me! Now why are you guys so hot to fry Scooter Libby?
Daveg (a721ef) — 11/16/2006 @ 11:07 amThe realities of the challenges a senator faces are only relevant if you actually care about what the senator is trying to accomplish;
Murtha’s a Senator now? Well, he’ll be in good company with the incredibly astute Harry Reid, who is apparently a real prodigy in land investments and Hillary Clinton, who also shows an amazing alacrity in the futures market. Or am I just saying that because I’m biased against corrupt gasbags?
Daveg (a721ef) — 11/16/2006 @ 11:11 amsimon bar sinister: Hey donk buster.
I did not vote this time around. The last four biannual elections I voted straight Republican. I voted for Ike, and then I voted for Kennedy, my last Dumocrat. The only Republican who ever gave us voters what we had expected was Reagan.
The Iraq war was folly from day one. Anyone with any brains knew that only someone like Saddam Hussein could hold Iraq together and that splitting it up would result in murderous chaos.
All of this notwithstanding, I wonder if you and Sharron realize how compromised, by your lust for more blood in Iraq, you two appear to be.
If there never was an Iraq war Murtha would still not be guilty of an offense.
RJN (e12f22) — 11/16/2006 @ 2:31 pmAll of this notwithstanding, I wonder if you and Sharron realize how compromised, by your lust for more blood in Iraq, you two appear to be.
I suppose one man’s compromised is a woman’s steadfast. It’s not about bloodlust. I’d be all for us leaving Iraq tomorrow if the Iraqis could take care of things on their own. But they can’t. So leaving because, gosh, we are afraid of having volunteer soldiers in harm’s way sounds a bit cowardly to me. If you want to call that bloodlust, fine. I call it honoring the commitment you make.
And yeah, even without the war in Iraq, Murtha would still be a scummy guy.
sharon (dfeb10) — 11/17/2006 @ 4:52 amI’ve started to realize that our ‘commitment’ was so shoddily made that its some sort of poetic justice to also have just as botched a reason to leave. That would be one way of showing american power: “watch out world… we’ll whimsically attack, and then whimsically withdraw.”
actus (10527e) — 11/17/2006 @ 5:24 amBig mouth Sharon. We can send volunteer soldiers anywhere we want, into any murderous quagmire, because we are safely disposed college kids and not human pawns like those soldiers.
RJN (e12f22) — 11/17/2006 @ 12:33 pm