Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
PLEASE, BE A FLAKE.
POLITICO reports on the Democratic leadership's efforts to dissuade their members from voting for Rep. Jeff Flake's proposal for a wide-ranging ethics investigation into Rep. John Murtha and others' relationships to a lobbyist. Leaders told the members, "Don't be a Flake." They're worried, understandably enough, that the investigations will quickly become a political football that will undermine the House agenda and hurt the Democrats' chances to maintain their large majority come 2010; indeed, the breadth of Flake's resolution -- touching on 248 members -- makes it look like a fishing expedition.
These political concerns have to be taken into account, but someone needs to sit down with Nancy Pelosi and Chris Van Hollen and remind them exactly how they got their majority in the first place: Because Republicans did stuff like this. Say what you will about the other Republicans' motivations, Flake was on the ethics bandwagon when the GOP was in the majority as well -- it's why an otherwise promising member has never made it far in the leadership -- and rhetoric like this only plays into Republican hands.
The ethics committee is a mess; it's understaffed and not really run by someone who knows about ethics law. Perhaps it's not the best way to deal with this problem; it's certainly possible that referring investigations through legislation and not formal complaints does set a bad precedent. But the Democratic leadership can't just ignore Murtha and his ilk. They need to remove them from chairmanships, publicly reprimand them, and do what needs to be done to distance those members from the Democratic caucus at large. Looking back on 2008, one of the Democrats' biggest regrets has to be spending millions to protect Murtha after his late-campaign gaffe referring to his district as "racist." Many of the smarter Democratic operatives working on House races last cycle were angry as all get out that money that could have been spent on bubble districts went into Murtha's race; having him lose (or retire, for God's sake, he's 76) would have been the most elegant solution to this whole mess.
-- Tim Fernholz
COMMENTS (6)
Some of us still remember when Murtha stood by us, and sycophantic little shits like you were authoring resolutions to condemn us.
Don't pretend this is about justice. You think it's great that we hand sacks of money to Obama's rich campaign donors.
Posted by: soullite | May 14, 2009 11:14 AM
Let me get this straight: It's cool for Murtha to take sacks of money from military contractors because he opposed the Iraq war, while Obama, who also opposed the Iraq War, is a evil because he's used federal money to subsidize banks and stop the economy from collapsing.
If you think Obama is corrupt for favoring his political donors, shouldn't you think that Murtha is corrupt for favoring his?
Incidentally, I've never authored a resolution in my life.
Posted by: Tim Fernholz | May 14, 2009 11:43 AM
No. No investigations led by Republican witch hunters.
This is a real problem with "progressives." You're more than happy to sacrifice effectiveness in favor of principle, when our chief political opponents are unwilling to extend the same courtesy.
Until modern Republicanism is entirely neutered, and consigned to the tiny corner of political life to which it belongs, progressives should ignore any requests coming from that side of the aisle.
Your sentiments are noble here, Tim (or are they masochistic?), but ultimately harmful for the country.
Posted by: brewmn | May 14, 2009 1:28 PM
Er, the ethics committee is led by a Democrat. It would be a Democratic investigation. And if you read my post, you'll see that I'm not arguing in favor of the ethics committee, but rather for the Democrats to take away Murtha's leadership positions and otherwise distance themselves from him.
What's the argument for allowing Republicans to use a seemingly corrupt Congressman to take down the hard-earned Democratic majority? If we care about progressive policy, why should progressives be spending so much time and effort defending Murtha?
As a side-note, I take it you're arguing as well that the whole "culture of corruption" thing liberals are supposed to be against was merely political opportunism?
Posted by: Tim Fernholz | May 14, 2009 2:18 PM
"What's the argument for allowing Republicans to use a seemingly corrupt Congressman to take down the hard-earned Democratic majority? If we care about progressive policy, why should progressives be spending so much time and effort defending Murtha?"
No and no. But you did lead your post with a resolution naming 248 house members who should be investigated. That is what got my alarm bells ringing, and there are still far too many establishment types willing to let bygones be bygones with the Republicans, while we have barely begun undoing their destruction over the last eight years.
Posted by: brewmn | May 14, 2009 6:31 PM
Dems are feeding at the same trough that the GOP once did but Dems have the bigger snouts and bigger guts to fill with public largesse. And recent GOP scandals almost make us forget that the Dems are the more corrupt political party. Hell, the Dems are one of the most corrupt institutions in the USofA, outside the mafia and ACORN the Teamsters, but of course there's a hell of a lot of overlap there.
Posted by: Lawlessness Abounds | May 14, 2009 11:05 PM