You are correct on both counts, Murtha's seniority and majority leader not being a seniority based position, but Pelosi appears to be supporting Murtha based primarily on loyalty and issue based politics rather than remaining neutral as Hastert and other speakers have in the past. This sort of goes against her stated desire to be speaker of the whole House and not just the Democrats.
i dont see how your first sentence goes with the second. even if we in arguendo assume that going with loyalty is opposed to the precedent, how is that not being speaker of the house instead of just democrats. its not like hoyer isn't a democrat. and frankly murtha is probably more respected/well known/liked than hoyer in the general public.
In spite of what I wrote in the first post, I'm not strongly pulling for Murtha. Both he and Hoyer have their good and bad points. I suspect Murtha would be a more symbolic choice because of the war issues and Hoyer a more pragmatic one, given his past history. What is clear is that under Dems, the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, will run the House. Neither Hoyer or Murtha will be the puppet-master like Delay was for Hastert.
Corruption or the hint of corruption was a potent turn-off for voters. You would think the Democratic leadership would learn from the GOP. Instead, Pelosi seems like she is going out of her way to place corruption-tainted cronies into positions of power -- including "Abscam" Murtha.
I don't think the Abscam thing is at the forefront of the public's mind when it comes to Murtha. Nor are the connections made earlier about Murtha and his brother necessarily the kind that will turn voters off. Haliburton was, in fact, well positioned and a good logical choice to get many of the contracts they got - it was only when severe impropriety in overcharging etc became apparent that there was a backlash. I don't think that will be a problem for him from the beginning, since his outspoken stances on Iraq have given him some credibility in the public eye and hence political capital, but it is something the Democrats should definitely be on guard about. If they adopt this heavy handed top down party style that the GOP is now famous for, they might very well end up becoming what they have been eschewing.
If Pelosi honestly meant she wanted to be speaker for the whole House it would've made more sense for her to remain neutral in deciding who is the majority leader of the Democrats. It shows she is more interested in shoring up Democrats' power than stepping back and placing herself above internal partisan politics. She will still be Speaker of the House but her loyalty is more to her party than the House as a whole.
dude. your asking for something which isn't necessary nor should it be expected or even desired. why shouldn't she endorse the person she wants as her 2nd in command?
So what, John Boehner as Majority Leader? That would go a long way towards being Speaker for the whole House. Or maybe she should just forget the whole thing and endorse Hastert for Speaker. You can put rules in that the House a fairer place for the Minority Party (which happen to be Republicans ), but that doesn't mean you become some kind of passive figurehead. She's the Speaker and it's her House to run and the way Speakers run the House is by leading their party (or if you're a Republican, having some guy named "The Hammer" do it behind the scenes). By the way, I read where three of the Conservative Dems Delay ousted through redistricting would be in line for Chairmanships. Now Texas has no significant player in the House.
That's my understanding. Now Chet Edwards is the ranking House member from Texas. What goes around, comes around... oh, wait... I forgot. That only applies when the GOP takes power. Anything else is unfair! And Trent Lott was just elected Senate Minority Whip. How groovy is that? We're going to have loads of comity from the Minority Party. Right. Keep D&D Civil.
And here I thought we wouldn't have Trent Lott to kick around anymore. Think Trent's going to be looking for payback opportunities regarding the WH and those that dumped him in favor of that rookie Frist? This could be good. Oh, and by the way, how's that Republican outreach to blacks coming along?
Also, let's consider that Lott beat out LAMAR! by 1 vote. That's got to sting. Does LAMAR!, who will be 68 in 2008, have the juice to run for reelection to serve as a backbench member of the minority? If so, he has to look at his probable opponent, Mr. Ford and know that the campaign will be a long, tough one and he might lose... that would be crippling to the ego of a man who thought he could be President and at the very least, a Senate Leader. My guess is now he retires.
Its a matter of whether you take her rhetoric at face value. If you don't take Pelosi's rhetoric that she is going to be less partisan, ie speaker for the whole House, then that's fine. Also Speaker is elected by the whole house not just the majority party so running the house is more than running her party. Majority leader is only elected by majority party so unless several Dems voluntarily step down or Boehner switches parties he can't be in the running for majority leader.
You can take her rhetoric seriously... I do believe that the way she runs the House will offer the Minority Party (Republicans ) greater power than the Dems had the last 12 years... not much, but more. It doesn't mean she's going to roll over and not lead her Majority party (Democrats ) and it certainly doesn't mean she will cede anything to the opposition. Also, Republicans have been saying nice things too, yet I guarantee you not one Republican Congressman will vote for Pelosi to be Speaker. Why not? Why are you not holding them at face value? The Speaker is elected by the House, but the votes always go along party lines and the majority party (Democrats ) have more votes, thus Pelosi will be Speaker... I don't understand why some people allow the Repubs to make a mockery of the institution for 12 years yet jump on Dems when they operate under the rules and established practices of the House. If you look at the way the House is designed, your statement that her loyalty is to the party more than the House as a whole is nonsensical. She honors the House by playing her role as the Speaker, who is elected by her party... and once again, the Speaker's role is one of leader, not a passive throne sitter who deigns to get involved in the nasty business of partisan battles and government.
If Democrats run the House in the same self-obsessive, power-hungry, corrupt style of Republicans the last several years, they'll be kicked out as quickly as they were put in. This was a vote for change, not for Democrats. If Dems act the same as the GOP, people will go back to voting their history, which in many areas that Democrats barely won, means going back to the GOP. It's disappointing that, early on, Pelosi seems to be doing business-as-usual. Anyone with even the taint of scandal should not be in a position of power (this applies mostly to the intelligence committee issue). And anyone who's widely known for pork barrel spending shouldn't be a leader in the House. Start fresh. Do it the right way. Be better than the GOP. That should be the standard they set.
There have been cases of members of one party voting for members of another party as speaker so its not unheard. I never said to take the Republican argument at face value. That they choose not to vote for Pelosi is there business. I'm just pointing out that if you're going to set yourself up as a non-partisan Speaker then it might make sense to act non-partisan and be neutral in inter-party wrangling. Either way Pelosi is Speaker if the majority of House members vote for her for partisan reasons or not.
