WHEN THEY MET last week to elect their new leadership, House Democrats saved the most contentious decision for last. The caucus quickly named Nancy Pelosi of California speaker-designate before electing Jim Clyburn of South Carolina majority whip and Rahm Emanuel of Illinois caucus chairman. All three decisions were unanimous. Then it was time to elect the next majority leader, and the caucus came unglued.
In one corner was Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the current minority whip and the favorite in the race. In the other corner was Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania, the most vocal advocate of "redeployment" from Iraq and the face of the antiwar Democrats. Prior to the vote, supporters of each candidate addressed the crowd. According to some of those present, the atmosphere was civil but intense, and the meeting room was filled with anticipation. Hoyer's advocates, including Henry Waxman of California, incoming chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, emphasized the minority whip's interpersonal skills; Murtha's advocates, including speaker-designate Pelosi, emphasized the war in Iraq and the need to present a unified policy of withdrawal. After the speeches, members voted by secret ballot. Hoyer won, 149 to 86. It wasn't even close.
It was a setback for which Pelosi had only herself to blame. While her sympathies with Murtha were no secret, days before the leadership election Pelosi made the controversial decision to circulate a letter of support for him and campaign on his behalf. (Just how vigorously Pelosi campaigned for Murtha is unclear.) Pelosi will probably recover quickly from
this setback, but the vote also exposed divisions between the speaker-designate and caucus that are unlikely to vanish anytime soon. It exposed the left's belief that leaving Iraq is the litmus-test issue. And, perhaps more important, it revealed that the antiwar, pro-redeployment Pelosi may be out of step with a Democratic majority not yet sold on abandoning Iraq.
Pelosi clearly believes the midterm elections weren't simply a repudiation of Bush's current policies in Iraq, but rather a call to end the war as soon as possible. In public remarks following the leadership elections, she said Murtha's announcement last November that America should leave Iraq "changed the debate" in Washington and around the country "in a way that I think gave us this majority." She told the press she supported Murtha because she "thought that would be the best way to bring an end to the war in Iraq." The clear implication was that a vote for Murtha was a vote for rapid "redeployment." On this, the Democrats with whom I spoke last week all agreed: Murtha's was a one-issue candidacy.
There wasn't much else on which he could run. Pro-life and pro-gun, Murtha is to the right of most of his caucus on social issues and a legendary federal appropriator who never met an earmark he didn't like. He remains an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1980 ABSCAM bribery scandal and an outspoken critic of lobbying reform. Last week, a few days before the leadership election, a FBI videotape on which Murtha can be seen discussing potential business deals with an undercover federal agent was widely circulated on the Internet. More recently, reporters and nonprofit "good government" organizations have raised questions about the activities of Murtha's brother, a lobbyist whose clients have received millions of dollars in congressional appropriations.
|
