Murtha blasts 'swift boat-style' attacks

[sabra]

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/11/murtha-blasts-swift-boat-style-attacks.html

Murtha blasts 'swift boat-style' attacks

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Pennsylvania congressman and Democratic leadership candidate John Murtha blasted what he called "swift-boat style attacks" on his ethics Tuesday and accused rival Steny Hoyer of siding with President Bush on the war in Iraq.

Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi has backed Murtha against Hoyer, currently the second-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, for the majority leader's post when Congress reconvenes in January. Democrats are scheduled to hold their leadership vote Thursday.

Hoyer says he has commitments from a majority of the caucus and has backed Democratic calls for a "phased redeployment" in the now-unpopular war.

[texpatriot2004]

1. Way to go Congressman Murtha nm

[iconoclastic cat]

2. So CREW and the netroots are swiftboaters now?

Where's the gong on Murtha, already? Sheesh.

[guruoo]

24. CREW is putting their future credibility at great risk here

They need to present the hard evidence ASAP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating

'This form of attack is controversial, easily repeatable, and difficult to verify or disprove because it is generally based on personal feelings or recollections.<1> It frequently refers to a campaign that uses viral marketing techniques to sell the allegations. By using credible-sounding sources to make sensational and difficult-to-disprove accusations against an opponent, the campaign leverages media tendencies to focus on a controversial story.'

[Tellurian]

38. There is NO hard evidence.. and NO worries!

posted on the Pelosi/Murtha thread:

the final word from investigative reporter Lisa Myers:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15719627/

"Then, there is video from an FBI sting in 1980, known as Abscam. Murtha was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the federal bribery scandal, which led to the conviction of one U.S. senator and six members of Congress."

"Not only is it ancient history, but the fact of the matter is Jack Murtha was never charged with anything,"

says Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass.

The House Ethics Committee also did not take action against Murtha.

Murtha has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and says these charges amount to "Swift boating" — the same kind of unfair charges that helped defeat Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004. Murtha also now supports ethics reform.

[Binka]

45. Thank You For Fighting The Fight

I have no Patience for bullies and blowholes. Especially ones masquerading as concerned DUers.Bless you.

[guruoo]

50. Just as I suspected, there was nothing to it...

Good night, lights out, CREW's done.
Thanks!:patriot:

[Tellurian]

51. you;re welcome...you too, Binka!

notice the time of my post...10 am this morning..

went all day with the swiftys here..yammering all day long
trying to discredit Pelosi and Murtha..until a press release
late this afternoon validated my above post..

thanks for the vote of confidence though..:)

[Evergreen Emerald]

25. Ya know this is the first I have heard of CREW--where were they

When Delay / Abramoff / Hastert / and every other republican person had ethics issues? Foley was the first time they were mentioned, and did not come out in the press, but rather reported the information to FBI. They have not been vocal about republican ethics issues.

They are non-stop vocal on Murtha. Makes me wonder what there agenda is. And what a way to start cutting the democrats off at the knees. They can't even pick their leaders without constant criticism. Where were they when the republicans were picking their leaders?

[dailykoff]

26. That is a very good question. (n/t)

[Virginia Dare]

37. Go to their website and click on "press"

you will see that they have filed lawsuits and issued reports on Republicans on a regular basis. I don't think they have any untoward agenda here. If they have no particular political agenda, other than to clean up corruption in Washington, then why not cut the Democrats off at the knees? I'm not advocating publicly trashing anybody in the Democratic Party, but looking at it objectively, they have a valid point here. I for one hope that we can nip any potential ethical problems in the bud, and make the Democratic Party take the high road. We've got to stop the "business as usual" attitude on Capitol Hill if we have any prayer of taking our government back from the big money corporate lobbyists.

[Virginia Dare]

3. I guess the honeymoon is over...

I like Murtha's stance on the war, and I respect what he has to say regarding these matters, however, he has an ethics problem. He needs to address it. The types of things he has been implicated as being involved in are the precise things that we need to rid ourselves of in the Halls of Congress. The influence peddling has GOT TO STOP, on BOTH SIDES. I will be sorely disappointed if this is merely swept under the rug and they go on with business as usual. And by the way, if they do this, their new found majority won't last long.

[wordpix]

9. what are the ethics problems? link?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

13. It's weak...

Murtha's brother is a lobbyist, as is a former staffer -- Clients for firms they represent received defense contracts. That's not good, but given the revolving door for federal employees to lobbying firms (and the fact that Murtha was in the minority party at the time) it's not the biggest deal I've ever seen.

Nobody has alleged that Murtha has done anything to enrich himself. Murtha's not a virgin -- so find my somebodyin Washington who is. Until Nancy Pelosi creates a firewall between lobbyists and legislation (especially appropriations) this sort of thing will remain par for the course.

[Virginia Dare]

29. Agreed...

"weak" or not, there is an appearance of impropriety, at least in my view. There should be no place for it. Yes, many if not most of them are doing it to some degree, but we can't get our government back until somebody puts a stop to it. I'm hoping, as a Democrat, that my Party can take the lead on this.

[MarkTwain]

15. Gladly. Here's the dirt....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2612689#2613100

http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=178

http://www.beyonddelay.org/

http://www.beyonddelay.org/summaries/murtha.php

http://www.beyonddelay.org/files/Murtha.pdf

[wakeme2008]

16. No dirt there sorry just BS

:shrug:

[stepnw1f]

19. Gladly? (NT)

[Binka]

31. Interesting That

Alert is your friend. :hi:

[MarkTwain]

33. So, DU has now degenerated...

... to alerting over a post that gladly references a decidedly anti-GOP site, CREW, that has challenged and criticized overwhelmingly more Republicans than Democrats, but in this particular matter and case has documented the severe ethical abuses and earmarks of Mr. Murtha who is campaigning for the Majority Leader of a new House that Speaker Designate, Ms. Pelosi, has pledge to clean up?

Okay. Makes perfect sense to me. Bring on the alerts while those that alert keep those blinders on and tragically fall lock-step behind "more of the same" now apparently being practiced by our own party.

Pitiful. Paranoid much?

[bemildred]

34. Yes, we are pitiful, degenerate and paranoid.

Thank you so much for alerting us to the problem.

[MarkTwain]

35. No, not all of "us"....

... just those that find the posting of such information to be a cause for an alert - that apparently has been summarily ignored by the monitors of this board.

Thank you.

[Binka]

36. You Just Go On Thinking That Mark

A swift glance at your short stay here has left quite a parade of posts that just don't sound progressive. And you are ALL over this Murtha thing with no kind words for Jack or Nancy. If you were a donating member you'd understand how easy it is for us to follow your handiwork. You've never been a moderator (not monitor dear that is what they use in elementary school) Mark you have no idea how things are done on DU.

Thank YOU!

[MarkTwain]

40. Take me out to the ball game....

1. I am all over this "Murtha thing" because, as an honest progressive (who took off his blinders and need for obsequies obedience in the elementary school that you kindly referenced), I do not brook the same sloppy concern for ethics in my own party - and in my party that promised to clean up a rancid House of Representatives. Strike One!

2. I have been, in the past, a donating member. I well understand - and if you truly did a search on all of my posts, you would note that within the last two days, I encouraged a post that challenged my progressiveness to do such a search. So, I am quite familiar with the mechanisms of this board. Strike Two!

3. The act of "monitoring" is that which moderators do. I respectfully suggest that you pay attention to the use of words - as opposed to constructing your response solely out of the primitive response mechanics of "gotcha ya' " Strike Three!

4. Maybe you should do one of those clever little search thingies on profile for which - guess what?! - you don't even have to contribute.
Profile name MarkTwain
Member since 2001
Number of posts 839
Gender male
City MIAMI
State FLORIDA
Country USA

Strike Four!

You are very welcome. Now, kindly hit the showers and then go back to the minor leagues.

[Binka]

41. You Just Enabled Your Profile Sweetie What Utter BS

And now as with many other blowhards you are on ignore. What is it with all the idiots in Florida?

[MarkTwain]

43. An absolute lie...

... my profile has been enabled since I came to this board five years ago. I, again, respectfully suggest that if you had been operating from other than a "gotcha" perspective, you would have done such a search and seen my enabled profile. Yet another proof that you did not.

Why is it that when confronted with facts and a decisive challenge to their "arguments," some people elect to lie and state something that is patently untrue and malicious?

[bemildred]

42. Those are your words, not mine. "DU has degenerated" for example.

[MarkTwain]

44. Absolutely. Moreover, I proudly...

... own those words in characterization of the desperation of those that elect to alert over a perfectly acceptable post that, other than paranoia, would not elicit such a response.

[bemildred]

47. We are encouraged to alert here.

It is how the place is moderated. To be honest, I almost never do, and I would not on you. But it is wrong to characterize all of DU as degenerate on that basis, and name calling is not an argument.

[MarkTwain]

48. After five years of membership,...

.... I can not recall one instance where we have been "encouraged" to alert for anything that even remotely resembles any post here, or anywhere, that I have made.

I never once stated that DU was degenerate, nor were its members. A most basic reading of my post states that it is a mark of degeneration that someone might alert over something as innocuous as my posts. A quick visit to Websters will confirm that there is a vast semantic difference between characterizing some place or someone as degenerate and noting that a community and its nature might be degenerating.

[bemildred]

62. You said "DU has now degenerated ..." in post #33.

I said nothing about alerting on your posts, I said we are encouraged to alert about posts we find questionable, a matter that people disagree on. We are not told "don't alert unless you are sure", but the opposite of that, so alerting on a post is not an anti-social act at DU.

Edit: added "now" in the quoted text, to get it right.

[skipos]

18. Here is video of him being offered a bribe. He says he is not interested "at this time."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2712625

I am on the fence about it. He certainly could have been more forceful in rejecting the bribe. "I am going to report you to the authorities" would have been nice. But I often say "I am not interested at this time" when I know I will never be interested. :shrug:

[zreosumgame]

46. ah yes the Murder She Wrote script

I see many here who pound on that. They seem to think TV reflects reality LOL!

[Ladydawnelle]

59. I thought that for a minute then also considered..

perhaps way back then he was being cautious as well. He said these guys LOOKED slimey so they could have been carrying weapons or whatever. And had he been forceful or jumped up and left too quickly they would think he was gonna report them or something?

Slimey types have no qualms about torture remember? Some even in our own party.

Wasn't he there alone? Never a good thing. Or wait were the other 5 or so that DID get prosecuted also there with him at the time? That could be another reason he didn't get more forceful. He still had to go home with those that brought him. Ya know?

just a thought (or 2)

stop fighting ya'll! ;-)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

27. He doesn't have an ethics problem...

[Virginia Dare]

28. It's all relative....

you might think he doesn't, I think he does, and anybody else from either Party who engages in this sort of thing. It's got to stop, and I think the Democrats should be in the forefront of putting an end to it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. I think your point is especially salient after Pelosi said that

this would be the cleanest govt. in the history of the Universe.

Hastings and Murtha shouldn't even be on the list.

[hippiechick]

4. Yes, Dems ... let's tear each other asunder ...

... that way the GOP won't have shit to do for 2 years and they can breeze some new idiot into 1600 in January 09.


Nice. :eyes:

[lyonn]

10. Good point, Murtha was investigated for questionable

conduct and there was no evidence at all that he took money from any illegal source, or gave favors to anyone. And, Murtha got the Dems off square one when it came to an alternative view for our position in Iraq. No one jumped on his bandwagon at first for fear of being hammered, sad. That is the issue that was major in our takeover. Hoyer seems like he knows what the Dem. plan is and would be able to get along with the crowd. So, I like both men and feel either would do a fine job.

[JudyM]

5. I wish they'd all save their in-fighting rhetoric to the back rooms instead of airing

these problems in front of everyone. Let's save the 'swift-boat' language for the ones who genuinely aim to do the party harm. Work it out, people.

[lapfog_1]

12. There are no back rooms anymore...

or at least, not many and not for these type of fights. And, yes, I wish this one had been kept in the back rooms.

I wish there was a consensus third candidate.

[Turbineguy]

6. The wing nuts

have to be loving this.

[unpossibles]

11. sure, but they already have dirt (or so they think)

on Murtha via Abscam. Thing is, he was neither indicted nor convicted, but they don't care, even if that is their excuse with Rove, et al.

sigh

[DoYouEverWonder]

30. Fuck em

This is what DEMS do. Get the issues and questions out on the table. Let the person defend the themselves against the allegations and then people decide for themselves whether or not to believe them.

I'm all for making sure we stop corruption before it starts, not after when it's too late.

[AlCzervik]

7. No public fighting for crissakes!! Take it outside!

[wordpix]

8. or rather, take it inside ---the back rooms, that is

[0rganism]

14. Side note: one good thing I see coming out of all this....

...is "swiftboating" entering the realm of mainstream political memes in the last election cycle.

As it implies that a political attack is short on facts and long on insults -- especially concerning a veteran's service -- it serves partly as Sen. Kerry's vindication. People are becoming aware of just how craptacular Rove's anti-veteran tactics are, and they will be much less successful as long as this meme carries the same connotations.

[jollyreaper2112]

17. Use the media bully pulpit

When the Republicans say outlandish shit, the MSM seems to believe that not calling them on it is being impartial. Dem leaders have been just as timid thinking that hostility would make them look, I don't know, like they had a sack or something.

I say screw it. Enter the discussion prepared to be civil. When they scoop down for a handful of mud, reach down for the rockpile of facts and hit 'em first. Mud is "did you father a black baby?" Mud is "you had an extramarital affair." But facts, facts are "you took bribes. You are tied to convicted criminals." Or if the target is a family values hypocrite, an affair turns from mud to a rock.

The Republican Party is McDonalds. They sell cheap crap and know it. They have to use every trick possible to get you to buy it. But their marketing is sophisticated so they stay in business. The Democrats are like a hole-in-the-wall steakhouse with the best food in town that's just not doing any business because nobody knows about it. What they have to sell is good, people won't resent getting sold on it, they're just not doing a good job of selling it. Or rather, they haven't in the past. This election has me feeling excited. Let's keep selling!

[NoodleyAppendage]

20. Murtha will give us leverage for 2008. Hoyer gets us NOTHING.

Murtha is EXACTLY the face the Dems need when we start rolling back the Chimperior's mistakes in Iraq. Hoyer is milquetoast bullsh*t that buys us NO COVERAGE when the Repukes start to bray and moan about the Dems being cowards for leaving Iraq.

J

[AzDar]

58. Absolutely right! n/t

[dailykoff]

21. Good. He needs to call out the swiftboaters

and the PNACers. They'll stop at nothing so I hope he's got his armor on.

[Rainscents]

22. I agree...

Head of CREW, I am wondering, who is paying her extra cash under the table.

[dailykoff]

23. Bet there's plenty more Abramoffs

where Abramoff came from.

:rofl:

[KittyWampus]

39. Who was paying CREW when they ripped the GOP time after time?

[karynnj]

49. I like Murtha, but this is not swiftboating

When his service was questioned it was swiftboating - this isn't.

There are ethics questions. He did manage a huge amount of pork and there were questions on ABSCAM. He has aswered these - and people will evaluate that. These were fair questions to ask - as long as they are fairly evealuated.

Using swiftboat for this simply diminishes a word that if diluted will lose the effectiveness it now has for designating an unjustified, unsubstaniated attack on an opponent's war record.

(Note: with Senator Kerry, any criticism on wind surfing, or flip flop etc were NOT what was meant by swiftboating. (In his case there were no ethics questions - cause he practices good ethics - so that is as close as I can get).

[Tellurian]

52. The euphemism Swift Boating

has taken on a much broader meaning than strictly relating to the military.

Swift Boating is associated with "smear", smearing one's reputation with the
propagation of lies. Granted, we are all aware of the genesis of the term,
but it has exponentially expanded itself to include a falsehood being
propagandized for no good reason except to smear ones reputation.

[karynnj]

53. My point was precisely that now when we are at a

transistion point on this preserving the more limited meaning is important. To expand it, as Murtha is attempting here makes it an unnecceassary synonym for smearing. Consider why he did it - swiftboarding still contains a sense that the attack is unfair and deserving of contempt. This is why Murtha used the word. I know that language does drift and your defintion is where it will likely go. It has to retain the concept of being based o a complete falsehood though or it will soon have no power.

Murtha's current challanges don't rise to that level. The attacks on Murtha's ethics range from valid questions that need answers to attacks that put everything in the worst possible light. These are not completely invalid attacks. Murtha's problem here is likely that the country has changed what they accept in terms of people profitting or gaining power from pork. Murtha is one of many people who need to address this seriously and say they understand that the standards have changed. He will not be the only one. There are many people who have had loose standards on this. If we don't want to have the country associate the Democrats with corruption we need to show that we got the message and are tightening the standards. Nancy Pelosi's new rules are a great step in this direction.

I would have less problem if the word were associated with absolute fabrications - such as the attempt in 2004 to say Kerry had an affair or many during the Clinton years that were completely made up - like Hillary having any involvement in the Foster suicide. I do realize that language goes as it is used, but I regret what will be the inevitable loss of the power of the word - limiting its value to the last election only.

[Tellurian]

55. Yes, no-one owns a word..

and it may be a hard pill to swallow; but swallow you must because
there isn't a ding-dang thing you can do about it.

It's not worth obsessing about...

It's all over the news today.."swiftboating"..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2613998

[karynnj]

60. I agree wholeheartedly

and believe me it's not a word I like - hearing it is painful. I also saw a Dkos comment to a vet from Senator Kerry that he actually hates the word because it transforms the boat and the service on it to very negative verb.

I realize that words become what people want them to be - I simply was stating a preference for stronger more precise words. It just seems to make for a richer language.

[w4rma]

54. WATCH THE ABSCAM VIDEO: Murtha Displays A High Degree of Ethics

berni_mccoy says:
I've watched the Abscam tape. You can watch it here too: http://lonestartimes.com/2006/11/14/

I listened to every statement Murtha made.

Murtha did exactly this:
1. Discussed housing prices
2. Discussed the problems of his District
3. Told the agents that they can't give him money to get legislature drafted and that is illegal
4. Told the agents that he wants to follow the law
5. Told the agents that they are free to invest in his district and that he would be appreciative of that
6. Told the agents that they don't need to spend a damned cent on this
7. Told the agents that he could speak kindly of them for investing in their business and that would work for him politically to show he is able to get business investments for his district
8. He even told them what is legal and that they are going out of bounds
9. Any sort of investments have to be dealt with legally and politically and that he needs to know details before discussing further
10. A few investments in his district will get the attention and everything has to be above board or otherwise people go to jail.
11. The people in his district will be supportive of investing companies and will want to advertise the fact and that Murtha was helpful. It's a good thing when done properly.
12. Introducing legislation is only legal when initiated by people in his district.
13. The LEGAL and ETHICAL way for a company to have legislation drafted is by investing in the district, lobbying the people of the district to initiate the laws and then Murtha can respond.
14. He gave examples of ways that this has been done successfully and unsuccessfully in the past.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that.

What Murtha Didn't say:
1. He didn't take money to draft legislation
2. He didn't say he would draft legislation for investing in his district
3. He didn't guarantee the agents that they would get their legislation proposal supported by the people in his district.

Murtha was completely above board on the entire issue and educated the agents on the legal and ethical issues of lobbying.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2725397

[Tellurian]

56. The point is..

video can be edited to say just about anything.
Murtha is fortunate they didn't want him bad enough to do just that.

The clincher is, there was an investigation, he was found innocent, many were found guilty.

Of course, Pelosi has first hand knowledge. The outcome has never changed.

The poster here swift boating Murtha knows the innuendo of impropriety will wash over Pelosi.
This BS has got to stop if we expect to do anything constructive to reverse the damage done
by the Bush Administration. If not, you have only yourselves to blame for not shutting these
hyper critics down the minute they come through the gate.

[yellowcanine]

61. Abscam isn't the problem. Earmarking and vote trading is. Plus he lacks

leadership experience and did not even have any interest in a leadership position when the Dems were in the minority. So I think this is a kind of vanity thing for him. Hoyer is better qualified to be majority leader and that is all that this should turn on - competence. Plus if it is liberalism you are worried about - Hoyer is actually more consistently liberal than Murtha.

[w4rma]

63. Wanted: A Real Leader - Endorsement for Rep. Jack Murtha by David Sirota of 'The Nation'

November 14, 2006
by David Sirota
…
Hoyer's reaction to Murtha's Iraq announcement was telling. He ran to the Washington Post, not to praise Murtha for his courageous leadership in shifting the debate on the most important national security issue in a generation, but instead to say Murtha's announcement "could lead to disaster." Days later, he tried to publicly humiliate Pelosi for supporting Murtha's withdrawal idea, with the Post reporting that Hoyer "told colleagues that Pelosi's recent endorsement of a speedy withdrawal combined with her claim that more than half of House Democrats support her position, could backfire on the party."

On trade, it's the same thing. Murtha represents Johnstown, Pennsylvania--the type of hardscrabble, working-class district Democrats have too often lost since President Bill Clinton joined with Wall Street to push free-trade pacts in the mid-1990s. In representing this kind of district, Murtha has opposed many of the most destructive trade agreements that sell out American workers. In the most high-profile example, he went up against Clinton by voting against the China free trade deal in 2000.

Hoyer, by contrast, voted for the China pact, and a number of other "free" trade agreements opposed by Murtha and progressive Democrats. He has parroted much of the rhetoric of the Democratic Leadership Council--the corporate front group that has relentlessly pushed Democrats to provide the crucial congressional votes necessary to pass "free" trade pacts. As Lori Wallach of Global Trade Watch said when Hoyer ran against Pelosi in a previous leadership race: "Hoyer has repositioned himself--one can only assume for political purposes -- as the DLC, business candidate."

Neither candidate, of course, is perfect. But this is far more than merely a lesser-of-two-evils choice.
…
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061127/sirota/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=246654&mesg_id=246654

[yellowcanine]

64. Moot point now. The people who actually vote did so, 149-86 for Hoyer.

Given the Pelosi endorsement, a substantial win for Hoyer, imo.

[w4rma]

65. Yes, I know. Hoyer ambushed Murtha with a divisive smear campaign to get that position.

Considering his inability to look ahead, I fear that he is going to lead Democrats down the same path of failure that DLCers like him have been doing.

[yellowcanine]

66. How did Hoyer "smear" Murtha? Do you have a link for that claim?

You are the third person to suggest this that I have seen today and so far no one can substantiate that claim. But maybe you have something?

[w4rma]

67. Such as the smear that Mutha is responding to in the OP. (nt)

[yellowcanine]

68. No evidence there or in the linked article that Steny Hoyer had anything to

do with what Murtha was talking about. Did you have something else? I am serious. It is slander to accuse someone of a smear when you have no evidence.

[MarkTwain]

57. You are absolutely correct...

... this is not, at all, "Swiftboating."

In the vile attacks on Senator Kerry, the charges and accusations were totally untrue and without merit.

In Mr. Murtha's case:

1. his severe and sleazy abuse of the earmarks system is well known and more than adequately documented.
2. his difficulties in the ABSCAM matter are likewise documented. Many feel that the only reason he did not "bite" at the bribe was because it was not large enough.
3. his overall "regard" for matters ethical is very colored and on the record.

He is just a very poor choice for such a critical position at such an equally critical moment. And a choice made by a Speaker Designate who campaigned on restoring dignity and cleanliness to the House.

Yeah, right.