Jack Murtha for Majority Leader... and TIME "Person of the Year"!!!

[Harper_is_Bush]

Jack Murtha for Majority Leader... and "Person of the Year"

Arianna Huffington

Election Day 2006 is over, but there are still a couple of races yet to be decided. And Jack Murtha is a contender in both of them. One is mostly fun: the contest to see who will be chosen as TIME Magazine's "Person of the Year". The other is incredibly significant: the battle to see who House Democrats will choose as their new Majority Leader.

I'm pulling for Jack Murtha in both contests.

When Rick Stengel, TIME's new editor, asked me to take part in a panel in New York this Tuesday to discuss who should be the "Person of the Year", my mind immediately turned to Murtha. Why? Because, contrary to what Karl Rove would like you to believe, this election wasn't about corruption, it wasn't about a few formerly closeted homophobes, and it wasn't about spending. As I've said before, it was about three things: Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq (Click here for backup). And Murtha was a key reason the election was a referendum on Iraq.

As CNN's Bill Schneider put it this week: Murtha is "the guy who stood up first and is still standing up... has the message that won the glorious victory of '06."

The polls may have opened at 6. a.m. on Tuesday, but the process that unfolded on November 7th actually began almost a year earlier, on November 17th, 2005. That's the day when Murtha altered the dynamics of the '06 campaign by giving a speech that began:

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region..."

read the rest here ---> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/jack-murtha-for-majority-_b_33942.html

Besides being dead sexy, Arianna is dead on.

Murtha for man of the year.

He was the ONLY Democrat I saw who had the courage to speak up AND was listened to.

[Ignacio Upton]

1. ...

http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=156

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

[aquart]

4. How does that make what Arianna said untrue?

Because I didn't see anyone else speaking up, either.

[Ignacio Upton]

6. Yes he's right on the war

But we can't have someone in charge who could give off the perception of corruption, even if he hasn't done anything illegal. And no, I don't think Hoyer is any better, and Alcee Hastings is also a problem.

[Harper_is_Bush]

7. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2613998&mesg_id=2613998

[Fluffdaddy]

19. Did you see the Abscam FBI sting operation tape with jack ?

I respect the fact that JM stood up and was against Iraq early. But we don't need this/his past problem now.........we should past on JM and this leadership set

[texpatriot2004]

2. I remember that Jack Murtha was the only one and the main one

other than Howard Dean to speak out against the war. Eventually others chimed in but he was the pioneer.

[Alexander]

3. Emanuel is more deserving of POTY than Murtha.

Better yet, Dean. Or Pelosi.

[aquart]

5. Points to the first guy with guts who speaks up.

Everyone else trails in his wake.

[rinsd]

8. Huh?

"Because, contrary to what Karl Rove would like you to believe, this election wasn't about corruption, it wasn't about a few formerly closeted homophobes, and it wasn't about spending."

Ummm the exit polls said corrutpion and Iraq as the major concerns. So why is corruption cast as some rovian plot? Could it be the two men named are hardly squeaky clean?

"As I've said before, it was about three things: Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq (Click here for backup)."

That's great. You're still wrong though.

"And Murtha was a key reason the election was a referendum on Iraq."

I would argue that Ned Lamont set that stage for the elections though Murtha certainly got the ball rolling for candidates to not be treated like lepers when they came out against the war.

[Harper_is_Bush]

10. You can live by your exit polls if you wish

I saw what happened. I don't need an exit poll to tell me which way the wind blows.

[Pastiche423]

9. I simply can not be behind

a man that does not believe women have the right to rule over their own bodies.

[VelmaD]

24. what you said

Murtha generally gets 0% ratingis from Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

[Fluffdaddy]

11. J Murtha "may" be dirty..........we should pass. lets not give the wing-nuts

anything they could spin

[mdmc]

12. aren't there any liberals that can lead?

:kick:

[Harper_is_Bush]

15. what's your take on post #7? n/t

[texpatriot2004]

13. kick nm

[tabasco]

14. A lof of Democrats voted against the war resolution.

I consider them to be the first ones to have stood up.

[Harper_is_Bush]

16. The vote wasn't for war, it was for the authority.

The actions subsequant to that vote are what needed to be stood up against.

Don't buy the Bush lie. Nobody voted "for war".

[tabasco]

17. Oh puhleeze. Tell that to these guys.

The IWR authorized giving a loaded gun to a madman. MANY Democrats were smart enough to vote against this "authorization." I applaud Murtha for standing up and admitting a mistake. But many Democrats were right from the beginning.

It amazes me how many posters try to make excuses for the Dems who voted for this resolution. If the resolution had been disapproved, there would have been NO Iraq war. But the mood of the country was "get revenge for 9-11" after a massive disinformation campaign, and politicians did what politicians do.

[Harper_is_Bush]

22. "If resolution had been disapproved, there would have been NO Iraq"

And if 9/11 hadn't happened there would have been no Iraq.

If Bush hadn't been born...

Whatever! The resolution was NOT to go to war, period.

Saying they voted to give a "loaded gun to a madman" is empty rhetoric. Post some more pictures of coffins if you think USING them helps your argument.

[goodhue]

18. Murhta was hardly the first with the courage to speak up

Many progressive democracts voted against the war and spoke up loudly since the very beginning.

[stepnw1f]

20. This is True

Kucinich is one.

I still am glad as hell he is with us on this issue.

[KharmaTrain]

21. And Who Listened?

I'm proud to be one of the 10% in this country that distrusted this regime in the days following 9/11. Many of us here knew this invasion would be a disaster and many of the predictions made on this site and others about what would ensue unfortunately have been realized. But who listened?

Murtha's voice was important in changing the national dialogue cause he broke through the corporate media barrier. When Howard Dean denounced the war, he was a raging lunatic. When John Kerry was against the war after he was for it, he was wishy-washy...but when Murtha spoke, this came from a voice that the beltway listened to.

Look at how public opinion polls supporting this invasion started to change after Murtha spoke. And his words not only held up, they resonated. He opened eyes that were blissfully shut and faced the slime of the right wing hate machine that did all it could to discredit him and shut him up. Murtha stood tall.

While my hopes are Progressive voices will get louder and be heard, we are still in the wilderness in getting a message heard in the cocophany that is the corporate media.

[GymGeekAus]

23. Let Murtha stand before the People and explain his graft.

Then we can talk about what it might mean if the mainstream media puts his picture on the front of a magazine.

I refer us all to the Center for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington. And remind us all that the CNN exit poll showed that over 40% of the electorate cited corruption as their political concern.