Murtha/Hoyer The Price of Leadership

[NoBushSpokenHere]

http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=237

November 17, 2006 | In the contest to become House majority leader, John Murtha may have had the endorsement of Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi, but Steny Hoyer had a more powerful ally—money.

Hoyer, the Maryland congressman who decisively won the high-profile position Nov. 16, contributed far more money to fellow House members than Murtha, and it paid off. In the 2006 election cycle, Hoyer gave other House candidates about $807,700 from his leadership political action committee (AmeriPAC: The Fund for a Greater America) and from his campaign committee, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. By contrast, Murtha, of Pennsylvania, gave away only $164,701 to other House candidates. Politicians establish leadership PACs to help fund the campaigns of their fellow party members. Raising money for others can help a lawmaker who aspires to a leadership position or committee chairmanship win chits with colleagues.

More at link above

[bobbolink]

1. Clearly, it's not only corporate money we need to get out of politics,

you've wakened me to the fact that we have to stop politicians from giving money to each other.

So much for those PACs!

Thanks, I appreciate knowing this.

Or... thanks for depressing me more.... :hi:

[Skidmore]

2. Exactly what angered me the most about this leadership selection

process. I was hoping that the Democratic party would step forward to lead by example rather than play the same old game. This whole process should not be about money but about ideas and doing what is right. Hoyer is also on a list of people most beholden to lobbyists for contributions. Not a good start for the Democratic Party, in my estimation, and something I am watching closely. If we can root out corruption in our own party, then we lose the moral high ground.

[raysr]

3. Murtha stepped up

on the war, but I don't think we'd have been happy with him on social issues.

[Skidmore]

4. So when we don't agree 100% with someone's views, we pick

the guy with the most money? Is that what we're doing here? Out of all those Democrats in the House, there was not one soul with integrity and ideas that could serve in leadership? Not one? Only the guy with the big bucks who played Santa Claus?

That is what I mean by leading by example.

[raysr]

6. I thought he would

have been a "shoe in". I never even heard of the other guy. Maybe this was a statement to Pelosi too.

[MADem]

12. The other guy was ONLY the doggone Minority Whip all these years.

He ran against Pelosi for Minority Leader, and lost to her. The two of them have an established working relationship.

If you didn't know who he was, you weren't following the Democratic caucus very closely. He's a fixture.

[Morgana LaFey]

9. No, we pick the guy with the most money in any case

:sarcasm:

[MADem]

11. No, "we" don't pick anyone. Our Democratic caucus chose Steny, and he deserved the job.

Murtha's profile was high enough to do some serious fundraising, but he didn't. Steny reached out and HELPED that Democratic majority get elected...

[MADem]

10. What's this "we" shit? If Democrats didn't support Hoyer, he wouldn't have gotten the job he's been

working towards over the past twelve years.

It's way more than money. I suggest you educate yourself on Steny's stances on a broad range of issues. He's WAY more "liberal" than Murtha, overall. His votes, like Murtha's, reflect the makeup of his constituency, which is a bedroom community to the District.

And he got up off his ass and actually HELPED incoming freshman Democrats get elected. Something he's been doing for twelve years. That's why so many people voted for him, because HE delivered for them.

Murtha has never occupied a leadership position in all his years in the House. Not one. Ever. And he wanted to leap past the usual grunt work and assume the mantle based solely on his stance on a single issue. Sorry, that doesn't cut it in my book. YES, it was good of him to stand up and take the point on the Iraq matter, and he has earned the thanks of a grateful party for that, but it does NOT entitle him to the Leader role, which is earned by hard, slogging work over years, and that rule is the same in both chambers (unless you get it by White House fiat, in which case you never get respected in the job anyway--See Frist, Catkiller, as an example). There are many important issues facing us as a nation, Iraq is a biggie now, but it won't be, if we're lucky, a year or two from now. With any luck, we'll be arguing about alternative fuels and the environment, and we don't need a leader who voted for drilling away in ANWR and against preserving endangered habitats.

Here, let me make it easy for everyone to clearly compare and contrast:

STENY: http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Steny_Hoyer.htm

JACK: http://www.ontheissues.org/PA/John_Murtha.htm

ABORTION:
Steny: Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Jack: Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

Budget/Economy:

Steny AND Jack, both: Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)


Civil Rights:

Steny: Rated 87% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Jack: Rated 50% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

Corporations:

Steny:
Voted NO on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 40% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)


Jack:
Voted NO on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks. (Jun 2004)
Voted NO on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 43% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)

CRIME:

Steny:
Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on maintaining right of habeus corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
Voted NO on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
Voted NO on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994)
Rated 56% by CURE, indicating mixed votes on rehabilitation. (Dec 2000)
More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. (Apr 2001)
Require DNA testing for all federal executions. (Mar 2001)


Jack:
Voted NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on maintaining right of habeus corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
Voted NO on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994)
Rated 22% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)
Require DNA testing for all federal executions. (Mar 2001)

EDUCATION:

Steny:
Voted YES on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Voted YES on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Voted NO on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
Voted NO on giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer. (Mar 1994)
Reduce class size to 18 children in grades 1 to 3. (Mar 2001)
Rated 100% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)

Jack:
Voted YES on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Voted YES on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Voted NO on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
Voted NO on giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer. (Mar 1994)
Reduce class size to 18 children in grades 1 to 3. (Mar 2001)
Rated 91% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)

Energy & Oil
Steny:
Voted NO on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted YES on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted YES on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)

Jack:
Voted NO on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted YES on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)

ENVIRONMENT:

Steny:
Voted YES on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
Voted NO on deauthorizing "critical habitat" for endangered species. (Sep 2005)
Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)
Rated 85% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)


Jack: Voted YES on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump (May 2006)
Voted YES on deauthorizing "critical habitat" for endangered species. (Sep 2005)
Voted YES on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)
Rated 45% by the LCV, indicating a mixed record on environment. (Dec 2003).


That's just the tip of the iceberg. Compare their records, have a good look-see at BOTH of these representatives and go over their entire records, quotes and all. Murtha, overall, is far more conservative--he votes with the GOP enough to be confused with them at times.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

13. Thank you for the informative replies MADem

It does appear that you are correct in the fact that Hoyer represents liberals more than Murtha. After reviewing records, I support Hoyer over Murtha. My concern though is the question of the donations for votes. Our system needs fixed, all the way through, including our own party. The members should have voted primarily on voting record history and having the intestinal fortitude for the position, not monetary donations. And yes I see what you are pointing out - that the donations may not have influenced votes, but my point is there should be no attempt to gain votes via money!




Arghhhhhhhhhh trying to spell check and running into a glitch, sorry.

[MADem]

14. A lot of those reps wouldn't have their seats if it weren't for other reps in safe seats helping

them out. But Steny is more than just a cash cow, he's a mentor. He actually went out and helped a lot of his fellow reps do fundraising, and not just 'do' it, learn the ropes of how to do it--so long as that is the system, they HAVE to know how to do it, especially in competitive districts. He's a draw in other states, too, amongst those who follow politics like it's a team sport, because Steny is a player on the Hill. If he's at your little 'do' you can expect to double your take, at least.

Steny has done more than just rep his district; he's been in the leadership, like Conyers, Pelosi, and so forth, for eons. A lot of that work is 'vote counting' and cat herding, but it is important. He's a good guy, it irritates me how people who don't know anything about him so cheerfully trash the hell out of him. I met him, I was impressed. He could have been a total jerk and gotten away with it, but he was the nicest guy in the room. Totally laid back, not looking for special treatment, very positive, very gracious guy. And since his wife died, he could have gotten all down in the dumps, but instead he's thrown himself into his work...a lot of this Democratic victory in the House he can take credit for. He did a LOT of hard work to make it happen.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

5. Maybe we should launch into an old fashioned DU

email and phone call whipping to Hoyer? Let him know we expect him to REPRESENT OUR INTERESTS!

[MADem]

7. This is NOT the first election cycle that Steny has helped freshmen legislators

He's been doing this for several years--12, to be precise. It's not JUST this election cycle, it's years and years of helping others. His total contributions are starting to get near two million, and he has even helped out a few Senatorial candidates.

Also, and this article does not even TOUCH on this aspect, Steny actually got off his ass and travelled. He helped newcomers with their campaigns, with fundraising, with organization. He didn't just throw money at them. And then, there is this aspect:

While Hoyer’s money seemed to serve him well this time, Pelosi’s contributions didn’t go very far in winning over supporters for Murtha. Between PAC to the Future—her leadership PAC—and her campaign committee, Pelosi gave a total of at least $306,500 in 2006 to 31 Hoyer supporters. Her PAC and campaign committee gave only $9,500 in total to three of Murtha’s backers.

“One suspects that if Murtha and Hoyer gave the same amount to everyone, Hoyer still would have won by a lot, but it certainly didn’t hurt,” Jacobson said.

Like it or not, most of Pelosi's "endorsement" of Murtha was lip service. She waited until it was WAY too late to start arm twisting (Murtha signalled his intentions way back in June). While she might have preferred her old pal in the ML job, she can live with Steny--he's served under her as whip all this time, after they went head-to-head for the ML job and he lost.

Everyone likes to bullshit about the drama of the selection, but this was a foregone conclusion--the guy who has been doing the hard work for the past TWELVE years got the gig. The guy who has done absolutely NOTHING in the leadership ranks of the caucus, ever, didn't.

Steny earned the promotion. I realize a lot of people like Jack Murtha because he is the flavor of the month, and was out in front on the Iraq issue, but once Iraq is off the table, those same folk might not be so thrilled with (pro-life, to the right of Atilla the Hun on some issues) Jack....just saying....

[dailykoff]

8. Does anyone know for sure which House voted on this,

109th Congress (outgoing), 110th (incoming), or some combination?

[MADem]

15. I think it's the incoming that votes--not a combo. They are there for orientation. And see this

WAPO article, which 'suggests' that the newcomers vote, and makes one wonder if this wasn't a "Briar Patch" operation from the git-go (which I think it may have been):

Political Pragmatism Carried Hoyer to the Top

...As a number of Hoyer supporters put it, there was simply no good reason to deny him the job. Even Pelosi had to concede that the result was convincing. "Steny came out a big winner today," she declared after the 149 to 86 vote. "It was a stunning victory for him."

Congenial and diligent, Hoyer scored big points with his colleagues by laboring in the trenches throughout the 2006 campaign season. He raised money, helped recruit candidates and appeared at events across the country. When Congress was in session, he was a fixture on the House floor as the Democratic whip, cajoling colleagues to stick together on tough votes. And when Democrats won a House majority last week, Hoyer received a large share of the credit...."We've never had a whip operation like this one," said Rep. David E. Price (N.C.). "He's just been a model leader, and people appreciate that."

One of Hoyer's assets is that he has worked successfully alongside Pelosi. "There was a consensus in the caucus that the team is working, and they wanted to keep it, by a very large margin," Hoyer explained. Given the duo's strong record, many House Democrats questioned why Pelosi would turn to Murtha, a veteran Appropriations Committee member who had not shown much interest in House leadership before he emerged as a prominent Democratic war critic a year ago.

By rejecting Hoyer, Pelosi may unwittingly have elevated him, particularly among moderate members who are nervous about her liberal views, particularly on social issues. Now, even before the Democrats take over in January, they can claim to have bucked the boss, by voting against Pelosi's candidate for her second-in-command. That may prove particularly useful for freshman Democrats who won in conservative districts and will presumably have to fend off tough challenges in two short years....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111601524_pf.html