You have to wonder what he has on her, that the Speaker stands by a guy with such a long history of sleaze and corruption.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is defending a close Democratic ally whom Republicans want to reprimand for threatening a GOP lawmaker's spending projects.

Pelosi, D-Calif., said she had "no idea what actually happened" during a noisy exchange in the House chamber last week between Reps. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and Mike Rogers, R-Mich.

"What I do know is that Congressman Murtha has — enjoys — an excellent reputation in the Congress on both sides of the aisle," said Pelosi in a broadcast interview taped Friday and aired Sunday.

"He writes the defense appropriation bill in a bipartisan way each year and with the complete involvement of the Republicans as to who gets what on the Republican side," she said.

Murtha is a 35-year House veteran who leads the House Appropriations subcommittee on military spending. He is known for a fondness for earmarks — carefully targeted spending items placed in appropriations bills to benefit a specific lawmaker or favored constituent group.

Three observations.

First, I thought the Democrats considered earmarks a bad thing -- but Murtha is the King of Earmarks. Was last year's campaign strategy a case of selective outrage at the practice?

Second, the House Democrats decisively rejected Murhta when Pelosi backed him for a high leadership post earlier this year due to the loud outcry over Murtha's sleaze. Does that sound like folks having high regard for him -- or her, as the new Speaker of the House?

Third, Murtha is n tape indicating his willingness to take bribes during the Abscam case -- and was even named an unindicted co-conspirator. Doesn't that give her any pause before she defends him?

Of course, since Nancy admits she really doesn't know what happened in the confrontation on the House floor, does her opinion really even matter?

Posted by: Greg at 09:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.