Democrat Politics - Iraq, Murtha on Pork, Pelosi Trys to Silence Republicans, Ethics Rules, - Its a Circus

Lots going under the big top on the left side of the aisle this past week that I haven't had time to blog about - at least not until my recent bout of insomnia.

The lead has to be the political games being run by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, sending the Iraq bill to the President, this time only sans the pork and earmarks that had no business in the bill to begin with. You have to love their feigned disappointment when President Bush refused to agree to Democratic terms of surrender in Iraq, whether or not waiverable. See here. My favorite of all the Democratic posturing on this, though, has to be David Obey, House Appropriations Committee Chairman:

The offers that we made today represented very large steps toward compromise on our part . . . And I think we got an inchworm response from the administration.

Sorry, Mr. Obey, but including terms of surrender in the funding bill does not qualify as any reasonable attempt at compromise.

Jack Murtha apparently likes his pork without criticism or challenge. The government moved to close down National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) located in Murtha's district on the grounds that it is not functioning to expectations and it is no longer needed. When Murtha had continued funding for the NDIC put into the budget, Republican Mike Rogers of Michigan sought to have it cut. Murtha went ballistic, accroding to the WP story:

According to Rogers' account, which Murtha did not dispute, the Democrat angrily told Rogers he should never seek earmarks of his own because "you're not going to get any, now or forever."

"This was clearly designed to try to intimidate me," Rogers said in an interview Friday. "He said it loud enough for other people to hear."

House rules prohibit lawmakers from placing conditions on earmarks or targeted tax benefits that are based on another member's votes.

Rogers will submit a motion to censure Murtha before the House on Monday. Nice to see someone standing up to Murtha. It needs to go a lot further, though.

On a different front, there are the lobbying rules that Democrats promised to clean up as a function of their campaign against a "culture of corruption." But it seems now that many Democrats kind of like that culture. This from the NYT:

House Democrats wavered Thursday in their vow to tighten Congressional ethics rules as their leaders scrapped a campaign pledge to double the current one-year ban on lobbying by departing lawmakers and senior staff members.

Democratic leaders in the House faced a rank-and-file revolt over the measure, which would significantly cramp the ability of lawmakers to cash in on their government service for million-dollar paychecks on K Street as soon as they leave office. . .

Then there was the attempt by Nancy Pelosi to change a House Rule in effect since 1822 allowing the party in the minority to submit a Motion to Recommit on bills before the House. You can get a thorough explanation at Fausta's Blog and the links therein. Nancy's talk of bipartisan cooperation was, it would seem, lacking in any substance - she attempted to completely shut off the minority from their 185 year old procedural right to impact on legislation she and her Democratic majority would bring before the House. Fortunately, she failed in this endeavor, at least for now.

And on the "insuring ideological purity" front, Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the House Majority Leader, was one of several Democrats who voted against the McGovern Bill a few days ago. That bill, would have mandated an immediate withdraw from Iraq. Enjoying the full support of the George Soros propaganda machine MoveOn.org, it was nonetheless defeated by a vote of 255 to 171. Hoyer, it should be noted, at least as recently as December, 2005, admitted to strong differences of opinion on the Iraq War with Nancy Pelosi, saying that if she "had her way it 'could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation's security and credibility.'" See here. I couldn't agree more.

Such ideological variance from the mainstream of Soros-thought is not to be tolerated in the Democratic Party. Thus, it is no surprise that Soros's MoveOn.org is running attack ads against Hoyer in his district for failing to vote "yea" on the McGovern bill. They are also running attack ads against Carl Levin for his suggestion that Democrats would vote to fund the war without requiring surrender on a date certain. See here. It is not nice to disagree with George Soros. Not if you are a Democrat.

And thus ends a week of politics in the Democratic majority. I personally was glad to see the Republicans bounced from the majority on the grounds that they had become wholly unmoored from their conservative, small government roots. What I am not glad to see is the Democratic circus that has replaced them.