Murtha just said he'll run for Majority Leader if Dems. win House...

Just heard it on CNN...

but that is interesting...

He's advocating the right step on Iraq whereas she's too scared to because of "election year politics"

While Murtha is too hawkish and conservative for my taste, he is a true leader and a republican! When I say Murtha is a republican, I mean to say that he believes in the US Constitution and in the Republic. I will support anyone that will fight to save this nation from tyranny! Murtha would not hesitate to allow impeachment hearings into the criminal activities of the Bush regime. Pelosi has already waved the white flag of surrender!

She'll be speaker of the House.

Geez, take politics 101 please.

Also Pelosi has been Murtha's biggest supporter but unlike John Murtha - she's very pro-choice whereas he isn't. Murtha comes from a long line of western PA conservative democrats. Once the war is overwith he is no better than some moderate republicans

dupe

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-09-murtha_x.htm?csp=24

By Jim Abrams
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON — Rep. John Murtha, a 16-term Democrat known for his close ties to the military and his outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq, said Friday he will run for House majority leader if Democrats win control in November.

Murtha, 73, wrote in a letter to Democratic colleagues that he would seek the post "if we prevail, as I hope and know we will, and return to the majority this next Congress."

"I would appreciate your consideration and vote and look forward to speaking to you personally about my decision," he wrote.

Murtha, regarded as a close ally of Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, has taken his party's lead in demanding an early withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. He served in Vietnam as a Marine and he has a reputation in Congress as a strong friend of the military.

Why didn't I see it? This is a brilliant move to deprive the Repugs of the "Do you want to see fruitcake Nancy Pelosi as Speaker?"

Murtha may mean it honestly, and that's fine. But this also takes some of the air out of their campaign balloon. "Do you want to see John Murtha speaker" doesn't have the same panache.

& he is the one to get the repukes left standing + Dems together re: war in Iraq plan (to get out). Pelosi would not be able to pull that off.

But on CNN they're reporting this is angering the Dems.

appreciate it greatly.

Go Murtha!

And for the record, Jack Cafferty just said he likes the idea and thinks it would be good for the Dems. because his position is more where the people are.

"Democrats in disarray again."

That's how they're spinning it.

brilliant and it will do us some good to have an expert in military matters as our majority leader.

Just repeating what they said on CNN. Cafferty disagreed, saying Murtha is where most of the country is.

...because we should have a LOT of people as against this war as Murtha is now to choose from!

The Democrat Party warrants a more dynamic spokesperson that can instill a level of confidence in the American public that the party has leadership capable of skillfully governing.

I am NOT a member of "The Democrat Party".
I am a DEMOCRAT, and a member of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!!


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

FULLY!

note to self: Righties hate Pelosi!

"The Democrat Party"? What the hell are you toking, man?

It's the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, bubba.

why "Democrat" is not an adjective.

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/democrat.html

"Certain Republican members of Congress have played the childish game in recent years of referring to the opposition as the “Democrat Party,” hoping to imply that Democrats are not truly democratic. They succeed only in making themselves sound ignorant, and so will you if you imitate them. The name is “Democratic Party.”"

they're said to "have no message" or "not be a real party," but when Repubs. have differing viewpoints, they're "the big tent party"?

Come on gang pile on, I made a catastrophic faux pas when I rewrote a sentence and forget to change democrat to democratic, big fucking deal. I welcome sensible disputation and assuredly someone correcting an error but this is both contemptible and offensive. Please keep an eye out for any crosses being erected since your perfect asses may end up being nailed to one.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That's a different job than majority leader.

I thought folks had been posting here that because she was majority leader, she'd be Speaker.

You're 100% right, though. Hastert's been Speaker with Delay as Leader.

John Conyers as Speaker of the House.

If we retake congress, Pelosi would have the natural leg up on speaker, thus vacating the majority leader role, which would then be open for Murtha to run for.

Speaker Hastert, Majority Leader Boehner.

Matthews won't be able to use one of his fun sayings

"Nancy Boys"

You and Murtha!

Well, not exactly like Hastert-DeLay, but you get my meaning.

voted on who will be Speaker, Majority Leader, and Majority Whip.

Murtha being majority leader doesn't stop Pelosi from being Speaker.

get Pelosi as president, argument. Face it, America would be horrified at the thought of a President Pelosi.

If the Democrats win, Pelosi will become Speaker. Murtha will challenge Steny Hoyer (A TOTAL DLCer) for Majority Leader (which will be the number two job).

This is great news.

Pelosi as Speaker
Murtha as House Leader.

Hoyer is currently Democratic Whip. So if Hoyer maintains that he still wants the Majority Leaders job, we can replace him there as well.

That means we can have three anti-war Democrats in the top three positions in Congress.

This makes the Repubs CRAZY because they now cannot paint all Dems as cowards. Great move, Murtha!! Even if he is not the most progressive guy in town, he has gravitas, and that will win us a LOT of votes from Independents and Republicans.

Yea!!

US elections are just name calling, slanderous affairs. "Fruit cake." and to think such labeling works. Attribution please. I say it is just slander because she is from Kalifornia.. Having lived there, it's voters are a brighter side of America. Far more informed than robots in Kansas.
Kalifornia. "Land of fruit and Nuts." And we let them get away with it. California, only state I'd consider living in.Don't agree with Pelosi on many issues, but a fruitcake. Far more fruitcakes in Georgia. In fact, does not Claxton fruitcakes come from Georgia. Case settled.

?

before we start selecting our leaders......

And to show that Dems. are serious about Iraq and what to do.

it's to bare off the brunt of critical comments that pelosi def. would be maj. leader.... she won't def. be, imho.




www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<<--- Check it out!

The Repubs. have already said over and over and over, "Could you imagine Majority leader Pelosi?"

Too many times I have counted our chickens before they have hatched.

We have to focus on taking back the House first, no one said it was ours yet.

But Murtha has my vote regardless.

You mean the election has to come first???? How dare you put the horse before the cart????? (sarcasm)

Good call by you says I. Winning the election should be first.

Because the Democrats in the house have a "different" direction they want to pursue.

No one should be surprised that one of the few in our party to speak out and do his job has a good shot at the leader post, and I hate to tell them that their secret plan of meek compliance hasn't been very effective so far.

I'm with Murtha.

They're talking about how the Dems. always find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They also mentioned the Black Caucus, how they're angry that Dems. want Jefferson to step down.

Why are you surprised that the wolf would try to stir up crap?

of stained shorts by November.

i'd love to see him and pelosi square off... that is, after we've won the house back ;-)

Nancy's minority leader now, and has support for the speaker position should dems take majority-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2654850

Murtha is making a bid for majority leader which is different than the speaker.

The two of them have shown a decent amt of leadership. I just hope they don't marginalize Conyers.

She would be the first speaker in the history of our country :)

-and from what I've read, she's very supportive of John Conyers -and his insistence on investigations whenever necessary.

Im a progressive, but he has a better handle of what the party needs, Beisdes Pelosi isnt ready for Prime time, back when she ran I wanted Ford

Ultimate fantasy is this:

1st We win back the House, then Conyers is elected to Speaker. the House starts and successfully impeaches Bush and Cheney with the help of the Senate of course, then Conyers would be president and this country would be on it's head cause of Conyers being the first black president.

I would be laughing my ass off at all of the MORAL VALUES people running and screaming.

One can dream can't we?:evilgrin:

May I share it? :D

He would be fabulous!

I too have had that same fantasy. It's a nice place to go on a bad day. It could happen, really it could. Just keep repeating that.

:loveya:

He'd be best at motivating the house party members.

Out of Iraq
Impeachment

Bet that has people thinking. :)

is 100Xs more credible than pelosi.

If we take back the House it will be because alot of the groundwork that Hoyer has laid.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=19949


BREAKING--MURTHA V. HOYER:

Major news from the House: Pennyslvania Congressman John Murtha has begun delivering a letter to his Democratic House colleagues announcing plans, should Democrats retake the House this fall, to seek the number-two job of House Majority Leader. This would almost certainly entail a showdown with the current House Minority Whip, Steny Hoyer. I just called Murtha's press secretary, who confirmed the letter and read me the following statement from Murtha:

Our goal is to win the House back and if there is an open seat I'm the candidate.

As readers will probably know, Murtha is a close ally of Nancy Pelosi who favors a fast withdrawal from Iraq. Hoyer is more inclined to tough it out in Iraq, and has a long history of friction with Pelosi.

Murtha is good man and deserves a lot of recognition and respect. He most certainly deserves it too! I'd love to see him as the House Majority Leader!

:dem: :kick:

Murtha is right on Iraq. However he is quite conservative. Hoyer, on the other hand, is a to the left of Murtha. However, he supports the war and is a DLC corporatist voting for the bankruptcy bill, patriot act, and class action bills just to name a few. He has been a poor minority whip.

I would much rather see a Jim McDermott, John Conyers, Maurice Hinchey, or Jim McGovern as majority leader.

would be the likely match-up in that case. That's an easy one for me.

and treat the Republicans EXACTLY like they have treated the Dems- and if he'd deal with the DINO's who undercut the party- and install some much needed discipline, I'd support him.

I'll support almost anyone who takes those necessary steps-

Not sure which one is used in the saying, so I used each one once. In other words, I agree with you. :D

where he could do more good...imo he does not belong in the position of house majority leader just because he opposes the war though that should be a prerequisite.

If we could Impeach the VEEP and Prez when we have a Speaker, the Speaker becomes PRez and then could fire Rummies arse, put him in jail... send him to UN.... then we could put real Secretaries like Murtha for defense... purrrrrfect.

Great guy!!!

:toast:

Not a weakling like Pelosi...

... but I'd prefer someone with the insight to get it right at the time.

nt

Murtha and Pelosi would NOT BE COMPETITING FOR THE SAME POSITION!!!!

Yikes!

He's got balls and is great on Iraq and Economic Issues. His credibility is a plus.

NARAL has no say. They endorsed Chaffee who voted for terrible judges and Bill Frist for majority leader. They should have NO say in interparty elections.

for the leadership roles of Speaker/Maj. Leader...one never knows what alliances will be formed in the new congress. I would bet a lot of the old warhorses would have some say in the inhouse elections, in or out of office.

Okay... Murtha for Speaker, and whoever for Majority Leader.

Now, let's assume Bush and Cheney get impeached after Dems take control of the Congress. God, that sounds good... Anyway, Bush and Cheney are unceremoniously tossed on their asses on the streets of DC. With their baggage, after checking to make sure they didn't steal the silver. Murtha becomes President according to the Constitution (as amended). Now, the Vice-Prez is open to ANYBODY MURTHA WANTS TO NOMINATE!!!!

How about... Al Gore? Howard Dean? John Kerry, if he'll resign from the Senate. Hillary Clinton, if she loses or resigns from the Senate. Tom Daschle (poor guy, he's not very busy at the moment. Fucking Thune!!!)? Could we pry Russ Feingold away from the Senate? Ralph Nader? Al Franken?

Oh, God, could you imagine Mike Malloy as Veep? The GOPheads would need a forklift to pick their jaws up off the floor. ROTFLMAO!!!!!! God, their butts would clench with anger on that one! Probably half of them would simply stroke out, which would make them only marginally less coherent, strangly enough.

Thom Hartmann? Robert Kennedy Jr.? Al Sharpton? Wes Clarke? Chris Dodd, if he'll leave the Senate. Randi Rhodes? She'd give the right hell, for sure. Bill Mahr?

Remember, the veep's role is traditional more show than go. Cheney is so powerful now because the Nixon-era corrupt people that Bush was dumb enough (or lucky enough; I won't give him credit for smarts) are using Bush for power. But really all the veep usually does is break tie votes, stump, and do lobbying and various PR events. The veep generally has a leg up for the presidency, but it's not required.

C'mon, let's get creative!

I really do love your creative thinking, I really do! :applause:

I just happen to feel that there are tons of qualified people out there who do not run because of the money and sleaze involved. Remember, in an elected office, competence is not in the job description. Ruthlessness, money, savvy aids, and the trading of favors can get you in. Deft political moves and a steady stream of bullshit can keep you in. But intelligence, intellect, education, decision-making, competence... those are optional and can be faked. Remember, they kept Strom Thurmond in long after the main became largely vegetable matter.

It is suppose to be part of the reason we have in our system some posts that are elected and some that are appointed, so we can find people that resonate with the populace, and people who are good for the job. But the latter depends strongly on the ability of the elected official to pick a competent person and the elected officials who advise and consent to adequetley vett the candidate. See Brown and Chertoff as examples of where the system failed.

I just want us to think out of the box on this one. Assuming impeachment and Murtha, as Speaker, is sent to occupy the White House, there are a bunch of people out there who can do the job of veep that are not your standard politicians.

I sometimes wonder if we need a third legislative branch. This branch would have one person from each state, and that person would be randomly selected from the voter roles. We could pick like 3 people who meet eligability requirements and put them on the ballot along with the senators and representatives.

The purpose of this branch would soley be to take all legislation passed by the Senate and House of Reps and, before it goes to the White House, simply vote yea or nay on every single section in the bill. No amendments, no rewriting. Kind of like a line-item veto, but done by this 3rd branch instead of the President. Once they worked through he bill all the parts that got 'yea' votes go to the President. There would be no re-election of this branch, and thus no campaign money involved.

Think of it as the ultimate jury duty, that's all.

He has the guts to stand up to Bushco.

I'm trying to find a thread that was here that covered the topic, but it looked a little bit rough. When I read through all these posts, I become afraid to engage in the possibilities, for fear of let down. So much is at stake, and after 2000 and 2004, I'm REALLY cautious with my hopes.

Although I applaud the work that John Murtha has done as a Democratic Congressmen from Pennsylvania he is way too wrapped up in the war machine to be the leader. He may be singing the right tune on Iraq but he will not vote to put the taxpayers money in taxpayer programs he will still fight for defense funds...

I've been told this is "against the RULES" ... LOL!!

I just heard it breaking on CNN and I started the thread. Someone provided a link soon after.

There's the letter. How do I post it?

If no one else will step up, then lead the way congressman Murtha!

that teh Democratic party, and the dems in the house should let US decide who the leaders are.

:eyes: