NANCY PELOSI WHACKS JACK MURTHA. AGAIN.

Diana Irey campaign web site ^ | July 13, 2006 | Diana Irey

[WeDontKnowJack]

NANCY PELOSI WHACKS JACK MURTHA. AGAIN.

(MONONGAHELA, July 13) – Washington County Commissioner and Pennsylvania 12th district Republican Congressional nominee Diana Irey – responding to comments made by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in a Wall Street Journal interview published this morning, wherein Mrs. Pelosi declares her opposition to the practice of “earmarking” – today released the following statement:

“Nancy Pelosi has done it again – offered a startling truth that puts her at odds with the Man Who Would Be Majority Leader, Jack Murtha.

“In this morning’s Wall Street Journal, Mrs. Pelosi declares her strong opposition to the practice of ‘earmarking’ – wherein politicians designate funds for certain special interest spending projects, usually done in a non-transparent manner – labeling them a ‘monster’:

Breaking with many Democrats, Ms. Pelosi also spoke out against earmarking billions of dollars for home-state projects, a practice she calls a "monster" that hurts Congress.

If she becomes speaker in the next Congress, she says, she would press to severely reduce earmarks. "Personally, myself, I'd get rid of all of them," she says. "None of them is worth the skepticism, the cynicism the public has... and the fiscal irresponsibility of it."

“Mrs. Pelosi has hit the nail right on the head – earmarks are fiscally irresponsible, and they lead to destructive cynicism among the public at large. In making these comments, Mrs. Pelosi once again implicitly criticizes Jack Murtha, who, over the course of his three decades in Congress, has become a member of the Earmarking Hall of Fame.

“Earmarks are wrong on two levels: First, they lead to wasteful spending on special interests, and second, they lead to corruption.

“It is because of earmarks that certain Members of Congress have found themselves tempted by bribes offered by lobbyists and those who seek government contracts – just ask former Rep. Randall Cunningham, who was convicted less than a year ago of abusing his powers to earmark legislation in exchange for millions of dollars from an unsavory lobbyist and a shady defense contractor.

“It is because of earmarks that questions have once again been raised about Jack Murtha’s own personal ethics – as documented in a Jun 13, 2005 Los Angeles Times article, reproduced here:

Lobbyist's Brother Guided House Bill

“We need to end the practice of earmarking legislation, and we need to end it now. And I’m glad that one of Jack Murtha’s principal sponsors in the Democratic Party now acknowledges that. But will Jack Murtha?

“There are 117 days left in this campaign. The good news is, that’s plenty of time to make sure the voters of the 12th District know just who Jack Murtha really is.”

-- 30 --

Paid for by Diana Irey for Congress

www.irey.com

[WeDontKnowJack]

Now we're talkin'. Diana Irey's continuing ability to play off current news events and fit them into an overall campaign strategy is awesome. Here she takes Nancy Pelosi's comments in this morning's newspaper and turns them (again!) against Pelosi's chief lieutenant, Jack Murtha.

And she found a way to get that terrific Los Angeles Times article from last summer into circulation again!

[COBOL2Java]

[SouthCarolinaKit]

And. . . earmarks by Pilosi?

[sgtbono2002]

I thopught Nancy and Murtha were the closest of friends. That he was her brain trust about the war.

[tom h]

"Pennsylvania 12th district Republican Congressional nominee Diana Irey [said] 'Earmarks are wrong on two levels: First, they lead to wasteful spending on special interests, and second, they lead to corruption.'"

"Now we're talkin'. Diana Irey's continuing ability to play off current news events and fit them into an overall campaign strategy is awesome. Here she takes Nancy Pelosi's comments in this morning's newspaper and turns them (again!) against Pelosi's chief lieutenant, Jack Murtha. "

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this virtually guarantees Murtha's re-election.

First of all, the entire district's growth has been sustained by earmarks and the contractors who have moved into the district lock, stock, and barrell. Taking them away takes money right out of the local economy. This is not an indirect effect.

Second, now that Ms. Isrey has put down her gauntlet, it virtually guarantees that Republicans who have started businesses, or located people there, will vote against her. They will re-elect Murtha.

Third, it is impossible and foolhardy for any congresspuke to rule earmarks out entirely. It is how Congress runs. So running your campaign on such a platform, in a district which depends heavily on earmarks, is a losing proposition.

Last, believe it or not, earmarks are a guarantee of one important freedom we have -- freedom from a military that dominates our democratically elected leaders. Do we really want all budget decisions made by the Pentagon? Do they really understand the impact of their financial decisions? No. That's what local representatives are for.

Incidentally, most earmarks for DOD -- my industry -- usually align well with unfunded needs from the service branches. That's one of the criteria. The service branch will publish an unfunded requirements list, and industry plus their lobbyists plus their congresscritter will insert the project into the bill. No waste here.

[COBOL2Java]

...Nancy and Murtha were the closest of friends. That he was her brain trust about the war.

That in itself speaks volumes...

[WeDontKnowJack]

What virtually guarantees Murtha's reelection? His long practice of earmarking defense pork for his district and the districts of his cronies? Or Mrs. Irey's attack on earmarks?

If your premise is that his practice of earmarking pork for his district makes him unbeatable, then she has lost nothing with her attack on earmarks -- she was going to lose anyway.

If your premise is that he was beatable until she attacked on earmarks, and that it is this new attack that "guarantees" Murtha's re-election, I don't agree.

Those who depend on earmarks will vote for Murtha -- unless they can be made to understand that despite his ability to bring home the bacon, he deserves to be retired for other reasons.

Those who do not depend on earmarks, and who may not even have ever heard of earmarks, will now learn about them and how insidious they are.

The ability of a Congressman (in this case, a very influential Congressman) to designate certain funds in a bill to go for special interest spending (as directed by the contractor's lobbyists) makes every Congressman subject to being tempted. I think her use of the Duke Cunningham case is an excellent example: without earmarks, he never would have been able to deliver for Mitchell Wade and Brent Wilkes, and if he had never been in a position to deliver for them, they never would have offered him the money, and if they had never offered him the money, he never would have taken it, and he would still today be a Member of Congress.

"Incidentally, most earmarks for DOD -- my industry -- usually align well with unfunded needs from the service branches. That's one of the criteria. The service branch will publish an unfunded requirements list, and industry plus their lobbyists plus their congresscritter will insert the project into the bill. No waste here."

That was meant to be sarcastic, I presume? "No waste here," in reference to defense earmarks?

[Wristpin]

Last, believe it or not, earmarks are a guarantee of one important freedom we have -- freedom from a military that dominates our democratically elected leaders. Do we really want all budget decisions made by the Pentagon?

---

Yes..I want requirements percolating up from the field then chopped by the Brass. We don't need parochial local requirements inserted at the expense of required items.

This is why Body Armor was replaced as it wore out during the late 90's while Murtha got Breast Cancer Research inserted into the DOD budget! Putzes like OBama and Pelosi shouldn't be able to touch requirements. Level of funding YES...Inserting new requirements at the expense of existing ones established by adults...NO!!!

There are plenty of worthy requirements for CTC and the like to work on.

[cinives]

No waste here

Yeah, right. No waste in a government program ?

[SunkenCiv]

He was a big man... his name was Murtha...

[speekinout]

Earmarks have gotten a lot of publicity lately. Even people who have benefited from some now wonder why we are spending so much for bridges to nowhere and statues to Vulcan.

And you're totally wrong that most people want our military to be run in a hodge-podge fashion depending on local interests; most want a National policy.

Murtha's district is more educated than it used to be. Education is the enemy of politicians like him.

[tom h]

"If your premise is that he was beatable until she attacked on earmarks, and that it is this new attack that "guarantees" Murtha's re-election, I don't agree. "

""No waste here," in reference to defense earmarks?"

Some cogent points. By ruling out earmarks Ms Irey is not only completely and totally unrealistic, but marks her off a short list from national Republicans. Were she running in a district that did NOT depend on earmarks, fine. But she is looking for an angle and I think this one will backfire. She should have gone after another of Murtha's major weaknesses, like he's too old and senile ("fresh blood needed") or not conservative enough. But going after earmarks is like going after campaign contributions. It would have been equally dumb had she said that she would never take a campaign contribution or meet with a lobbyist.

As for your second point, earmarks for unfunded defense requirements are no more wasteful than any other defense program. Earmarks for the "bridge to nowhere," however, are wasteful from top to bottom.

And if you buy into that liberal media's notion that all defense contracts are full of waste fraud and abuse, and huge profits are reaped by fatcats like Dick Cheney, and contractors really charged $300 for a hammer, toilet seat, and coffee pot, then don't bother replying. This is one thing that the media has woefully distorted, like they distorted Ken Starr's character, etc. If you're a Freeper you should know better than when the liberal media unanimously finds a villian like Haliburton, that the truth is probably somewhat the opposite.

[tom h]

"That was meant to be sarcastic, I presume? "No waste here," in reference to defense earmarks?"

Let me clarify here. Earmark programs are no more or less "wasteful" than any other defense project.

They are not boondoggles if they align with defense priorities, which was my earlier point. The service branches have become very accustomed to having contractors "bring the money themselves" rather than compete for it.

I agree with you on the appropriations that provide federal money for statues or Rock-n-Roll halls of fame, etc.

But Murtha was from a poor, underdeveloped district and I too would have done my damndest to -- the operative word being legally -- steer projects to my district were I him. His district is rural Appalachia and has Johnstown, PA, home of disastrous floods, as its largest town. And because of the low cost of living, contractors can procure very high-level engineering services for a fraction of the cost available in Washington DC, or my hometown of San Diego. And these engineers are glad for the work and don't job-hop all the time.

So in this case, the earmarks were an investment in a community. One that is reaping a benefit.

[WeDontKnowJack]

Ah, now this is what I came to Free Republic for -- a good, old-fashioned argument! Re: your points:

• "By ruling out earmarks Ms Irey is not only completely and totally unrealistic, but marks her off a short list from national Republicans" ... If she's unrealistic to rule out earmarks, then so are an awful lot of other conservative Members of Congress, notably those who now make up the bulk of the Republican Study Committee. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Jeb Hensarling of Texas have been leading the charge on earmark reform, and perhaps you'll remember this was an issue that was pushed hard back in the January/February timeframe, when John Shadegg was running for Majority Leader?
• "She should have gone after another of Murtha's major weaknesses, like he's too old and senile" ... First off, I happen to like the way she's going right at what is perceived to be Murtha's biggest strength. It's ... well, it's positively Rovian! She's apparently made the decision not to concede the point, and to at least make Murtha defend his largesses over the years. Second, I actually think your suggestion here, that she go after him for being "too old and senile," is dangerous -- according to the Almanac of American Politics, this district is populated by a large group of seniors. They could (and probably would) take offense at an attack on Murtha just because he's old. And don't ever forget how Ronald Reagan disarmed Walter Mondale's attacks on Reagan's age -- one good one-liner, and that attack is toast.
• "[E]armarks for unfunded defense requirements are no more wasteful than any other defense program" ... I find it hard to believe that earmarks in any area of government are not more wasteful than that spending which has been vetted properly and fully by the Administration and two committees of the Congress -- how could it not be? The whole point of having authorizing committees and appropriations committees is to make sure that the programs that get authorized and funded are those which a significant number of Members of Congress have investigated, discussed, and vetted; earmarks by definition totally bypass that process, and allow a single Member to insert into legislation a mandate that certain funds be spent on programs that have not been vetted appropriately. There's just no way earmarks aren't any more wasteful than other defense spending programs. And just to be clear -- you're not suggesting that there's no waste in the Defense Department, are you? There's been wasteful spending in the Defense Deparment ever since the Revolutionary War! Why would the Defense Department be immune to the wasteful spending practices found in every other department of government?

[Gimme]

Gosh.. and they looked so cute together.

[Coop]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're not bursting anyone's bubble.

[Coop]

You've been here for ten years, supposedly, and yet you almost never post. And yet you had plenty to say concerning Ms. Irey not being able to win. Curious, don't you think?

[bray]

Not to worry Lola doesn't mean it.

Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom

[tom h]

Irey's a loser. She is looking for votes not from you or the other radicals in the Republican party but from ... ahem ... Murtha's district. She is a dumb politician and has made her play. She's dead. Even Republicans will vote for Murtha now.

Second, your entire analysis is all speculative and not based on any fact. You're guessing. "I find it hard to believe that earmarks in any area of government are not more wasteful than that spending which has been vetted properly and fully by the Administration and two committees of the Congress -- how could it not be?"All government programs have a government program manager, and have to abide by all the laws and regulations of the others. Meaning, if an earmark happens then some service branch lifts it's eyes and offers thanks for a couple million they weren't expecting, and then assigns a program manager who manages the money as aggressively as he does the other funded programs he has for the same year. You and the others are acting like the program is managed out of the congressman's office by an intern. No.

The list of good ideas for DOD that have come out of the earmark process is too long. Weapons, etc. Some of the critical defense material that DOD doesn't think troops need comes through earmarks -- personal armor, the special protection for humvees -- sometimes these have been rammed down the DOD's throat by congress. Yes, they are earmarks. They sure do get some review on subcommittee and committees, but the requriement is identified by, and promoted by, someone in congress. So it's an earmark.

Sheesh. You really have no idea. You think all earmarks are "bridges no nowhere" or "$300 hammers." Do a little homework. Call your own congressman and see if he issues a list of earmarks for each year.

Senator Inouye of Hawaii (not my Senator) puts out a press release every year of his earmarks. Needed materiel for the Pacific Fleet; base housing at Pearl that has been ignored for years by the Navy; new technology for the fighting warriors of SOCPAC.