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?
""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.
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.