I am not sure. I would like to see a woman in charge. I think Nancy is a good leader, however, I do not really know much about Jack Murtha except that he called the election almost perfectly. I think I would like to see someone who knows how to handle victory.

I like Nancy. I do not think we should be the party that represents style over substance or flash instead real change. the gop seemed to enjoy having well spoken, well dressed people always being interviewed on fox news but that was the gop under the bush republicans

I can't stress enough how terrible a decision this is. I personally support Hoyer, but I have no real problem with Murtha, and wouldn't have a problem if he were the next Majority Leader. However, this is an absolutely terrible move to make publicly. What happens if Murtha loses (and she wouldn't have intervened if she thought Murtha was winning)? If that happens, our new Speaker comes out of the starting gate crippled, and people are going to sense weakness. Also, what would happen if Murtha now won? Hoyer has the loyalty not only among Blue Dogs, moderates and a majority of the new freshmen, but also among a significant number of chairmen and senior liberals, such as Barney Frank, John Dingell, Maxine Waters and John Lewis. This is going to drive a wedge straight into the heart of the caucus.

Consider also that Dick Gephardt didn't choose favorites publicly in the Hoyer/Pelosi race. In 1976, Tip O'Neill couldn't stand Phil Burton, but in the closest race EVER in democratic caucus history (Burton v Wright (v Bolling v McFall)) he never publicly made his preference known, because he would have to work with whoever won. Pelosi is going to have to work with whoever wins, and publicly endorsing one guy in an unprecedented manner is a bad choice.

I think the knee-jerk reaction for the netroots is going to be to support Murtha, simply because he enabled us to put Iraq on the ballot this fall. I'm glad Jonathan points out Hoyer's success as Whip - he has been very good.

But the Majority Leader position is more visible than that of Whip. It requires somebody not just skilled at procedure, but someone who represents the party well. Hoyer is a pork-loving good ole boy. Murtha ain't perfect, but he represents the notion that the people elected a Democratic Congress to change things in Iraq. He's in line with the party on other issues like the minimum wage, health care, etc.

It's a gamble, because if things don't change in Iraq, the voters will blame us. Still, I think picking Murtha is our best bet.

Good - Hoyer really shouldn't buck Pelosi in public.  Murtha is a much better face for the Dems, and I would suggest that his stand against the war started the ball rolling for a lot of military folks to come out against it, as well as leading to regaining control of the Congress.

Allowing this sort of thing to go public just allows the media to write process stories instead of focusing on the Democratic agenda.  I just don't see the need for Pelosi to make her preferences known.

She had to come out in support of Jack Murtha. She wanted to show the people who voted for the Dems due in part of the Iraq war, that she was serious about getting out of Iraq and this is showing them that she is serious. If she doesn't, the Dems pledge to get of Iraq, would seem a joke and Hoyer was a proponent of the war in Iraq.

I don't know who is calling the shots, but I like Nancy too. I still get a thrill when I hear her name spoken on the news, Speaker Pelosi. It has a nice ring to it. She deserves it.

What did the president who used to have absolute power call her, as if anyone cares ... keep Nancy, pick someone else,  but let's get the show on the road.

I don't know. Pelosi must know something we don't.

Hoyer has been going on in the media saying that "It's my job as whip to know the votes. I have the majority of the sitting members and I have a majority of the incoming members and that adds up to a majority of the Democratic caucus, so, yes. I have the votes."

Supposedly Pelosi and Hoyer haven't gotten along that well. I wonder if that has something to do with it?

But, overall, it's going to backfire badly on Pelosi if she loses. She'll look weak. On the other hand, if she wins she becomes the Iron Lady of the House.

She might think it's worth the risk.

Remember too that with Democrats in control of the Senate Harry Reid automatically becomes the overall Democratic leader (Senators always get more publicity and coverage than Representatives).

So, with the Senate victory, Pelosi is going to be overshadowed quite a bit.

So, she may need to make a pre-emptive move. We know that Murtha is a very loyal Pelosi supporter.

Maybe it's all a symbolic gesture for Murtha.

Reacting to the letter, Hoyer said her support for Murtha was no surprise.

"Nancy told me some time ago that she would personally support Jack. I respect her decision as the two are very close," Hoyer said in a statement. "I am grateful for the support I have from my colleagues, and have the majority of the caucus supporting me. I look forward to working with Speaker Pelosi as Majority Leader."

from www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/N ews/Frontpage/110906/pelosi2.html

THere is a lot of reference to Murtha's role with anti-war progressives.  Leadership elections are rarely about issues - they are generally driven by personality/loyalty (ie have you helped me).  

THe 1976 race of Phil Burton v Jim Wright for Maj Ldr and 1991 race of Dave Bonior v Steny Hoyer for Maj Whip are instructive.  Tip O'Neill was much closer politically to Burton but he didn't like him so he wanted Jim Wright.  In 1991, Dave Bonior, who was pro-life, ran against Steny Hoyer, who was pro-choice, and had the prominent support of many pro-choice women b/c they didn't like Hoyer.  

The Murtha-Hoyer race will come down to personalities and who did more to help the incoming freshman.  I doubt their stands on issues will matter much.

What is it that Murtha's done that makes people think he should be Majority Leader?  I know he criticized the war, which is hardly irrelevant, but I'm not sure why that makes him Majority Leader.

Anyone notice how he has never spoken publicly about any issue except the war??? Because he sides with the Republicans on nearly every other issue. and because he is a terrible public speaker.

And he is one of the 20 most corrupt members of congress, one of only 3 dems....
http://www.beyonddelay.org/

and he has made a living out of trading Dem votes to Tom Delay for pork....
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.h tml?res=F20910FF3F540C718CDDA90994DE4044 82

him becoming Majority Leader would just be awful for out new Majority

Because it looks really bad for Pelosi to step into this, and she wouldn't be doing it if Murtha had the votes.

and everyone has long known that she was supporting Murtha, since they are so close.

Out of the two im inclined to support Murtha, but i really wish there was a solid 3rd option.  Whos going to be the whip?

Pelosi is playing chess not checkers people

think strategically...

Hint: a key move is not allowing Bush consigliare James Baker to save the worthless hide of Bush Jr. by his soon to be announced Iraq report.

I support Murtha. I think that he enjoys a larger public name recognition then Hoyer. Hoyer strikes me as a guy who even though progressive, comes off a little to New Deal liberal. I think people will be more repsosive to Murtha. He does have his bad sides. In an article published in the Oct. 2nd New York Times a number of policies were described. He often blocked Dem amendments for pork handouts etc. He does however have a discplined following with congressmen such as Visclosky (IN-1), Larson (CT-1), Holden (PN-17) and Moran (Virginia-8) obeying him like a military commander. The article mentions his ability to demand loyalty and cites "would be an asset if Pelosi became the speaker. Running the House with a slim majority would require bipartisanship and party discipline." Check out out the article for more.

This is a no brainer- given a choice between someone who will be loyal, and someone who might possibly stab you in the back, who would you choose?

I just read that Hill story and is it just me or is Pelosi's letter really luke warm.  I think it's kinda lame for Murtha to write Pelosi and ask for her to step in with a letter of support.  That to me shows that he doesn't have the votes.  She didn't even release it to the media or directly to other Congressmen...she just sent it to him.  More evidence to me that she isn't putting all her weight behind him.  It's like he ran to her to save him.  The more I learn about this guy and see him in action the less I think he'll be a good majority leader. He can't even articulate why he wants the job.  He keeps defaulting to Pelosi.  If this whole thing is about Pelosi then why didn't she just run for both jobs.  So So lame.  Looks like Hoyer has got this thing locked up.

I think we observers should sit back and let the House Dems have a nice and easy vote.  I really hope this doesn't turn into a tempest.  My vote is to support the winner.

tpmuckraker has concerns about four democrats, including Murtha and Hoyer.  Aren't we to be wary about placing senators in such key positions who may end up disgracing the senate the way some Republicans have done?  Below are their comments about the two.  Moreover, Murtha and Hoyer only get a grade of C on progressive (middle class issues) from drummajorinstitute; A's were earned by Pelosi, Waxman, John Lewis, Conyers, Rangel, Kucinich.  

Yes, we do adulate Murtha for his unwavering stance on Iraq, once he saw the light.  And he does have such an interestingly furrowed brow.

Rep. John Murtha (PA): Likely to chair the Defense Appropriations subcommittee. Murtha's been tagged as a shameless earmarker, spending tens of millions on projects nobody wants to benefit his friends and his district. He's already been caught on tape by the FBI explaining how he works scams, so at least if the Feds pick up his trail again, they'll know what to look for. With massive classified budgets and a long history of wasteful spending, this post is ripe for abuse. The FBI probe into its former chairman, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), attests to that. Murtha's also making a play for Majority Leader.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): Hoyer, an appropriator, hopes to be House Majority Leader. Unfortunately, he has an addiction to special interest money, and eagerly courts K Street donors. Does that matter? He broke ranks with his party last year to vote in favor of a draconian bankruptcy bill that would bar many Americans from getting out from under debt, regardless of the circumstances which landed them there. Hoyer has taken around $120,000 from lending institutions this cycle. It's okay to slow-dance with 'em, Steny; but don't let them take you home.

I don't have a preference for majority leader. It seems that neither is perfect enough! However, I would like to know which Latino/a member will be asked to run for a leadership position and backed by Speaker Pelosi? The Latino Congressional Caucus worked very hard to help us succeed this election. The 70% vote for the Dems was a big improvement over 2004. That's my dos centavos.

I posted a couple of days ago that this whole thing would be decided before Thanksgiving, regardless of when the actual vote takes place.  I think I was too patient.  This will probably be decided by Wednesday.

That's why there is no time to waste on this.  If you support Murtha (or, conversely, Hoyer), you have to contact your Rep now and let him/her know this Majority Leader choice is important to you.  You cannot dawdle.  You don't have time to propose other possible Majority Leader choices anymore.  It's Murtha or Hoyer.  If you don't like that, well, sorry.  Time's a-wasting.

I'm for Murtha.  If the election should have told us anything, it's this: "IT'S IRAQ, STUPID!"  Other issues are important too, but they all pale in comparison to this.  If we have spineless Dem leadership that tries to triangulate on the Iraq issue in the next couple of months, we are going to go into 2008 as the "flip-flopper" party, once again.  We need to show real resolve on this matter.  After the war is over (probably in 2010), if you still don't want Murtha, fine, kick his ass out and get Hoyer at that point.

The Iraq Study Group thing should be released soon.  I will make a prediction (the same one that Americablog is making): It will be a trojan horse.  It will be one more trap for Democrats.

Any proposal that starts out with increasing troops "temporarily" in order to begin a phased withdrawal "later" is total bullshit, a boring black and white rerun of the 60's strategy that was used throughout the Vietnam War.

Everytime we escalated in Vietnam (EVERYTIME!) it was prefaced with the words "temporary."  Sending more troops was necessary, supposedly, because it would stabilize the situation and allow for a drawdown, sooner.  When Nixon invaded Laos and Cambodia, that too was "temporary," just so we could get out of Vietnam faster.  Everything is temporary.  Recognize Bullshit by its familiar smell.

If we have fools representing the leadership in Congress that can't call Bullshit when they see it, but would rather ride the breeze as they have done for the past few years of this war, then we are screwed.  Really screwed.

He's my Congressman, and he drives me freakin' NUTS sometimes.  But I've just gone through his voting record for the past 2 years, and it's better than I expected.  Here's the bad and the good:

BAD: voted for Bankruptcy Deform, for Patriot Act reauthorization, and for the COPE Act that would have killed Net Neutrality.

Caveat: on each of the above, he voted for a motion to recommit, and voted for passage after losing there.  Not much of a caveat - really just a way of having it both ways.

GOOD: Voted against Class Action Deform, against interfering in the Terry Schiavo case, against Estate Tax repeal (over and over again), against the Energy Bill (ditto), for Stem Cell research, against the extension of Bush tax cuts, against weakening the Endangered Species Act, against weakening pension (ERISA) protections, against the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act, against the Military Commissions Act.

He didn't equivocate on any of the 'good' stuff; he was on the same side all the way.  Plus he was on the good side of several smaller bills you probably didn't hear of.

Reviewing his record, he was much better than I realized - and I'd been paying attention.

I don't have nearly as good a bead on what Murtha's like.  But Hoyer won't be a bad Majority Leader, and that's something I wasn't prepared to say before tallying up his votes that I considered important.  

I was really expecting to give you folks the goods on Hoyer, but that's all I could find.

Looking at the Pelosi and Hoyer letters over at TPM, I wonder if we aren't just looking at a bit of Capitol Kabuki.

My bet is:

1. Hoyer knows he's got the votes.
   
2. So does everyone else.
   
3. Pelosi's supporting Murtha while knowing his bid ain't going nowhere.
   
4. Hoyer's OK with this because of Pelosi's and Murtha's close relationship, and he knows Murtha's bid is going down, too.
   
5. Then they all get to look very above-the-fray when they kiss and make up after the vote where Hoyer becomes Majority Leader.

I think pelosi is supporting murtha because murtha did helped her whyle she was running against hoyer and ive also heard story of hoyer going behind her back to undermine her.

I just dont like both of  them and murtha, with the exception of iraq, is terrible on everything and he has ethical problem on top of it....Its very disturbing that murtha has to run to pelosi because he may not have the vote.

I just dont know, i just think they both are terrible candidate and im afraid that hoyer and the blue dogs will work hard to push the party far right.

Just a question -- is there an ideological component to this or is it just inside baseball? -- who likes who? who supported who?  

It seems pretty darn inside baseball to me, as most leadership elections probably should be.  

a solid victory across the board and we get this shit??? I mean c'mon WTF? Why is Pelosi doing this?? Completely a los-lose situation..if the vote is close, as I fear it may be, you get a state within the state and possible a vocal one at that. Yeah she isn't asking for folks to vote for Murtha but I have a hard time thinking she won't be whipping for him. Dammit...am I naive to think that after 12 yrs in the minority we'd at least avoid the Gingrich errors within hours of coming to power?

Based on what I've heard from Murtha in his plea to become majority leader, I like him better. He's focused where he needs to be and what's so wrong with that?

I don't see him becoming a Tom DeLay for the Democrats. Democrats are too independently minded to be "pushed" one way or another. They were elected to be the pragmatists and voices of reason in the Congress, and thats' something to celebrate on its own.

People. People.  You all forget that Congress is just like High School.  There is pettiness and spite all around.  Pelosi is spiteful and vindictive.  She is still stung by the fact that Hoyer had the gall to run against her for whip 5 years ago. Murtha thinks he's the BMOC and has to knock out the next most popular guy.  

This is a bad move for Pelosi no matter what the reason.  If she wins and gets Murtha, then half the caucus is pissed at her and she has no one else to pin any blame on, plus she's linked herself to one of , if not the most ethically -challenged Dem in the House.  What a way to sell her "ethics package".

If she loses and Hoyer prevails, well, she just shot her political capital and poured salt in an old caucus wound and drawn attention away from the real story ONCE AGAIN.

John Murtha balances Nancy Pelosi better than Steny Hoyer.  Murtha can be front and center on military and foreign policy issues, while Pelosi can articulate the domestic policies with equal proficiency and credibility.  The two can make a complete package for Democratic leadership and Democratic message delivery.  

No, in fact, a Pelosi/Hoyer team is better for the party, since Murtha is already close with the faction of the party Pelosi is close with.  Hoyer can bring the other faction of the party to the table and together he and Pelosi can unite the caucus as they have for the past four years, when the House Dems have been more united than in the past half-century.