Targeting Murtha

But that was about it--until now. A Nexis search doesn't even turn up anything in the Philly Inquirer or Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The curious timing prompts this criticism from Betsy's Page:

"For months, the media has lionized Jack Murtha. But, now after Pelosi has indicated her support for Murtha as the new Majority Leader over Steny Hoyer, the Washington Post has decided to weigh in and throw their support to Hoyer, the more moderate candidate. Not that they're actually editorializing in favor of Hoyer. Instead, they're doing to Murtha what they so often do to Republicans -- review accusations of corruption against Murtha that supposedly other Democrats are bringing up . . .

"Of course, conservative bloggers have written about these accusations of corruption against Jack Murtha since he emerged as the lead spokesman of the Democrats in favor of a pullout from Iraq. But, somehow, these stories that 'people have known about these things for months,' didn't make it to the front page of the Washington Post until after the election. Now they tell us about this story.

"Gee, wouldn't it have been nice if the Post and the Pennsylvania papers had aired these stories before the election, but I guess that would have interfered with the whole 'Republicans are the only corrupt party' around message."

But ethics isn't the only issue in this race:

"Injecting the Iraq war into the escalating fight for the No. 2 spot among House Democrats," says the L.A. Times, "Rep. John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania on Tuesday attacked his opponent for not backing a push last year for withdrawal of U.S. troops.

"Rep. Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland disputed the criticism of his position on the war. Murtha's charge was an effort to turn an antiwar message central to Democratic gains at the polls last week into a wedge issue in determining the party's leadership as it prepares to take control of the House in January.

"Murtha's broadside also raised the prospect that the showdown with Hoyer for the majority leader's post would have a larger ideological element than often is the case. Usually, the leadership contests turn more on matters of personality and style than issues."

Speaking of House leadership fights, the New Republic takes umbrage at Nancy Pelosi's plans to pass over Jane Harman for a key chairmanship in favor of Alcee Hastings, a former federal judge who was impeached on bribery charges:

"So why does Pelosi want him for the Intelligence Committee job? There are two likely reasons. The first is that Pelosi personally dislikes Harman. In part, Pelosi is annoyed because Harman, unlike Hastings, was initially a strong supporter of the Iraq war (though she has since become a tough critic). Pelosi is also reportedly infuriated by Harman's aggressive lobbying for the job (allegedly with the help of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an effort reported to be part of a wider federal investigation of the group). Some also suggest natural tensions exist between two ambitious, sixty-something women in California politics . . .

"There's ample reason to think that Americans cast a negative vote last week--not so much for Democrats as against Republicans. Over the next two years, voters will be watching to see whether Democrats are up to the responsibility of governing, and doing so with the national interest in mind. If Nancy Pelosi bases her decision about such a critical position on a combination of personal feuding and identity politics, she won't just do Republicans a favor by giving them a readymade bogeyman to attack. She will have shown voters that she's unable to push aside petty institutional politics in the name of the national interest."