Post-Gazette Editorial – 10/19/06

This page was last updated on October 19, 2006.

Murtha in the 12th / The problem for the challenger is that he’s right; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; October 19, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“In any other year, a vigorous challenge to Johnstown Democrat John Murtha, who has represented the 12th Congressional District for 32 years, would be a welcome wake-up call for the too-long-secure incumbent.

“Republican Diana Irey of Carroll Township, Washington County, is certainly a sincere and plausible candidate. She was the first woman elected as a Washington County commissioner back in 1995 and has served on boards such as the Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance and the Pittsburgh Regional Alliance. Voters may well be attracted to a candidate who combines firmness of principle with a friendly manner.

“On the issues, Ms. Irey, 44, is boilerplate conservative, sometimes tending to the extreme, but Mr. Murtha, 74, is socially conservative too. Her fiscal instincts lead her to criticize the congressman as a porkmeister of the first rank, and in this she is undoubtedly correct. But she can’t bring herself to admit that bringing home the bacon has helped a district that needs jobs.”

[RWC] It’s funny how Republican challengers to Mr. Murtha are “extreme,” “hard-right,” et cetera. Back in 2002, the PG wrote, “we’re not about to endorse the challenger’s hard-right agenda.”

By suggesting “bringing home the bacon has helped a district that needs jobs,” once again an editorial shows the PG claim to be “more conservative on economic issues” is baseless. When the PG feigns an objection to pork, remember its ringing endorsement of the North Shore Connector boondoggle.

“Perhaps that is why she is playing up Mr. Murtha’s role in Abscam more than a quarter-century ago to suggest that the incumbent is corrupt. Mr. Murtha was an unindicted co-conspirator in that FBI-run sting operation, but he never took any money. Moreover, to dredge this up now, after the voters have pronounced on Mr. Murtha’s fitness to hold office at least a dozen times, says more about the muck merchants in Ms. Irey’s corner than it does anything else.”

[RWC] It’s interesting what the PG finds relevant and irrelevant. In 2004, the PG thought President Bush’s National Guard service 35+ years earlier was relevant (and not in a good way), but Mr. Murtha being an “unindicted co-conspirator” is irrelevant. As far as voters pronouncing “on Mr. Murtha’s fitness to hold office at least a dozen times,” I believe that’s more about party affiliation than “fitness to hold office.” In Mr. Murtha’s home county (Cambria), Democrats hold a 2:1 registration advantage. I believe “buying” votes with pork was also a factor.

“In a sense, Abscam and all the other issues are irrelevant to this race. The sinister political forces who have come out of the woodwork to support Ms. Irey are unnerved by something else: Mr. Murtha’s stand on the Iraq war. The Democrat, a retired colonel of the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, had a 37-year military career and was decorated for his service in Vietnam. In Congress, there has hardly been a greater friend of veterans and those still in uniform than this representative.”

[RWC] “The sinister political forces who have come out of the woodwork to support Ms. Irey?” Who are these “sinister political forces” and what makes them “sinister?” Is it possible they are “sinister” only because they are supporting a Republican candidate?

“Mr. Murtha, who supported the Iraq war at first, has become disillusioned and has called for a U.S. pullout, arguing that the fighting has evolved into a civil war with Americans caught in between. For this supposed heresy, which to most Americans increasingly looks like stating the obvious, Mr. Murtha’s undoubted patriotism has been slandered, as if complicity in a failed policy is the only patriotic response.”

[RWC] “Mr. Murtha, who supported the Iraq war at first, has become disillusioned?” That’s BS. Within six months of our entry in Iraq, Mr. Murtha claimed he was duped into voting for the war. It’s my opinion Mr. Murtha voted for the Iraq War Resolution only because the vote came immediately before the 2002 election and he didn’t want to appear weak.

“The Swift Boat-like attacks on Mr. Murtha are a perverse compliment. He is attacked because of his stature. He must be put down as a ‘Defeatocrat’ for suggesting that we are fighting the wrong battle in the wrong place, and that this is actually weakening us in the war on terror. The problem for Ms. Irey is that Mr. Murtha has been proved right by events, and every grim passing day brings reinforcement of the point.”

[RWC] “Swift Boat-like attacks?” There’s nothing at all similar. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth set the record straight about John Kerry’s self-inflated service record. Lest we forget, Mr. Kerry made his service record fair game when he made it the centerpiece of his campaign. The PG seems to forget Mr. Kerry had to correct some of his service claims as a result of those mean old Swift Boat vets. To the best of my knowledge, other than a nut or two, no one’s attacking Mr. Murtha’s service record.

“He is attacked because of his stature?” Please. He’s attacked because he advocates a cut-and-run policy. It’s not like it’s the first time for Mr. Murtha either. If you recall, Mr. Murtha advocated cut-and-run from Somalia after the 1993 “Blackhawk Down” incident. If you recall, that action is what led Osama bin Laden to say, “Our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled …”

I follow this stuff pretty closely, and the first time I heard anyone refer to Mr. Murtha as a “Defeatocrat” was from Mr. Murtha himself.

What events have proven Mr. Murtha right?

“Ms. Irey thinks ‘supporting the troops’ means uncritical backing of the president’s choice to keep them in this war, which even she concedes is ‘not going as well as we hoped.’ She said ‘things need to be changed somewhat,’ but offered no suggestion for what to do now.”

[RWC] And Mr. Murtha thinks “supporting the troops” means pronouncing U.S. soldiers guilty of war crimes even before the first charge is filed.

Note the editorial left Mr. Murtha off the hook regarding a “suggestion for what to do now.” Oh, that’s right; the PG really believes letting Islamofascists overrun Iraq is a viable “suggestion for what to do now.”

“This is not just any other year in the 12th district, which includes parts of Allegheny, Armstrong, Cambria, Indiana, Somerset, Fayette, Washington and Westmoreland counties and all of Greene County. As a referendum on U.S. policy in Iraq, Rep. Murtha is the brave challenger to the failed status quo and Ms. Irey is its apologist. Our endorsement goes to John Murtha.”

[RWC] When did supporting a policy become equivalent to being an apologist?

What is “brave” about what Mr. Murtha is doing? His position has made him a “rock star” for his party and liberals in general. He would be “brave” if he bucked his party’s position. As a note, did you note how Democrats are “brave” when they support party positions, but Republicans are “brave” when they oppose party positions?