Stop Me Before I Vote Again

We've speculated here before about what drives the Democrats. Are they, as conventional Poli Sci suggests, a vote-maximizing enterprise? Or are they something else?

A delightful hatchet job on John Murtha in the New York Times paints in some vivid evidence for an alternative theory:

A gang of about two dozen Democrats mill around [Murtha's] seat. A procession of others walk back to request pet spending projects, known as earmarks. And Republicans come by, asking him to enlist some of those Democrats to join them on close votes. “Whether they get what they want in the bill or they get the votes they are looking for, nobody ever leaves completely disappointed,” said Representative Paul E. Kanjorski, a Pennsylvania Democrat often found in what is known as the Murtha corner.

As the top Democrat on the House military spending subcommittee, he often delivers Democratic votes to Republican leaders in a tacit exchange for earmarks for himself and his allies.

In the last year, Democratic and Republican floor watchers say, Mr. Murtha has helped Republicans round up enough Democratic votes to narrowly block a host of Democratic proposals: to investigate federal contracting fraud in Iraq, to reform lobbying laws, to increase financing for flood control, to add $150 million for veterans’ health care and job training, and to exempt middle-class families from the alternative minimum tax....

Mr. Murtha can punish lawmakers, as well. Those who do not support the defense spending bill, for example, discover their next earmark requests go nowhere....

“He delivers Democrats for key votes, which increases his clout and ability to get more earmarks, which then increases his ability to get Democratic votes,” said Steve Ellis, a vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense....

Mr. Murtha has used his influence in the caucus to place friends in strategic positions on appropriations committees and other House panels. Representative Nancy Pelosi, a California liberal who is the current Democratic leader, is a close Murtha ally. He put her on the appropriations committee early in her career and managed her campaign to be leader.

Well, read the whole thing. I hate to say anything good about the New York Times, but this is a very revealing item. Jack Murtha doesn't need a majority in the House -- he's doing just fine as it is, thank you.

In fact, looking at this story alongside the juicy details of the Foley scandal, I'm tempted to withdraw my earlier harsh comments about the seraglio of pages. The more time these guys spend buggering the pages, the less time they have to fuck the public.

Of course, no historical parallel works very well. But I like the one between the US and Japan between 1930 and 1941, on the one hand, and what may evolve between the US and People's China now, on the other.

The Sino-American collision may evolve more slowly perhaps and more obviously, but -- the odd lack of popular interest in this relationship, both back then when it unfolded, and now, leaves its lessons unnoticed.

The Washington/Tokyo contretemps during that period is better known, of course, and it sure exceeds the Euro sturm-und-drang gaffery by yards in its instructive value.

The humanitarian crusade in Europe, and the inter-imperial tangle in east Asia need to be seen as quite distinct and nearly opposite qualitative actions, from the Yankee boy-hegemon perspective.

It's really too bad Pearl Harbor gives our inevitable war of Asian aggression such a romantic cover story.

Better than the war against African slavery? Well, no. Better than the war against Nazi horror camps? Well, no.

Better then the GWOT's twin-tower curtain-raiser?

Well... yes.