I looked over the transcript, http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10426, and it seems pretty clear that Murtha came very close to crossing the line without actually doing so.

In fact, Murtha says over and over that he wants the money invested in his district, that he wants it to be a legal investment of money into his district. How does this differ from a governor going to China and offering tax breaks for companies to locate to his/her state?

It seems clear that the Republicans are getting quite desperate in their attempt to hold onto Congress.

Whereas I think Murtha's not the cleanest of Congressmen, and I think his actions in ABSCAM were dirty, I don't think he'd committed any crime, there.

I want Irey to win, but pulling out the ABSCAM card might not be the best idea to get the flatulating mouthbreather kicked to the curb where he belongs.

What Murtha planned to do with the dirty money is not the question....

ANYone that trades votes for favors or money is the ULTIMATE scumbag.

Another scumbag Liberal down the drain.... NEXT!!

The rats are running for the exits again....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13018908/

The only reason John Murtha "got close but didn't cross the line" is that the $50,000 bribe wasn't enough money to risk getting caught. He wanted more!

From the Spectator article about the "missing" FBI tapes:

... The reluctant Murtha wouldn't touch the $50,000. Here on secret videotape was this all-American hero, tall and dignified in a disheveled way, explaining why he wasn't quite ready to accept the cash.

"All at once," he said, "some dumb [expletive deleted] would go start talking eight years from now about this whole thing and say [expletive deleted], this happened. Then in order to get immunity so he doesn't go to jail, he starts talking and fingering people. So the [S.O.B.] falls apart."...

"You give us the banks where you want the money deposited," offered one of the bagmen.

"All right," agreed Murtha. "How much money we talking about?"

"Well, you tell me."

"Well, let me find out what is a reasonable figure that will get their attention," said Murtha, "because there are a couple of banks that have really done me some favors in the past, and I'd like to put some money in....["]

See the rest here.

"ANYone that trades votes for favors or money is the ULTIMATE scumbag."

Good point.

Its amazing to me that his oponent even needs to play the ABSCAM card. Whenever that jackass murtha opens his festering gob and spews his crap, sensible people should be lining up with hot tar and pillows.

Ummmm Ney, the Dukester, The Hammer, Hastert, The Boner, Allen, Santorum, Frist, to name the tip of the iceberg, all scumbags steak? Eh?

What a creep. And he's a "moral" leader of the Dim. Party, I suppose in the way that creepy Sheehan woman is.

This site is ridiculous!!

Half a page down it rips on Kerry for bringing up his military past while running in 2004 (and how its wrong to bring up Georgie's AWOL and Drug days). I thought going back decades has no bearing on what one might do today? (Chappaquiddick, obviously the exception--since Kennedy is a Dem).
Now at the top of the page, Murtha gets called out for something he did in the 1980s, even though it's not illegal.

This is also the same site which rages about the hypocrisy they see on the Left, but try as they might, just can't see hypocrisy on the Right.
Here's an idea. Open your eyes (and mind).

Nice nonsense room you're running here Jay Tea, Kim, et al.
Do us all a favor, and think you're actually adding something to the National Conversation.
We could use the laughs.

Robert:

A few simple key strokes, and you could erase this site from your favorites. Do yourself (and us) a favor and do so.

Looks like my words are still hurting the feelings of the big bad Right-wing that's gonna save us from the terrorists.

Get out your hankies, babies.
I'm staying!!

John Murtha is a rotten leftist traitor and he makes me sick to my stomach as a Veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom. I urge the folks everywhere NOT to vote democrat and let these hate America thugs like Nancy Pelosi to take over Congress. I understand things are bad, I am angry over the Mexican border as well, and Iraq is brutal but we cannot let these rotten kooks come to power or else Osama wins big.- Thanks

http://newenglandwarrior.blogspot.com/

"Looks like my words are still hurting the feelings of the big bad Right-wing..."

There's NOTHING you could say to offend anyone Robert 'cuz we've all seen snotty-nose kids before.... btw, I only skim over liberal posts now cuz not worth my time.... it's all meaningless - just like Kerry.

Poor old Hugh has the typical elitest answer, but, but, but, but. An organ grinders monkey is smarter than that.

You want an honest answer to your charges, Hugh? I'll give you my own. I want all our politicians who engage in illegal activity arrested. No matter their political persuasion. I also want those who operate on the very fringes of the laws THEY WRITE to be called out for it.

But let me be very clear; the evidence has to be incontrovertible and intention has to be proven because we do have many honorable people on both sides of the aisle. I may disagree with their political ideology, but whether we all admit it outwardly, most of us know the difference between right and wrong without letting one's political beliefs enter into the equation.

For instance: if one belives Murtha didn't cross the line, then one has to consider that Delay has yet to be proven to cross the line either. Should they both be called out? Likely. The difference is that Murtha keeps on operating and Delay backed out so as not to drag his party down. The difference is that Studds carried on with his career and Foley backed out. The differences are many and varied.

Of course this is merely my own opinion.

Robert said:

Looks like my words are still hurting the feelings of the big bad Right-wing that's gonna save us from the terrorists.
Get out your hankies, babies.
I'm staying!!

You have NO right to stay here, Robert. Commenting here is a privilege. I or any of the other editors can revoke that privilege at any time, for any reason, or for no reason whatsoever.

That being said, I can say that I have no intention of doing so unless you violate certain fundamental rules. They boil down to, largely, "don't be too much of an asshole." Don't use sock puppets, don't plagiarize, don't violate copyright laws, don't engage in or solicit or advocate illegal conduct, or whatever else might so offend my sensibilities that I ban your IP.

You're nowhere near that point, Robert. So don't get your panties in a bunch. I hate -- HATE -- having to ban people. That's partly driven by the fact that I was twice banned from Democratic Underground, and their example left a very foul taste in my mouth.

We are far more open and tolerant of comments than many other blogs, and we do all we can to keep it that way. We don't require registration, we don't verify identities, and we impose the minimal amount of moderation to keep the dialogue going freely. The continued presence of you, Lee, astigafa, jp2, and other ignorati is ongoing proof of that policy.

But never -- NEVER -- think that you have a RIGHT to do so. This is a private forum, owned by Kevin and administered by him and those he has chosen to do so, and anyone's participation is strictly a courtesy we extend.

J.

[crickets]

Oyster:

Agreed . One exception. I don't belive Delay's motives were as nobel as you believe.

Indeed the differences are many and varied. Neither side is clean on this issue.

Hugh

Hugh, where do you get the idea that I believe Delay's motives were noble? You're not reading what I wrote. You're characterizing me. Read it again and again until you get it right. There will be a test on your comprehension.

John Murtha is still a vile person why dont he quit trying to stick his foot in his mouth

Oyster:

"....backed out so as not to drag his party down." Sounds like a "noble" act to me.

P.S. Don't be so testy. A reasonabl;e interpretion of your statement isn't it? I think my characterization is right on the money. Perhaps you meant it differently, but yet still a reasonable interpretation on my part.

Hugh

Hugh: I'm not being testy. You were unclear on your "interpretation". That's all. Based on your verbal attacks in the past it was not unreasonable for me either to misunderstand something you didn't say. You and I don't think the same so it's important that we be clear.

Whether you see Delay's resignation as a noble act or not, it was the right thing to do. I'm not trying to read something into the man I couldn't possibly know. I don't know if he's guilty of an actionable crime, but I do believe he was probably acting as many of them do by passing legislation worded to exempt themselves from certain actions.

Politicians are always trying to protect themselves from opposing politicians and forgetting that the public is who gets neglected and is hurt most by their actions, either by a loss of faith in their elected representation, or by being held to a different standard.

Oyster:

Thanks for the clarifiction. My apology for mischaracterizing your point.

We actually agree on more things than you probably imagine. With, of course, some very serious disagreements as well. :)

Hugh

Oy, that was a mouthful! I argue with my dyed-in-the-wool liberal brother too, but we always hug and kiss afterwards. Please, don't construe this as a kiss though. ;-)