It's so nice to know that the U.S. Congress has rules that are designed to prevent such things -- not that rules ever really stopped Jack Murtha from making deals that would benefit himself or his constituents if he could -- but it seems that there's a big flap going on because one GOP congress member tried to eliminate an earmark (designated spending for designated purposes in designated areas) that would have benefited Murtha's constituents when the GOP congress member thought it was unnecessary.

It seems that Murtha got word of the attempt to strike the earmark and was incensed enough to threaten the GOP congress member with *never* getting any earmarks of his own through the congress.  Oooops, that would be retaliation and that would be against the rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, so now we find Nancy Pelosi defending her good buddy and telling us all that Mr. Murtha is more than generous to both sides of the aisles (though she neglects to continue the statement with the words "... when it will benefit Democrats at the polls" or the words "... when it sends even more pork back home to the people in Murtha's district").

Murtha is a wheeler and dealer from way back when (see prior scandals in U.S. history).  That he wasn't caught just means he wasn't given enough opportunity and the proper amount of a bribe.

Pelosi should have sense enough to *run* from Murtha rather than trying to cozy up to him, but she seems to feel some debt to the man.  I guess she owes him some quids for his pro quos.

News article that inspired this rant: Pelosi Defends Murtha Vs. GOP Reprimand

That headline is a bit misleading though.  It's not a GOP reprimand -- it's a congressional reprimand for breaking the rules of the U.S. House of Representatives.  The AP (who provided the news that IWon.com is parroting here) of course can't say that because then they can't bias the article making it seem that the GOP is the evil party here.