Seriously, what the fuck are the Dems doing?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

One week ago this very moment -- 1:17 am ET -- I was sitting here at my computer live-blogging the elections, celebrating a Democratic takeover of the House, and waching the Senate races in Virginia, Missouri, and Montana with a mixture of anxiety and optimism. Everything was breaking our way, except Tennessee and a few key House races, and the Dems look poised to control both houses of Congress. Happy, happy times.

And now? Everything seems to be fine in the Senate, where Reid will be majority leader and the rest of the leadership team is securely in place: Durbin, Schumer, Murray.

And in the House? Not so much. Pelosi is firmly in place as the next speaker, but there is a contentious battle underway for majority leader between Murtha and Hoyer. As I mentioned on Monday, Pelosi is pushing Murtha, long-time Pelosi ally and outspoken Iraq War critic, over Hoyer, long-time Pelosi rival, Democratic whip, and somewhat less outspoken Iraq War critic. To be sure, there's nothing wrong with some healthy competition. But did Pelosi need to get so personally involved in this contest? She would no doubt work better with Murtha than with Hoyer, but as Josh Marshall puts it: "She's very publicly making everyone takes sides. And in a very specific, unique way. She's staked her authority and credibility on a Murtha victory. And since she represents the caucus, to a degree she's putting the caucus's authority and credibility on the line too, just after the Dems have taken power in the House for the first time in a dozen years. It's a really bold power-play on a number of levels."

But do the Dems need this sort of agressive "power-play" from their speaker-elect? Because it's all gotten quite nasty. Murtha is now accusing his opponents, those in the Hoyer camp, of swift-boating him on ethics. But what about those ethics? Is Murtha clean? And what about Hoyer? He has his own questionable ties to K Street. (For more on this, see Howie Klein.) In general, I agree with Barbara O'Brien: Although Murtha is more aggressive on Iraq, "Hoyer has a far better voting record than Murtha". Murtha may be to the left of Hoyer on Iraq, but he is in every other regard on the right of the party, a conservative Democrat who isn't always on the right side of the issues. Besides, I worry that Murtha's aggression on Iraq could back the party into a corner with a formal policy of phased withdrawal. And it's not like Hoyer is pro-Bush on Iraq. He, too, supports withdrawal, just not quite as vehemently as Murtha does.

Which is not to say that I like Hoyer any more than Murtha. (See Barbara's post for more on Hoyer's problems.) I really don't like either candidate for the job. Despite Pelosi's outspoken support for Murtha, would it not make sense for a third candidate, a popular compromise, to be elevated to majority leader? Perhaps it's too late for that now that Pelosi has put her weight, and "authority and credibility," behind Murtha and now that the caucus has been divided into two warring camps, but what good will come of this? No matter who wins, there will be bitterness and divisiveness both at the top and throughout the caucus.

So I ask: Why, why, why?

Everything looked so good just a week ago. And now this.

Was it so difficult to transition smoothly into the majority? (Okay, the other side isn't doing any better, but that hardly matters now.) Was it so difficult to keep the peace? Was there no other way?