I have to admit that when it comes to avenging slights made against it this administration has both total recall and infinite patience. What’s below (via Instapundit) is probably the most important part of this New York Times article about Jack Murtha’s travails:

While past presidents often courted Mr. Murtha with phone calls and private meetings, President Obama has extended to him no such courtesies. On a visit to the White House, the lawmaker told senior defense officials that it would be “foolish” and “ridiculous” to cancel all of a $13 billion contract to buy new presidential helicopters, as he later recounted to a defense industry newsletter. But Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has insisted on scrapping the deal as a symbol of waste.

And in a recent meeting with the secretary, Mr. Murtha pushed a plan to divide a $35 billion contract to build a new airborne refueling tanker between two rival contractors — a compromise that pleases both but would cost the government much more. Mr. Gates listened with little response, several people briefed on their conversation said, but he later dismissed it.

You see, restrictions on how, how often, and how much one may trade favors for cash can be finessed. There’s always a loophole or an exception; in fact, often simple indifference on the part of those with oversight can be enough. But Jack Murtha’s power comes from his supposed access. He is not supposed to be one who can be slighted - or worse, ignored.

I wonder if Murtha is regretting going with Clinton in the nomination fight? - Because I’m not going to pretend that I believe that the Obama administration particularly cares about responsible money management, and they’re certainly not that interested in pushing back on corruption.  That leaves belated political revenge.  But is the administration petty enough to do something like that?

You tell me*.

Moe Lane

*No apology, no public disapproval, no comment.  That equals “endorsement.”  Sorry, but I’m just the messenger.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.