The Democratically-controlled U.S. House Tuesday stopped a potential reprimand of a senior Democratic member accused of bullying a Republican and threatening "earmark revenge." It was the first chance the new Democratic majority had to show how it would handle such complaints. They voted mostly in unison — including all Washington Democrats — to table the complaint against Rep. John Murtha and prevent any debate.

The L.A. Times sets the scene:

This debate played out this month in a vivid exchange between Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), a former FBI agent, and Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), an ex-Marine, after Rogers led a failed bid to scuttle $23 million for a project in Murtha's district. Rogers charged that Murtha confronted him on the House floor a week later and shouted something like: "I hope you don't have any earmarks in the defense appropriations bill, because they are gone and you will not get any earmarks now and forever."

"I replied to him that threatening retribution is not the way we do business in Congress," Rogers said in the Republican radio address last weekend. "To which he replied, 'That's the way I do it.' "

Rogers introduced a resolution that said Murtha had violated House ethics rules. As Dana Milbank writes:

Apparently, the credulous Rogers took seriously the quaint provision in the Code of Official Conduct stating that a member "may not condition the inclusion of language to provide funding for a Congressional earmark . . . on any vote cast by another member." "There's not going to be any more go-along-to-get-along, 1950s-style American politics around here," Rogers told The Post's Jonathan Weisman. "I've had enough."

But Tuesday afternoon Majority Leader Steny Hoyer moved to table the resolution before anyone could get up to speak about it. More Milbank:

Republicans erupted in jeers and shouts of "Debate!" Murtha, in his usual seat in the back corner of the chamber, enjoyed a chuckle and accepted handshakes from well-wishers as they left the chamber.

The New York Times said squashing the debate still "offered something to members of both parties."

It allowed Democrats to avoid taking a position on whether Mr. Murtha is truly undignified or dangerous, and it enabled Republicans to enjoy the discomfort of their opponents across the aisle.

The Post's Capitol Briefing blog looked at the 219 to 189 vote to table the motion:

The most revealing aspect of the final vote tally might well be those few members who crossed party lines, including those who voted "present". Three Republicans chose their personal relationship with Murtha over party affiliation, while five Democrats from rural districts voted against the anti-war leader.

Only two Democrats actually voted against tabling the motion. The other three officially avoided a vote either way by voting "present." One of the no votes is not a rural Democrat. The Post slips up by listing Rep. Earl Blumenauer as coming from North Dakota. He's from Oregon and represents Portland and the suburbs.

The LA Times said Blumenauer issued a statement saying his vote was not a "judgment on the allegations since I don't know the facts about what happened, and that's exactly the point."

Citing a pledge the Democrats made, he continued: "A discussion of a potential violation of House rules is in order if we are going to be the most ethical and transparent Congress in history."

Because there is potential for a complaint to the House Ethics Committee, most of the members of the committee, including Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Pasco, voted "present."

When the story of Murtha's threat first emerged, Congressional Quarterly acknowledged everyone knew the outcome of any complaint against the veteran lawmaker:

Boehner will ask the House to rebuke Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John P. Murtha, whom Republicans accuse of threatening a GOP lawmaker in a specifically prohibited manner.

No one expects the Republicans to prevail on such a vote, but the minority leadership sees a chance to frame a picture of Democratic arrogance.

And as Talking Points Memo reminds us this morning, late last year Murtha said of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plans for ethics reform:

"Even though I think it's total crap, I'll vote for it and pass it because that's what Nancy wants."

UPDATE: And how's that ethics reform coming? Not so great, says the NY Times.

The Democratic leaders were forced to scrap a promise to double the current one-year lobbying ban after lawmakers leave office. Now, they are struggling to pass legislation requiring lobbyists to disclose the campaign contributions they "bundle" -- collect and deliver -- to lawmakers. Failing to deliver on both measures would endanger similar provisions already passed by the Senate.

Other House rules changes this year appear to have done little to alter business as usual on Capitol Hill.