Yesterday, The Spokesman-Review highlighted how worried national Democrats are about Senator Patty Murray’s (D-WA) reelection chances. So worried, the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has been going after potential Republican challenger Dino Rossi with “hammer and tong.” Rossi, who was robbed by King County in his battle against Christine Gregoire for Governor in 2004, would be a formidable opponent.
But what if Rossi doesn’t run? Do Democrats breathe a sigh of relief? In short, no. Beyond the current hot-button issues of ObamaCare, jobs, unemployment and a number of other issues, there's plenty in Murray's record to cause more than just heartburn for the Democrat Party.
Murray is no longer able to use the “mom-in-tennis-shoes” image that she cultivated and used to her advantage starting way back in the mid-1980’s. Now, she’s a career politician, serving on the Shoreline School District Board of Directors from 1985 to 1989, as a State Senator from 1989 to 1993, and as a U.S. Senator from 1993 to present.
Often thought of as a light-weight – some say less than the brightest bulb on the tree – Murray is prone to saying and doing, well, dumb things.
A Year After The 9/11 Attacks, Murray Said People Support Osama Bin Laden Because Of All The Good Things He’d Done For The Poor. “We’ve got to ask, why is this man (Osama bin Laden) so popular around the world? . . . Why are so many people so supportive of him in many countries that are riddled with poverty? He’s been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful.” (Gregg Herrington, “U.S. Sen. Patty Murray – Senator Asks Students To Ponder,” The Columbian [Vancouver, Washington], 12/19/02)
• Murray Followed Up Stating: “We Haven’t Done That.” (Gregg Herrington, “U.S. Sen. Patty Murray – Senator Asks Students To Ponder,” The Columbian [Vancouver, Washington], 12/19/02)
• Murray Inferred That If America Had “Been A Better Neighbor,” The Attacks Might Not Have Occurred. “‘War is expensive too,’ [Murray] said. ‘Your generation ought to think about whether we should be better neighbors out in other countries so that they have a different vision of us.’” (Gregg Herrington, “U.S. Sen. Patty Murray – Senator Asks Students To Ponder,” The Columbian [Vancouver, Washington], 12/19/02)
On The Two-Year Anniversary Of The 9/11 Attacks, Murray Held A $1,000 Per Person Fundraising Event At A Trendy D.C. Restaurant While The Nation Mourned. “Jim Albertine and Jack Albertine this a.m. hosted a $1K/person breakfast fundraiser for Murray at the Monocle. One source notes that the funder took place from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. – ‘the precise moment of the attacks two years ago today.’” (“No Pause For Fundraising,” The Hotline, 9/11/03)
While The Murray Campaign Collected Checks From Registered Lobbyists, The U.S. Senate Held A Moment Of Silence. MAJORITY LEADER BILL FRIST (R-Tenn.): “‘Mr. President, at this time, I will ask the Democratic leader to join me at the bell of remembrance for the first moment of silence.’” THE ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: “‘Under the previous order, the hour of 8:46 a.m. having arrived, the Senate will observe a moment of silence in honor of the victims of the tragedy on September 11, 2001.’ [Moment of Silence]” (Congressional Record, 9/11/03)
Murray is an ineffective Senator, failing to follow through on even her own legislation. Sound silly? It would be if it wasn’t true. Extending welfare benefits to victims of domestic violence was a major concern to Murray, making the issue a prime objective in the Senate in the late 1990’s. Funny thing is, not only did she drop the ball, she decided attending a ceremonial event back in Washington State was more important than salvaging her years of work on the issue.
Murray Skipped A “Key” Committee Hearing Considering Her Legislation On Domestic Violence Benefits To Attend A Ceremony With Chinese Dignitaries In Washington. “To attend a ceremony where Chinese dignitaries would announce the order of 50 Boeing jets, the freshman Democrat [Murray] had skipped a key committee considering her legislation to extend welfare deadlines for domestic-violence victims.” (James V. Grimaldi, “Murray’s Pro-Business Votes Make Fund-Raising Hard For Election Foes,” The Seattle Times, 7/7/98)
“Just Before The Event, She Had Been Told That If She Didn’t Return To Capitol Hill - That Very Moment - Her Welfare Proposal Would Be Dumped. But Murray Didn’t Budge.” (James V. Grimaldi, “Murray’s Pro-Business Votes Make Fund-Raising Hard For Election Foes,” The Seattle Times, 7/7/98)
“Though Largely Ritual, The $ 3 Billion Jet Contract-Signing Ceremony Took Precedence.” (James V. Grimaldi, “Murray’s Pro-Business Votes Make Fund-Raising Hard For Election Foes,” The Seattle Times, 7/7/98)
“She Knew All Too Well What It Meant, Especially To The Chinese And Therefore To Seattle-Based Boeing.” (James V. Grimaldi, “Murray’s Pro-Business Votes Make Fund-Raising Hard For Election Foes,” The Seattle Times, 7/7/98)
Murray Called Her Decision To Forego The Hearing To Save Her Own Legislation “Heart-Wrenching.” “‘It was heart-wrenching,’ Murray said of the conflict. After the Boeing event, Murray rushed back to the Capitol. But despite her best efforts that day and subsequent attempts, her welfare proposal died, and she hasn’t revived it.” (James V. Grimaldi, “Murray’s Pro-Business Votes Make Fund-Raising Hard For Election Foes,” The Seattle Times, 7/7/98)
Defending Her Decision Not To Save Her Domestic Violence Legislation, Murray Inexplicably Explained That Supporting Boeing Would Inevitably Decrease Domestic Violence. “Murray sees the economy as seamlessly connected to social issues and believes, for example, that supporting Boeing during a Chinese jet order can be as important as fighting for a bill that directly affects domestic violence. ‘If people feel economically secure and confident - that income is coming in - right there you have decreased domestic violence,’ Murray said.” (James V. Grimaldi, “Murray’s Pro-Business Votes Make Fund-Raising Hard For Election Foes,” The Seattle Times, 7/7/98)
You might recall, back in 2004, the Senate voted to create an asbestos claims fund for victims of asbestos exposure. Despite inclusion of Murray’s asbestos ban, a top legislative priority, she opposed passage because victims wouldn’t be allowed to sue for more money in the court system.
One Month Before The Vote On Asbestos Reform, Murray Called It “Disturbing” That Asbestos Had Still Not Been Banned And “Unconscionable” So Many Have Died From Exposure. “‘It is unconscionable that so many innocent victims have died because they were exposed to a product that they were told was safe. But it is even more disturbing that our government continues to allow asbestos to be imported into this country and used in everyday products at home,’ Murray said at a news conference.” (Charles Pope, “Murray Renews Her Effort To Ban Asbestos,” The Seattle Post – Intelligencer, 3/25/04)
Leading Up To The Vote In The Senate On The Asbestos Bill, Murray Demanded That Any Litigation Reform Must Include An Asbestos Ban. “U.S. Senator Patty Murray, the Senate sponsor of a bill to ban the use of asbestos in America, today testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on asbestos litigation reform. Murray insisted that any bill that aims to prevent future lawsuits must prevent future asbestos illness by banning the use of asbestos in America.” (Senator Patty Murray, Press Release, “Murray Takes Asbestos Ban To Judiciary Committee Hearing On Asbestos Litigation Reform,” 6/4/03)
Murray’s Bill That Would Have Outlawed Asbestos Was Included In The Compromise Bill On Asbestos Litigation Reform. “Murray’s bill, which she first introduced in 2001, calls for a complete ban of asbestos in products within two years after it becomes law. It also would provide for more research into the causes and treatment of asbestos-related cancers and require the federal government to conduct a more aggressive campaign to educate the public about the risks of asbestos. . . . Senate Republican leaders said they hope to bring up the compensation bill by the end of April. It includes Murray’s ban on asbestos but omits the other provisions.” (Charles Pope, “Murray Renews Her Effort To Ban Asbestos,” The Seattle Post – Intelligencer, 3/25/04)
Murray Praised Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT) For Including Her Asbestos Ban In The Reform Bill. “My legislation does four things. First, the bill protects the public by requiring the EPA to ban asbestos within two years – I am grateful Senator Hatch has included the ban in his asbestos litigation reform bill.” (Senator Patty Murray, Press Release, “Murray, Senators, Doctors, And Victims Urge Congress To Protect Americans From Deadly Asbestos,” Washington, D.C., 3/25/04)
Then, Despite The Fact That An Asbestos Ban Was One Of Her “Top Legislative Priorities,” Murray Announced She Would Vote Against Overall Asbestos Reform Which Included The Ban. “Murray scored a major victory last summer when the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, agreed to include in the compensation bill a ban on the use of asbestos-related products. Although an asbestos ban was one of Murray’s top legislative priorities, she said she would vote against the overall bill because she believes it severely shortchanges victims.” (Charles Pope, “Fund Would Aid Asbestos Victims,” The Seattle Post – Intelligencer, March 4, 2004)
Murray Voted AGAINST The Bill That Would Have Banned Asbestos:
Asbestos Claims Fund – Cloture. “Motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the motion to proceed to the bill that would establish a fund to pay thousands of asbestos-exposure claims outside the court system via a no-fault fund of as much as $124 billion. The fund would be financed through contributions from defendant corporations and insurers, which would be shielded in return from most future lawsuits related to asbestos exposure.” (S. 2290, CQ Vote #69: Motion rejected 50-47: R 49-0; D 1-46; I 0-1, 4/22/04, Murray voted Nay)
Murray Argued That People Would Not Fare As Well Under The Settlement As “They Would In Court.” “‘Many people who have had their lives torn apart by asbestos will actually do worse under this bill than they would in court.’ said Murray.” (Charles Pope, “Asbestos Legislation Falls Apart In The Senate," The Seattle Post – Intelligencer, 4/23/04)
Trial Lawyers, Who Opposed The Asbestos Reform Legislation, Showered Murray With Money:
• Since First Being Elected To The Senate, Lawyers And Law Firms Have Contributed Over $1.5 Million To Murray’s Campaign Coffers. (Center for Responsive Politics Website)
From a rapid pro-abortionist who opposes even common sense restrictions to a radical pro-homosexual supporter, Murray may be just too liberal even in a center-left state like Washington. On abortion, Murray opposed a ban on partial birth abortion, calling the measure “deceptive, extreme” and “unconstitutional.”
Murray Voted AGAINST The Ban On Partial Birth Abortion:
‘Partial Birth’ Abortion Ban – Adoption. “Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would ban a medical procedure opponents refer to as ‘partial-birth’ abortion. The procedure would only be allowed when it is necessary to save a woman’s life. Those who unlawfully performed the procedure would face fines and up to two years in prison.” (S. 3, CQ Vote #402: Adopted 64-34: R 47-3; D 17-30; I 0-1, 10/21/03, Murray voted Nay)
Murray On Partial Birth Abortion Ban: “I Am Deeply Disappointed And Gravely Concerned About The Precedent Set By This Legislation.’ . . . ‘I Hope And Believe That The Court Will Act Quickly To Strike Down This Law . . . .” (Senator Patty Murray, Press Release, “Statement Of Senator Patty Murray On Final Passage Of S. 3, The So-Called Partial-Birth Abortion Ban,” 10/11/03)
• Murray Called A Ban Partial-Birth Abortion “Deceptive, Extreme.” “And since we are debating S.3, I want to expose this proposal for what it really is. It’s deceptive, extreme, and it’s unconstitutional.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 3/11/03)
Murray Also Sponsored An Amendment To The Ban On Partial Birth Abortion To Allow Use Of Taxpayer Money To Pay For The So-Called “Morning-After Pill:"
“Partial-Birth” Abortion Ban - Emergency Contraceptives. “Murray, D-Wash., motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Santorum, R-Pa., point of order against the Murray amendment that would allow states to expand the States’ Children’s Health Insurance Program to include low-income pregnant women. It also would authorize $10 million for a program to educate public health organizations, providers and the public about the availability and effectiveness of emergency contraceptives; allow state public health agencies to apply for grants for further programs; require private health plans to cover prescription contraceptives and related medical services; and require hospitals to make emergency contraceptives and information about them available to rape victims.” (S. 3, CQ Vote #45: Motion rejected 49-47: R 6-44; D 42-3; I 1-0, 3/11/03, Murray voted Yea)
Despite the fact Murray supported the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), to the surprise of gay rights activists, Murray holds extreme views towards using taxpayer money to fund a pro-homosexual agenda.
In 1994, Murray Was One Of Only Eight Senators Who Voted IN FAVOR Of Allowing A Cabinet-Level Agency To Use Taxpayer Dollars To Recruit Homosexuals Based On Their Sexual Orientation:
Fiscal 1995 Agriculture Appropriations – Homosexual Seminars. “Helms, R-N.C. amendment to prohibit the Agriculture Department from carrying out seminars or financing any position that encourages its employees to recruit on the basis of homosexual orientation or to accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle.” (H.R. 4554, CQ Vote #212: Adopted 92-8: R 43-1; D 49-7, 7/19/94, Murray voted Nay)
Later, Murray Was One Of Only Nine Senators Who Voted To IN FAVOR Of Using Taxpayer Dollars, Intended For Education And Schools, To Support And Encourage Homosexuality:
Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization - Homosexual Lifestyle. “Smith, R-N.H., amendment, as amended, to prohibit agencies receiving money under the bill to use federal money to encourage or support homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative.” (S. 1513, CQ Vote #250: Adopted 91-9: R 41-3; D 50-6, 8/2/94, Murray voted Nay)
In 2003, Murray Cosponsored Legislation With Hillary Clinton And John Kerry To Force The Federal Government To Extend Health, Retirement And Life Insurance Benefits To Partners Of Gay Federal Workers. “Even as Republicans push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Sen. Mark Dayton is pushing the other way, championing legislation that would give benefits to domestic partners of gay federal employees. . . . Dayton’s bill would extend health benefits, retirement benefits, and life insurance to domestic partners of gay federal employees. . . . [Dayton] has five co-sponsors, all Democrats: Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Patty Murray of Washington and Daniel Inouye of Hawaii.” (Frederic J. Frommer, “Dayton Takes Leading Role In Gay Rights Legislation,” The Associated Press, July 5, 2003)
I’m sure we could go on and on, but you get the idea. Regardless of whether or not Dino Rossi decides to run against Murray, Democrats ought to be worried about keeping this seat come November.
ThinkFY's full feed