Posted on 01/01/2003 9:56:38 AM PST by dvan
A Democrat of the female persuasion about whom I am considerably less enthused is Washington state’s Senator Patty Murray. The Honorable Murray recently took time from her hectic schedule to extol the many virtues of that well-known humanitarian, Osama bin Laden.
According to Vancouver’s The Columbian newspaper, Mz Murray told a high school class that Osama’s "been out in these countries for decades building roads, building schools, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. It made their lives better."
"We have not done that. We haven’t been out in many of these countries helping them build infrastructure." Ah, yes, day-care centers. That totally explains why those Muslim fanatics want us all dead.
I won’t be too hard on Patty, mainly because it’s apparent she’s dumb as a box of rocks. If you’ve ever seen her picture, you’ll recall the pitifully vacant look in her eyes. A few months ago, Washingtonian magazine surveyed Capitol Hill staffers about the best and worst in Congress. In the category labeled "No Rocket Scientist" our gal was ranked at the very top in the Senate, a not inconsequential accomplishment given the stiff competition. Clearly, the elevator just doesn’t go all the way up. Equally as clearly, this qualifies her for a leadership position among Democrats.
She serves as chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which was responsible for maintaining her party’s majority. You know, that majority that they just lost under her capable administration.
What annoys me is how much of the media, finally ending their wall-to-wall Trent Lott coverage, just can’t find much time or space to publicize Patty’s pronouncement. Making a facetious comment at a gent’s 100th birthday party is a major offense. Providing an explanation for bin Laden’s terrorism is no big deal.
As I wrote a couple of years ago, being a Democrat means never having to say you’re sorry. The sorry media will make sure of that.
If I remember correctly, she only won about 49% of the vote and would have lost the seat if those who voted for the Libertarian candidate had voted for the Republican. I'm not saying this to blame those who voted for the Libertarian. No one owns anyone's vote, and if someone cannot in good conscience vote for the Republican, I'm glad to see that person vote for a Libertarian rather than stay home. I am saying that she is vulnerable. The problem in beating her is that the non-liberal vote in the state is split among traditional conservatives, strong religious conservatives, moderates, and libertarians. Finding a single candidate who can unite these groups will be a challenge, but it shouldn't be impossible. The Republican will have to wage a huge get out the vote campaign in the areas outside Seattle, but it could be done.
The big three senate windbags are all Dems ...
The all-important senate "best in a bathing suit" <gag> are all Dems ...
The three house "not rocket scientists" are all Dems ...
The three house "fashion victims" are all Dems
Republican sweeps:
Senate "missed the most"
Senate "missed the least"
Senate "best dressed" (capitalist pigs, no doubt)
House weakest spine (go figure)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.