This year, Washington's senior senator, Patty Murray, is up for re-election, and if the polls are any indication, she will not win easily. It is likely to be a Republican year and what is usually one of her strengths, her endless pursuit of pork, is likely to be a weakness. Likely voters are more interested in how their senators and representatives can cut spending than on what rewards they have grabbed for special interests.
But Murray has had one great advantage in her last two elections, the support of nearly all of our local "mainstream" journalists. This was not always true; the best thing I have seen on Murray is this fair, but devastating, profile by Seattle Times reporter Robert T. Nelson.
Here's my summary of the article's central messages:
First, Murray cannot think abstractly. This is not quite the same as saying that she has a low IQ. Though the ability to handle abstractions and a high IQ are correlated, there are some reasonably smart people who do not think abstractly. Instead, it means that she can think only in terms of simple, concrete examples. Rather than being a left wing extremist, she does not think about politics abstractly enough to even have an ideology. Not having an ideology is uncommon among politicians, but not among voters, especially less educated voters. Second, Murray is unable to hire and keep staff who can make up for her deficiencies.
People who work with her in Washington, D. C. know about her deficiencies; that's why she has won the "not a rocket scientist" award from anonymous congressional staffers.
But our local "mainstream" journalists prefer that the voters of Washington state not know these things, and so they have worked hard to save Private Murray from her fate. Some news organizations do this by commission; I can not recall seeing a single TV story on Murray that she could not have used, without editing, as a campaign commercial. Some do it by omission. It is nearly certain, for instance, that this year the Seattle Times will not tell its readers about her victories in the hard-fought not-a-rocket-scientist contests. They may not even say much about her wasteful pork barrel spending, though in past years the newspaper has done some fine reporting on the subject.
Those most determined to save Private Murray may resort to fantasy; for instance, I expect that Joni Balter, editorial page writer for the Times, will tell us that Murray has "grown" in office.
A few, alas, may even try to save Private Murray by mud-slinging attacks on her opponent. I won't name any of the likely suspects — for now — but those who are familiar with our local journalists will be able to think of some likely smear artists.
It is not clear to me whether our local journalists realize there is a price for their efforts to save Private Murray. More and more, readers distrust what they see on the TV sets, what they hear on their radios, and what they read in their newspapers. That distrust is, I believe, entirely rational; again and again, reporters have suppressed negative information about politicians they admire, and voters are, more and more, catching on.
But journalists do not seem, as a whole, to be a self-critical lot, always looking for ways they can make their stories fairer and more comprehensive. Instead, they seem satisfied with their current efforts, even as their viewers, listeners, and readers give them lower and lower grades.
Let me end with a small challenge for you: What do you expect our local journalists to do, this time, to save Private Murray? The more specific your prediction(s), the better, of course.
Ordinarily, I would ask our local journalists not to contribute to this discussion, since they have a bit of an advantage in making these predictions. But this is a matter of such importance that I would be delighted it, for example, Joni Balter, would give us her predictions.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(It is possible that a few of our local journalists have come to believe their own claims for Murray, having made them so often over the years. That does happen, as the old joke about the man who started a rumor that there was oil in Hell reminds us.
Missed the joke? Here it is: The man started the rumor, mostly for amusement. But some believed him and began lining up for Hell. Soon, others joined them, and in time there was a long line of people hoping to go to Hell for the oil. The man who started the rumor looked at the line and said, "You know, maybe there is something in it." And then joined the line.)
Posted by Jim Miller at June 16, 2010 04:47 PM | Email ThisMurray's coverage will focus on Boeing and her "staunch support" blah, blah, blah.
Posted by: Palouse on June 16, 2010 05:40 PMJim: What an incredibly ignoramous statement. We all pay taxes (right?). Our Senator's job is to give us MORE of what we paid for! In other words, to reward her chief special interest: the people of WA. It's our money, so let's be sure we get as much back as possible.
But go right ahead and spew this doctrine. You're probably right, that money could be much better spend on another AK bridge to nowhere. Better yet: Homeland Security cash toward a Wyoming petting zoo!
Tell you what Jim. Go out and help Rossi scream that WA special interests like our military bases need to face a spending cuts. We dare you: stand up for what you believe in.
Let's just get this straight. She thinks in simple, concrete, realistic, pragmatic terms, all resulting in NOT being a left-wing extremist, and NOT having an ideology, and this is a BAD THING!?!?
Sorry, But you just accidently provided a selling point. DOH!
Note: Not being a code-pink anti-war left-wing extremist ideologue also means that she thinks "outside the box(es)" and got WA $55 million in federal defense contracts... But I guess you would toss the PORK card at her for that too, right?
Posted by: mercifurious on June 16, 2010 07:56 PMYou're probably right, that money could be much better spend on another AK bridge to nowhere.
That's not how it works. See, one piggy wants the bridge, another piggy wants some favor for Boeing. They work together and both get what they want, while we end up paying for it.
Posted by: Dishman on June 16, 2010 08:06 PMA dimbulb such as Murray doesn't need ideological justifications to function as a leftist politician, as she merely votes as she's told to vote by her Marxist masters, Obongo and Soros. Pelosi relays voting protocol in the House and Reid in the Senate. Anyone who strays from the herd will never see a dime of DNC or leftist PAC campaign bucks. Simple as that.
Posted by: Saltherring on June 16, 2010 10:24 PMMurray procured taxpayer dollars for port security last year( 2003), $1.7 million of which went to SSA. Not an unusual give and take involving a member of Congress, certainly, and the senator, through her spokesperson, says she never lobbied on SSA's behalf directly. But Murray's connection to SSA is longstanding and deep. Her husband, Rob Murray, works for SSA, and Murray cites his SSA retirement investment fund, valued at up to $500,000, as her major personal financial asset in federal disclosure documents. This connection is not widely known, though it's no secret.
Murray is one of the pigs in D.C. that have gotten too comfortable spending our monies for her own personal interests. Why should someone in Iowa pay for something in this state with federal funds? Only a dilluted imbecile could think this is a sustainable system of government where the monies are laundered through D.C. yet the bill still arriving to the taxpayers by the way of increased deficit spending. It's fraud no matter how you logically process it.
The only way to kill the pork spending in this country is to send the pigs doing it in D.C. back to their home states where they belong. It's high time the mental midget in tennis shoes comes home for good.
Had Rossi instead fought to reduce the scope and power of government by elliminating agencies and departments and programs we would be in much better shape.
This is not an endorsement of Murray. She is without a doubt one of the stupidest politicians I have seen. i still remember her ad back in 98 I think where she said something along the lines of, "criminals not have armor piercing 'cop killer' bullets. That is why I have proposed spending $X (some large amount) for more bullet proof vests." If the bullets pierce the vests and kill cops, why waste even more money on them?
Anyways my point... Lets chose someone other than Rossi who will offer voters a real change. Didier from what I have read seems like a better choice.
Posted by: Lysander on June 17, 2010 07:44 AMRossi, Didier, or (my favorite) Akers would be a HUGE improvement over what we have now. Not just a dim bulb, but the absolute definition of a liberal.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 17, 2010 08:00 AMRossi needs to define these core issues and stay away from most everything else.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on June 17, 2010 09:04 AMThe reason we want government smaller is because government will always be less efficient at doing most things than private realm. Akers (and to a lesser extent Rossi) are both far too focused on trying to close the gap rather than accepting the gap will always be there and instead focusing on shifting things to the private realm.
Posted by: Lysander on June 17, 2010 09:30 AMOk "media" .... let's see you do something unique and print the "whole truth" for a change.
Posted by: craig on June 17, 2010 10:09 AMLemmings like Murray, who was rated the second dumbest Senator a few years ago by The Progressive, merely follow orders from Reid without thinking what insane regulation like this will do to our economy, and Boeing employees.
Posted by: yaddacubed on June 17, 2010 10:20 AMMurray played a major role in the Senate leadership that is responsible for this mess. I believe that any Republican candidate that is HONEST, HONORABLE, and sincere can beat Murray by simply staying on message and reminding the voters of Murray's undeniable responsibility in the rape and pillage of the federal treasury.
Ditto for Inslee.
Posted by: Paddy on June 17, 2010 12:07 PMI know you're right, but I don't know that the majority of voters believe it. This is why the folks in the Obama administration continue to point out how they are busy cleaning up "Bush's messes."
If voters had a clear understanding that Obama's "fixes" have more than doubled projected deficits for at least the next 10 years, you wouldn't see the the dems talking about their "cleanaup" efforts. Most people are not as well informed as you think they are and it pays to remember that.
The GOP has once again failed to frame the conversation, which is something the dems learned to do back in the 30s and 40s. We need to get the word out to the point that everyone understands that Obamas "cure" is much, much worse than the disease ever was.
I doubt this.
45% of the voters think that Obama and the Democrats are fixing the fiscal disaster. Another 45% think he and the democrats created the disaster.
The truth that 10% of us recognize: Republicans and Democrats have TOGETHER created and progressively made the disaster worse over the past 100 years.
The sound of the phone getting slammed down was LOUD! ;)
Posted by: FurryGuyJeans on June 17, 2010 02:18 PMThe topic, in case you have forgotten, is how our local journalists will try to protect Senator Murray.
Thanks for asking nicely.
Posted by: Lysander on June 17, 2010 03:19 PMNo, we'll see her painted as a moderate centrist, and whomever on the GOP side as an absolute extremist ready to impose some Christian version of Sharia Law. It will be St. Patty protecting us from the evils of extremism.
Fact of the matter is, our State's most conservative Congresscritter - Doc Hastings - is less to the right than Murray is to the Left (Hasting's ACU score of 94.83 would be equivalent to a 5.13 "liberal" score, as compared to Murray's 2.74 "conservative" score).
Murray's accomplishments - if you can find them - will be trumpeted as huge, life-changing and most-important-legislation-ever hard-fought victories against the hordes of evil Republicans. But an objective view would show her to be not only a hard-core leftist but ineffectual at best.
Murray will be sheltered, most definitely!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 17, 2010 04:02 PMThat Government pork she is touting - and the leftists here love - cost Washington residents jobs, and depresses the local businesses. Thanks a lot, Patty!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 18, 2010 07:07 AMThen Murray would have to run on her merits, which are modest to say the least. She is probably the most sheltered candidate in this election - how does it feel, idiots who support this cowardly tact ? Moral relativism is the pathway to mediocrity and the lamestream provides a clear pathway to it.
Question of the day - Why do proven mediocre legislators with a D beside their name keep getting elected over and over again ?
- brain damage of the collective electorate ?
- Nanny Statism or government school brainwashing ?
- Believing what the lamestream media reports without fact checking ?
- Masochism - by those who love to see expanding Government run the economy into the ground?
- All of the above ?
We hardly knew ye!
Thanks a lot Joe Barton. You prove that it's ain't called "the Stupid Party" for nothin'
Posted by: Sean on June 20, 2010 11:38 AM"Saving Private Ryan" was in 1998!
Haven't joined the 21st Century yet, huh?
Posted by: Sean on June 20, 2010 11:43 AMPolling has shown that I am not alone.
Posted by: Jill on June 20, 2010 03:30 PMSo asking the Federal Government to play by the rule of law is now a bad thing?
Jill,
Polling data shows you're pretty much completely wrong. People prefer the GOP, trust the GOP more on the top 10 issues, and oppose the Obama Administration on the way it's handling the gulf spill, the deficit, and the Arizona immigration law, at a minimum.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 20, 2010 04:47 PMActually I don't think you know much about history. You all dress up in your colonial garb and such but what do you think the real, the original colonists would say to all the genuflecting so many Republicans are doing at the feet of the British?
The only thing I can think of when I heard Joe Barton's statements was a man named Arnold. Yeah, I know my colonial history - probably better than you.
Joe Barton has just put a knife of the heart of the Republican efforts this fall. You can talk about Obama's slow reaction and poor handling of the spill and that is indeed the case, but Obama isn't running this year.
I was really looking forward to a Republican victoty this year but Joe Barton has destroyed all that. Almost as if by purpose.
In 1773 colonialists dumped British tea into Boston Harbor. In 2010 the British have had their revenge. In spades!
That's why the GOP needs Tea Party backing - those who are engaged in the political process. If they (Mr. Rossi) doesn't think so, they are fools and will lose in November. Not a threat, just a promise :(
Posted by: KDS on June 21, 2010 12:11 PMDoesn't it bother you that the more people see of Rossi the less they like him?. We all know that in 2004 he was narrowly defeated (or as most of us know narrowly won) but then in 2008 he lost a bunch of support, and I am sure his numbers are going to drop even further in 2010. The more people get of the guy the less they want to see him in public office.
Posted by: Jeff on June 21, 2010 12:31 PM