U.S. Sen. Patty Murray's actual tennis shoes
I just got back from Nollie’s Cafe, where Sen. Patty Murray sat down this morning with a handful of local bloggers electronic journalists online-ish media types who write substantively on politics. (Are Erica Barnett of PubliCola and Eli Sanders of The Stranger “bloggers?” Am I a “journalist?” I don’t wanna go there.) In addition to me, Erica and Eli, we were joined by Joan McCarter of Daily Kos, Dave Neiwert of Crooks and Liars, and Andrew Villeneuve of the NPI Advocate.
We were promised a half an hour, and got a bit more than that from a U.S. senator who clearly knows the issues as much as she obviously cares about them. A similar coffee klatch with the nearly totally inaccessible Dino Rossi would be almost unimaginable, and it is equally hard to imagine Rossi coming off anywhere near as knowledgeable or as thoughtful as Murray on such a broad range of topics. (Nor as down-to-earth likable, either.)
So much for the GOP’s self-soothing meme of Murray as the dumbest member of the Senate. But don’t take my word for it, you can listen to all 38 minutes for yourself:
[audio:http://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/PattyMurray.mp3]I’ll come back with a more thorough report later, after I’ve had the opportunity to listen to the audio and parse my illegible notes, but I came away convinced that if every voter in Washington state could have the same opportunity to sit down with Sen. Murray for half an hour, she’d win reelection in a landslide.
Wonderful story Goldy.
Patty is by far the smartest US Senator even though Senate Staffers from both parties repeatedly & overwhelmingly voted Murray, Boxer & Santorum the dumbest.
Sounds like Patty can communicate at your level.
Interesting, frank discussion. It’s reassuring. After a few terms you suspect that someone would get a bit tired in the Senate at this point, though I’ve never had much reason to disagree with her votes, and she certainly will get mine in the election.
I cringe at the thought that people would vote for a person based on a 30-minute conversation instead of their 8+ year track record.
If you are for larger government, more taxes, and wasteful spending, then please vote for Patty.
Now here is some major exploitation of a national tragedy for political gain. This is real and not from The Onion:
Gig Harbor Republican Women
Invite you to
Saturday 9/11/10
“Let’s Roll-On to Victory”
Dinner / Auction Fundraiser Join us for an evening of fun, food, silent & live auctions
Guest Speakers invited:
US Senate Candidate Dino Rossi
http://ghrwomen.org/Events.aspx
I haven’t agreed with 100% of her votes but she has mine. I am for a larger government that can handle a bank meltdown, egg safety, oil spills, and Katrina disasters. I’m for more taxes because I believe in paying my way and not weakening my country by borrowing. I have never seen Patty Murray promote wasteful spending — when I do I re-think my vote.
@4
Figures that they’d have it in a gated community that has patrols of it’s own rent-a-cops.
Brady
Well, no one has to, because there will be two debates, their ads, media grilling (at least Paty will; DIno prefers not to take bothersome “questions” from the press) and so on before the election. But speaking of low information voters, Patty Murray has been a Senator for nearly 18 years, pal. And she was a Senator during the period of lowest unemployment and the longest economic expansion in US history, brought to you by Democratic governance. That is, before Bush and the Republicans blew through the budget surplus, plunged us into an additional $6 trillion in debt, and began the Bush Depression in December 2007.
And if you are for no jobs, larger deficits, nd the same policies that drove us INTO this Godforesaken ditch we’re in, vote for Dino. And don’t forget that he wants women to be forced to bear their rapists’ children and for YOU to be denied insurance for pre-existing conditions on top of that.
I actually found her relatively naive and unfocused in the interview. She thinks “its an interesting question” that she needs to find a way to couch her “rational” discussion in emotionally appealing terms? Has she been completely asleep over the last 4 years and all the work of Lakoff and others?
I appreciate her honesty and her awareness of people’s concerns and struggles, but she seems ignorant of how to counter the macro trends.
@5
then why dont you write the state or federal govt a check if you feel like paying more? nobody is stopping you from giving as much as you want in taxes. the govt will gladly accept your money
oh..wait…you arent one of those who expects others to pay more while you dont pay another extra dime(ala goldy) are you?
yes…I think you are.
Case #5952w92p4-3 of progressive “do as I say, not as I do”
@9
And if you insist on living in this country without contributing anything toward the greater good, you are welcome to leave. America doesn’t need anymore freeloaders who refuse to pay taxes, but enjoy all the benefits. Nobody is stopping you from moving to Somalia, land of no taxes.
RE 10
I agree.
The top 20 percent of taxpayers pay over 60% of federal taxes. This is also out of line with their percentage of national wealth. That is, they pay taxes for poorer people who don’t wish to do so.
Where are you wanting to ship these slackers who won’t pay their fair share, Don?
Seems appropriate to repost these handy graphics.
Re 10
Additionally, nearly half of those who should pay taxes, effectively don’t. Under Obama this number is expected to grow. We will come to the ridiculous place where more than half of those who benefit from citizenship will have others pay for those benefits.
And this is what Progressives call, with a straight face mind you, fair.
Re 7
It’s very interesting that Clinton gets all the credit for the economy under his presidency, and no blame for anything bad that happened.
Reagan is responsible for everything from the Civil War on (including responsibility for the irritating lost sock in your washing machines) in the minds of progressives.
And Bush is soley responsible for a financial meltdown that happened under the auspices of shared power with a Democrat congress.
Is intellectual honesty really that much at a premium on the left.
Patty has been underestimated before. She will trounce Dino. I find it funny that these outside groups can come into our state with their generic ads and think that will convince people to vote against her. Patty was courageous when she voted against the War in Iraq and did an unbelievable thing when she managed to wrest the tanker contract away from Airbus. Go Patty!
Re 12
Oddly enough I agree that the sales tax and point of service fee system is a lousy way to finance State government. It brings in least when times are tough, just when government needs the cash.
True, the left tells only half the story. If I buy a yacht I’ll pay more taxes on that one transaction than a family making 30,000 will for the entire year. And it is simply a fact that wealthy people consume more, and consumption is the basis for sales tax.
But even then a fair income tax in Washington would benefit everyone, if the sales tax were eliminated. That is, everyone earning above a set level pays exactly the same amount. Heck, I’d even buy the same percent of income. Of course what we would get would be the same kind of fundamentally unfair tax system as we have at the federal level. So I guess, while I agree with the main point you make by linking to that article, I doubt we’d agree on any final form of taxation.
Nothing brings out the haters more than when the topic of discussion is Patty Murray’s clear record of excellent service to the State of Washington.
Re 16
Give yourselves some credit. Mention Reagan or Bush 2, or the Roberts Court and vitriol flows pretty freely here.
Assuming that it is true that the top twenty percent pay 60% of federal taxes, then I agree it is out of line with their percentage of national wealth. The top 1% owns 33.8% of the wealth and the 90 to 99 percentile owns 37.7%, which means the top ten percent own 71.5 % of the wealth. the 50 to 90 percentile owns another 26%, leaving 2.5% distributed among the bottom 50%. Seems like a solid argument for returning to the tax rates of the Eisenhower administration.
How are you defining wealth?
For most purposes it is net worth, excluding some personal possessions whose use is more important than their value (furniture, primary car etc.)
This is distinct from income. We pay taxes on income, not wealth. Roger Rabbit, for instance, self describes as older and retired. His home is probably worth many many times what he paid for it. I think we can all agree though that taxing the value of the home and other possessions would be manifestly unfair. After all, the sale of one home for most is used to offset the purchase of another in similar market conditions. If not for sale, it’s a frozen asset of no monetary use to the owner. On paper net worth may be in the high 6 figures or more, but rabbits need a hole to live in. So we stick with income and should.
@15. lostinaseaofblue on 09/09/2010 at 4:44 pm
“And it is simply a fact that wealthy people consume more, and consumption is the basis for sales tax.”
Well it certainly is much more simple to assert that wealthy consume more than it would be to do the mental exercise of graphing the relationship between disposable income/wealth and spending.
I find it interesting that the discussions Senator Murray is having with real people revolve around real fears for the future and not one of them were concerned about what things would be like if Hillary Clinton were president. For one thing, Hillary Clinton would do exactly what Bill Clinton did during the mid-term election: nothing. She wouldn’t have had an OFA that hit the ground in June. Maybe that’s why she’s not President. Hmmm.
Mention Reagan or Bush 2, or the Roberts Court
Heh. Yeah let’s talk Raygun. Did you know his smaller government, lower taxes walk was all smoke and mirrors?
Read all about it:
http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes.....xes-filing
Oh NOES! Ronaldus Magnus wuz a soshuleest!
19- I believe I am defining wealth the same as you, and I took my figures from here.
I think this article by Susan Jacoby sums up our national dilemma well.
The top 20 percent of taxpayers pay over 60% of federal taxes.
So? All that and they STILL have much more wealth than the poorer people below them. What are you complaining about?
This is also out of line with their percentage of national wealth. That is, they pay taxes for poorer people who don’t wish to do so.
No. That is a greed conservative meme. Repeat it all you want, but it STILL doesn’t make it it true.
The poor pay most if not all of their disposable income to cover necessities. The wealthy do not have that problem.
The wealthy have taxes at a greater proportion because poorer people cannot, without crushing them.
@24, Worf that’s a great article.
What do you think about that paragraph?
I agree with her that the Marxist formula has never worked and I can’t see how it ever will. Greed is a part of human nature and it should be acknowledged that it exists and then curbed.
Lost is currently the most articulate of the greed conservatives on the site. He argues very consistently, that we should destroy the American social net to get to some utopia of bare bones taxation for the purpose of greed. I agree with her that many of the developed countries of Europe have worked out a better solution with higher taxes on the rich but providing a level of security (particularly in matters such as health care) that no American below the top 1 percent enjoys. I think they are good model to adapt. Because I think the end result of the greed conservatives is some form of Somalia.
The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whor.....ealth.html
Should not the top 20% pay somewhere between 85% and 93% of the taxes in order to be in line with their accumulated wealth?
One could argue that the poorer people pay taxes for the filthy rich who don’t wish to do so.
If you look at the link in @27 above you will see that wealth controlled by the bottom 80% has shrunk 20% since 1983.
26- I would argue that the Marxist formula has never been tried, but I would also agree that it is probably not a viable system. Marx was also a terrible, obtuse author.
As to the paragraph, I agree wholeheartedly. The value we attach to work is entirely subjective, and the idea that job “A” has a monetary value that is 300, 400, 1000 times greater than the value we assign to job “B” is based on some truly unreasonable notions. In our current system, those who do the greatest amount of systemic damage, such as Hedge Fund Managers, Bechtel CEOs, Insurance company executives, corporate polluters et al, are the most highly rewarded, while those who contribute the most to the common good, such as teachers, fire fighters, hospice caregivers, social workers et al, are begrudgingly given a stipend barely adequate to sustain themselves and their families. I have come to the conclusion in my gray haired years that some form of democratic socialism such as that practiced by the Scandinavian countries is the best system we humans are capable of achieving, and the system that awards the greatest amount of personal freedom to the greatest amount of people.
Thom Hartmann uses cancer as a metaphor for 21st century capitalism, which think is an accurate description. Modern day capitalism demands growth for growth’s sake, despite the obvious fact that it’s continued growth means the eventual, painful, agonizing death of the host. Cancer, like unchecked capitalism, is it’s own cure.
Cancer, like unchecked capitalism, is it’s own cure.
This is true, but like cancer, it hurts a lot of people in the process as it goes down, eating it’s own.
@10
I pay more than my fair share don-ho.
and I will move to somalia as soon as you move your ass to North Korea…deal?
@32, Dude, wrong end of the spectrum. Not North Korea, think Sweden or Denmark, a socialist democracy.
North Korea is just another fascist state.
If you don’t like Somalia, where is your conservative, no tax paradise? I dare you. Name three? Name one?
Lessee’ here…we jiggle tax policies that provide HUGE benefits and/or outright subsidies to certain classes of people (doctors, lawyers, accountants, investors…), policies that promote social and economic stratification, and then comes the solemn recitation by wingers that the rich pay the overwhelming majority of taxes.
Who could have ever fucking known?
Goldy, ah, using the big lie technique. Telling your faithfull a flat out lie (that Murray is intelligent) again and again….maybe they’ll believe it..
did she claim the Catfood Commission was going to ‘save Social Security’ as she did on her recent conference call?
oh and fuck her tennis shoes–she’s a shill for Boeing and perpetual war
Heh. She bested Rod “Mr. Potatohead” Chandler, Linda “restrunts” Smith and George “Term Limits” Nethercutt.
And she’ll handily edge out Dino “three times a charm” Lossi.
I agree. It’s doesn’t take a genius to out maneuver those winners.
I’m voting for 6 more years of Patty in DC!
This is the kind of shit that’s swimming around in your ass with your head?
Figures.
LSB had to go to school, where he isn’t really learning anything.
Over a period of 30 years the rich have gotten hugely richer while essentially providing nothing for the society. Creating scandals of gianormous magnitude (savings and loan/michael milken), offshoring corporate profits with zero tax liability, outsourcing jobs disabling the manufacturing base in this country, garnering wealth through capital gains merely by waiting out inflation, speculating on food and energy driving up the costs for the other 90% of the population–these are just some of the ways in which all of this wealth and income was created and controlled. And they don’t want to pay taxes on it. Why would they? Greed is the norm for them, and as that level of selfishness increases-and they become fewer-some must fall. Sadly, we will pick them up because we don’t have anything else to do (no jobs, no income, no prospects).
Rossi’s advertisements are nothing more than recitations of lies and deceit, offering virtual pablum as solutions without substance.
Spyder, did you read the nasty comments about the Ezra Klein piece. The economic royalists had their shills working over time on that one.
Obama wants to start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan next July?
Some Generals are pushing back against that but withdrawal probably can’t come soon enough.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl.....ns-fingers
Better for idiots to that kind of thing over here and get sent to an American jail rather than over there and in doing so manufacture a terrorist.
Rossi fundraises at closed venues that draw lots of selfish rich bastards.
Anyone with a brain knows whose interests he’ll be serving in DC.
I sure do despise this tool.
oh and Murray used her tennis shoes to run away from the folks whose votes she needs now and towards big phrma on the drug reimportation bill. Thanks Senator!
As a Rossi supporter I’m naturally pumped for him to win, although I do have a caveat. I’m (kind of) sorry a Rossi victory has to come at Patty Murray’s expense. Yes, I disagree with her on most issues. She is, however, the only politician I’ve met who impressed me as being a genuine, down-to-earth human being. (I’ve never met Rossi, so I can’t really comment on his personality.) She’s sincere, which is depressingly rare in American politics and public life. She comes across as what she is: a liberal school teacher who has a good heart, a good (if not mistaken!) grasp of the issues, who cares about her community. Incidentally, my mother happens to be a liberal school teacher cut from the same cloth. These are good people we’re talking about here.
It really is a shame this isn’t Rossi vs. Maria Cantwell. I’m a bit closer to Cantwell on issues than with Murray, but the former’s personality is so appaling that it makes this distinction irrelevant. It is shocking to me that there are people not palpably idiotic or insane who think Cantwell sincere and honest; the woman positively drips with self-promotion and jobbery. Patty Murray is surely the superior public servant of the two.
I think a lot of the regulars on this blog would be surprised at how many right-of-center people in Washington really like Patty Murray despite political differences. The 58% of the vote she got against (Christianist Hun) Linda Smith in ’98 is pretty good evidence. That was my first election, and after Smith beat Chris Bayley in the primary I was solidly in Murray’s camp, as where, obviously, quite a few moderate Republicans.
Just not this time. Sorry guys. And sorry Patty–nothin’ personal.
1 Senator, 5 fawning “journalists,” 38 minutes = 0 tough questions