Talk:Patty Murray
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Patty Murray is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. You can help by editing this article. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles. |
"Sources" say Patty was right about all of Osama's good deeds but these sourses are mysterously never mentioned. I suspect the reason is that the sums Murray's buddy forked over are rather small and would not support Murrays phraise of him.
Name that tune. If that statement is to stay in there, there must be documentation that such is in fact true Ball park numbers also need to be provided. How much did he spend on bridges for example?
The only thing I know about bridges is that I am pretty sure I could the Senator to buy one. -Mccommas
Contents |
[edit] Being the dimmest bulb in the Senate is legitimate information
--Geneb1955 06:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
--- The scary thing that is was true [1]and many people in Washington State agree from what I hear. Bdelisle 06:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Screw the Republican controlled corporate media. I know Senator Murray personally and that crap is pure slander. Just ask George Nethercutt.8bitJake
Look - I'm not going to get into a pissing match. You can walk away all smarmy knowing that you beat down a conservative trying to express his free speach. If you bothered to look up Slander then you would find out that in modern law, this does not meet the definition of slander in that 1) it's true (the entry mearly stated that the Washingtonian conducted a survey and here were the results), 2) even if it weren't true, Murray is a public figure and the bar is much higher for public figures. If it were not the case, President George W. Bush would constantly be in court suing any one of the nimrods that ridicule, misquote and outright lie about what he has said.
-- Oh and by the way, you are a riot 8bitJake. You don't have a bias? I know Murray by her speaches and votes and I think I am in a better position than you to render judgement. Please site your examples of Republican controlled corporate media. Have you ever visted the FEC site? You can look up which candidates and PAC's to which various people contribute. It's very easy to investigate any media and find their board members and find out who they support. Please educate yourself. I think you are suffering from a mental disorder. I challange you to read two books. You are going to laugh, but If I can read liberals like Alan Colmes and Hillary Clinton, then you should be able to get through Ann Coulter and Michael Savage. Specifically for Ann, read Treason, and for Savage, read The Enemy Within. You need the wool lifted from your eyes and the fog lifted from your brain. You may not believe this, but as a young person, I was a liberal. You are not beyond hope - but I fear that your mind is closed to alternative ideas. --Geneb1955 20:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
After backing off this issue, I still think that the information is valid, cited and belongs on Senator Murray's article. Since it was a tie with Rick Santorum (R-PA), I also added the information to his page. --Geneb1955 04:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
That is a load of crap. I know the Senator personally and the people of Washington State did not agree with the right wing slander since we overwhelmingly re-elected her. --8bitJake 16:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Funny how you didn't see fit to RV the identicle entry for Rick Santorum, that wasn't moot? --Geneb1955 00:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The source is not non partisan. There is no scientific method listed and it should be taken as opinion and thus it has no place in Wikipedia. If you put this back in it will be taken out and I’ll take it all the way to the admins. --8bitJake 20:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Knock yourself out. You're not exactly known here for being NPOV. --Geneb1955 04:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Slander has no place in Wikipedia.
Go back to Freeperville with that crap. (—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 8bitJake (talk • contribs).)
- hhm, one of them just rewrote the polling numbers as part of a "POV cleanup", I reverted the entire thing, I'm not going to assume a good faith edit from someone whose last edit to this page was essentially vandalism--152.163.100.202 18:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Needs Updating
This article includes a lot of POV statements with very few inline sources to back these statements up, such as "in part riding Bill Clinton's coattails". A 54% to 46% victory is a fairly decisive victory as far as elections go and seems to indicate more than riding the Bill Clinton wave. Murray's been a Senator for almost 13 years, surely she's done something noteworthy/controversial in that time. I'll start doing some research, but I'm rather new to the Washington political scene so I'm not up on Murray's record yet. It's a sad thing when the junior senator has a more in-depth page than the senior senator. --Bobblehead 20:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it really appropriate to only include one tiny bit of May 2006 legislation? Should Wikipedia contain a history of all of their votes, or "important votes", or no votes? -- Nobody 20:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Other senators tend to include 'important votes' or at the very least, controversial ones. Wikipedia obviously can't record all their votes, but if there is significance to the vote, like Immigration Reform, and the vote was controversial it can be recorded. Obviously this article is lacking in that department and without other voting records the May 2006 legislation is a bit out of place. --Bobblehead 17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unexplained section removal - Comments about Osama bin Laden
I was surprised to see how small this article had become. There was no edit summary by Dhwani1989 (talk • contribs) as to why it was removed. I plan on restoring the text below. I'm open to discussion. It is well sourced and presents critical and supporting points of view. --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 07:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
In October 2002 Murray was one of only 23 senators to vote against the Iraq war resolution. In December 2002, Murray made the following controversial comments before a high school audience at Vancouver, Washington:
- Osama bin Laden has been very, very effective being we've got to ask, why is this man so popular around the world?
- Why are people so supportive of him in many countries? He has been in many countries that are riddled with poverty.
- People don't have phones, no sewers, no roads, no schools, no health care, no facilities just to make sure their daily lives are OK.
- He'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.
- How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?
Critics instantly accused Murray of calling bin Laden a humanitarian and being misinformed. [2] [3] Her critics are supported by the fact that prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001 the U.S. was "largest single donor of assistance to Afghans" according to The U.S. Agency for International Development. [4] Her defenders said that Murray was right to ask why bin Laden was popular so that the United States could fight him at the source, and that her remarks were mostly accurate. For example, the Seattle Weekly wrote that while her remarks were simplistic, Osama bin Laden "did, according to several respected sources, help build roads, tunnels, schools, and hospitals [but not day care centers] for decades in Afghanistan." Osama bin Laden has used his own personal wealth and personal background in construction to gain influence and promote his own extreme Islamic beliefs in the Sudan and Afghanistan. However, given Osama bin Laden's advocation of severely traditional roles for men and women (and his close ties with the Taliban in Afghanistan), the building of day care centers would have been out of character for him. Washington's two biggest papers, The Seattle Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer also defended Murray, as did the Bellingham Herald. Her in-state critics included the Columbian and the News Tribune. In 2004 her opponent, Nethercutt, ran ads showcasing her controversial remarks, but they did little to impact her standing, and may have even hurt his chances.
Well is it relevant? It did not affect her campaign or her re-election. I think the section is highly POV. For example it mentions her Iraq war vote. OBL and Iraq are totally un connected.--8bitJake 16:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- The articles length and detail is rather depressing, I haven't had time to spend developing it as I said I would, alas. But to the matter at hand, while the controversy is worth noting, it really shouldn't get it's own section. As 8bitJake notes, this was really just a bump in the road of her political career. Maybe put something like this into her US Senate section:
- In December 2002, while speaking to Vancouver, Washington high school students, Murray made a number of comments she intended to be thought provoking, but were also controversial. These comments linked Osama bin Laden's popularity around the world to his building of infrastructure to those countries and the lack of popularity for the US due to its lack of helping to build infrastructure.[5] Republican pundits and the conservative media were quick to criticize Murray for saying bin Laden was a humanitarian[6] and that she was grossly informed as to the nature of the US's lack of popularity in Muslim countries.[7] While several local newspapers were quick to come to Murray's defense by saying that even though her comments were over simplistic and poorly constructed, bin Laden has spent much of his personal fortune to gain influence over local leaders, including infrastructure improvement projects, and promote his ideology.[8]
- Side note.. Anyone have a reputable source critical of Murray? The Townhall link is dead and the only thing I found in my quick search was blog responses. --Bobblehead 16:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I could live with that text.--8bitJake 20:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Added the text to the article. The article still needs a ton of development. --Bobblehead 21:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Meh. Show me one article in Wikipedia that does not need a ton of development.--8bitJake 21:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey - been away for a bit. I think the text added is a nice blend of including the incident and keeping it encyclopedic. Nice work. --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 21:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Strom Thurmond paragraph
Just seeing if I can get any discussion going on this before I delete the paragraph. Is there any particular reason why the Strom Thurmond excessive touching paragraph should stay in the article? It doesn't seem to be very notable from the Patty Murray standpoint, maybe from the Strom standpoint, but not Murray. Even if others find it notable enoug to stay, I'll be paring it down some. The quote from the NYT is a bit excessive so the entry could be as little as "In 1994 Republican Senator Strom Thurmond was accused of 'excessively touching' Senator Murray, an act for which she asked for and received an apology."--Bobblehead 20:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with removing it. At this point it seems like padding because the section seems a little thin. I would like to see some information on her accomplishments or notable legislation sponsored during her 12 years in the senate. --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 21:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be removed -- it's notable (if a bit gossipy). But it should definitely be pared down. I like the one-sentence summary you've offered, Bobblehead -- go ahead and implement it! --Dustingc 16:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
