Talk:Patty Murray/Archive 1

Discussion about News Poll
--Geneb1955 06:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

--- The scary thing that is was true 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)

>>Whoever it is that wants to call Senator Murray 'the dimmest bulb' is an idiot who prints libel, but I loosely use the word libel because that writer can barely spell. Truth be told, I used to be in the same political boat as him, but have recently reevaluated many of those opinions. If you want to continue to feed your political delusions, then by all means, watch the E! Network... excuse me, Fox News. Otherwise, you can turn the channel to real news, such as the BBC or Frontline. All people may have been created equal, but not all opinions are equally cogent; even if all people have an equal right to vote, but also, have an obligation to educate themselves with facts rather than get tied-up in pointless debates about orchestrated 'controversies.' If you want to wonder, "Who's to say what difference an opinion can make?" For the answer to that question, please research the Civil Rights movment or the American Revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.78.135 (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

>> It may not be appropriate to editorialize to the extent of calling Senator Murray the 'dimmest bulb' in the Senate, but it does seem appropriate to describe the view her peers and Senate staffers have of her. She was voted the dumbest senator by senate staffers for seven years in a row. Whether you like her or not, it seems to me that this is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.52.67.115 (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Libel has no place in Wikipedia.
Go back to Freeperville with that crap. ( —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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 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. -- G e n e b 1 9 5 5  Talk / 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. 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. 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. Republican pundits and the conservative media were quick to criticize Murray for saying bin Laden was a humanitarian and that she was grossly informed as to the nature of the US's lack of popularity in Muslim countries. 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.
 * 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. -- G e n e b 1 9 5 5  Talk / CVU 21:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Section about bin Laden remarks
The section about the Bin Laden remarks belong in the Discussion area. To include a section about a controversy over her remarks is innocuous junk, and if anything belongs in the discussion section so that an inquisitive reader or student is not misled into thinking that a debate over controversial remarks defines a politician or a person in general. Now obviously, some verbal statements can define a person -- a psychotic person -- but there is no reason to believe that Patty Murray is mentally ill and thus the section about the bin Laden remarks is nothing more than defamatory and belongs if anything under Discussion rather than an area meant to report facts.

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.  --  G e n e b 1 9 5 5  Talk / 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)

I agree with removing it. It suggests the event happened in 1994. TWELVE years later (2006), conveniently 3 years after the death of Senator Strom Thurmond, this was printed in the NY Times. Without more details (why the NY Times chose to write the article) it only appears to the reader to be gossip. - PILOTMOM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotmom (talk • contribs) 23:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

First female Conference Secretary?
I was wondering why the article says that Sen. Murray is the first woman to be Conference Secretary, when the Wikipedia page for "Democratic Conference Secretary of the United States Senate" lists Sens. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Barbara Mikulski of Maryland as the two previous occupants of the office. If the article is right, the Secretary has been a woman since 1995.

Am I missing something? a caveat, a technicality?. At first I thought it could be something like "the first female Conference Secretary in Majority," but there have been Democratic-controlled Senates in the last 18 years.

So, should that be deleted?. Adrael (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Good catch. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Diane Tebelius
I am writing about the use of "Sen. Murray may be challenged next year by Diane Tebelius, a former federal prosecutor and candidate for Congress." within Sen. Murray's page. Not only is this speculation, for she hasn't even made it through a party primary, but this should be saved for when there is actual, substantial news about the race, which hasn't even started. This should be removed from her page, and stay removed. Wikipedia isn't a place for advancing a political career Diane Tebelius. It is a place for knowledge and this section is (as of now) trivial speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.83.191 (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal life
The article lists Bothell, WA as her current residence and says she is a "lifelong resident of Bothell". I found no evidence that she lives in Bothell. She is registered to vote in SEATTLE not Bothell! Please substantiate her 'lifelong' residency. Did she attend high school, go to church, belong to community groups, etc.? 76.104.204.177 (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Death Threat
In 2010 Murray received a highly publicized death threat over her vote in favor of health care reform. I believe that this should be included in her article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.9.129 (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Global trade exchange section
I don't understand this section, very garbled, and no citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.111.83 (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

'Tenure'
I'm not going to get involved in some absurd edit war over the 'Tenure' section consisting of nothing but some gossipy title-tattle about Strom Thurmond. If that's the most important thing any of you can come up with to summarize Patty Murray's time in office...knock yourself out. Why are you so determined to have Wikipedia ridiculed? Flatterworld (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to get rid of "some gossipy title-tattle about Strom Thurmond" then go right ahead.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What the heck?
Is there anyone that knows why she made this statement: "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. He’s made their lives better." [speaking of Osma Bin Laden].

Maybe we can put this into context instead of just throwing it up there in the "positions" section? This is very strange....Bin Laden builds roads? 66.119.9.188 (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Bin Laden is all about the day care facilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.23 (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Committees
It was announced that Murray is moving to ranking member of the H.E.L.P. Committee. Bernard Sanders I-Vermont is the ranking member of Budget. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Patty Murray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100426115824/http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com:80/2010/04/24/surveyusa-poll-washington-senate/ to http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/04/24/surveyusa-poll-washington-senate/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

M4A + Signing of Letters
Wish the article discussed her stance on medicare for all considering contemporary discussion on such a policy. Also, there is a lot of "signed a letter" material here, which seems odd. It is evidence of where she nominally stands on issues but is there not actual policy she has put forward or votes she's cast that can give a clearer picture?

Lead image
Following suit with Dick Durbin and Bernie Sanders, these outdated official portraits from nearly a decade ago should be replaced with recent images. Here's some potential replacements and let's vote as to whether we should change the image. I personally prefer B. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)