Sound Politics: Patty Murray Has A Position On Pork

November 27, 2006

Patty Murray Has A Position On Pork

She's for it. That's one of conclusions that I draw from this New York Times article, which gently warns readers not to expect controls on spending after the Democrats take over in January.

Here's what the Times says about Murray:

"What is good for the goose is good for the gander," Senator Patty Murray, the Washington Democrat who is set to become chairwoman of the transportation subcommittee, said last fall in a speech defending an Alaska Republican's allocation of more than $200 million in federal money for a bridge to remote Gravina, Alaska, with a population of 50. It became notorious as the "Bridge to Nowhere."

"I tell my colleagues, if we start cutting funding for individual projects, your project may be next," Ms. Murray warned. To anyone who might vote against the bridge, Ms. Murray threatened that her subcommittee would be "taking a long, serious look at their projects." Every Democrat on the Appropriations Committee voted against an amendment to strike the bridge, and after threats from Ms. Murray and Mr. Stevens, only 15 senators voted for the amendment. The bridge's future is unclear.

That's right, Senator Murray, or, as I think I will call her from now on, Senator Patty "Pork" Murray, saved the "Bridge to Nowhere". It's good to know that the Democrats have an even bigger appetite for pork than the Republicans, even if we had to wait until after the election for the New York Times to tell us that.

(I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the article appeared after the election.

Those living in the 6th district will be pleased to learn that the article mentions Congressman Norm Dicks as an ally of porkmeister (and unindicted Abscam coconspirator) John Murtha. We can expect Dicks to bring home even more bacon, or to rip off the taxpayers even more, if you want to take a larger view.)

Posted by Jim Miller at November 27, 2006 10:40 AM | Email This

Comments

1. Democrats and Republicans are two different sides of the same Tax and Spend coin.

Posted by: Libertarian on November 27, 2006 10:47 AM

2. Hey, Jim. Not Patty "Pork", but "Pork Patty", after the least edible meal choice in the MRE pantheon when I was in the Army (don't know if they offer it now).

And, Libertarian, I couldn't agree with you more. But the Dems ran on an anti-pork platform. And, after all, whose base (assuming the politicos listen) is more likely to oppose pork - even when it affects them personally? The Ds or the Rs? (I left out the Ls because they can't seem to win anything above the local level)

Posted by: sro on November 27, 2006 11:01 AM

3. You can be sure that Mayor Greg Nickels will be aligning with Patty "The Porker" Murray as much as possible to try and secure more federal funding for a Seattle Big Dig.

I think Murray's threats and the subsequent Democrat reactions are very enlightening. Nothing snaps a Democrat in to line faster than the loss of a subsidy gravy train. The Party of Parasites knows that they can't survive unless they are leaching off of someone else.

Not that the Republicans are much better, but there are at least calls for Pork reforms and some visions of economic sanity on the right.

Thanks Jim, keep it up, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

PS- "Patty Porker Murray" is an apt name on another front as Murray has gained a lot of weight in recent years. I guess she traded in the senator-in-tennis-shoes and soccer-mom-on-the-go routine for yet another round of fancy and fattening lobbyist sponsored lunches and dinners.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 27, 2006 11:16 AM

4. Oh, and for those who have not seen our senator at large recently, here is a good photo of Patty "The Porker" Murray that exposes her ample tolerance and consumption of pork.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 27, 2006 11:22 AM

5. There are plenty (numerous) things we can disagree, dispute and even mock Sen. Murray with. Her physical appearance is immaterial. Please leave that to the children on the other side.

Posted by: jimg on November 27, 2006 12:16 PM

6. In a nation with epidemic obesity, poor eating habits and not enough exercise, I'm unimpressed by a national leader who does not take her health seriously, and refuses to maintain a normal range of weight. Especially a Senator like Patty Murray, who has come out in favor of socialized health care which would place the burden of health care upon every person, regardless of their personal commitment to a healthy lifestyle.

This is not an appearance issue, it's a health issue. Given older pictures of Senator Murray, it's clear that she is not predisposed to a large body size, but instead has mismanaged her own health.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 27, 2006 01:35 PM

7. Gee, Jeff. I must've missed your concerns about Sen. Murray's health when you referred to her as Patty "The Porker" Murray. My bad. And I seriously doubt anybody takes their fitness/diet cues from today's politicians. If that was the case, Pres. Bush would be the most popular president in history.

Focus. It's not Sen. Murray's weight or physical appearance we should be concerned about.

Posted by: jimg on November 27, 2006 02:16 PM

8. Wrong. It's both. Her leadership position and responsibility it entails, and her views and political positions all matter. If someone attains public office, they are open to public scrutiny, and their life is subject to criticism. If we were talking about alcohol abuse, would that then suddenly warrant attention? Her personal caloric habits are equally open to scrutiny.

Porker definitely has a double meaning, I know it's a bit cutting, but it's apt that her physical condition mirrors her stance towards earmarking and congressional over-expenditure. If she developed a more limited stance towards allocation of our tax dollars, perhaps she would also develop a more judicious approach to personal intake.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 27, 2006 03:23 PM

9. Just so it's clear (though I did say so in the post): I think Democrats are, on the whole, worse than Republicans on pork.

And I picked that name in part because I thought it did not comment on her looks.

I hope that Patty Murray will take better care of herself, that she will live a long life -- and that she will leave the Senate as soon as possible.

(And I even gave her a suggestion on how to take better care of her health here. It's good for most men over 40 and most women over 50.)

Posted by: Jim Miller on November 27, 2006 03:44 PM

10. Patty is for pork? that is "one of the conclusions that [you] have drawn"? Ha. good observances. I bet if Patty had an "R" next to her name you would have drawn different conclusions.

It's much easier to fight for principles than it is to live up to them

Posted by: michaelUW on November 27, 2006 07:00 PM

11. Does this surprise you? As far as I could tell, democratic candidates were fairly honest about all the new (expensive) legislation they wish to sponsor...they were elected anyway.

Wish our kids were younger, or older, we would leave. Surely somebody has more sense than this? Surely??

Posted by: dl on November 28, 2006 12:26 AM

12. Gee I wonder if she can bring home about 20 Billion for Mayor Nickels Big Dig?

Posted by: GS on November 28, 2006 02:50 PM