Washington Senator Patty Murray would do well to debate her Republican challengers. It almost looked like Murray was challenging her main opponent, George Nethercutt, to a debate. The Spokane Spokesman-Review reports:
In a story Tuesday in Roll Call, the manager of the Murray campaign was dismissive of Nethercutt's financial support from the American Medical Association, saying her boss has a better record on health care. "If they want to have a debate on health care, we welcome that debate," Carol Albert said.But Murray didn't offer her invitation at face value. Her campaign later said:Nethercutt and his campaign pounced on that statement and sent a letter agreeing to debate.
"I'm excited about debating Senator Murray. I'm taking her invitation at face value," he said Wednesday.
she was talking about "the rhetorical type of debate that candidates go through, in the news media, during a campaign."It wouldn't necessarily be unreasonable to wait until after the primary to see who the Republican nominee is before there's a debate. On the other hand, there's a good chance that the state will go ahead with the (regrettable) Cajun-style Top-Two primary that was just approved by the legislature. In that case, there is no "Republican nominee". So Murray should offer to debate all candidates, regardless of party, who are showing at a reasonable minimum threshhold in the polls. The first debate should take place as soon as possible. Or is the "mom in tennis shoes" afraid she can't hold her own?Any face-to-face, Lincoln-Douglas style matchup should wait until after Nethercutt wins the GOP nomination, she said.
"We'll be happy to discuss the possibility of debates, after the primary in September," she said.
Hat tip: Ron Hebron
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 29, 2004 07:00 AMPlease. Please debate.
Please.
I'd love to hear - in her words - just how Osama bin Daycare came to be so popular.
And message to Nethercutt from Chandler,R., "No singing."
Posted by: jimg on March 29, 2004 10:38 AMjimg:
I met with Murray a few weeks ago, and she still will not back-off from that comment. Her staffer was cringing when she was talking to us. As one of my colleaguse has stated, she demostrated a very naive world-view and we should be concenrned.
On a positive note, when asked whether she agrees with Kerry that the threat of terrorism has been exaggerated by the Bush admin, she said: "abosloutely not, the threat is very real and very serious."
I also give her kudos for her refusal to some morally equivilent diplospeak statement regarding Corrie. Unlike Baird and some of the other Dems in WA, Murray has stood by Israel on this one. I was quite surprised that despite her kooky world view, she seemed to get it regarding Israel.
Posted by: J. Lichty on March 29, 2004 01:24 PMI would love to see the "mom in tennis shoes" debate, just for the mere fact that it would be losing strategy for her campaign. Not only was Murray’s recent refusal to sign on to the Lacey and Conner’s bill a bad move for her staff (I mean, who would seriously not vote for a law that would punish the killers of wanted fetuses? Was she not there during the testimonies?), but as ‘jimg’ brought up, she empathizes and understands why the “Arab Street” adores Bin Laden, all his efforts to build day cares and provide infrastructure. She is such a dolt.
Last year I wrote her staff a letter asking her to look into the slaughter of Christians and tribal blacks in Sudan by the Islamic government. She wrote back telling me that she did not believe that the non-Islamic blacks in Sudan were being murdered.
Note: Murray prefers protecting you from asbestos rather than terrorists.
A little known fact, that really should be exploited; Murray is known for her stupid utterances by her fellow Senators and that is why her campaign manager will most likely try and keep Murray out of the public. Murray knows that the only way she will be elected is to stay out of the public view so that people will vote for her based on incumbency alone, not on issues.
As many regular readers of this blog can attest, we remember when Murray was a state senator and we had to work with her.
She was just as dumb then.
Posted by: jimg on March 30, 2004 09:37 AMDoes she stand any chance of losing to George "term limits don't apply to me" Nethercutt?
Posted by: J. Lichty on March 30, 2004 09:52 AM"Does she stand any chance of losing to George "term limits don't apply to me" Nethercutt?"
In short, yes, but it'll take some doing. Nethercutt's got some good people working for him - and Patty can step in it on any given day - so it's a ballgame.
Posted by: jimg on March 31, 2004 09:20 AMPatty Murray is certainly a dim bulb. But her electoral success is a symptom of a larger problem in Washington. Like the much discussed anybody but George Bush mantra in the Democratic camp, I think Washington has long suffered from an anybody but a Republican mantra in the heavily populated three county cluster around Seattle. Until Republicans in this State overcome their undeserved image as right wing lunatics in the Seattle area, Patty's seat is probably safe.
Expectations are so low for a national Democrat, Patty can make the most idiotic statements without much fallout.
The Republicans don't have much of a bench in Washington and have run weak or celebrity candidates in the past.
Patty Murray and Jim McDermott are symptoms of a dysfunctional electorate. Because the Seattle area is blessed with natural beauty and a mild climate, we attract immigration at high rates which in and of itself creates economic positives. Consequently, politicians can posture, engage in symbolic acts and even pass stupid legislation that won't hurt the economy significantly with the strong headwind of immigration. Voters can then play games.
If only Mark Sidran had prevailed in the Seattle Major's race.
Posted by: Gary B on March 31, 2004 07:13 PM