Be pragmatic tomorrow- Remove a radical from CT 5

Ultra liberal Chris Murphy is trying the Big Con for CT voters. We can call him on it. And we need to do it now.

Chris Murphy's closing argument in his flagging bid for re-election is that he represents the "pragmatic center" of American politics. This is a place he visits only after Labor Day on even numbered years.

I call B.S. on this. Let's count the ways Murphy is far to the Left in American politics--even beyond the usual Nancy Pelosi foot soldier.

Terrorism

Chris Murphy thinks our efforts to keep Americans safe should be micromanaged by lawyers and run in a fashion so as to not to offend foreign press.

Murphy is one of the most vocal opponents of the use of warrantless wiretaps to obtain information to thwart terrorist threats. We do not know the precise manner this past week effort to blow up Jewish houses of worship with mail bombs was foiled, but do we want to hamstring the people who keep us safe? Murphy evidently does.

Worse still, he favored letting the telecom firms that assisted the War on Terror face ruinous lawsuits from lefty lawyers 

Erick Erickson at Red State has more on this point.

Murphy is also one of the firmest opponents of keeping the detention facility at Gitmo open. What he suggests we do with the jihadists we do not know.

Health Care

Chris Murphy has a problem with the health care bill. He doesn;t think it went far enough. He is a strong supporter of the public option. And why?  Because last year he told the Meriden Record Journal  "I'm haven't given up on private insurance" while claiming the public sector could provide the same service better.  

There are tens of thousands of private insurance jobs in CT. What a joy to know our Congressman isn't ready "yet" to have the federal government put them all out of business.   Murphy went to some tony college in the UK for awhile; perhaps he became enamored of the NHS and socialized medicine while over there.

Netroots

If you are an ally of Kos, you are not a Blue Dog, a New Democrat, or a fiscal conservative. You have decided to ally yourself with folks who think the Democratic Party has not yet moved far enough to the Left. 

Chris Murphy was a lead speaker at Kos' Netroots Nation convention. He wants to be the "tip of the spear" advancing the liberal agenda through Congress.

He told MSMBC that after he and his colleagues got past the voters in November they would return with "steel in their spine" ready to cast more tough votes against the wishes of their constituents.

So Murphy is following the playbook. talking left outside the district, talking right inside the district, and planning to do whatever he pleases if he is returned to office.

That, by the way, will be to abandon his work as a House member and start his 2012 senate campaign against Joe Lieberman.  Of course, CT observers have noticed that if Murphy loses tomorrow, he's probably all done for 2012.

Conclusion

There are plenty of Democrats who are going to lose. Many are well meaning and misguided. But as for a toxic cocktail of ambition, ideology and insincerity there are none more deserving of defeat than Connecticut's Chris Murphy. 

If you agree go to www.samforcongress.com 

  

0
Your rating: None

Comments

from Left Hook! I sometimes

from Left Hook!

I sometimes poke around over at "The Next Right," a theoretically "reformist" conservative site (albeit one that, in practice, mostly ends up being SOS), and, this being election day, I thought I'd step over there and see if there was anything interesting.

I found a blog, there, from poster Ironman, about Rep. Chris Murphy, the Democratic congressman from Connecticut's 5th district. Posted yesterday, it advises people to "be pragmatic tomorrow--remove a radical from CT 5." Campaigns produce a lot of hyperbolic rhetoric, of course, and maybe it's best to chalk IM's words up to the feverish emotions of the moment and leave it at that, but something made me want to offer a few comments on it. Probably the fact that it's so perfectly emblematic of the very wrongheaded "thinking" of a lot of the contemporary American right.

IM's premise is that Murphy is some sort of wild-eyed lefty radical who is misrepresenting himself in his reelection bid:

"Chris Murphy's closing argument in his flagging bid for re-election is that he represents the 'pragmatic center' of American politics.

"I call B.S. on this. Let's count the ways Murphy is far to the Left in American politics--even beyond the usual Nancy Pelosi foot soldier."

His first example:

 

"Murphy is one of the most vocal opponents of the use of warrantless wiretaps to obtain information to thwart terrorist threats... [D]o we want to hamstring the people who keep us safe? Murphy evidently does."

Is this evidence of Murphy's radicalism?

It should be said, right up front, that Bush's NSA wiretapping program was completely illegal--a blatantly criminal enterprise that was explicitly forbidden by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which had been on the books for decades, so IM's premise, that standing against government surveillance conducted with blatant criminality makes one some sort of radical, is, to put it as kindly as possible, shaky (another depressing sign of creeping fascism on the right).

What did the public think about Bush's criminal enterprise? In the immediate aftermath of the story breaking, the U.S. was almost equally divided. Polling showed that slim majorities either supported or opposed it based on the wording of the poll question, the more accurate wording producing stronger opposition than support. Murphy's "radical" opposition to it was in line with that of half the public.

That was just after the story broke.

As time went by, public opinion shifted strongly against the Bush administration on this matter. By Oct. 2007, a Mehlman Group poll found that 61% said the government should have to get a warrant before conducting this sort of surveillance; only 35% supported the Bush position. By Jan. 2008, another Mehlman Group poll asked the same question; 63% said the government should have to get a warrant (55% said they believed this "strongly"), with only 33% supporting the Bush position (24% "strongly"). By Feb. 2009, just after the beginning of Murphy's current term in office, 63% of respondents were telling Gallup they favored an investigation into the matter, including 77% of Democrats, 64% of independents, and even 41% of Republicans. Murphy's "radical" view, which IM says puts him "far to the Left in American politics," is, in fact, that of an overwhelming majority of the public--of Democrats, of independents, and of nearly half of the Republicans.

IM continues:

"Worse still, he favored letting the telecom firms that assisted the War on Terror face ruinous lawsuits from lefty lawyers "

The telecom firms in question "assisted the War on Terror" by illegally turning over private information on their clients to the Bush administration. They weren't ordered by a court to do so--Bush wanted it, and they just handed it over. Bush sought a bill granting these companies a blanket immunity from any legal action their enraged clients may bring against them. Murphy opposed this immunity.

Evidence of Murphy radicalism? Hardly. In that same Mehlman Group poll referenced above, 57% opposed granting immunity; 45% "strongly" opposed it. Only 33% supported it (22% "strongly"). The opposition to immunity cut across all political lines--liberals opposed it by 64%, moderates by 58%, and even 50% of conservatives opposed it.

So, again, IM is describing Murphy as a "radical" and "far to the Left in American politics" based on his holding the same views that are also broadly and overwhelmingly held by the public.

It's also worth, again, noting IM's premise in using this example; that Murphy is some sort of extreme lefty based on Murphy's opposition to blatant lawbreaking by the telecoms, turning over private information on the public to the government.

IM continues:

"Murphy is also one of the firmest opponents of keeping the detention facility at Gitmo open."

The public has been strongly divided on this question. In Jan. 2009, 53% told the ABC News/Washington Post poll they thought the U.S. should close the facility, with 42% supporting keeping it open. A CBS News/New York Times poll three months later showed an almost-even split--47% should continue to operate, while 44% said to close the prison. An AP/Roper poll two months later showed the public evenly split on the question--47% approved of Obama's then-goal to close the facility within a year, while 47% opposed it. Again, Murphy's view seems in line with about half of the public.

Unfortunately, this matter has been subject to a great deal of right-wing fear-mongering. The far right expended a great deal of effort telling the public that closing the facility would mean al Qaida prisoners would be dropped in their back yards, and when poll questions include nods toward this, NIMBYist sentiment kicks in. A USA Today/Gallup poll from May 2009, for example, asked, "Suppose the prison at Guantanamo Bay is closed. Would you favor or oppose moving some of those prisoners to a prison in your state?" 74% were opposed, with only 23% in favor. The results are usually less dramatic (around a 60/40 split), but large majorities do oppose closing the facility if the prisoners end up in their back yards, so on this matter, Murphy can be said to be out of sync with most people, if one doesn't control for NIMBYism.

IM continues:

"Chris Murphy has a problem with the health care bill. He doesn't think it went far enough. He is a strong supporter of the public option."

As was most of the public throughout the health-care debate. In a Time magazine poll from July, 2009, 56% supported the public option, 36% opposed. In a CNN/Opinion Research poll from Aug., 2009, 55% favored the public option, 41% opposed. In a Kaiser Family Foundation poll from Sept. 2009, 57% supported a public option, only 37% opposed. In a Quinnipiac poll from Oct. 2009, 61% supported the public option, only 34% opposed. In a CBS News/New York Times poll from Dec., 2009, 59% supported the public option, with only 29% opposed. This poll broke down the results by party, and found that support included 80% of Democrats, 59% of independents, and even 33% of Republicans.

So, again, Murphy is tagged as a lefty radical for being in line with most of the public.

And that's the whole of IM's substantive case against Murphy. He whines about Murphy attended a gathering of internet liberals, misrepresents a comment Murphy made to MSNBC [*], and concludes that "there are none [Democrats] more deserving of defeat than Connecticut's Chris Murphy."

It's clear IM doesn't like Murphy's politics, and, for whatever reason, he seems to personally despise the man, but he utterly fails to prove his premise that Murphy is some sort of "radical" who "is far to the Left in American politics." From IM's description, in fact, Murphy appears to be exactly what IM quotes him as calling himself, a representative of "the 'pragmatic center' of American politics." That IM sees this as "radical" says everything about himself, and nothing about Chris Murphy.

--classicliberal2

---

[*] IM's version:

"He [Murphy] told MSMBC that after he and his colleagues got past the voters in November they would return with 'steel in their spine' ready to cast more tough votes against the wishes of their constituents."

The actual comment, in context:

 

"Giving an upbeat scenario for Election Day, Murphy said, 'When we retain the House, some members are going to come back with some extra steel in their spines, having cast some tough votes and having survived what’s likely the toughest election of their career.'"

[NOTE: The polls cited in the above piece that lack a link come from Pollingreport.com]

Healthcare polls/quotes from 2009 ? We've read the Bill

March of 2010 is when the Health care bill was passed, we've read the Bill since then, and the Election today pretty much assures it is going to be repealed.   So don't get too excited about the HC bill, its going down like Pelosi.

As for Bush Wire Tapping, it was perfectly legal, and is still going on in this administration, along with GPS locators on your car (without your knowledge)

Gitmo is still open, get over it, Obama has.

As for turning over Privite information, I seem to remember recently where a company's private Corporate income Tax information was turned over by THIS administration.   I think that lawsuit against the "o" GOVERNMENT is real and alive at present.

As for "O"s criminal enterprise compared to Bush's non existant one, I'm sure there will be a congressional investigation starting in January 2011........the "Most Ethical' Congress is on its way to DC......

Murphy won reelection

Murphy won reelection yesterday, which helps make my point (and helps further refute Ironman's). The usual 4speed cocktail of off-topic lies and incomprehensible raving  doesn't really address anything I wrote.

Off Topic lies ?

So, your post doesn't have "Gitmo" in it  ?   Nor do the words wiretapping and surveillance appear in your post ?  Health Care is not mentioned in your Post ?  

Gee, wait, while I double check.................Yep, I'm on Topic.   Your accusations are little off target though, you should really practice discussing CT-5 Politics without mentioning BUSH 4 or 5 times in your discussion.  I don't think Bush is particularly "relevent" to your post.

Here, I'll quote you......."I call B.S. on this"

Here, I'll quote you......."I

Here, I'll quote you......."I call B.S. on this"

That isn't quoting me, imbecile--that's quoting Ironman. But thanks for demonstrating that you were paying just as much attention as I suggested you were.

Your accusations are little off target though, you should really practice discussing CT-5 Politics without mentioning BUSH 4 or 5 times in your discussion.  I don't think Bush is particularly "relevent" to your post.

Perhaps you don't, but then you, yourself, have just established that you haven't read it with any understanding, so anyone with more than a few functioning brain-cells can safely set aside your bleating on this point in the same way they can set aside your original collection of off-topic lies and ravings, and not trouble their heads with the thought that you may have had something relevant to add.

good enough, I'll stand corrected

It was the only quote from your post that was worth repeating, and it fit so well in describing the post.    

So lets correct that as "Here, let me quote IM"  or even "Let me quote ClassicLib quoting IM".  

Now that we have that out of the way, lets talk about the new Tea Party conspiracy as it involves both Connectcut and California.

The Tea Party plan is to leave Democrats in control of Two Key States, one in the WEST and one in the East (CT or NY), so when these states go BANKRUPT with their out of control government spending, the Democrats will be in Charge of the disaster.   When the Connecticut/NY car goes in the ditch, the Democrats will be holding the steering wheel.   Too bad you didn't join the State of Maine and go Red in your State Governor....(but Foley may ask for a recount).

As for Murphy going to DC again, someone tell the Senate has MOVED TO THE RIGHT, and the Congress is completely RIGHT sided now that Pelosi is fired.

Good luck in CT, you're surrounded by RED North and West, with only NY covering your bottom.  

The Unreported Report

From Red State:

More significantly, a minimum of seventeen state legislative houses have flipped to the Republican Party.

The North Carolina Legislature is Republican for the first time since 1870. Yes, that is Eighteen Seventy.

The Alabama Legislature is Republican for the first time since 1876.

For those saying this is nothing because it is the South, consider these:

The entire Wisconsin and New Hampshire legislatures have flipped to the GOP by wide margins.

The State Houses in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, Montana, and Colorado flipped to the GOP.

The Maine and Minnesota Senates flipped to the GOP.

The Texas and Tennessee Houses went from virtually tied to massive Republican gains. The gains in Texas were so big that the Republicans no longer need the Democrats to get state constitutional amendments out of the state legislature.

These gains go all the way down to the municipal level across the nation. That did not happen even in 1994.

This was a tsunami.

 

sorry. 46 out of 50

already bankrupt. (guess which ones aint?)

Number one challenge for Republicans:
convincing the rich to shoot themselves in the foot, by investing in less-than-fully-profitable America.