Curious criticism of Murray perhaps knee-jerk reaction

The National Republican Senatorial Committee is accusing Sen. Patty Murray of “petty partisan politics,” which, considering the source, might be considered a compliment.

But the odd thing about this criticism, launched in a fairly long and blistering press release, is that it’s not for anything that Murray did or didn’t do. It just seems to be a matter of her being handy.

The NRSC, which has a job of electing and re-electing as many Republicans as possible to the Senate, took umbrage last week that its counterpart committee for the Democrats criticized one of the GOP fold, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine.

The D gang, known as the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, tossed some rocks at Snowe for voting against a proposal to add nearly $2 billion for veterans programs to the $81 billion being spent on Iraq, Afghanistan, tsunami victims and various other pet projects of influential congresspersons.

Nothing odd there, you’re probably thinking. A group designed to elect Democrats would naturally be expected to criticize Republican incumbents, hoping to bump them off in upcoming elections, and a Republican group would do the same to Democrats.

The NRSC apparently subscribes to the Vince Lombardi theory of defense, going on the attack against Murray because of her “history of putting partisan benefit above everything else.” But the DSCC didn’t even quote Murray in its criticism.

The only apparent connection between the two senators on this topic is that it was Murray’s amendment that Snowe voted against. While Murray criticized Republicans in general for turning thumbs down to more veterans money, she didn’t single out Snowe or smack her upside the head on the Senate floor.

“They’re actually fairly good friends,” Murray spokeswoman Alex Glass said of the two senators. “We were not involved in (the DSCC press release) at all.”

Murray used to be the head of the DSCC, but that was like two years ago. It’s a sure bet the Rs keep track of what the D groups are up to, and vice versa.

Women senators in general don’t campaign against each other. It’s true that Sen. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina campaigned for George Nethercutt last year, but that was an exception. (Dole and Nethercutt go to the same church back in Virginia, so there may be a fellow-congregant exemption in the no-campaign rule.) And in the end, that campaigning didn’t much help Nethercutt – so no harm, no foul.

The NRSC press release did give Republicans one more chance to whine about something they just can’t let go of – Murray’s comments about Osama bin Laden in 2003. Didn’t work for them in 2004 in Washington, but who knows what will work next year in Maine?

And that’s the really odd thing about this attack. Snowe’s got an election in 2006, but Murray doesn’t have to worry about this kind of stuff until 2010. You’d think the NRSC would have something, or someone, better to vent their energy on.

Web smack down

Speaking of going on the attack, the Democratic campaign organization in the House is training every rifle, cannon and missile it can muster on Majority Leader Tom DeLay, with a new Web site that illustrates his alleged transgressions. This after linking up with James Carville, who’s known for bare knuckles partisanship.

Seems as though they are taking to heart the comments by some Republican congresspersons who said folks back home may be mad about gas prices, but most didn’t even know who Tom DeLay was.

Tax facts

Tax policy groups tend to view April 15 the way fireworks factories view July 4 – it’s their big chance to light some fuses. So there’s no surprise the mail and e-mail were busy last week with discussions of what taxes are bad and what ones are worse. The Tax Foundation, like most groups in the other Washington, released a survey specially made for the day. One could quibble with some parts of it. For example, it’s an Internet survey, so even adjusted for various demographic groups by pollster Harris Interactive, it’s still tapping the peculiarities of the cyber universe. And there are some real “No, duh” figures, like 70 percent of the people either “hated” or “disliked” doing their income taxes. (The other 30 percent apparently were masochists or liars.)

But the most interesting thing was that when asked, 59 percent of respondents said they thought they paid a bigger share of their income in taxes than Donald Trump.

It’s true The Donald had some problems with some of his investments in Jersey, and he’s probably got an army of accountants to find ways to deduct the expenses of those people he fires every week on television. But pay a smaller percentage of his billions in taxes than three out of five of us?

The foundation’s Bill Ahern said it’s a sign Americans are losing faith in the progressive nature of the income tax. The IRS says data show that the more you make, the higher percentage you pay, but “the perception is that’s not true,” he said.

The foundation picked Trump as the nation’s most recognizable bazillionaire, Ahern said. The group assumes he has a very complicated tax return, but doesn’t actually know how much he pays in taxes, or if it’s a bigger percentage than yours.