Pages: 1 2
She wasn’t a parent upset that her child’s school was dropping an art history class. She was a deadbeat public employee who didn’t want her job cut. No one was taking her course, but she thought taxpayers should be required to pay her salary anyway.
Fighting to keep your own cushy job isn’t a point of principle; it’s evidence of a narcissistic personality disorder.
But you have to do a lot of research to find out that the class being eliminated was Murray’s own. This deliberate policy on the part of the press to hide Murray’s utterly self-serving motive for saving the class proves they know this is a problem for her.
The media’s admiration for Murray’s tenacious political start is like applauding the pluck of a stalker: “That guy sure has moxie and determination!” You’re not supposed to be canonized for fighting to keep your own job.
Murray is the equivalent of a Wall Street fat-cat saying, “I’m going to fight for my $50 million severance package because it’s the right thing to do!”
This remarkably unimpressive woman has tried to turn being a flat-footed dork into an advantage by selling herself as a tribune of regular folks. Yes, like most regular folk, she listed no religious affiliation whatsoever in the first few editions of the Congressional Almanac. (She probably couldn’t remember she was supposed to say “Catholic.”)
Soon after being elected to the Senate in 1992, Murray fought for a federal government jobs program by saying, “The highest-paying job I had before coming to Washington, D.C., paid $23,000 a year. … I know what it’s like to tell my kids they can’t buy everything they want.”
Is that what Murray thinks a senator should be doing? Ensuring that parents can tell their children they can buy everything they want?
True, Murray is a mom. You could also describe Hitler as a “war veteran and painter,” but I think the more salient fact is that he was a German dictator.
Similarly, Murray’s relevant characteristic is that she is a lifelong public-sector union zealot.
Again, Murray’s class was on “parenting” — the very definition of a pointless government program. Imagine going back in a time machine and trying to explain to someone from 1950 why the government was paying for classes on “parenting.” How about classes on “waking up” or “getting dressed”?
Democrats have completely infantilized the populace in order to create jobs for useless social workers like Murray — and then people wonder why states are going bankrupt under crushing debt burdens.
But I guess we have to fund these idiotic programs in order not to be outshone by Osama’s “Partnership With Working Mothers Initiative” in Peshawar.
Pages: 1 2