Tuna

Vice President Doug Murphy "Thank you, Atlanta! I am honored to join you all today here in the Peach State. As beautiful as the drive was in today with the magnolias and eastern redbuds blooming, nothing compares to the faces here today. Your warm welcome is a blessing. As our plane touched down today in Georgia, I reflected on the last several weeks in Washington D.C. The dysfunction, the ego, and the rancor. And as I weighed these things, the words of this state's own son Jimmy Carter came to mind. As he once said, 'I believe that anyone can be successful in life, regardless of natural talent or the environment within which we live. This is not based on measuring success by human competitiveness for wealth, possessions, influence, and fame, but adhering to God’s standards of truth, justice, humility, service, compassion, forgiveness, and love.' My friends, these are the standards we believe. And they are the very banners that can lead us out of the partisan valley and upward to a new high ground of prosperity, freedom, and family for all citizens. What we need in Washington is not more politics as usual. We need the wisdom of the people here in Georgia. Over the last year, we have seen what comes when our national virtues are absent: a political opposition so dysfunctionally twisted into nothing more than an obstinate ball of chaos. It is heartbreaking because there are neighbors of ours, good people, who voted for Republicans and deserved a voice in government. It is disheartening that a highly qualified judge who gave his life to learning and practicing the law would have his word and character sacrificed on a political altar of lies and contradictions. And at the end of the day, the people's business has been held hostage. This is the price of political immorality. One can traces the line down from the halls of power to the frontdoor of working Americans, you see the consequences. Corporations able to buy off politicians and stack the deck in elections. What gains we make in healthcare are held at bay by insurance company lobbyists. And the dignity of working people treated like an expendable commodity rather than a God-given right to each and every one of you. But does that deter us from trying? Should we give up hope? Of course not. It is hope and the promise of tomorrow that are the only reasons we carry on. Hope that our children can grow up in a country better than the one we inherited. Hope that America can live up to its creed to every citizen regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Hope that maybe, just maybe, our politicians can look one another in the eye the same way their constituents do and see a fellow American and not a pawn. Even in the midst of all the partisan rancor, we are making moves and breaking through the malaise. Thanks to Senator James, we progressives are on the way to guaranteeing lower drug prices under Medicare for all recipients. Thanks to Senator Clarke, medical research and coverage standards are rising. But our work is not done. We will not rest until healthcare is a universal right for all. We will not stop until corporate monopolies do not enjoy greater power than the working man, nor will we grow wary before the right to collectively bargain is assured. We refuse to give up on the rights of the LGBTQ community, women, and racial minorities. And we will not give in until the culture of Washington reflects the virtues of America. That is our mission. That is our goal. For through, truth, justice, humility, service, compassion, forgiveness, and love, we will reach that better tomorrow. We will see a more bright and just sunrise where the light falls on all and not just those at the top. And we will make America whole and free for all. Thank you, God bless you Georgia and God bless the United States!"

Name: Doug Murphy Media/Outlet: Meet the Press Reason: Watford Nomination "Some Republicans are trying to make Watford's support for affirmative action a disqualifier. In that case, Ronald Reagan owes them all an apology. Because in Grutter v. Bollinger, two of the Gipper's own Supreme Court appointments defended affirmative action with Justice Scalia signing on to O'Connor's majority opinion. If Republicans want to use affirmative action as a litmus test, they should know Scalia would have failed. And they might as well cancel the 2020 GOP presidential debate at the Reagan library." "Even the National Review agrees that the Republican cop-killers talking point is crap. They admitted Watford's amicus brief only objected to Kentucky's protocols for performing executions. They have failed to produce even one shred of evidence, one filing, or one sentence that Paul Watford gives even a ha'penny's worth of leniency to co-killers." "Bringing up Arizona S.B. 1070 is also a bizarre attack. Nevermind the fact that it was a Republican-appointed Justice on the Supreme Court who wrote the majority opinion striking down parts of S.B. 1070, or that both a Reagan and Bush appointee sided with the majority. What a select few Senate Republicans are saying is that they have no idea how to secure the border, other than locking up people who aren't white. Now I know 90% or more of my conservative friends don't believe that crap. So it's beyond me why Senator Stewart is making his colleagues look so bad with an argument so unfounded." "Paul Watford is a highly qualified judge with an unquestionable commitment to bridgebuilding and working across the aisle. There is a reason the Republicans have spent more than a year and have been able to do nothing but grasp straws: it's because Watford has a pristine record and is the right man for the job. If he were an extremist, he sure hid it well if we haven't found one example of it in over a year's worth of time." "Now it is time to see whether Republicans have the same type of honor and character of Paul Watford. Will they honor their word to let the American people decide? Or are they just going to keep looking for manufactured excuse after excuse to continue playing ponyloaf games with our legal system?"

Confirm Watford: A Respectful Rebuttal to David J. Stewart By Doug Murphy Q1, 2017 The Vice Presidency is a unique thing. Safe to say, my daily routine has changed. My days are mostly consumed by attending briefings, offering my advice to the President, and filling the First Pet's bowl with chow when the need arises. Earlier this week over breakfast, I read the op-ed by Senator David J. Stewart titled "What The Mainstream Media Won't Tell You About Paul Watford." Having reviewed my former colleague's remarks, I wish to offer the following thoughts and rebuttal as I write while seated in my living room with a pint of Spotted Cow to round out my evening. As a former member of the prestigious legislative body, I can say without hesitation that it is the right and responsibility of every member of the United States Senate to duly consider and make their honest appraisal of the qualifications of Supreme Court nominees. Even if colleagues may reach different conclusions, all we can ask is that they reach their opinions in a responsible and consistent manner. Our courts are to be bastions of wise judgment, sound reasoning, and firm precedent. But these values are not exclusive to the judicial branch. Especially so, they must be practiced by the U.S. Senate when considering appointments to our highest court. With respect to my friend Senator Stewart, his op-ed fails to do so. Senator Stewart's criticisms of Paul Watford's nomination to the United States Supreme Court can be boiled down to three categories: affirmative action, cop-killers, and border security. Let us start with the first of these, the question of affirmative action. In his op-ed, Senator Stewart accuses his colleagues across the aisle of calling him and other Republicans racist for opposing affirmative action. While I personally cannot speak to any personal interactions he has had with my fellow Democrats in the Senate, it also does not take an Einstein-level mind to grasp that Senator Stewart is being disinegenous with his assertion that Democrats are calling his colleagues racist simply for being at odds over affirmative action. As Vice President of the United States and a proud progressive Democrat, I unreservedly support affirmative action. But while I believe opponents of affirmative action unintentionally risk undoing years of progress and racial reconciliation, bad policy does not inherently make one a racist or bigot. Any colleague of mine who accuses a fellow American of being a racist simply on the basis of disagreeing about affirmative action needs to unplug from the Internet and interact with people beyond their cutesy social bubble. However, the truth is no one on my side of the aisle in the Senate or the White House has publicly called Republicans racist for disagreeing with Paul Watford on affirmative action. It is also equally disingenuous of Senator Stewart and some of his colleagues to assert affirmative action is a historically left-wing idea. It was President Richard Nixon who was primarily responsible for establishing affirmative action throughout the federal government with Executive Order 11478. Archconservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was able to capitalize on his potential thanks in part to affirmative action. Finally, the two most recent Republican Secretaries of State, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, are both supporters of promoting equality in employment opportunities and the like. All this is to say that good people can disagree with one another on these issues and still recognize their immense value to the public's interest. George W. Bush still nominated Powell and Rice to serve as our nation's top diplomat, despite his opposition to affirmative action. Republicans were tripping over themselves in 1996 to try and convince Powell to run as their standard bearer in the presidential election. And Richard Nixon, for all of his enormous errors and sins, still saw the worth of ideas outside right-wing orthodoxy. Senator Stewart also cites Watford's previous work on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union opposing the controversial Arizona S.B. 1070 on the grounds of racial discrimination. Because by his logic, God forbid we judge people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. The fact of the matter is Senator Stewart's attack rests on a thinly veiled insinuation that securing the border is impossible without assuming criminal intent based solely on race or ethnicity. Not only does this demean Hispanic Americans, but Senator Stewart insults the intelligence and character of his own fellow Republicans who are rightly concerned about border security and harbor no racist attitudes or aims against their fellow citizens. Furthermore, even Republican legal scholars agree there is a worthwhile debate to be had about the constitutionality of Arizona S.B. 1070. When Arizona v. United States was brought before the Supreme Court in 2012, two of the five Republican-appointed justices ruled that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of the Arizona law were unconstitutional. This nuanced appraisal produced a 5-3 ruling. Senator Stewart continued onward to present Watford as a defender of "cop-killing murderous savages." Setting aside the fact that is beneath Senator Stewart to shortchange be shortchanging his own intelligence and the reading audience of The Washington Post with vicious ad hominem attacks like this, this accusation completely misrepresents Watford's amicus brief. The 2007 filing by Watford was on behalf of physicians in Kentucky alarmed with the lack of proper supervision and standards for lethal injections. In no briefing did Watford ever challenge the guilty verdict or need for the harshest just punishment possible for cop-killers. His amicus brief on behalf of the Bluegrass doctors rested solely on concerns of poor protocol. Even the National Review has admitted this to be fact. Let us do a thought experiment for a moment. In the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, a young rising attorney in the Ford Administration pushed the new President to veto the Freedom of Information Act. Despite the lingering aftermath of Richard Nixon's abuses and the rising public distrust of their government, this newly confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel urged Gerald Ford to reject FOIA because it would weaken the executive branch. That man's name was Antonin Scalia. While I and many other Democrats strongly disagree with Scalia's opinion, it is undeniable that his concerns were rooted in legitimate, albeit subjectively flawed, reasoning. And even though most Americans would agree with my colleagues and I that need for an honest and transparent government outweighed the concerns Scalia raised about the executive branch's authority, no one then or today can deny that differing ideas were not inherently illegitimate or disqualifying. Scalia's time in the Ford Administration did not stop Senate from unanimously confirming him 98-0. And neither Paul Watford's service with the ACLU to oppose a thorny and controversial state law deny him his due confirmation. That ultimately leads to the final two questions facing Senate Republicans. Do you still believe in the Supreme Court as an institution free of political litmus tests and favoritism? And does your word as a public servant matter? If Senate Republicans were to reject Watford's nomination, it would tear down the constitutional ramparts essential for an independent and functioning judiciary branch. Prospective Supreme Court candidates in the future would no longer rely on sound judgment but rather on political pandering and theatrics to advance their careers. A sacred body of legal giants would instead be reduced to a coterie of political cronies, nine hacky stooges with little capacity for anything beyond returning favors and cashing government checks. What's more, it would destroy public faith and trust in the Republican Party. And as much as it pains this lifelong Democrat from Wisconsin to admit (and at this point of the night it may be the beer talking), we need a strong and contributive Republican Party. During the 2016 presidential campaign, the current Republican Senate Minority Leader Cliff Fleming declared, "Senate Republicans have said repeatedly that we want to give the American people a say" in regard to who picks the next Supreme Court justice. Well, the American people have spoken. After more than a year of campaigning and intensive scrutiny of Paul Watford's record, voters elected Xiomara de la Cruz to the presidency and flipped the Senate to the Democrats. My colleagues and I respected the Senator Fleming's demands and left it to the voters to decide. And President de la Cruz honored the trust of the electorate by carrying on the Watford nomination. Now, the ball is in the Republican Party's court. Does their word mean anything? Or does only one party in Washington still have ears to hear and listen to the will of the American people? And is there still a will and desire in both parties for a wise and impartial Supreme Court? We will have to wait and see.

Name: Vice President Doug Murphy (D-WI) Media/Outlet: CNN Reason: Watford Nomination "Remember where we were last year. A vacancy opened on the Supreme Court. The Senate Republican majority established a new precedent out of thin air that the winning party should decide the next Supreme Court nominee to fill that vacancy. Let the people decide, they said. And we Democrats agreed to play by their rules. Well, the American people did decide. And their choice was President Xiomara de la Cruz and a Democratic Senate." "Paul Watford is a highly qualified, fair-minded judge. He is not an ideologue, he will hear all sides, and he will serve the Constitution over any fringe interests. The proof is in the pudding. Look at the dilemma it has placed Senate Republicans in. Good government Republicans, the ones who actually won and cause trouble for us Democrats come November, they're coming out in support of Watford. Meanwhile, you have chaos cronies like Cliff Fleming, the same guys who lost their party's control of the Senate, opposing Watford's nomination and grasping at straws to find any half-baked reason." "The American people are watching. They made their choice clear last November. And they see who in each party is honoring their vote versus who continues to ignore and marginalize their voice. Losers will continue lose, continue to whine, continue to dig themselves into a deeper hole. Meanwhile, Americans will continue to support winning and forward-minded candidates in both parties, the type of leaders who understand and will affirm that Paul Watford deserves to be on the Supreme Court."

Name: Doug Murphy Media: Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN Reason: Supreme Court vacancy "Set aside all the drama and derived talking points, Anderson. These chickenloaf games McConnell is playing with the Supreme Court, he's doing it for reasons that neither he nor any of the Republican presidential candidates will publicly admit: they're gunning for Roe, Obergefell, and Windsor. They view this not as an opportunity to confirm a highly qualified justice who will serve the people. Rather it's a tawdry attempt by them to legislate from the bench what they could never get done at the ballot box or in Congress. Why? Because the American people would never stand for it." "And let's not get it twisted. This low-brow dumpster politicking is exactly how Kat McCord, Rollins, and Kuykendall will govern. Ignore the norms of our democracy, shirk the other side, split us apart and undermine our legal system to satisfy the corporate donors and fringes. By hook or by crook, they will find any excuse imaginable to avoid engaging across the aisle or fulfilling their responsibilities as elected officials, as long as it means more power in their pockets. If McCord, Rollins, and Kuykendall want the American people to believe they are serious about uniting the country, they will stand up to Mitch McConnell and prove their merit as good government conservatives." "If Senate Republicans going to force the rest of the country through nine months of this nonsense, if they're going to say let the people decide the next president decide, then the American people are well within their right to expect a swift confirmation of whoever the next President nominates and puts forward. If they're going to set this standard, they better abide by it."

Name: Doug Murphy Media/Outlet: CBS This Morning Reason: Defeating ISIL, Theocratic Fascism, White Supremacy "Deep down, theocratic fascists know their ideas will never win or hold up to scrutiny. No bigot or terrorist has ever triumphed in a war of words. And because they cannot prevail with ballots, they then must resort to bullets and bombs. The reality is that the Jihadi Johns and Dylann Roofs of the world are all different flavors of the same poisonous brew. Though they beg us to think otherwise, in truth their ideas are in league with one another: preying on the innocent through violence and barbarism. And their only hope of success in this ultimate struggle is for people of goodwill to give in to the impulses of fear and bigotry in the face of their terror." "Those who would make Islam the convenient political scapegoat do nothing more than carry water for the Caliphate. For it is our Muslim allies in the Middle East who are on the frontlines of the ground war against ISIS. They are the ones who are bearing the heaviest burden in standing up to the theocratic fascists. You cannot win a war by spitting on your allies And we cannot win this war on the battlefield or in the hearts and minds of mankind if we debase ourselves and abandon our values." "If we are going to defeat ISIS and stamp out the embers of fanaticism and bigotry, it will take a coordinated strategy at home and abroad. We must coordinate with our Arab partners on the ground through expanded airstrikes, controlling key checkpoints and infrastructure, and utilizing our special forces when necessary. It is imperative we also work to facilitate more political stability within Iraq to avoid a resurgence of ISIS or the government becoming a puppet of Iran. Second, we need to cut off the ISIL recruiting pipeline that has spurred both lone-wolf attacks and young people to join the enemy. That starts by coordinating with social media companies, partnering proactively with religious minorities in America, and expanding outreach to struggling youth. And third, we need to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists. I will get assault weapons off our streets, fix the broken background check system, and empower the DOJ to place a three-week hold on all firearm and explosive purchases and transfers involving terror suspects." "But let's be clear here too. We can't afford a president who will play footsie with the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters as they use a militia force to defy the law. You give a mouse a cookie, it's going to want a glass of milk. It does not matter where on the map it happens. I'm going to stand up against this escalatory, lawless nonsense and protect the freedoms and rights we hold dear as Americans."

Office of U.S. Senator Doug Murphy Quarter 1/4, 2016 Statement on Flint Water Crisis WASHINGTON D.C. — "This catastrophe is more than just a shortcoming of public infrastructure. It is a failure of our national integrity. Children in the United States should not be depending on pallets of Dasani for their drinking water. But here we are, faced with a culture of greed run amok that has betrayed our nation's greatest asset and moral fiber: earnest working families, specifically those living in Flint. And this sort of disaster could have hit any city, any town, any neighborhood. We as Americans used to care enough for mothers and fathers, for good working people, to afford them more than just the dignity of clean drinking water. There used to be the assurance of a steady job, pension, education, and healthcare. Because these aren't just towns on a map. The city of Flint, like my hometown of Milwaukee, is a family. And the promise made to the residents of Flint was betrayed by those in Lansing and in Washington who took them for granted. But we can restore that promise. It's what we were elected to do. I appreciate President Obama stepping up to help. But $5 million is not nearly enough. I call on this Administration to deploy the Army Corps of Engineers immediately to Michigan. We need Congress to adopt an emergency relief package to give Flint residents the financial relief they are owed. I have already proposed we establish $100 billion for direct infrastructure grants each year for the next decade so we can modernize our infrastructure. Saving Flint should be priority one on the docket for any future disbursements of funds. And we should also establish a community development bank to help repair the damage caused to our neighbors in Michigan. All this is just step one. But it is a step that will prove as a key test of whether this nation's moral courage can stand up to the institutional rot and corruption that led to this crisis."

The campaign launch is hosted in the Beer Hall of Lakefront Brewery in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Before speaking, Senator Murphy mingles with supporters and orders a Spotted Cow. Once all the supporters have assembled, Murphy bounds onstage to Curtis Mayfield's "Move on Up". He waves to the crowd and gives a thumbs up and a wink to his family in the front row and approaches the lectern... Thank you! It's great to be here in my hometown of Milwaukee, right along the shores of Lake Michigan. My family and I thank you for joining us here for the beginning of an incredible journey, but one far greater than just the Murphy clan or the people gathered here today. It is the shared story of every citizen, moving together as one in pursuit of a more perfect Union. It began not with us but centuries ago at Valley Forge and King Street in Boston. It carried on through Gettysburg and Omaha Beach. It marched onward through the striking workers of DiGiorgio fields and the civil rights champions in Selma. On that journey, we built the American dream, a promise to all that through hard work, honesty, and dedication to one's family and country, a better life would be in store. And so it is because of that promise and this critical moment in American history that I stand before you today and announce my candidacy for President of the United States of America. I am running because you and I are not satisfied. Yes, America has taken many steps in the right direction over the last eight years. But I believe we are capable of more. I believe we are destined for even greater things. And you and I both know we will not get any closer as a nation to where we need to be if our working and middle class continue to be abandoned, marginalized, and left behind. There's a reason why so many in America feel betrayed. And the reason is this: the politicians and the media talking heads in Washington and on Wall street have poisoned our airwaves and turned us against one another to distract the public from the fact they've sold out working people. And as we've circled the drain of bitter partisanship, we've seen our jobs, our livelihoods, and our children's future drained away by unchecked corporate interests. What began in the 1970s with the exodus of manufacturing jobs from the cities spread all the way out to the countryside. All of us have been impacted. And each and every one of you deserve better. You deserve better than either four years of either passive moderation or distracted catering to the fringes. What this nation needs is bold action, fearlessly rooted in our national character and built with unwavering determination for real and tangible progress. And you deserve a president with a plan that can be implemented, not a parrot who can squawk the loudest on social media. That is why I am in this race. Because I'd rather be fighting on you and your family's behalf than quarreling with some far-right podcaster on Twitter. I'm here to roll up my sleeves and bring back earnest, good-paying manufacturing jobs with real pensions and benefits, not to own the conservatives or dunk on any fellow Democrat. All of us are in this together. And the only way we are going to come together again and write this next great chapter is we restore the promise of the American spirit. I am in this race because I believe the next great chapter of the American story depends on us. Therefore, join me on this journey. Let's work together, march together, and build together the country that was meant to be. God bless you all! And God bless the United States of America!"

Placeholder

Name: Douglas “Doug” Glenn Murphy Seat: Wisconsin, Class I Party: Democratic Major Caucus: New Democrat Age: 54, b: 6/2/1962, (0 Points) Sexuality: Straight, Married, 2 Kids (-5 Points) Wife: Heather Gates Murphy (b: 4/5/1965, m: 2001) Child #1: Gwendolyn, (b: 2002) Child #2: Zachary (b: 2005) Race/Ancestry: White, Irish-Italian, (0 Points) Socioeconomic History: Working Class (10 Points) Religion: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (0 Points) Educational History University of Wisconsin-Madison Bachelor of Fine Arts, Theatre and Drama, 1980-1984 (5 Points) Bachelor of the Arts, American History, 1980-1984 (5 Points) Harvard University Master of Liberal Arts, History, 1997-2001 (20 Points) Professional Career Captain, United States Marines Corps, 1984-1991 (10 Points) Blue-Collar Job (10 Points) Cook, Old Sully's, 1988-1991 Artist, 1996-2010 (20 Points = 10 x 2 renown) Actor, Boston Theatre Company, 1988-1991 Actor, WGBH-TV, PBS, 1990-1991 Actor, Home Improvement, “Earl Milligan the Mailman”, 1992-1997 Narrator for American Experience, 1997-2010 Narrator, The War, Ken Burns' documentary, 2007 WGBH-TV, Part-time Narrator of Frontline, 1997-2010 Major Cultural Award Emmy, Narration, The War, 2007 (15 Points) Political Career United States Senator from Wisconsin, 2013-present Key Votes 113th Congress 2013-2015 Both: Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization AYE Both: Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 AYE 114th Congress 2015-2017 Both: Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 AYE POINTS USED: 90/100 EARLY LIFE Douglas Glenn Murphy was born on June 2, 1962, to Patrick and Annabella Murphy in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Patrick worked as an engineer for Rockwell Automation, Inc. Annabella was a stay at home mom who filled in as an organist at the local Catholic parish. A family of six, the Murphys lived on the south side of Milwaukee. Murphy graduated from South Milwaukee High School in 1980, where he played football as a quarterback. His first passion however was acting and he was a standout member of the drama department. He enrolled in the University of Wisconsin-Madison that fall with the NROTC Scholarship Program where he double majored in Theatre and Drama and American History. After finishing training, Murphy was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines based in Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms in 1984. Four years later, Captain Murphy completed his active duty service. ACTOR, PBS Upon completing his four years of active-duty service, Murphy returned to the States where he found work at the Boston Theatre Company as an actor. For a year and a half, he filled mostly supporting roles while also working part-time as a cook at Old Sully's bar in Charlestown. In the summer of 1990, Murphy caught the attention of a talent scout for PBS’ major station WGBH-TV with his performance in Much Ado About Nothing. He was brought onboard part-time at WGBH-TV to assist with various children’s programming. Murphy’s big break as an actor came in 1992 when he was brought on to appear as a mailman in the ABC sitcom Home Improvement. His performance as Earl Milligan, the endearingly exasperated delivery man who cannot figure out Timothy Taylor’s newly designed mailbox, was well received and he was promptly hired to play a regular role on the show. Murphy moved out to Burbank, California, where he also filled in other smaller roles in ABC programming. He continued as “Earl Milligan” until 1997 when he was approached by PBS to return to WGBH as a voice-over narrator for both American Experience and Frontline. Murphy accepted the offer and returned to Boston. Back in the northeast, Murphy became the regular narrator for American Experience and a fill-in for Will Lyman on American Experience. While in Boston, Murphy enrolled at Harvard University where he earned his Master's in History. In 2004, Murphy relocated back to Wisconsin while still working for PBS. In 2007, he narrated Ken Burns' World War II documentary The War. For his role, Murphy won an Emmy Award for Outstanding Narrator. POLITICAL CAREER In the winter of 2010, Murphy departed from PBS after thirteen years with the network to explore a new career in politics. Murphy made his first public foray onto the political scene in the spring of 2011 when he joined demonstrators in Madison, Wisconsin, protesting Governor Scott Walker’s Act 10. For more than a week, he participated in the protests and worked with the Wisconsin Democratic Party to try and organize opposition. While Act 10 ultimately passed, Murphy’s standing in the state skyrocketed. When incumbent U.S. Senator Herb Kohl announced he would not run for reelection in May of 2011, Murphy quickly assembled and launched a run. In a close primary, Murphy managed to win the Democratic nomination. He went on to defeat Tommy Thompson in the general election to succeed Kohl. PERSONAL LIFE While attending Harvard in 1998, Murphy met Heather Gates, a Higher Education reporter for the Boston Globe. The two married in 2001 and live in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, with their two children Gwendolyn and Zachary. Although he was raised a Catholic, Murphy joined the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America after attending a series of lectures hosted by the Lutheran Peace Fellowship at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Murphy maintains a small apartment by Union Station in Washington D.C. Just like his campaign bus in 2012, he keeps his Senate office stocked with a fridge full of New Glarus beer. In his spare time, Murphy enjoys hunting in Wisconsin during deer season and playing pickup basketball. The Murphy family owns season tickets for Wisconsin Badgers football. He keeps an autographed Bart Starr Packers helmet and a signed poster of himself with Fred Rogers on display in his office.

PLACEHOLDEr

Senate reaches historic border-immigration deal. Experts offer praise, hardliners enraged, and the center (Strangle)holds WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans and Democrats agreed last night on an unexpected and historic bipartisan immigration and border security bill. Despite the long history of congressional infighting and inaction on how best to fix the United States' border and immigration process, the American Immigration Fairness and Security (AIFAS) Act was drafted and proposed in the United States Senate after barely a week of negotiations, a monumental achievement in such a short amount of time. It appears poised for passage in both the U.S. Senate and United States House of Representatives. Almost equally as unlikely as Congress finding common ground was the unique journey both parties took to get this agreement. Highlighted as a top legislative priority by the Ross Administration, feathers were ruffled on both sides of the aisle almost immediately by the original Safer Communities bill proposed by the Republican majority in the Senate back in February. Almost immediately, the disagreements began. Democrats objected to Republicans proposing their bill first before inviting them to talks. Republicans meanwhile criticized Senate Minority Leader Starnes for declining an invitation to hammer out a deal in Q1. However, after being pilloried for well over a month by Republicans for his refusal to negotiate, Senate Minority Leader Starnes quickly disproved the naysayers who claimed he was incapable of being a bridge builder. In response to the leak of correspondence from the Vice President's office, Senator Starnes agreed to begin talks with Senate Majority Leader Ackerman. In less time than anyone anticipated, the two produced what some experts are saying is "the most impressive piece of bipartisan legislation in recent memory." Each party managed to secure major policy wins previously thought impossible Conversely, both sides of the negotiating made noteworthy concessions that may pose problems for their respective bases. "Republicans and Democrats went on a hunt and both came back with plenty of red meat to feed the village. And I'm not talking little vermin or small pickings. I'm talking steer, bison, and grizzly bear-level red meat. The only problem is some villagers will notice a couple of the hunters never returned and were lost in the hunt," said Brit Hume of Fox News. "Democrats managed to secure a real pathway to citizenship and then some. They really took out a carving knife here to structure it in a way they could find feasible. Massive swaths of this bill can be traced directly to their FAIR bill. But Senate Democratic leadership also agreed to E-Verify, the death penalty for law enforcement, an expansion of policing, and authorization for increased deportations of criminals and suspect individuals. Meanwhile, Republicans got the largest single largest investment in border security in recent memory. As mentioned before they won on E-Verify and law enforcement. But they also agreed to what many in their base will say is amnesty of the worst kind: a pathway to citizenship. It was incredible and took a lot of courage from both sides to get this done." Indeed most policy analysts are thrilled at the final product of the negotiations. "Let me be clear, no bill is perfect. But the American Immigration Fairness and Security Act is maybe the most thorough, balanced, and fair piece of major legislation I can recall in recent memory that did not require the impetus and push of a national crisis to get it drafted and passed," said Larry J. Sabato. "We are going to some semblance of sanity restored to our immigration system with dangerous criminals shipped out and earnest and good immigrant families kept together with hope for the future. This is unquestionably a major win for America." However, not all are happy. Major agricultural corporations are furious at the E-Verify provision. The ACLU publicly criticized the bill and threatened to withhold campaign money from Democrats who vote for its passage. Meanwhile, on the right, the Heritage Foundation and American Legislative Exchange Council released a statement condemning the AIFAS provisions offering a pathway to citizenship for some undocumented immigrants. "It goes without saying that this bill has some loud detractors," said Brian Stelter, now with NewsNation. "We are looking at very high approvals from independents and center-right to center-left voters. Some uneasiness among reliable Republican and Democratic voters. And among the firebrand, hardcore, bleed blue and bleed red Americans, there is sense of outrage. They do not seem to care that this bill might be a great leap forward. They feel a bit betrayed." Senate Minority Leader Starnes walks away from these negotiations as a winner, having dispelled a great deal of public distrust of his capacity to work with the other side. It is difficult now to argue that the Democratic Leader is an ideologue or incapable of making concessions to achieve a bipartisan goal. Snap polls after the announcement of the deal revealed an uptick of support for the Senate Minority Leader and the Senate Democratic caucus. "This was a moment the Democrats needed and they delivered. Their promotion of the FAIR Act and effective press campaigns against the Ross Administration's actions on DACA were highly effective. But this was the first big and undeniable proof that Senate Democrats and their leader are not only good at their jobs but can deliver. It also may give them an upper hand on the White House in future negotiations as the public overwhelmingly approves more of Democratic and Republican Senate Leadership's handling of the border than 1600 Pennsylvnia Avenue's. The only fly in the giant tub of ointment here for Senate Democrats is some amount of public bewilderment as to why it took so long to begin negotiations. "I am thrilled they got a deal done. And the fact it took less than a week of negotiations is a great sign. I just don't get why Senator Starnes dug in his heels on negotiating anything until after the letter was leaked," said Joe Scarborough of MSNBC. "Ackerman was there requesting talks since February. No one blames the Senate Democrats, especially now, for not wanting to talk with the loonybin that is the White House. But refusing any negotiations with Senate Republicans until just a week ago was an unforced error by the Senate Minority Leader, albeit one largely drowned out by this monumental achievement." Meanwhile, the Republican Majority in the Senate can also claim their first major legislative achievement. Thanks to a well-organized press campaign and adept distancing from the White House's shenanigans, Senate Majority Leader Ackerman has earned praise from both sides of the mediasphere for his willingness to stand up to some of the more ardently extreme elements of his party, keep his caucus united, and deliver a major deal. Pundits agree that if there was any loser of this deal, it was Vice President Cory McKnight and the White House. While the Second in Command may try and claim credit for his leak forcing Senate Democrats to negotiate with their colleagues on the border, it is clear that the relationship between the two parties on Capitol Hill is far more productive and on better footing now than with the White House. To make matters worse, in the same week Senate Republicans were mending fences with their Democratic counterparts on the border and immigration, the President was on her Uncensored podcast casually dangling the threat of mass deportation. "The leak looked bad, even if it dinged Senator Starnes and perhaps compelled to finally talk. What's worse though is the White House does look frozen out of the legislative process due to a lack of trust. They sounded callous and childish at times. And that trust was in many ways breached by the leak and Senate Democrats ran a highly effective press campaign defending their leader. Furthermore, while Leah Ross comes out of this looking better than her running mate, it still is not a great look that she was, for all intents and purposes, sidelined by her own party as they worked out a deal on the border." Whether the sudden upswell of goodwill can survive beyond this bill is to be seen. What does appear certain is that for the first time in more than a generation, Republicans and Democrats may finally deliver on the elusive bipartisan border and immigration reform package. SNAPSHOT POLLING Who do you trust more to manage the border and immigration? Republicans: 62% (+1%) Democrats: 38% (+3%) Do you approve or disapprove of how each of the following has handled the border and immigration this year? Party - Approve - Disapprove Senate Republicans - 62% (+3) - 30% (-3%) Senate Democrats - 49% (+7) - 45% (-5) John Starnes - 40% (+8) - 50% (-8) Owen Ackerman - 53% (+5) - 34% (-1) President Leah Ross - 34% (-4%) - 57% (+4)

LeakGate/LetterGate Latest Controversy in Washington WASHINGTON — Another round of fingerpointing and chaos erupted on Capitol Hill last night as anonymous sources in the Vice President's office leaked a letter from Senate Minority Leader John Starnes to Vice President Cory McKnight concerning border and immigration negotiations. While the anonymous source in the Vice President's office has not provided a copy of McKnight's original correspondence, the leaked copy of the Senate Minority Leader's response appears to state the SmL's insistence on a public apology from the Vice President for incendiary remarks by McKnight before negotiations could take place. COPY OF SENATE MINORITY LEADER STARNES' RESPONSE Social media and the news networks exploded over the leaked letter. Democrats expressed outrage over the disclosure by the Vice President's office and rallied to the defense of their Senate Leader. Senator Naomi Wolfe summarized the feelings of many in the Democratic Party in her appearance on MSNBC. "I think Republicans need to understand that when they attack Senator Starnes or say there'll be no deal unless he's replaced as Minority Leader, which is in so many words what Senator Ackerman said, they remove any incentive for us to work with them," said Wolfe. "This leak is just another example of the Republicans trying to force this issue through backhanded press wars rather than coming up with any concrete policy concessions." Vice President McKnight countered on social media, saying "My office will stay committed to ensuring negotiations. As long as we put petty egos in front of issues and making this nation better, America will lose every single time." Most pundits agree that neither side looks good in the eyes of voters, although the Vice President is catching the most flak from the public. Critics of McKnight pilloried his staffers for disclosing private correspondence between another member of the government for political purposes. "In all seriousness, this is just another symptom of the broader problem that is afflicting the White House," said George Will. "They'll dangle a carrot and expect the other side to be satisfied with it. And when they're rebuffed or get some pushback, suddenly the Administration sends out the press secretary or some poor staffer to take a brass knuckle swing below the belt." The Vice President is also facing scrutiny for the tone and preachiness of his comments on X/Twitter after the story broke. "I frankly think Cory McKnight might be the smuggest son of a b-tch in Washington," said Chris Matthews of MSNBC. "The amount of lecturing and preening is nauseating. Talking about bipartisanship when you do that? Give me a break. If he didn't owe John Starnes an apology before, he sure the hell does now." Unlike the Vice President, Senate Leader Starnes enjoyed immediate public support of his colleagues in the Senate. "It's already been made clear that Democrats were wiling to engage on inflation talks," said Senate Minority Whip Kamaka. "The only party involved denying reality is the White House and Congressional Republicans who chose scoring cheap political points over hammering out an agreement." Thanks to a coordinated press campaign by Democrats, the Vice President's team and White House walked out of this debacle with far more bruises than their intended target. That being said, the contents of the leaked letter has reinforced to some extent the public perception of the Senate Minority Leader being a difficult individual to work with. "It looks really shallow of the Senate Minority Leader to have refused any negotiations on the border until he got a public apology for attacks," said Jake Sherman of Puncbowl. "Yes, feelings can get hurt, but this isn't the Sopranos. John Starnes isn't Johnny Sack and Cory McKnight is not Ralph Cifaretto insulting the underboss' wife. This is Washington D.C. and there is a border crisis going on. Voters do not believe their politicians should be refusing to negotiate with their colleagues over public insults, even if the comments may have been rude and out of order." However, some Democrats disagree, arguing Vice President McKnight has repeatedly crossed a line with the Democratic Senate Leader. "Starnes wants to be respected as everyone else does. McKnight has been talking out his ass since he gained his position," said Senator Aaron Sharpe on All In with Chris Hayes. "Starnes is a man just like McKnight he wants him to apologize. Starnes has never disrespected McKnight and this is a low blow." Others in the media called out the Vice President for allegedly using his staff as a shield to play dirty political tricks. "At some point, he really should stop hiding behind the skirts and suit coats of a poor, random staffer in the Eisenhower Building and just say it with his chest," said Jessica Tarlov of The Five on Fox News. "Even if John Starnes is some variation of sensitive or stubborn, it really is pathetic and cowardice for McKnight to take potshots like this from the security of his own staff." At the end of the day, it seems highly unlikely that this latest episode of dysfunction in Washington will help break the impasse over the border, immigration, funding for Ukraine, etc. "We're effectively looking at The Emperor's New Groove happening in Washington," said Brit Hume. "Each of these two guys hates the other with a burning passion and with some amount of justification. Yet each needs the other to finally get something, anything done, in this crucial time." Do you approve or disapprove of the Vice President's office leaking the correspondence from Senate Minority Leader John Starnes demanding a public apology before border talks? Approve: 26% Disapprove: 67% No Opinion/Unsure: 7% Do you approve or disapprove of Senate Minority Leader Starnes demanding a public apology before agreeing to negotiations on the border? Approve: 40% Disapprove: 54% No Opinion/Unsure: 6%

Name: Butch Elroy Media: MSNBC Reason: Border-Ukraine-Israel negotiations (or lack thereof) and Inflation Talks "Every one of Senator Starnes' gripes about the last Republican Congress, he is guilty of now. He keeps pointing to 2024. Well, we're in 2025. We Republicans are united and determined to work with Democrats. We promised a new day of working together, putting aside partisanship, and doing what America has been asking." "We Republicans are committed to defending democracy in Israel, Ukraine, and at the southern border. We believe in proper oversight of defense spending. This ain't Paul Wolfowitz's GOP. I actually check my bank account when I buy my buckshot to go hunting. The fact Senator Starnes will refuse to even negotiate or work together on this is beyond embarrassing. He is holding oversight, democracy, inflation reduction, and more hostage for nothing but his own petty ego about last year." "We Republicans know privatizing Medicare is a bad idea. It ain't going to happen. And neither do we need to cut benefits. We can rein in long-term spending while enhancing benefits. Our proposals are out there, reform the pricing model in the US, restructure portions of Medicare, and deliver benefit enhancement. If Democrats really care about this stuff, they'll tell John boy to quit the temper tantrums or let Senator Kamaka take the reins on these talks." "As with any negotiations, we may not agree on everything. When I walked into these studios today, I may not have agreed with most of ya'll on everything. But I'm here because we need to work together. Enough squawking in the chickenyard. We Republicans want to get something done."

Name: Butch Elroy Media: Meet the Press Reason: Border-Ukraine-Israel negotiations (or lack thereof) and Inflation Talks "We are committed to defending democracy. But democracy does not end at the Rio Grande. The Senate GOP united around a bill that would deliver tens of billions of dollars to our allies in a multiyear commitment to Ukraine and Israel. All we asked was for some oversight of the funding and a real leap forward in border security. What's happening down there on our southern border is a tragedy. Just ask the Mayors of New York, Chicago, and beyond about how the border crisis goes well beyond Texas, California, Arizona, and New Mexico." "Senator Starnes has refused to negotiate anything on the border, Ukraine, and Israel. He ignored and slow walked our offer for talks until finally, after reaching out yet again, we got a firm no. I personally offered to separate border funding from the support for our allies, on the condition we got ironclad commitments on border funding in the separate talks. Still nothing." "This is not just on the border. This president has invited in Democratic leadership to try and negotiate an inflation deal. We are ready to make serious reforms to healthcare pricing, defense contracting, and make Medicare more cost-efficient with enhanced benefits. While Senator Kamaka has engaged in good-faith dialogue, every effort has been drowned out by Senator Starnes footdragging and repeated demands for studies. Even when he gets them, he dismisses them and footdrags." "We Republicans are united in our commitment to work with our Democratic colleagues. But we, like the American people, aren't going to be twisted around and hung out to dry like we're cheap dollarstore tobacco. We demand security. We demand lower prices. And we deserve solutions."