This is not good news for the GOP, as Murkowski is the poster child for entitled and entrenched establishment politicians who still have considerable influence in the party. She will be a constant reminder that a divide exists between the good old boys club of which she is a member and the new Tea Party conservatives. The talkative Ms. Murkowski is feeling powerful and will likely prove to be an unfortunate thorn in the side of a GOP that is desperate to appear united.
No one on the Republican side of the aisle, and no one at NRO, should ever refer to this person as "Senator Murkowski." There is no such person as "Senator" Murkowski.
I am never stepping foot in the state of Alaska until they clean up their Congressional delegation. They already get too much of my money through energy and pork. I will not give them a dime more.
I am still trying to figure out how it is "ok" for the Republicans to welcome her back in the fold? She did not honor the opinion of the Republican Primary.
Senators that prefer a Murkowski to a Demint... do not represent a party that I want to be a part of.
Alaskan voters apparently aren't as much different from California voters as I had thought. Just in case you're not clear on that, Alaskan readers, that's an insult directed at you.
Speaking of Alaskans who I may have had too high an opinion of...I really like Sarah Palin, but...after watching the first episode (well, honestly, about 1/2 was as much as I could stomach) of her new reality TV show the other night, I'm really hoping she skips the Presidential thing and just keeps working on the making money/promoting her views stuff. No Palin in 2012 (or 20whatever) for me...thanks, but no thank.
I'll wait for Miller to concede before I believe its over. Murkowski is just shameless, and she is going to be another Voinivich or worse. How can a state like Alaska produce two such dissimilar women?
The cozy club she's joining will be changing in character over the next few election cycles. In due course, she will have to adapt to keep her treasured perks of office.
"Murkowski ran out of spite. That and selfishness."
That may be so, but she did apparently win. Enough of Alaska's electorate preferred her enough to the other candidates that they picked her in higher numbers over the rest. I can't help but wonder what that says about the rest of the field in this race.
What happened to "listen to the people"? They voted and Miller lost, simple as that. I'd like to think he lost because he was arrogant and unqualified, though I'd be OK it it were actually a matter of Alaska waking up to the reality that Mrs. Palin is in it for herself. I nearly laughed myself to exhaustion at Ms. Jean Lopez' post from yesterday, parroting the cynical talking point that Mrs. Palin quit midway through her term in a spirit of public service and self-sacrifice. There are a lot of good, dedicated public servants who would serve the conservative cause well in elected office. Mrs. Palin isn't one of them.
The Alaska election officials, at the behest of Murkowski, chose to ignore two very clear rules: no voting aids at the polls and accurate spelling of write-in's name. If you have rules, and if they have been consistently applied over the years, and if those rules are abrogated for the benefit of a single candidate, then, no, it is not as simple as saying that the Alaskans votes and that's that.
Presumably the accurate spellings were provided in order to assure accuracy and avoid the subjective "voter intent" issue. But, Murkowski got the best of both worlds: a flyer with her name on it and just about any spelling that sounded like a winter sport.
Well this really bums me out, considering I compared her write-in candidacy to Khan setting off the Genesis Device in a last desperate swipe at Captain Kirk. I guess I won't be doing that photoshop after all.
I fail to see how this is a referendum on Sarah Palin when she also endorsed Sean Parnell, who running on their shared agenda. Parnell won 59% of the vote. In 2006, Palin only got 48% of the vote. Who was more of a true referendum on Sarah Palin in Alaska?
Is it at all impressive that an incumbent republican Senator could pulled 39% of the vote in a 3-way race in Alaska and beat a republican nominee who had never held a statewide office? The race was all about Murkowski and she was rejected by almost 60% of the voters.
Incumbent U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman won re-election with approximately 50% of the vote in his 3-way race in 2006.
Since McAdams ran behind both Berkowitz, and Crawford, we know that is was Democrats that put Murkowski in the win column. Those are hardly Sarah Palin voters at this point.
Does Alaska love Lisa more than Sarah?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is not good news for the GOP, as Murkowski is the poster child for entitled and entrenched establishment politicians who still have considerable influence in the party. She will be a constant reminder that a divide exists between the good old boys club of which she is a member and the new Tea Party conservatives. The talkative Ms. Murkowski is feeling powerful and will likely prove to be an unfortunate thorn in the side of a GOP that is desperate to appear united.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo one on the Republican side of the aisle, and no one at NRO, should ever refer to this person as "Senator Murkowski." There is no such person as "Senator" Murkowski.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am never stepping foot in the state of Alaska until they clean up their Congressional delegation. They already get too much of my money through energy and pork. I will not give them a dime more.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am still trying to figure out how it is "ok" for the Republicans to welcome her back in the fold? She did not honor the opinion of the Republican Primary.
Senators that prefer a Murkowski to a Demint... do not represent a party that I want to be a part of.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlaskan voters apparently aren't as much different from California voters as I had thought. Just in case you're not clear on that, Alaskan readers, that's an insult directed at you.
Speaking of Alaskans who I may have had too high an opinion of...I really like Sarah Palin, but...after watching the first episode (well, honestly, about 1/2 was as much as I could stomach) of her new reality TV show the other night, I'm really hoping she skips the Presidential thing and just keeps working on the making money/promoting her views stuff. No Palin in 2012 (or 20whatever) for me...thanks, but no thank.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHigh fives all around in the Federal contractor community.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoes this mean people will quit whining about incumbents now?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo does this mean that the voters felt entitled?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'll wait for Miller to concede before I believe its over. Murkowski is just shameless, and she is going to be another Voinivich or worse. How can a state like Alaska produce two such dissimilar women?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMichelle Malkin always says (writes, actually) that "Entrenched incumbency is not an excuse for more entrenched incumbency".
It sure helps, though, especially when the "Republican" senators didn't have the guts to boot the lying backstabber from plum committee positions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe cozy club she's joining will be changing in character over the next few election cycles. In due course, she will have to adapt to keep her treasured perks of office.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI blame the Senators who voted to let Murky keep her pork-powers.
John Thune is officially dead to me as a 2012 candidate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMurkowski ran out of spite. That and selfishness.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Murkowski ran out of spite. That and selfishness."
That may be so, but she did apparently win. Enough of Alaska's electorate preferred her enough to the other candidates that they picked her in higher numbers over the rest. I can't help but wonder what that says about the rest of the field in this race.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat happened to "listen to the people"? They voted and Miller lost, simple as that. I'd like to think he lost because he was arrogant and unqualified, though I'd be OK it it were actually a matter of Alaska waking up to the reality that Mrs. Palin is in it for herself. I nearly laughed myself to exhaustion at Ms. Jean Lopez' post from yesterday, parroting the cynical talking point that Mrs. Palin quit midway through her term in a spirit of public service and self-sacrifice. There are a lot of good, dedicated public servants who would serve the conservative cause well in elected office. Mrs. Palin isn't one of them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, Mr. Moriarty, some quibbles:
The Alaska election officials, at the behest of Murkowski, chose to ignore two very clear rules: no voting aids at the polls and accurate spelling of write-in's name. If you have rules, and if they have been consistently applied over the years, and if those rules are abrogated for the benefit of a single candidate, then, no, it is not as simple as saying that the Alaskans votes and that's that.
Presumably the accurate spellings were provided in order to assure accuracy and avoid the subjective "voter intent" issue. But, Murkowski got the best of both worlds: a flyer with her name on it and just about any spelling that sounded like a winter sport.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell this really bums me out, considering I compared her write-in candidacy to Khan setting off the Genesis Device in a last desperate swipe at Captain Kirk. I guess I won't be doing that photoshop after all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI fail to see how this is a referendum on Sarah Palin when she also endorsed Sean Parnell, who running on their shared agenda. Parnell won 59% of the vote. In 2006, Palin only got 48% of the vote. Who was more of a true referendum on Sarah Palin in Alaska?
Is it at all impressive that an incumbent republican Senator could pulled 39% of the vote in a 3-way race in Alaska and beat a republican nominee who had never held a statewide office? The race was all about Murkowski and she was rejected by almost 60% of the voters.
Incumbent U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman won re-election with approximately 50% of the vote in his 3-way race in 2006.
Since McAdams ran behind both Berkowitz, and Crawford, we know that is was Democrats that put Murkowski in the win column. Those are hardly Sarah Palin voters at this point.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse