Will Murkowski run as an independent? Update: Libertarian Party the only option?
posted at 4:10 pm on August 25, 2010 by Allahpundit
That was the second thought I had this morning when I heard about Miller’s likely upset (the first, of course, was “Dude?”), and no doubt it was the first thought that Murkowski herself had. People often compare Crist’s indie run this year to Lieberman’s bid four years ago after losing the primary to Ned Lamont, but there’s a big difference between those two. Florida is a purple state with two legit party nominees, so Crist is facing a crapshoot in a true three-way race. Connecticut was a blue state where the GOP nominee was a non-factor, so Lieberman knew he could go indie and expect Republicans to vote strategically for him as the more conservative of the two viable options.
Murkowski’s situation is much closer to Lieberman’s than Crist’s is. The Democratic Senate nominee in red-state Alaska is such a non-entity that the DNC’s spokesman couldn’t even name him this morning when asked. If she ran as an independent, she’d peel off a good chunk of Republicans from Miller (figure a third or slightly more) and, with a little centrist pandering over the next month or two, could probably convince a huge swath of Dems to support her in the interest of defeating Miller. All she has to do is whisper the magic word — Palin — and she’ll have Sarah-hating Alaska lefties maxing out on donations to her. Don’t forget either that Murkowski decided not to attack Miller until the very end of the race, figuring that tearing him down with ads would backfire by raising his name recognition. She won’t make that mistake again in the general.
Just one question: Is she still eligible to run as an indie? Hmmmm:
The ongoing battle for who won the Republican primary in the Alaska Senate race will come down to the absentee ballots, but in an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast, a source within the Murkowski campaign says they know of one possible legal option to pursue a third party run. If Murkowski is not victorious when the absentee ballots are counted and decides to wage an independent party bid, they might consider using this option, which the source wouldn’t describe, but did confirm they were seriously looking at…
Although it’s not exactly clear what the options the Murkowski camp are now exploring, one possibility is running a write-in campaign, which would be very difficult and unlikely option. According to the Elections Coordinator in the Alaska Department of Elections, Murkowski has until October 28th to file as a write-in, in which case write-in votes for her would be counted if the aggregate total of all write-ins is greater than ballots cast or within the range that would require a recount. In the coordinator’s 14 years, this has never happened in a state race.
The other possibility: the Alaska Independence Party. Former Governor Wally Hickel lost the Republican primary in 1990, but won in the general by being on the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP) ticket. A third party run could work for Murkowski as the Democrat’s candidate is largely unknown Sitka mayor Scott McAdams, but she would have to overcome the main reason the AIP exists in the Last Frontier: they are a secessionist party calling for Alaska to leave the United States. Obviously, Murkowski is not a secessionist, which Alaskans know, and an aggressive PR campaign promoting her independence rather than the AIP may be her only route back to Washington this fall.
I poked around the Alaska secretary of state’s webpage this morning and it looks like Murkowski’s too late to run as an indie. Alaska is one of the 46 states with a “sore-loser law” requiring independents to register for the ballot by the date of the party primaries (Connecticut is one of the four without one), so the window on that is closed. A write-in campaign is possible — Bob Bennett considered it after losing in the Utah Republican caucus — but how likely is it that she’ll convince 75,000 or so supporters, many of whom will necessarily be Democrats, to take the time to write her in instead of flipping the switch for a party nominee? As for the AIP, I won’t even pretend to know how that might work. Looks like they don’t yet have a nominee for Senate this year, so presumably Murkowski would make some sort of deal with them in which they nominate her and she … pushes for Alaskan independence? Man, blogging these midterms is going to be fun.
These are her only options at this point as far as I know, because according to Larry Sabato, the absentee ballots that are being counted won’t be enough for her to catch Miller. She’s going to lose the primary. No wonder she’s sounding so grouchy about Palin:
“The tone was directed against me rather than reasons why you should support Joe,” Murkowski told me in an interview. “But she did put a little dig in there about my family, and you can’t help but notice when she says that she encouraged people to basically pony up 1,000 bucks to raise the 30,000 dollars, they want Miller to gain and that would be a 1,000 dollars for the 30 years the Murkowski family…locked up Alaska. All of a sudden, it was like, wait a minute, if you are taking me on because you don’t think I’m conservative enough that’s one thing, but are you now suggesting that Frank Murkowski was not conservative enough and why are you looping him on this? All of a sudden it became a little more personal.”
Compare and contrast that with Joe Miller’s line of the day: “Alaskans are prepared to enter a new era of politics — an era of self-dependency.” Exit question: Is it time to start worrying about what an angry Lisa Murkowski might do during the lame-duck session in December? Hmmmm.
Update: Via John McCormack, the Anchorage Daily News says it’s libertarian or bust.
Alaska Division of Elections Director Gail Fenumiai told me it’s too late for Murkowski to file to have her name appear on the ballot as an independent, so that would need to be a write-in effort. There is a Libertarian candidate in the race, Frederick Haase, who could choose to step down. The Libertarian Party could then select a replacement for him on the ballot.
There is no other third party candidate in the U.S. Senate race, so Libertarian would be the only option for Murkowski to join a new party for a run.
So because the AIP never nominated anyone, I guess, they’re out of luck in the Murkowski sweepstakes. Which actually makes things easier for her: A deal with the AIP would be a tough sell nationally, but the Libertarian brand is perfectly kosher. I wonder what she’d have to promise them to get them to drop their guy.
Related Posts:









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Please don’t inject reality into this.
tgharris on May 14, 2013 at 10:50 PM
There are 3 cities on the Libyian coast with airports of note. Benghazi is one of them, easternmost. If you were flying in weapons heading east,, what would you pick? Tripoli is all the way west. 120 miles or so from Tunisia.
Stevens had dinner that night with who?
They were running guns, folks.
Security was kept low as to not draw attention.
wolly4321 on May 14, 2013 at 10:52 PM
You’ll have to pardon Babs Boxer. Just like Pelosi, Botox is taking it’s toll.
GarandFan on May 14, 2013 at 10:56 PM
“There is no distinctly American criminal class – except Congress.” – Mark Twain
Dr. ZhivBlago on May 14, 2013 at 10:59 PM
And what is your point?
Such a fact would work to excuse the lies and put the exposure on CIA.
Helps Hillary and POTUS.
No?
IlikedAUH2O on May 14, 2013 at 10:59 PM
I detested the dumb remark about Sandra Fluke during the last campaign.
If Rushbo wants to call a woman a derogatory name….just lookie here.
IlikedAUH2O on May 14, 2013 at 11:01 PM
holy fluck you are an idiot.
tom daschle concerned on May 14, 2013 at 11:06 PM
What the hell is she wearing? She looks like she’s about to lead a Jazzercise class.
And she’s an idiot.
LASue on May 14, 2013 at 11:12 PM
You really don’t get it, do you?
No, it doesn’t help them. How would it?
CIA? Yea,. They are all complicit and shifting blame in a shell game.
Jihad is legitimate as a tenet of islam? Who said that?
These gubmint agencies may be fighting each other in the aftermath, but they started out in concert with each other. when it falls apart they isolate and blame each other.
Look at f&f. Same thing. Blame game.
wolly4321 on May 14, 2013 at 11:19 PM
Lies, bullshxt, lies, distractions, lies, propaganda, lies, Boxer, and lies.
Kenosha Kid on May 14, 2013 at 11:35 PM
Where’s a fire hose when you need it?
RobertMN on May 14, 2013 at 11:49 PM
Low information voters will hear her and believe her, and repeat it ad nauseum. That’s why the democrats lie perpetually even after the truth comes out. They know the lies will be long-lived, because the media supports the lies and ignores the truth.
The Rogue Tomato on May 14, 2013 at 11:57 PM
Barbara Boxer would be the dumbest person in the Senate, but she’s been bumped back by Patty Murray, Klochubar, and Babs Mikulski. Between the four of them, if brains were beans, they don’t have enough to make a bee fart.
Clearly funding wasn’t the issue, and just as clearly Boxer and Democrats are desperate to derail the investigation because of what it is certain to turn up. Because if the mountains of paper and dozens of witnesses Obama is blocking Congress from seeing were in any way helpful to him, or proved he was telling the truth, they would already be out.
Adjoran on May 15, 2013 at 12:03 AM
TDC- yep.
wolly4321 on May 15, 2013 at 12:12 AM
.
The only mistake ( maybe ) he made is not inquiring whether Ms Fluke was campaigning for herself, as well as others.
If she was including herself in the number of “needy” college girls, then the shoe F I T !
.
Conservative radio talk-show hosts should have no boundaries on them for using legitimate words in common usage, whether others deem it to be too vulgar or not.
listens2glenn on May 15, 2013 at 12:28 AM
..what an absolutely horrid piece of of flesh this creature is; a festering pile of pig afterbirth decaying in the 103 degree afternoon Barstow sun is more appealing than she. A rancid, fetid mound of cow diarrhea attracts a smaller swarm of flies than she. Reminds me of a dumpster full of used Kotexes, she does..
..I want to vomit.
The War Planner on May 15, 2013 at 12:37 AM
OK. Calling a law student a “slut” during a presidential campaign in front of 20 million listeners must make sense to some people but I am sure not one of them.
She wanted freebies. I really didn’t care about her sex habits and using that term just generated a lot of heat and very little light on the real subject.
IlikedAUH2O on May 15, 2013 at 12:48 AM
Bingo! Yep, MSNBC and the rest have a new video and needn’t worry about any truth in it.
IlikedAUH2O on May 15, 2013 at 12:51 AM
Turkish embassy person.
And our people ask for more security and the high and mighty decline it, over and over.
Still makes no sense.
IlikedAUH2O on May 15, 2013 at 12:57 AM
About Boxer: I didn’t know that donkey squeeze could talk.
hamradio on May 15, 2013 at 12:59 AM
Every now and then, Babs (Oops, that’s Sen. Babs) has to demonstrate to the world how truly stupid she is.
Today she did just that.
Another Drew on May 15, 2013 at 1:49 AM
Oh, Babs will go down with the ship. She’s a fanatic.
mojo on May 15, 2013 at 1:50 AM
Pathetic.
Delusional.
Democrat tool.
profitsbeard on May 15, 2013 at 2:34 AM
Shameless stupidity. And a reflection on her seriousness as a Senator.
pat on May 15, 2013 at 2:38 AM
Charlene Lamb testified in sworn testimony to Congress that budget was not a factor in cutting the security arrangements in Libya. She said it was a policy decision to go with a “lighter footprint” in a “laughably naive notion that if we were weak enough, nobody would see us as a threat so they wouldn’t attack us”. Ok, maybe I made up the “laughably naive” part, but the rest of it is true.
Boxer is, as usual, being dishonest.
crosspatch on May 15, 2013 at 4:18 AM
The Benghazi embassy was intentionally left to fly in the wind and everyone who is paying attention recognizes this. Boxer’s screeching is but the sound of nothing but stupid usery and I’d bet she knows this herself.
Whether it was a Hillary-plan or an Obama one handed down by indirect suggestions or direct nastiness on the lawn or across the street from the WH in that Islam-associated coffee shop, it was certainly an intentional act to reduce-deny security protections to that embassy location — or to the staff associated with the place (either/or, personnel or location, “what does it matter”).
Lourdes on May 15, 2013 at 4:35 AM
If the only way to get this jackass out of the Senate is to give California back to Mehico, I say “Let’s do it!”
olesparkie on May 15, 2013 at 6:03 AM
There are many worthy nominees for absolute dumbest member of Congress (both houses), but Boxer seems to always find a way to justify her perpetual inclusion on that list.
If want to know why California will sink into the Pacific long before any earthquake forces the issue, look no further than who they keep electing: Queen Pelosi, Gov Moonbeam, their entire state legislature, and yes, Barbara Boxer.
NeoCon_1 on May 15, 2013 at 7:09 AM
Barbara,
Let’s say for a minute that you are correct and that it is completely the GOP’s fault that there was less money for diplomatic security at the time of the Benghazi fiasco.
Now, explain how that results in the GOP being responsible for the Obama administration ignoring warnings of possible terrorist attacks in Egypt.
Next explain how the lack of funding caused the Obama administration to purposefully lie about the cause of the Benghazi attack and use the full weight of the U.S. Gov’t to go after someone for exerting his first amendment rights in making a video?
You see Babs, even assuming that your idiotic first claim is true, it doesn’t absolve Obama for incompetence and dishonesty.
Monkeytoe on May 15, 2013 at 7:32 AM
Point to Schumer, since he’s in charge of messaging. I can’t believe the Democrats are going here, but then this isn’t for normal people, this is for the low information voter.
bflat879 on May 15, 2013 at 7:52 AM
Another glowing example of the wisdom found in California politics!
Pardonme on May 15, 2013 at 7:56 AM
I bet he’s a Republican HACK! Investigate his political contributions!
/libstupidity (let’s!)
Axeman on May 15, 2013 at 8:01 AM
What difference does it make who cut security–whether it was Republicans and their voodoo cuts in the unpassed Ryan budget or some guys out for a walk one night who decided to cut security for the Libyan consulate.
Axeman on May 15, 2013 at 8:11 AM
As I said the first time they tried this: Democrats had claimed that the only reason that cons don’t like big government is that they can’t manage it like libs can. But now they say that without as much funding as they can theorize, they can’t allocate a minimum level of security for one of the hottest embassies on the planet.
Cutting funding is bad. Cutting funding is bad….the first word on Obamacare was to “bend the cost curve downward”. We were spending “too much” (for an aging populace?) on medical care.
Axeman on May 15, 2013 at 8:17 AM
The “repubs cut funding” must have gone out on journolist, or the super-double-secret meetings, or Valerie’s texts, or whatever. I’ve seen them trying that one quite a bit lately.
Boudica on May 15, 2013 at 8:27 AM
It was already stated by state that funding had no role. Running lies is bad enough. How stupid do you have to be to run a lie that the administration had debunked. Really really stupid Senator.
scboy on May 15, 2013 at 8:47 AM
lipstick on a hag…still a hag…a hag in a pantsuit
crosshugger on May 15, 2013 at 8:53 AM
Of all the scandals we get to choose from lately, it seems like Benghazi is the one they are freaking out about the most, and trying to act like they really don’t care about it. “No big deal, just rethuglicans hyper-partisan hysteria, move along…” But really, this is the one they are peeing their pants(suits) over.
Boudica on May 15, 2013 at 9:01 AM
Senile ‘ol biddy. I cannot believe Cali re-elected her. What a bunch of goofs out there.
jake49 on May 15, 2013 at 9:47 AM
Gee, another bad case of plastic face. Her face is as phony as the rest of her.
{^_^}
herself on May 15, 2013 at 10:13 AM
Barbara Boxer should thank her lucky stars for Maxine Waters, the only person keeping her from being the stupidest member of Congress.
Tyrone Slothrop on May 15, 2013 at 10:42 AM
It would be so worth going to jail for punching this woman in the face, but alas, I won’t. I wish North Korea would nuke California off the map.
F_This on May 15, 2013 at 12:42 PM
This is so F’in dumb. Even IF you grant that budget cuts could scale back security at some State Dept facilities abroad, is it even REMOTELY thinkable that we’d start with… say, I don’t know… oh, I know, facilities in a country that just had a civil war ?
Come on already. Are you really THAT dumb ? Or do you just think THAT little of the people of this country that this idea wasn’t dismissed immediately.
Give me a break.
So even IF budget cuts were a factor, wouldn’t that STILL lay at the feet of the incompetent members of the Obama administration that, faced with budget cuts for security, thought Benghazi and Libya were the places to save money ?
deadrody on May 15, 2013 at 4:30 PM
Barbara Boxer is part of the reason California is filled to the brim with unemployed illegal transient/migrant people from other places.
If the government weren’t spending so much money on GREEN ENERGY scams and filling the coffers of corrupt politicians it WOULD have enough money to fund the government departments that should be funded…i.e. like our military.
President Obama and his minions have been VERY,VERY bad boyz and gurlz…..They don’t just LIE, they believe their lies, they spread their lies and their lies have bankrupted our future and killed many in their path….AND they aren’t done folks! Expect the desperate to come unhidged!
ActinUpinTexas on May 15, 2013 at 5:03 PM
Do budget cuts cause talking points to change?
djaymick on May 15, 2013 at 8:27 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2