Sure he did. That’s exactly what an Ivy League law grad would do who’s (a) desperate for party backing in a razor-thin race against a woman candidate and (b) already supported by the most famous woman candidate in America. Make a gratuitous prostitute crack about Lisa Murkowski.

The tweet in question was obviously aimed at the Libertarian Party, not her, but let’s not let the facts stand in the way of some identity-politics demagoguery.

Earlier today, the Republican Senate candidate had this to say on Twitter about the rumor Sen. Lisa Murkowski might join the Libertarian Party ticket if she loses her bid against him once all the ballots are counted: “What’s the difference between selling out your party’s values and the oldest profession?”…

Here’s Murkowski’s response: “Alaskans deserve better. This type of statement is inexcusable from someone who wants to represent our state,” she said. “While I have been focused on the remaining ballots, the Miller campaign has launched yet another smear campaign against me. They lied about my record during the primary and now they have resorted to name-calling — it’s disgusting.”

“Alaskan values have never included a complete disregard for the truth or a lack of common decency,” Murkowski said. “Mr. Miller owes all Alaskans, women and my family an apology.”

Says her campaign manager, yet another Palin nemesis, “He just basically called Senator Murkowski a prostitute.” Well, no, he didn’t: A right-wing candidate like Miller is unlikely to accuse a Republican of “selling out your party’s values” by tacking right towards the libertarian end of the spectrum. It makes more sense that he was accusing the Libertarians of selling out by considering a candidate who doesn’t espouse their values — which is, in fact, what they’re doing, in negotiating with a nominee who by their own admission “is not a libertarian.” But I digress. Rather than play into their hands by letting them shift the narrative towards poor back-stabbing Lisa Murkowski being a victim, let me repeat a question posed by Ace earlier today: If the NRSC insists on sending a lawyer to help her with the primary against Miller, why oh why oh why didn’t they at least demand some sort of public pledge from her that she wouldn’t bolt for the Libertarians if the absentee ballots in the GOP primary don’t push her over the top? That’s as irritating to me as the fact that they’re helping her at all. If you want to sandbag a popular grassroots candidate like Miller, that’s one thing — but to get absolutely nothing for it in doing so? Inexcusable. What the hell are these people at the NRSC thinking?