Bombshell: Alaska Libertarian Party says no to nominating Murkowski

posted at 1:51 pm on August 30, 2010 by Allahpundit

They met earlier but wouldn’t tell the media what decision they reached. Eric Dondero, who’s been tapped into libertarian circles for ages, says he’s got the scoop, though. Amazing:

On Sunday morning, over coffee and donuts, the ExComm voted unanimously, 5 to 0 to deny the Senator the ballot line. There was no malice intended. ALP Chair Kohlhaas has repeatedly stated that she is a nice lady, and the ALP was flattered by the offer.

The meeting was contentious at first. Two board members who were clearly on the Tea Party friendly Joe Miller side were combative before they realized that the other three board members agreed with them on the essentials. At a number of points the meeting even digressed into name-calling. The ‘F’ bomb was even tossed around a number of times. One board member was hellbent on holding an immediate statewide meeting open to full membership or registered Libertarians to decide the matter. That idea was shot down 4 to 1.

The vote on Murkowski was taken at about halfway through the meeting which lasted a total of 3 hours. After the result was clear, tempers calmed down, and the 5 member board moved forward with plans on how to announce the results to the media.

Hotline has confirmed it with the ALP. Kohlhaas sure did sound excited about this idea just three days ago, going so far as to say “in terms of morale for our Party a state [senator] would be a real gain for us.” I guess they figured that backing a centrist over a more libertarian type like Joe Miller would lose them more credibility in the state than they’d gain by electing Senator LINO. Or maybe, true to libertarian form, they care more about principle than, er, ever winning an election. Good news for Miller fans either way.

I wanted to write about this PPP poll from over the weekend showing Miller narrowly leading Murkowski in a three-way race, but it’s garbage now. Her only options are winning the GOP nomination outright via the absentees or running a write-in campaign, where she’s bound to do far worse than if she were on the ballot on the Libertarian line. The good news for Miller fans? Apparently the pressure on the NRSC has worked and they’re pulling their team out of Alaska; from now on, says Cornyn, they’re neutral all the way. The bad news? Thanks to Murkowski’s lead in early voting and the fact that more absentee ballots come from her districts than from Miller’s, there’s reason to believe she can still make up the difference in the primary. And even if Miller does hold on to win, the fact that he’s little-known and toxic to many of Murkowski’s supporters means the seat is now in play. Per that PPP poll, Murkowski would crush the Democratic nominee, Scott McAdams, 60/28; Miller, however, is a different story. Quote:

Miller leads Scott McAdams 47-39. McAdams is counteracting several of the trends causing Democrats trouble across the country this year. He’s running even with independents at 42% and he’s benefiting from a more unified party, getting 81% of the Democratic vote while just 73% of Republicans are committed to Miller. In most states that equation would be enough for the lead but in Alaska, where there’s an 18 point Republican party identification advantage, it leaves McAdams running behind.

Irony of ironies, if Miller wins the primary then the one person in Alaska who can probably guarantee his victory in the general is … Lisa Murkowski, by endorsing him and asking her supporters to back him in a show of party unity. (She has major centrist appeal, drawing 38 percent of indies, 32 percent of Republicans, and even 27 percent of Democrats in a three-way race.) Think Murky will be willing to put all this behind her and help the GOP by declaring “It’s Miller time” in Alaska? I’m thinking … no.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

Really? I mean, are you just throwing a dig out there or did you see some way that your statement had something to do with the thread.

hawkdriver on August 30, 2010 at 7:07 PM

Yes, and yes.

John the Libertarian on August 31, 2010 at 12:51 AM

sharrukin on August 30, 2010 at 2:04 PM

Absolutely not under any circumstances. Libertarianism does not apply to anyone under 18.

John the Libertarian on August 31, 2010 at 12:56 AM

Murray Rothbard; holds that parents have the right to abandon their children at any time, regardless of the consequences. Abortion is merely a case of abandonment: “eviction.” If the child’s death results, that is immaterial. “A new-born baby cannot be an existent self-owner in any sense. Therefore, either the mother or some other party may be the baby’s owner….”

“No man can therefore have a “right” to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual being coerced.”

“Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.[2] The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.

“(Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such “neglect” down to a minimum.)”

“The clue to the solution of this thorny question lies in the parental property rights in their home. For the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature — in short, when he leaves or “runs away” from home. Regardless of his age, we must grant to every child the absolute right to run away and to find new foster parents who will voluntarily adopt him, or to try to exist on his own. Parents may try to persuade the runaway child to return, but it is totally impermissible enslavement and an aggression upon his right of self-ownership for them to use force to compel him to return. The absolute right to run away is the child’s ultimate expression of his right of self-ownership, regardless of age.”

Gee, with legal prostitution I wonder how a 10 or 12 year old girl or boy would be able to make some cash and live on their own?

I am sure there are libertarians who would absolutely reject this approach, but it is false to say that these sorts of ideas are not running around various libertarian schools of thought, all 37 of them at last count.

sharrukin on August 31, 2010 at 1:14 AM

Source at Mises.org

http://mises.org/daily/2568

And a forum discussing this…

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/708.aspx

Comments…

There is a vast literature on this so anything I say will not be enough to make the case, but let me say that when i first read this, I was horrorified. But in time, I began to realize that it is consistent and humane and correct that a parent should not be able to force a child to stay under his or roof and nor should the government force the parent to provide for a child up to a certain aga, say 16, as it does now.

And…

It’s not that the lives of children don’t matter, but rather that children must be treated equally with adults. No adult has the right to force me to labour so as to sustain his/her existence. Neither, in fact, do children, no matter at what age they may be, or how wealthy I may be.

And…

To say that parents have a legal responsibility to take care of their children is to say that violence can be inflicted against parents who do not meet some arbitrary standard of parenting.

And…

In any case, you still have yet to establish any objective reason as to why parents are obligated to children, other than that, they’re children.

They are not all that exceptional.

sharrukin on August 31, 2010 at 1:27 AM

They are not all that exceptional.

sharrukin on August 31, 2010 at 1:27 AM

They are the lunatic fringe. I’ve never met ANY libertarian that conveys adult freedoms upon children. Not a SINGLE ONE.

John the Libertarian on August 31, 2010 at 2:59 AM

Yes, and yes.

John the Libertarian on August 31, 2010 at 12:51 AM

Well, thanks for the insightful follow-up answer. That explained it all./

I read the comments before yours to see if some Hot Air commenter wrote something to illicit a comment like that from you. No, the one before yours just told Murkowski to go away. No Libertarian insult in there.

I read the article and then even went to the source to see if I missed the SOCON angle somewhere in the story. I thought, maybe there’s some statement in there about some crazy lunatic Conservative ALP member on the board who didn’t like the fact that they were voting for a Republican candidate to run as a Libertarian. No, that didn’t seem right. Well, maybe “John the Libertarian” had read some statement from Murkowski somewhere that indicated she was a big SOCON and she was putting down Libertarians because of their beliefs on legalizing drugs. Nope, didn’t anything like that in there. I don’t understand what prompted you and don’t understand the context of you dig in relationship to the story. It seems pretty much like you wanted to just insult us.

Look, I’m not sure what it is with some of the Libertarians who post on Hot Air that makes them look at Conservatives as a bigger enemy to them than the Donks. If it’s just because we might have a few more beliefs under our belts than just what affects our pocket books, sorry. I’m a social conservative. I believe in the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage. And as far as drugs go, I just think it’s a bit Pollyannaish to think all of the woes associated with them are going to go away just by legalizing them. I could be wrong but I’m respectful when I enter discussions on the subject who others who might disagree with me. And guess what, if you believe in any one of those things then you’re a least a bit more socially conservative than some other Libertarians.

It’s all just opinion by degrees, no? If mine is a general mindset that you consider cartoonish or backward in your book I don’t know what to tell you. It’s my belief set. I certainly don’t come on here and paint all Libertarians with a dismissive broad brush because of their opinions.

hawkdriver on August 31, 2010 at 5:00 AM

(Well, that was bad. Add these corrections as necessary. And remember to proof read when you’re pissed)

(Nope, didn’t “see”)(You”r” dig)(“with” others)

hawkdriver on August 31, 2010 at 5:14 AM

They are the lunatic fringe. I’ve never met ANY libertarian that conveys adult freedoms upon children. Not a SINGLE ONE.

John the Libertarian on August 31, 2010 at 2:59 AM

Well the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Nozick, Murray Rothbard, the Libertarian Party, and Lew Rockwell may be the lunatic fringe, but they also represent a portion of the libertarian community, at least online.

Those libertarians you have met may be libertarians, or they may be small government conservatives and fiscal democrats who call themselves libertarian. It becomes hard to even know what a libertarian actually is when most of them cannot even define it, and if they did would immediately get into a fist fight with other libertarians who refused that definition.

sharrukin on August 31, 2010 at 11:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 2