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.









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 Next »
Don’t go away angry.
Just go away.
Good Lt on August 30, 2010 at 1:52 PM
Libertarians just want to smoke dope.
/social cons
John the Libertarian on August 30, 2010 at 1:54 PM
Palinized for your protection.
fogw on August 30, 2010 at 1:55 PM
Yeah!
If she loses and doesn’t back Miller, she’ll show what egotism and power-hunger really mean.
Ugly will be indignant then.
Schadenfreude on August 30, 2010 at 1:57 PM
Murkowski effed up by floating the independent idea in the first place, making herself look like a sore loser and alienating those who might have come back to her side if she pulls this out.
What is in the water up there? Time to sell Alaska to Russia and be done with it.
Bishop on August 30, 2010 at 1:58 PM
Just the same, if she wins, Miller should back her, and likely will.
Even Sarah might then have to back her, which is another irony.
Schadenfreude on August 30, 2010 at 1:58 PM
Lisa has an opportunity to restore her honor…
d1carter on August 30, 2010 at 1:58 PM
Honorably, both should declare now that they’ll back each other, whoever wins squarely.
Schadenfreude on August 30, 2010 at 1:59 PM
Good.
rbj on August 30, 2010 at 1:59 PM
The LP in Alaska must have been catching massive flak from their members since they let out the trial balloon. I imagine the base was NOT happy.
Yep. Losing elections, but ‘ideologically pure’ since 1971.
Firefly_76 on August 30, 2010 at 2:00 PM
I wonder if the Libertarians are open to having MILLER on the ticket as a Libertarian? Makes a lot more sense than the statist, porky Murkowski.
Ponder this, eyeore: What if the Democrats agreed to replace their hapless schmoe on the ballot with Murkowski? She could do the Crist 180 in warp speed.
BuzzCrutcher on August 30, 2010 at 2:00 PM
That picture of her frightens me …… I look at that expression on her face – and her left hand outstretched like that and I get the impulse to cross my legs.
oldfiveanddimer on August 30, 2010 at 2:01 PM
Murkowski really shot herself in the foot by allowing the Libertarian rumors to be floated, then essentially forcing them to publicly tell her “NO.”
She can likely win anyway (if the absentees swing her way), but she certainly doesn’t look good in this episode.
Oh, and allahpundit…
Weren’t there a few commenters advising you not to go all “gung ho” on the Libertarian posts?
cs89 on August 30, 2010 at 2:02 PM
Daddy? Did you get my senate seat back yet?
/@Lisa
ted c on August 30, 2010 at 2:02 PM
Not at all. Libertarians can multi-task.
Harvard’s libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick.
The comparable question about an individual is whether a free system will allow him to sell himself into slavery. I believe that it would. [Nozick 1974, 331]
Libertarian presidential candidate Mary Ruwart
From her book…
Short Answers to the Tough Questions.
Ruwart’s response to the question “How can a libertarian argue against child pornography?”
Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.
sharrukin on August 30, 2010 at 2:04 PM
Well, the fact one of Murky’s observers had free access to election voting files for 20 minutes won’t hurt her chances either. That, by itself, puts the whole thing in doubt. What in the world were they thinking up there?
a capella on August 30, 2010 at 2:05 PM
I thought there were between 7 and 8 thousand GOP ballots they needed to count. Where the hell are they getting this 23,000 figure?
Doughboy on August 30, 2010 at 2:06 PM
Principles….maybe
Well, duh.
Vashta.Nerada on August 30, 2010 at 2:06 PM
just count the damn ballots already and let’s get this over with.
ted c on August 30, 2010 at 2:06 PM
Well, I guess if I had a job that paid $179,000 a year with health benefits and retirement benefits I would probably try really, really hard to keep it. She should have been trying really, really hard in the first place.
Don’t get your boss angry with you.
Vince on August 30, 2010 at 2:07 PM
OT: Looks like hurricane Earl may be paying a visit to the Washington DC area. Cat 3.
milwife88 on August 30, 2010 at 2:08 PM
As a libertarian, I have never been part of the Party and only have voted for Libertarian Party candidates when the alternative was no better than the Dems. The Libertarian Party is by and large a bunch of goofs.
cartooner on August 30, 2010 at 2:08 PM
milwife, what link is that info from/?
ted c on August 30, 2010 at 2:08 PM
Scott McAdams is really Dilbert using a fake name.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on August 30, 2010 at 2:09 PM
So if Miller loses in the end, will he run to the Libertarian party and try to get on their ticket?
Or will he do the right thing and concede with honor, and endorse Murkowski?
portlandon on August 30, 2010 at 2:09 PM
It is highly ironic that just last week Murkowski said this about Sarah Palin:
So, if she doesn’t endorse Miller, does that come under the heading of self-interest or Alaska’s interest?
INC on August 30, 2010 at 2:09 PM
I floated that idea sometime last week. It’s very believable, IMHO, because it’s all about the “Murkowski” name to her and daddy rather than the letter behind it.
The Dems would consider it for two reasons:
1. A chance at an unexpected win in November
2. Giving her the nomination would mean they could flip her seat to Dem right now, meaning they have the votes to break a filibuster for the “lame duck” session
teke184 on August 30, 2010 at 2:09 PM
I’m thinking you’re right. It’s not about party, or party unity, or doing what’s best for ones country. It’s about selfishness, ego, power, glory, and control. Shame on all that betray their country for their own self glorification.
capejasmine on August 30, 2010 at 2:09 PM
Contrarily, who wants to bet that this sorry elitist suddenly realizes that the Republican Party “has gone too far to the right for me,” and gives a glowing endorsement a la Scozzafava of Mayor What’s-his-face the Democrat?
KingGold on August 30, 2010 at 2:11 PM
Just saw the report on Foxnews. You can see the “projected path” on drudge. Anywhere from the outter banks of NC to Maine. May just brush the coast but if it’s a Cat3 the damage will be big.
milwife88 on August 30, 2010 at 2:11 PM
ted c@2:08,
A good site for storms is…stormpulse.com. I don’t know if this is what milwife uses.
L
letget on August 30, 2010 at 2:11 PM
Plus they’re all gay and all.
Akzed on August 30, 2010 at 2:12 PM
I will be from now on. Thanks for the site.
milwife88 on August 30, 2010 at 2:12 PM
Anyone know how long she can do recounts in a primary?
Asher on August 30, 2010 at 2:15 PM
In that picture, it looks like she’s putting the whammy on someone. Creepy.
Ward Cleaver on August 30, 2010 at 2:15 PM
Thanks for the heads up on Storm Pulse. It has a great map!
Earl from:
NOAA
Wunderground
Storm Pulse
INC on August 30, 2010 at 2:17 PM
thansk for storm info.
ted c on August 30, 2010 at 2:17 PM
milwife88@2:11,
You are welcome. We live in S TX on the coast and use this site for storms.
L
letget on August 30, 2010 at 2:18 PM
A rare and stunning show of philosophical integrity in politics. Bravo, Libertarians!
As for Murky and her plans…whatevs. This is all about having a free and transparent process. To the winner goes the spoils, and to the third party spoilers go the rotten tomatoes.
Jaibones on August 30, 2010 at 2:18 PM
Agreed! It is POSSIBLE that Murkowski could win the primary based on absentee ballots, many of which might have been cast before Joe Miller’s last-minute surge in popularity. It’s a shame that Alaska has such a late primary, because the delays in counting the absentee ballots will hurt the chances of uniting Republicans behind whoever wins in the general election, and Murkowski’s “flirt” with the Libertarians will hurt her with Independents in the general election.
Of course, had the primary been earlier, there may not have been time for Joe Miller’s surge.
Kudos to the Libertarian Party for NOT letting Murkowski run under their party banner. If a Senator loses his/her primary, that’s too Fn bad. Ask lame-duck Senators Bennett and Specter.
Hopefull, the next victim will be Lindsay Graham.
Steve Z on August 30, 2010 at 2:19 PM
Many of the original libertarian thinkers would disagree with Nozick.
They believed that the rights of life & liberty were natural rights and, as such, they were inalienable. As they are inalienable, they cannot even be violated by the individual themselves. In other words, you cannot sell yourself into slavery or kill yourself as you would then be violating your own inalienable rights to life and liberty.
JadeNYU on August 30, 2010 at 2:20 PM
As long as it’s left to the absentees- and not the shenanigans of of NRSC lawyer types, then let this one stand or fall where it may. Still pulling for Miller, but if he loses on a CLEAN absentee count, it will have to be accepted.
However, we should NOT have had to apply heat to Cornyn; my Senator should know better than this, especially after Crist.
michaelo on August 30, 2010 at 2:20 PM
Bingo!
The idea that Murkowski would turn chameleon with whatever political philosophy which might allow her a possible win speaks volumes about this woman’s integrity – or lack there of.
Miller time, indeed!
locomotivebreath1901 on August 30, 2010 at 2:22 PM
She should be excommunicated from the GOP for even making the offer.
How many times have we heard that one? And why is he neutral now that’s she’s “outed” as having made an offer to the Libertarians?
LOL.
HondaV65 on August 30, 2010 at 2:24 PM
Bombshell is right. Who would have thought you could get 5 Libertarians to agree on anything?
Rocks on August 30, 2010 at 2:25 PM
“Na na na na”!
NA na na naa”
Hey hey hey”
GOOD BYE!!!
44Magnum on August 30, 2010 at 2:25 PM
Michael Barone says that Murkowski has a better chance of making up the vote in absentee ballots because if was a big part of her organization. He seems to think it is an area that a newbie would not put much effort.
Cindy Munford on August 30, 2010 at 2:26 PM
OT:
Rasmussen is reporting that the WV Senate race is in a dead-heat, with Gov. Manchin at 47 and his Republican challenger at 44.
Manchin was expected to win this in a walk because he’s got a 70% approval rating.
teke184 on August 30, 2010 at 2:27 PM
Madam Senator: your presence is neither required nor desired…
Khun Joe on August 30, 2010 at 2:27 PM
That’s a long way out. He’s got another four years, thanks to the stupidity of South Carolina Republicans.
Jaibones on August 30, 2010 at 2:28 PM
Some do and some do not. There are so many varieties of Libertarianism that it pretty much means whatever the individual wants it to mean, which is in my opinion why it is so popular. DYO ideology.
sharrukin on August 30, 2010 at 2:28 PM
Because the electorate have learned (Obamacare) that there is no such thing as a moderate democrat.
portlandon on August 30, 2010 at 2:28 PM
That’s the best comment I’ve seen on Hot Air in a while.
You know, it never made sense to me that the ALP would give Murkowski their spot on the ballot. Miller is much closer to being a libertarian than Murkowski.
dczombie on August 30, 2010 at 2:29 PM
So the ALP decided it was best not to be a bunch of wh*res.
Good for them.
JohnGalt23 on August 30, 2010 at 2:31 PM
Thhhhere ya go again!
Gang-of-One on August 30, 2010 at 2:33 PM
At least we would have a chance of getting the oil up there if that happened…
right2bright on August 30, 2010 at 2:36 PM
I wonder how many people that voted FOR Murkowski last week would like to recast their ballot?
And I wonder how many people will vote for her again, IF she is wins the race?
And to the point of conceding or backing your opponent; J. D. Hayworth STILL has not called John McCain. Low Class.
barnone on August 30, 2010 at 2:41 PM
If she doesn’t then she proves that it’s all about her and not what’s best for Alaska or America.
I am sick to death of career politicos.
disa on August 30, 2010 at 2:45 PM
And apparently we’re all about some kiddie pron.
Monica on August 30, 2010 at 2:45 PM
I don’t buy it. Miller will win the general by at least 10, probably more like 20.
I don’t see her making up the difference on absentee ballots either — I expect they will favor Miller 60/40.
This one’s pretty much all wrapped up — a huge for the Tea Party and true minarchists.
TallDave on August 30, 2010 at 2:45 PM
“Libertarian party” is an oxymoron on the order of “herd of cats” or “jumbo shrimp”…
mojo on August 30, 2010 at 2:46 PM
Good for the Libertarians. They resisted the temptation to sell out.
WannabeAnglican on August 30, 2010 at 2:54 PM
Well, that’s an interesting turn of events. With all the hyperventilating over the NRSC and their ‘team of lawyers’ running to Murkowski’s aid, why would she feel the need to offer herself up to the Libertarian ticket unless that NRSC team didn’t give her the resources she thought she would get.
Texas Gal on August 30, 2010 at 2:58 PM
She is not fringy enough for the goose stepping thermite snorting anti semite conspiracy theorist wackjob crowd.
Jerricho68 on August 30, 2010 at 2:59 PM
I thought it was a dude in drag!
imadds on August 30, 2010 at 2:59 PM
Its quite amazing that in a post about the ALP taking a stand on principle, commenters choose to rant about how the LP and libertarians are so bereft of principles or character and so incapable of rational thought.
From biggovernment.com here’s an excerpt from their statement:
Firefly_76 on August 30, 2010 at 2:59 PM
This always seemed stupid to me. She isn’t even conservative enough for Republicans (and has a lifetime 70 ACU rating)… why would Libertarians want to hitch their wagon to that fading star?
mankai on August 30, 2010 at 3:00 PM
oldfiveanddimer on August 30, 2010 at 2:01 PM
Sorry,
I thought it was a dude in drag!
imadds on August 30, 2010 at 3:01 PM
Another kick to the groin for Mitch McConnell… gotta love it
phreshone on August 30, 2010 at 3:02 PM
Kid all you want… but when I contacted the LP several years ago (out of a real interest) they (state and national) were so hung up on the big three (pot, prostitution and pornography) they couldn’t get past working them into just about every conversation.
mankai on August 30, 2010 at 3:04 PM
After watching how WRONG the polls were just one week ago, why would ANYONE believe ANYTHING they claim today?
I found that showed Murkyowski winning by 30+ against the Democrat laughable. And after watching Miller whack that talking head on CBS with the US Constitution yesterday, I have no dubt he will win big.
Freddy on August 30, 2010 at 3:06 PM
The Democrats?
Asher on August 30, 2010 at 3:07 PM
Another good storm website.
http://flhurricane.com/
I live in hurricane country too…sigh….
Bikerchick on August 30, 2010 at 3:08 PM
I’ll take that one with the EASY button helper:
Their in car trunks comin quickly from Minnysoota!
Real questions:
1.)How many are military and wouldn’t these favor the war hero?
2.)How could anyone even consider voting for a seat inheritor from a corrupt daddy over a war Hero?
Jeesssh McCains played that trump card for generations through sellouts, sticks in the eye, thoughts of party switches and backroom double dealin and won!
dhunter on August 30, 2010 at 3:15 PM
Kermit on August 30, 2010 at 3:16 PM
The reason they are ‘so hung up’ on these and other issues that pertain to personal choice is that libertarians are first and formost about liberty. You’re free to f#ck up your life any way you want just as you’re free to make good choices. It’s all down to the individual. Libertarians trust people to make their own choices and live with the consequences. That much freedom is frightening to people, both Democrat and Republican.
Don’t worry though, the only party better at shooting themselves in the foot than Republican Party is the Libertarian Party. Herding cats is right.
Monica on August 30, 2010 at 3:16 PM
come on! f-ing filter
Monica on August 30, 2010 at 3:18 PM
oops- nevermind
Monica on August 30, 2010 at 3:18 PM
Dang EASY button screwed up!
Of course the NRSCC guy brought them with him now his job is done and he can leave secure in the knowledge that Murkowski will win by 22,000 total – 8000 real = 14,000 fakes!
dhunter on August 30, 2010 at 3:18 PM
Looks like that leaves vote rigging as the only viable option.
tarpon on August 30, 2010 at 3:19 PM
Anything to the rumor Levi Johnson is helpin count the ballots?
dhunter on August 30, 2010 at 3:21 PM
Headlines from the State run media will be:
Fear not, fellow Liberals, Palin can get out the vote but doesn’t know how to count em!
dhunter on August 30, 2010 at 3:23 PM
So the Angry Tranny ticket is out of the question?
Pity.
NoDonkey on August 30, 2010 at 3:25 PM
Someone get this woman a sandwich…quick
Wade on August 30, 2010 at 3:28 PM
The point is, she is the type of corrupt politician who has to go, regardless of what party they say they belong to.
Dhuka on August 30, 2010 at 3:39 PM
OT:
for some fun Ed and Allah this begs for a caption contest PPUUULLLEEEAAAASSSSSEEE!
http://www.lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=561424&Page=1
Click on original article for the photo else see it on Drudge!
dhunter on August 30, 2010 at 4:10 PM
RovePalin, you evil geniusfaraway on August 30, 2010 at 4:18 PM
This is old news. Not that that is unusual for Hot Air, but to use “bomshell” and “amazing” is weird.
Jaynie59 on August 30, 2010 at 4:23 PM
If she is more liberal than the Republican nominee, what’s the point?
Harpoon on August 30, 2010 at 4:31 PM
Exactly my history. Purism is for people who don’t care much about consequences.
YehuditTX on August 30, 2010 at 4:41 PM
So the only argument among the Libertarians was over who wanted to kick her out the most?
Why doesn’t she join the Moderate Party?
logis on August 30, 2010 at 4:54 PM
There is NO reason to assume the absentees will break more for Murky than the live balloting did. Being “cast before Miller’s surge” is a red herring – the polling was obviously way off in this race, and little was done. It cannot be asserted with any confidence that Miller wasn’t running even the whole time.
`
`
Also, there is NO reason to assume absentee voters would not be disproportionately made of up of people who wanted to vote on the abortion referendum, which would make them predisposed to vote for Miller.
`
`
Lastly, there was NEVER a single shred of evidence the NRSC was “up to” anything more nefarious than ensuring Murky’s rights were respected in the process. NOT ONE. All the wailing to the contrary is 100% paranoid whining from the sort of fringe nuts who supported Hayworth.
Adjoran on August 30, 2010 at 5:25 PM
23,000 apparently comprises absentee mail-in votes and votes that have been challenged by one side or the other. I’m not sure if ‘challenged’ means challenged already-counted absentee ballots or also challenged in-person ballots a la Dade County. What kind of machines are used in AK?
slickwillie2001 on August 30, 2010 at 6:09 PM
Hey, before we get all warm and fuzzy about the Libertarian Party, lets not forget they ran Bob Barr for president last time – and old Murky is a thousand times more libertarian than that guy.
Rebar on August 30, 2010 at 6:12 PM
So you’d push for a Pyrrhic victory that does more damage than losing Allah?
If your goal is Libertarian ideals and a Senator who will vote your way, Miller > Murkowski… so why back the candidate who will damage your side more?
Heck I haven’t even mentioned principles, or credibility. The goal is votes, bills, and laws… isn’t it? It was just a dumb play for them… and one I figured they were foolish enough to make. Glad to see I was wrong.
gekkobear on August 30, 2010 at 6:40 PM
She is not remotely Libertarian. What a farce. They made the right decision.
Listening to Miller today, and he’ll do just fine. He’s well-spoken, seems pretty level-headed.
If she doesn’t endorse him, that’ll be fine. She looks like a Crist type….sore loser.
AnninCA on August 30, 2010 at 7:05 PM
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
You know who the Alaska Libertarians haven’t said “no” to? That’s right. Miller.
Rae on August 30, 2010 at 7:51 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »