Unreal: Senate GOP decides not to strip Murkowski of seniority on Energy committee after all; Update: It’s a matter of “good taste,” says Hatch

posted at 3:17 pm on September 22, 2010 by Allahpundit

I’m baffled.

A GOP source in the room tells CNN, despite anger towards Murkowski, the conference decided not to even take up the question of the Senate Energy Committee post because “there was a sense that she’s resigned her leadership post, she lost her primary, she will probably lose her race, and she’ll be gone. She will not be ranking [Republican] because she will not be here.”

This, despite strong words from colleagues like Sen. John Cornyn a day earlier, who was among many Republicans who predicted they would remove her from the committee post.

Yeah, she’ll “probably” lose, but one way to help ensure that she loses is to send a message to Alaska voters that she won’t have any advantage over Miller next year in terms of pork-production for the state if she’s re-elected. All they had to do today to achieve that was vote to knock her down to the bottom of the totem pole. And they refused. And not only did they refuse, they’re refusing to say why. The best excuse anyone can come up with is that there aren’t many days left in the legislative session, as if that had anything to do with anything.

I want an explanation. Did they leave her in place out of simple personal affection? Even though … she didn’t even bother to fly in for the vote?

Update: Ace speculates that they’re afraid to push her too hard lest she vote with the Democrats in the lame-duck session. Isn’t she going to do that anyway if she loses to Miller? By definition, she’s a sore loser. Seniority won’t mean anything to her during the lame-duck if she knows she won’t be around next year to enjoy it.

Update: One other thing. If Murkowski somehow let them know that she’d vote Democratic in the lame-duck if they stripped her of Energy seniority — I’m not saying she did, but if — then the caucus should reveal that to the world so that fencesitting Republicans in Alaska know exactly what kind of snake they’re dealing with here. It’s amazing to me that they were promising to boot her yesterday and, 24 hours later, suddenly they’ve reversed themselves and don’t want to talk about it. Spill it.

Update: Hatch has been kissing a lot of tea-party butt lately in order to avoid a Bob Bennett scenario of his own in two years, but I’m not sure it’s going to save him. A new bon mot:

But with the committee unlikely to conduct any further business this year and the act seen as largely symbolic, Republicans decided not to add insult to her injury at the hands of Joe Miller, the tea party-backed candidate who beat her in the primary.

“We all respect the system, and she still is a Republican senator,’’ said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah.) after the closed party caucus. “It’s just a matter of good taste. We decided to keep the status quo as long as she’s a senator.’’


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 3 4

Ogabe on September 22, 2010 at 6:08 PM

That is an excellent run down of the cumulative effect I was mentioning earlier.

I, for one, have had enough.

Brian1972 on September 22, 2010 at 6:24 PM

Has anyone seen the new Contract with America posted at Drudge? Its 21 pages and reads kind of like a dull business plan. Does anyone remember the one from 1994? Wasn’t it just ten simple points on one page?

Maybe they’ll have an Executive Summary or something.

JonPrichard on September 22, 2010 at 6:30 PM

I believe DeMint tried that once. The interpretation of the rules got changed after Reid brought in a speed reader.

steveegg on September 22, 2010 at 6:24 PM

there is a difference between doing something for show and doing something with the intention of doing it. demint tried to pull a stunt. Reid pulled another one. Demint withdrew.

Demint should have made Reid the bill with a speed reader and taken the C-span video and used it as a campaign ad.

Be that as it may the fact is Benning shut down the senate for days when he failed to give consent for extention of unemployment benfits. there is 41 days left before the election. Senators want out to go campaign. So the window is about 2 weeks left maybe less. If the GOp wanted to shut the senate down they could. with or without Lisa

unseen on September 22, 2010 at 6:32 PM

Has anyone seen the new Contract with America posted at Drudge? Its 21 pages and reads kind of like a dull business plan. Does anyone remember the one from 1994? Wasn’t it just ten simple points on one page?
Maybe they’ll have an Executive Summary or something.

JonPrichard on September 22, 2010 at 6:30 PM

these DC people are clueless. clueless. Our country is doomed. 21 pages? Are they writing a freaking book?

They need a one page 5 bullet point document with an appendix to see additional information.

unseen on September 22, 2010 at 6:33 PM

All it takes is one Senator or Representative to stop a lame duck session by denying ‘unanimous consent requests’ and having each and every part of every bill, amendment, change… everything needing to be passed… read out, in full.

Republicans need to stop playing games and get serious.

All it takes is one. That they continue to play games tell me that the number willing to do this is ZERO.

ajacksonian on September 22, 2010 at 6:35 PM

RINO in Name Only on September 22, 2010 at 6:18 PM

the point is conservatives do that. We just come to different conclusions then the RINOs.

you say a long shot chance of winning the majority a possible 1 in 100 shot was enough to go with Castle. those that voted for O’Donnell thought the odds were not worth it and instead took the option to send a clear message to DC. each side made their case. The RINO case lost. instead of the RINOs getting behind the choice the majority selected they want to debate why they should have won.

We know the debate, we know the score. the majority decided to go a different way.

It like the Obamacare debate. the dems think Obamacare is great and that if they just explain it one more time we will like it. they lost the debate the majority does nto agree with them. If the dems would have accepted the will of the people they would not be facing the coming wave. If RINOs would have accepted the will of the people they would not be facing the coming purge.

unseen on September 22, 2010 at 6:40 PM

So Hatch decides to speak up when he didn’t need to. While you’re removing your foot from your mouth, we’ll be picking your replacement, Hatch.

Free Constitution on September 22, 2010 at 6:43 PM

And this is why conservatives dislike RINOs. Most things can be boiled down to a two choice decsion. unlike what you think. they is very little grasy in the world.

Never said a word about grey. I said complex. The final decision is obviously still a “yes” or “no.”

Take DE for instance. We have a new comers that talks Reagan conservatism vs a admitted marxist.

There is a choice you take a chance on the untested candidate or you vote for the marxist. Simple see.

Yes, at this point the decision is very simple. The primary was completely different, as I’ve argued before. I haven’t seen anyone dispute the logic yet, which doesn’t mean I’m right, but I think it should be clear that it is not simple.

Or in the primary. You have a very long shot at taking the senate with a 40 year member of the group that got us into the problems who’s every actions, comments and votes have shown he will continue the status quo or you can take the chance and send the message that the rules are changing.
See simple choice.

NO! It’s not simple because you are ignoring things that are obviously relevant to the decision. This is not conservatism. This is fake simplicity.

The Delaware primary vote impacted conservatism in many different ways.

1. It gave the conservatives a victory over the RINOs. Obvious gain for conservatives.

2. It increased the probability that a self-proclaimed “Bearded Marxist” would actually win the seat. This itself you might argue is a wash, purely in terms of voting on specific bills. I suspect the RINO would be slightly better, but let’s call it a wash anyway, for the sake of argument.

3. It decreased the probability that a mixture of conservatives, squishies, and RINOS would control the senate, rather than a mixture of liberals and Marxists. Since whoever controls the senate controls what legislation is voted on, and can therefore force the opposition to vote on things it would rather not, this is a clear loss for conservatives. It would of course be better if it were all conservatives on the Republican side, but even the presence of some, like Inhofe and Demint (each chairing powerful committees), is certainly better than having the dems control what legislation is voted on. Clear loss for conservatives.

4. Just as RINOs can discredit conservatism in the eyes of the public (since they get the idea that the RINO represents conservatism), a weak conservative can also discredit the movement, since whatever mistakes they make or dumb things they do can be, rightly or wrongly, attributed to conservatives. I’d call this a wash, but your analysis might be different.

The final decision is a simple yes or no, but obviously making it is complex. The only way to simplify it is by dishonestly or naively pretending that some of the above factors are not important. But obviously, they all have some importance, so you have to way them as best you can against each other. Anything simpler is a lie.

Lisa vs Miller. you can send a message that leaving the party has consequences or you can send the message it doesn’t. One will get you more of the same one will not. Simple.

Again, it’s only simple if you dishonestly (or honestly, but mistakenly) ignore other things that are affected by the decision.

Legislation does matter. The lame duck session does matter. Personally alienating Murkowski definitely increases the chances she will not hold in a filibuster. This is because the Senate, rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly) maintains a sense of personal collegiality – if the senators alineate Murkowski when she has very little to lose (she is already wuite a long shot), that increases the odds of a bad outcome for conservatives. There is no way to honestly interpret that as anything other than a loss for conservatives.

You have to consider both of these points. Your final decision is a simple yes or no, but you can only make it honestly by weighting the different consequences.

Ther ereally is no gray in the world.

abortion. you can kill a baby or not. simple.

This is fine, I agree with this. It is a fundamental principle. The principles themselves usually are simple. It’s just the rest of life that is hard (you could call it “grey”, but that’s not entirely right – it does still boil down to yes or no, right or wrong, but it’s millions of simple yes-no, right-wrong, mini-decisions that go into the complex questions. I guess you could say it looks grey, but it’s really just an illusion created by millions of black and white pixels.

The people that want to make everything gray are the people that want to justify a choice they know in their heart is wrong.

Or they want to justify committing an evil/wrong act without taking the consequences.

Sure. As I pointed out above, there are simple principles. But ignoring complexity if you know in your heart it exists, because the complexity is hard, is also wrong.

Can you give me an example of these complex decisions you are talking about?

unseen on September 22, 2010 at 6:03 PM

See above.

RINO in Name Only on September 22, 2010 at 6:48 PM

So Hatch decides to speak up when he didn’t need to. While you’re removing your foot from your mouth, we’ll be picking your replacement, Hatch.

Free Constitution on September 22, 2010 at 6:43 PM

I’d start sending money now if I knew who was running against him. Two years would rack up a nice war chest.

TxAnn56 on September 22, 2010 at 6:48 PM

See above.

RINO in Name Only on September 22, 2010 at 6:48 PM

again not complex. You have a RINO with a very long shot of winning the majority and a very good chance of continuing his RINO ways vs a person not of the establishment and talking of a return to reaganism.

Very simple choice. You can play games about majority control (very very long shot) or about he making conservatism look bad ( most of that do to sore loser RINOs) Hell I can make Demint look bad for conservatise if I wanted too. Or the choice castle would have advanced conservatism more (if he didn’t do that for 40 years why would he start now)

etc etc….

simple status quo or change.

unseen on September 22, 2010 at 6:55 PM

“It’s just a matter of good taste. We decided to keep the status quo as long as she’s a senator.’’

Translation: If she wins, she keeps her status quo!!! This sets the precedent for 2012/2014, where if others go down in the primary, it will be considered a tie and to get sudden-death overtime win, they just need to run as a 3rd party. If they win with that poison pill, they get to keep their ranking status. Want an example? Grahamnasty for starters in 2014, Orrin for another.

This is the big smackdown from the elites in response to the TP’ers. We (the elite) will keep our perogatives one way or another because we’re saving the party from you extremist rubes.

AH_C on September 22, 2010 at 6:59 PM

the point is conservatives O’Donnell supportering conservatives do that. We just come to different conclusions then the RINOs(tactical/strategic/whatever) Castle supporting conservatives.

Fixed. Another somewhat irritating thing about the Delaware debate.

you say a long shot chance of winning the majority a possible 1 in 100 shot was enough to go with Castle. those that voted for O’Donnell thought the odds were not worth it and instead took the option to send a clear message to DC. each side made their case. The RINO case lost. instead of the RINOs getting behind the choice the majority selected they want to debate why they should have won.

unseen on September 22, 2010 at 6:40 PM

Some do, some don’t. I do only when it comes up in a discussion of principle, like it did now. Or when someone talking about O’Donnell’s victory goes on about how Castle’s supporters were RINOs. Getting over it is a two way street.

I fully support O’Donnell’s election now, and many of Castle’s supporters do too. Those that don’t are mistaken – some might be RINOs, whereas others might just be letting their anger after a heated debate get to them. A few may have crazy tactical reasons that neither you nor I understand (and which are probably wrong).

I would not say a word against her on this blog if I thought there was the slightest chance it would hurt us in the election. But no Delaware voter will be swayed by what I say on a blog, so whenever I see general criticisms against Castle supporters, I feel it appropriate to respond.

RINO in Name Only on September 22, 2010 at 7:03 PM

again not complex. You have a RINO with a very long shot of winning the majority and a very good chance of continuing his RINO ways vs a person not of the establishment and talking of a return to reaganism.

Very simple choice.

unseen on September 22, 2010 at 6:55 PM

Nope. It’s only simple if it is extremely obvious that the chances of winning the Senate are very very small, like 1/100. If you think the chances are 1/5, for example, then it’s not so clear. Maybe you still have your opinion, but its obviously debatable now, since there is a nontrivial chance of something very good for conservatives happening.

We have 13 potential seats (if you count Delaware) to pick up, and need ten. Not easy, but Intrade, for example, gives it a 1/5 chance.

Do I claim Intrade is a magical oracle or anything? Of course not. But it is a futures market, and has proven more accurate than polls, for what that’s worth. It has a pretty good track record I believe. I could be wrong, but as you can see, it’s not simple.

RINO in Name Only on September 22, 2010 at 7:11 PM

the point is conservatives O’Donnell supportering conservatives do that. We just come to different conclusions then the RINOs(tactical/strategic/whatever) Castle supporting conservatives.

I should have added, I have no problem with this (other than the RINO slur, of course). My problem is the idea that you can’t take the other position without being “unprincipled”, which as I have explained, is ridiculous.

By the way, you were asking for examples of complexity. Try this on for size: We wanted to win world war II. Pretty simple goal – we win, they lose.

Achieving that goal? Complex. Making the atomic bomb? Complex. And yes, these were not just complex problems, but complex decisions. In order to build a bomb, you have to make a million decisions – what materials to use, how thick to make this part, how long to make that part… each individual one may be simple, but they are all interrelated, affect each other, and to put them all together you need some pretty complicated mathematical physics (some physicists might claim it isn’t so complicated, but I think it’s fair to say it isn’t quite “simple” either.

RINO in Name Only on September 22, 2010 at 7:19 PM

Friggen rinos.
CULL THE HERD!!!!!

ColdWarrior57 on September 22, 2010 at 7:24 PM

I’ve liked Hatch a long time, even though he disappoints from time to time. But this one’s beyond the pale. This one’s gonna leave a mark.

petefrt on September 22, 2010 at 7:33 PM

Reason #277 to purge the RINO’s.

SouthernGent on September 22, 2010 at 7:37 PM

I’m saying she was elected to a full 6 years by the voters of Alaska. Any action on her part regarding her future actions should not change the roles that she has in representing those voters who elected her this current term.

The threat of stripping her committees was not based on her primary loss. It was punishment for mounting a write-in campaign against the legitimately elected GOP nominee. She may have earned her seniority, but she decided to put it in jeopardy by threatening the interests of the party. Committee positions are privileges granted by party leadership and can be revoked by party leadership if they so choose.

That said, their choice to let her keep her seniority was clearly strategic and based at least in part on fear of what she’ll do in the lame duck. I can see the thinking behind it but it still pisses me off.

Missy on September 22, 2010 at 7:54 PM

there is a difference between doing something for show and doing something with the intention of doing it. demint tried to pull a stunt. Reid pulled another one. Demint withdrew.

Demint should have made Reid the bill with a speed reader and taken the C-span video and used it as a campaign ad.

Be that as it may the fact is Benning shut down the senate for days when he failed to give consent for extention of unemployment benfits. there is 41 days left before the election. Senators want out to go campaign. So the window is about 2 weeks left maybe less. If the GOp wanted to shut the senate down they could. with or without Lisa

unseen on September 22, 2010 at 6:32 PM

Point noted.

steveegg on September 22, 2010 at 7:54 PM

Yep, just more evidence that we have one hell of a lot of house cleaning to do in the Republican Party before they are safe for democracy again.

Hawthorne on September 22, 2010 at 7:59 PM

BTW, we need to know what the votes were on this by name. We need to be able to see who the establishment hacks are.

Hawthorne on September 22, 2010 at 8:00 PM

“We all respect the system, and she still is a Republican senator,’’ said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah.) after the closed party caucus. “It’s just a matter of good taste. We decided to keep the status quo as long as she’s a senator.’’

Oh, what a crock!

Mr. Hatch, it is not YOUR party, it belongs to the voters! If you are not willing to do the things that make our Senators responsible to the voters then we have no use for you either.

Hawthorne on September 22, 2010 at 8:03 PM

By the GOp not burying Lisa it makes conservatives spend mor etime and money in Ak instead of putting more of their time and money in races like DE, WV, WIS NV. It makes the GOP defend a seat they should not have to defend. It is a stupid boneheaded move and makes the Tea party conservative sthat elected O’Donnell look like genius compared to them.

unseen on September 22, 2010 at 4:33 PM
I agree!!

mobydutch on September 22, 2010 at 8:08 PM

One other thing. If Murkowski somehow let them know that she’d vote Democratic in the lame-duck if they stripped her of Energy seniority — I’m not saying she did, but if — then the caucus should reveal that to the world so that fencesitting Republicans in Alaska know exactly what kind of snake candy ass Rino they’re dealing with here.

FIFY.
and whats your issue with snakes?

Amadeus on September 22, 2010 at 8:21 PM

Hatch is useless.

AshleyTKing on September 22, 2010 at 8:23 PM

They just do not understand that people want to change the game, and not just a few of the players.

Dhuka on September 22, 2010 at 8:24 PM

RINO in Name Only on September 22, 2010 at 7:19 PM

This is why so many hate RINO’s, they continue to betray conservatives in times of need. Read the article, the list of betrayals is long indeed.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/party-unity-is-for-the-wing-nuts-103568264.html

True_King on September 22, 2010 at 8:29 PM

Castle is considering a write-in now?

How many primaries does the GOP usually have?

AnninCA on September 22, 2010 at 8:56 PM

I sort of agree with Hatch. Seems a bit harsh. She is still the senator. Didn’t she step down from a lot of committees?

AnninCA on September 22, 2010 at 8:57 PM

She’s done. Who cares if the party let’s her sit there for a few months (depending on AK law)?

lexhamfox on September 22, 2010 at 8:58 PM

The Republican Party needs to strip Lisa Murkowski of all of her committee assignments because her write-in campaign is an attempt to sabotage the campaign of the Republican who won the Primary election fair and square.

The Republican Party needs to discipline Murkowski to make it clear that the Party will not tolerate this type of behavior.

A swift and hard reaction to Murkowski’s write in campaign should help to deter people like Mike Castle from trying the same type of sabotage.

wren on September 22, 2010 at 9:06 PM

Miller by 15.

AshleyTKing on September 22, 2010 at 9:15 PM

This is why so many hate RINO’s, they continue to betray conservatives in times of need. Read the article, the list of betrayals is long indeed.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/party-unity-is-for-the-wing-nuts-103568264.html

True_King on September 22, 2010 at 8:29 PM

As some have pointed out, not backing your primary opponent is unfortunately common not just among RINOs, but also among conservatives such as O’Donnell.

I have no love for the RINOs, but they are what they are – they appeal to a group of people who consider themselves moderates – they don’t like either conservativism (or at least not all of it), and don’t like liberalism (or at least not all of it). As long as that group of people exists, RINOs will too.

Trust and betrayal are irrelevant to my point – I certainly would never trust a RINO (or anyone, for that matter, but especially a RINO) to not betray conservatives. The fact that someone may be useful temporarily means only that – Castle was nothing more than a means to an end. I’d never advocate trusting him as far as I could throw him. And I’m weak and out of shape (physically).

But it is important to understand motivations. Castle doesn’t run as a Republican for the fun of it, just to irritate conservatives. He runs as a Republican because somehow he isn’t palatable to the Delaware democratic base.

He may be tempted to pull a Spector, but the very example of Spector, switching to the other party and losing that primary, gives him a non-altruistic reason to not betray us, no matter how slimy he is. Granted, he may betray us on virtually every vote. But the one that is most important to us – the caucusing – he has selfish reasons to do the right thing. On every other vote he is no worse than Coons. I’d rather have a conservative, obviously, but only if they actually get elected. Otherwise the only value is in making a statement. And while that can be useful sometimes, we’ve made more than enough of them already this season – one more or less won’t change the overall message much.

RINO in Name Only on September 22, 2010 at 9:37 PM

RINO in Name Only on September 22, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Anyway, for what it’s worth, I agree we need to back O’Donnell now. so the discussion is somewhat academic, though I suppose a solution to the RINO problem will remain evasive.

RINO in Name Only on September 22, 2010 at 9:41 PM

The Senate GOP leadership is becoming Senate GOP LoserShip.

No room for conservatives, they’d rather cuddle losers…

drfredc on September 22, 2010 at 9:45 PM

I believe it was George Wallace who said: put them all in a bag and shake it up and you will find that there is not a dime’s worth of difference between them. Angelo Codevilla wrote “The Ruling Class” is about the group of bipartisan polictical elites who run America. Hatch,Cornyn,McConnell and others are a part of the Ruling Class on the GOP side. Rush Limbaugh has said- as someone posted- It is Washington vs America. My concern is that if the GOP does get the majority- will things change or will be like the eight years that they did have the majority and still let the democrats boss them around.

flintstone on September 22, 2010 at 10:33 PM

I’m not surprised at all. This is the same kind of candy-assed behavior we’ve seen out of the alleged Republicans in the Senate over the past years. Orin Hatch is as big a RINO as the rest of them in the fact that he only wants to get along with all of this good friends like Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid. If the behavior of Murkowski doesn’t deserve punishment, not the mention Castle, then what does?

flytier on September 22, 2010 at 10:42 PM

I wonder if she threatened them. She could break the filibuster during the lame duck session.

huckleberryfriend on September 22, 2010 at 11:19 PM

Neoconservatives in the GOP would rather see their Democratic brethren win than have a Conservative win.

popularpeoplesfront on September 22, 2010 at 11:31 PM

NeoConservatives would rather see a Conservative in of either
party win….a Ronald Reagan Conservative..even better. ;)

dec5 on September 22, 2010 at 11:51 PM

And so it goes . . . again . . .

The GOP, as an entity, as the entity that currently exists . . . will never change, at least as long as the “old line” continues to rule.

Now, I’m not talking about the new blood that the old line is trying desperately to avoid – that’s good, and it may make the difference, yet. But the GOP status quo elements have got to go, or the party is dead. And it should be.

Hatch, as in this example, can’t have it both ways. Either he’s one of the typical old-style fools, who thinks “if only I can get the other side to like me . . .” Hatch doesn’t want to appear to be acting in bad taste, he’s worried that giving Murkowski the heave ho means looking “mean”

What a fool. Murkowski is out as a Republican candidate. She can’t win re-election, even through a write-in candidacy, as a Republican candidate. She’s already lost her seniority, because if she gets elected – by beating Miller in a write-in campaign (an impossibility, anyway) then she can’t ahve been elected as a Republican.

We need to send all these idiots packing.

The re-making of the GOP is underway!

Thank goodness.

seanrobins on September 23, 2010 at 12:01 AM

Miller by 15.

AshleyTKing on September 22, 2010 at 9:15 PM

Hope Murky remains far behind. If the trend persisted, her supporters would realize the futility and the gap will widen.

bayview on September 23, 2010 at 12:07 AM

Maybe she’ll pull a Loretta Sanchez.

Mae on September 23, 2010 at 12:27 AM

Finally revealingly disgraceful but better to know your enemy.

Sherman1864 on September 23, 2010 at 12:54 AM

She’s done. Who cares if the party let’s her sit there for a few months (depending on AK law)?

lexhamfox on September 22, 2010 at 8:58 PM

It matters because she can use her position on the committees to gain quid pro quo deals from lobbyists for support. While it is against ethics rules if it can be proven, she has very little to lose. If she is going to be defeated anyway the ethics committee will have no power over her.

Hawthorne on September 23, 2010 at 1:30 AM

Where are all the RINO supporters in this thread?

Good Lt?
Red Cloud?
Chudi?
JohnGalt23?
Zaggs?

fossten on September 23, 2010 at 8:42 AM

Where are all the RINO supporters in this thread?

Good Lt?
Red Cloud?
Chudi?
JohnGalt23?
Zaggs?

fossten on September 23, 2010 at 8:42 AM

Don’t forget Jenfidel.

True_King on September 23, 2010 at 9:36 AM

I have a few “what if” questions to which I’d appreciate a response. Frankly, I am ignorant about this topic.

What if Murkowski wins the general election… and then remains “Independent” (e.g. socialist Bernie Sanders)? Or if she switched entirely to be a Democrat? Wouldn’t the Republicans be lacking options for replacing her after the fact? Her earmarking fits better with liberal (as opposed to fiscal conservative) pending policies anyway.

She must have some leverage vs some Republicans whose $$ for personal projects would also be put into jeopardy, right? I know it is simply speculation, but it is consistent with the idea that there are far too many liberal spending Republicans who remain – and the fiscal conservative mantra of late is simply a bunch of nonsense. Isn’t it?

Danny on September 23, 2010 at 10:42 AM

IMHO, anything that turns her from a sore loser into a martyr would be a mistake…let her fade away.

JIMV on September 23, 2010 at 11:00 AM

What if Murkowski wins the general election… and then remains “Independent” (e.g. socialist Bernie Sanders)? Or if she switched entirely to be a Democrat? Wouldn’t the Republicans be lacking options for replacing her after the fact? Her earmarking fits better with liberal (as opposed to fiscal conservative) pending policies anyway.

No, she’s a write-in GOP candidate.

AnninCA on September 23, 2010 at 11:01 AM

IMHO, anything that turns her from a sore loser into a martyr would be a mistake…let her fade away.

JIMV on September 23, 2010 at 11:00 AM

You think like me on this one. I agree. Piling on won’t help Miller.

AnninCA on September 23, 2010 at 11:01 AM

I still say the pile-on to her, too, is looking tricky. Crist runs Independent, and I recall a few editorials predicting he’d look pathetic, but nobody suggested he should step down from being governor. LOL*

Lighten up. She’s not even that awful of a GOP senator. She simply is part of the problems, not the solutions.

AnninCA on September 23, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Senate GOP decides not to strip Murkowski of seniority on Energy committee after all

Traitors

FloatingRock on September 23, 2010 at 11:15 AM

I’ve had it with Hatch. I’ll vote for a rabid badger in the next primary if it promises to adhere to conservative principles.

Wingo on September 23, 2010 at 11:22 AM

Traitors

FloatingRock on September 23, 2010 at 11:15 AM

From what I understand, that requires a very public and very humiliating process.

So I don’t see it like you. I think that they are being respectful of her past service.

She’s already set herself up for a very embarassing loss here. Why kick the dog that’s injured.

Miller needs just enough money to not let her use her lobby money to actually make this a race.

Other than that, he should be in good shape. He’s an articulate guy, a solid candidate, and Alaska obviously is ready to move on from the Murkowski (did I spell it right? *hehe) regime for good.

AnninCA on September 23, 2010 at 11:24 AM

My God is there NO leadership in the Senate? What a bunch of pondering pissants!

inspectorudy on September 23, 2010 at 11:24 AM

I think the real issue, again, is back to people. A lot of these pork projects only served a small sector of Alaska.

They would love to be the power-folks there.

And people are saying, “No, it really didn’t trickle down to us. Bye.”

AnninCA on September 23, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Well, you guys be mad at Hatch.

I think this article misrepresents the process of removing someone from such a position, and it is pretty ugly.

She lost. She’ll be gone soon. You want to look at it as a betrayal, go ahead.

AnninCA on September 23, 2010 at 11:26 AM

So I don’t see it like you.

AnninCA on September 23, 2010 at 11:24 AM

Good

FloatingRock on September 23, 2010 at 11:41 AM

AnninCa @1101

Thank you for clarifying. However, even if she won as the Republican write-in, there wouldn’t be anything to prevent her from switching after the election, correct? Or even voting for a more liberal spending agenda?

If so, if the Republican leadership was truly genuine about fiscal conservatism, wouldn’t replacing her on the Appropriations committee with a senator having a more fiscally conservative record, be a concrete statement that they mean what they say?

Again, appreciate the feedback.

Danny on September 23, 2010 at 12:09 PM

Absolutely unbelievable.
`
`
Yes, her vote would have been necessary to help block any lame duck mischief, but if she were willing to cross over to the dark side for mere personal pique, she is hardly a dependable ally.
`
`
I expect the logic was “She will lose anyway, there aren’t any more new bills from those committees for this session, it’s meaningless.” They didn’t consider how it looks, which is awful. Adds fuel to the general anti-establishment fire in the GOP for little possible benefit. Politically tone deaf.

Adjoran on September 23, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4