Levin to the rescue: Radio host “sick and tired” of pundit’s Palin smears

posted at 12:00 pm on June 3, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Talk radio host Mark Levin added to a growing chorus against Charles Krauthammer yesterday, saying he’s “sick and tired” of the pundit’s smears against Palin.

Levin took issue with much of the common criticisms of Palin, particularly those concerning whether or not she can win the 2012 election and how she left her governorship post early, which is normal for presidential candidates, Levin says.

“So what is it? What’s the problem?” he said. “She’s solid on social issues. She’s solid on fiscal issues. She’s solid against these subsidies against big companies – in other words, she is not a corporatist. She’s not a crony or a believer in that. She’s solid on taxes and spending. I’m just confused. She’s solid on Israel. She’s solid on the military. She’s solid with respect to our allies. Is there some big issue that’s disqualifying? What – because the liberals don’t like her? …

“I’m getting sick and tired, as I said yesterday, last week and I’ve said over the months – I’m getting sick and tired of these smears by Krauthammer against her,” Levin said. “He’s a thoroughly decent man, I understand, but he doesn’t seem very decent in this regard and I don’t know why. He’s certainly owes us a column or a better explanation, doesn’t he? He wants to influence the outcome.”

Levin is spot-on. Krauthammer is not the only one — and Sarah Palin isn’t the only object of his disdain. Krauthammer, Karl Rove and other conservative strategists have derided Herman Cain and Donald Trump, as well. Maybe it’s in the nature of punditry to point out the “flaws” in a politician’s pedigree, and it’s certainly within the scope of commentary to poke holes in a candidate’s policy positions, but, when thoughtful criticism becomes insistent censure-for-the-sake-of-censure, it reveals little more than the pundit’s superior view of himself.

But what I like best about Levin’s comments are not his criticisms of Krauthammer. What I like best are his affirmations of Palin — not so much because of any personal affinity for her, but because of a personal affinity for positivity. I’ve thought this repeatedly, as pundit after pundit and columnist after columnist has pointed out all that’s wrong with the GOP field. It seems to me a more productive approach might be first to enumerate each candidate’s qualifications — and then pick whichever candidate out-qualifies the rest. Build on the positive, in other words, rather than merely point out the negative. If conservative critics just have to criticize somebody, let it be Obama.


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 6 7 8

Ashley

But the PROBLEM for PALIN is her constant stood up to big oil. This implies to her critics – her intent to “punish” the oil companies. she leaes herself very very vulnerable with populist rhetoric on this issue.

Now that its likely to be taken away, then she really has no significant accomplishment – in the sense of a resume bullet - as governor thats a landmark that she can use for gravitas.

Also then she has to tackle the 28% to 33% increase in spending during her short tenure –

Palin is best on the offensive, on of the best, I’ve never seen her on the defensive (on the issues) but if she chooses to run, her opponents are not going to hold back
.
T

EricPWJohnson on June 3, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/01/111374/alaska-house-voted-to-undo-palin.html#ixzz1OGBIPn4H

EricPWJohnson on June 3, 2011 at 7:50 PM
The Senate won’t pass it. The House vote is intended to hurt Palin, not to help Alaska. That’s sad.

alwaysfiredup on June 3, 2011 at 8:01 PM

What I find to be the most disgusting thing here is that Parnell waited to win re-election to start dismantling everythig Sarah did that is good for Alaskans. He pretended to be her to get elected and then , I think, sold out to the oil companies… otherwise his moves make no sense what so ever…

CCRWM on June 3, 2011 at 10:41 PM

It seems to me a more productive approach might be first to enumerate each candidate’s qualifications — and then pick whichever candidate out-qualifies the rest. Build on the positive, in other words, rather than merely point out the negative. If conservative critics just have to criticize somebody, let it be Obama

Don’t tell us, Tina, tell Allahpundit.

Knott Buyinit on June 3, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Also then she has to tackle the 28% to 33% increase in spending during her short tenure.

EricPWJohnson on June 3, 2011 at 10:30 PM

8556 (FY 10)-6777 (FY 07)/6777=26%, actually.

alwaysfiredup on June 3, 2011 at 10:47 PM

I so love being called ignorant instead of being refuted on the facts. I called Levin bitter, sarcastic, and arrogant. No argument there, apparently.

HTL on June 3, 2011 at 10:28 PM

On the other hand, I don’t like Mark Levin at all. He’s bitter, sarcastic and aggressive, without apparently having ever done anything but be a pundit. Krauthammer and Wills have more class in their little finger than Levin does in his whole spiteful little body.

HTL on June 3, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Your own words, jerky.

You were refuted with facts.

Your opinion about Mark Levin’s demeanor is of course your right to have, but I find him to be very informative and entertaining on the radio.

He is a Constitutional scholar, and he knows what he is talking about. He is also a solid conservative, and isn’t taking any crap from anybody. I like that.

You think Chief of Staff to AG of the USA is nothing?

Then you are indeed ignorant, and something of an a-hole as well. I find your comments to be arrogant, bitter, ignorant and entirely useless.

As to the Landmark Legal Foundation, I suppose the state of Virginia and the 26 other states in their lawsuits against Obamacare were stupid to ask for their assistance and request for a brief to be filed with them.

Again, more facts.

Brian1972 on June 3, 2011 at 10:47 PM

They’re also banking an enormous surplus, meaning the ACES tax rates might be a little high, but they aren’t facing the financial problems of other states, either. A variable rate structure is a better tax model for a volatile commodity like oil.

alwaysfiredup on June 3, 2011 at 10:49 PM

EricPWJohnson on June 3, 2011 at 10:30 PM

You can sure make hash beating up the oil industry here. What do you make of this documentary video she’s brewing up, starring Alaska’s Donald Berwick, DNR comish Tom Irwin?

AshleyTKing on June 3, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Alwaysfired

I looked at them and saw a slightly different rate – if toy are comparing her 2008-2010 – 2007 was Murkowski’s budget she had little control over that – that budget is where most of the surplus was banked

Sarah spent hers

Also According to the drillers

720+ wells on state lands in Texas looking for oil

4 in Alaska

Texas 6 billion in proven reserves

Alaska 26 billion in proven 100-200 billion not found yet

Given this information – its obvious that Alaskas 16500 per person spending vs Texas 3,500 has taken any incentive for oil exploration

Remember prices of oil fielld equipment have never been higher – when those fields were found in Alaska there were many competing oil field service and equipment manufacturers so prices were elastic

today – they are pricing equipment that the break even approackes 60 dollars a barrel

EricPWJohnson on June 3, 2011 at 10:56 PM

EricPWJohnson on June 3, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Sarah’s got a $4 bil surplus in ’10. Comparing Murk’s last budget year and Palin’s last budget year, he had a $1.1 bil surplus.

720+ wells on state lands in Texas looking for oil

4 in Alaska

Texas 6 billion in proven reserves

Alaska 26 billion in proven 100-200 billion not found yet

Given this information – its obvious that Alaskas 16500 per person spending vs Texas 3,500 has taken any incentive for oil exploration

EricPWJohnson on June 3, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Nonsense. There will always be more drilling in Texas than Alaska because of the climate. We should be drilling more everywhere, of course we should. But don’t tell me Obama and his ocean drilling permitorium/moratorium hasn’t caused problems in ak too, whereas they can drill as they like on private Texas property.

alwaysfiredup on June 3, 2011 at 11:12 PM

whereas they can drill as they like on private Texas land property.

alwaysfiredup on June 3, 2011 at 11:12 PM

Sorry, read too quick.

alwaysfiredup on June 3, 2011 at 11:14 PM

laskas 16500 per person spending vs Texas 3,500 has taken any incentive for oil exploration

EricPWJohnson on June 3, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Also, small population states always have higher per-person cost of gov’t than large population states. There’s not as many people to spread it around on.

alwaysfiredup on June 3, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Governor Murkowski’s last budget FY2007: $11,697,400,000

Governor Palin’s latest budget FY2010: $10,570,000,000

Total reduction in spending between 2007 and 2010: 9.5% or $1,127,400,000

Brian1972 on June 3, 2011 at 11:16 PM

On the other hand, I don’t like Mark Levin at all. He’s bitter, sarcastic and aggressive, without apparently having ever done anything but be a pundit. Krauthammer and Wills have more class in their little finger than Levin does in his whole spiteful little body.

HTL on June 3, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Pray tell – K-hammer and Will haven’t done much either besides punditry. K-hammer did some medical work – but George Will has done nothing but flap a pen.

And yeah – Levin is AGGRESSIVE – that’s why we like him. He has balls – he says what he means – he doesn’t have one finger in the air and the other in a dark stinky place in his anatomy like Romney …

Romney’s had a bad couple of weeks. Came out in support of ethanol subsidies – came out in support of Global Warming – and he failed to upstage Sarah Palin on the BIGGEST day of his campaign. I’m sorry – if he doesn’t have the charisma to wrestle ONE NEWS DAY away from Sarah Palin – there is no way he can wrestle this nation away from Obama.

Heh – and in this post – I didn’t even mention RomneyCare! LOL

HondaV65 on June 3, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Given this information – its obvious that Alaskas 16500 per person spending vs Texas 3,500 has taken any incentive for oil exploration

EricPWJohnson on June 3, 2011 at 10:56 PM

I’ve found Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s online personality – and it’s you!

That idiotic conclusion ignores the fact that Texas oil is so much easier to harvest because of the weather – because of the terrain – because of the POPULATION and trained workforce there – because of existing refineries in close proximity to the fields.

I mean – your conclusion assumes that Texas and AK are “equal” in all respects – but it’s this one thing about per capita spending that’s killing AK oil incentive.

I’ve proven you wrong.

Also – in spite of what you say – my daughter is a Geologist with Chevron and explores fields in both Texas and AK – Oil Companies LOVE AK – because once they find the oil – and get logistically set up (which takes awhile) – they do very well on production there.

Please – use common sense in the future when analyzing a problem.

HondaV65 on June 3, 2011 at 11:29 PM

allways

Also, small population states always have higher per-person cost of gov’t than large population states. There’s not as many people to spread it around on

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/287.html

Arkansas 1/3 of Alaska, Rhone Island 2/5ths Montana 1/4th

nope Texas owns the mineral rights – just like in most states – the reason they are not looking is the taxes – the oil companies said it under oath

Brian

Budgets mean nothing – actual spending is the key – took at those

EricPWJohnson on June 3, 2011 at 11:30 PM

Brian1972 on June 3, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Where are your numbers from?

alwaysfiredup on June 3, 2011 at 11:31 PM

the oil companies said it under oath

EricPWJohnson on June 3, 2011 at 11:30 PM

….sure, that makes it true.

alwaysfiredup on June 3, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Honda

Chevron is selling all of its state operated wells in Alaska

http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/24098812.shtml

EricPWJohnson on June 3, 2011 at 11:35 PM

EricPWJohnson on June 3, 2011 at 11:35 PM

That article says they’ve been considering getting out since 2005 and have had poor results with a few recent wells and a volcanic eruption.

Texas has no volcanoes.

alwaysfiredup on June 3, 2011 at 11:39 PM

Here is Chevron’s testimony under oath on ACES

http://www.revenue.state.ak.us/ACESDocuments/Chevron/Chevron%20-%20ACES%20-%20Testimony%2010-23-07P.pdf


Chevron intends to invest and grow in Lowest possible taxes and stability will encourage investmentAlaska, but ACES makes investing in Alaska more difficult

EricPWJohnson on June 3, 2011 at 11:40 PM

EricPWJohnson on June 3, 2011 at 11:35 PM

It’s also only selling Cook Inlet wells, not everything in AK.

alwaysfiredup on June 3, 2011 at 11:41 PM

EricPWJohnson on June 3, 2011 at 11:40 PM

That’s a vague statement in his own interest, that’s not reliable.

alwaysfiredup on June 3, 2011 at 11:41 PM

Chevron is selling all of its state operated wells in Alaska

http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/24098812.shtml

EricPWJohnson on June 3, 2011 at 11:35 PM

Uh, the headline on the story says this:

Cook Inlet assets for sale, holding onto North Slope, ANWR leases

Then there is this:

But it’s a long time since a major discovery in Cook Inlet. Crude oil production peaked in 1970 at more than 227,000 barrels per day and, today averages less than 10,000 bpd. Natural gas production peaked in 1996 and is also in decline.

The Cook Inlet facilities are declining in production.

The whole article does not mention ACES or taxes or fess of any kind whatsoever, and Chevron is not leaving the other areas they are in.

What are you trying to say?

Brian1972 on June 3, 2011 at 11:45 PM

they have nothing else, this shows that she can’t create jobs or fix the economy because of Paul Revere.

djohn669 on June 3, 2011 at 8:29 PM

“we have nothing else”? Why is this always put in terms of us verses Palin? The criticisms are valid. They are discussed because she cannot keep doing this and expect to win over the people who dislike her. She is not a great communicator. Which happens to be one of the most important distinctions between her and Reagan.

csdeven on June 4, 2011 at 12:39 AM

And it is precisely the “concern trolls” such as yourself that have greatly helped to keep the “middle of the road” from coming farther right. But you don’t really care about that.

Freelancer on June 3, 2011 at 9:24 PM

Being a skeptic of a candidate while still holding some positive views is the sign of a rational thought out position. If a person cannot accept the mistakes their favorite politician makes and continues to make excuses they would never make for another candidate is not a rational thought out position.

csdeven on June 4, 2011 at 12:45 AM

Krauthammer and Wills have more class in their little finger than Levin does in his whole spiteful little body.

HTL on June 3, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Again, more facts.

Brian1972 on June 3, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Levin’s also about 6’2″ and over 200 pounds, almost a linebacker type.

pseudoforce on June 4, 2011 at 1:19 AM

Brian1972

What I’m saying is what Chevron is saying

When you want to drill only on lands that are exempt from ACRES – in the best times ever in the oil industry?

ACRES it seems has created a backlash among conservatives and business in Alaska

Apparently the boosting of taxes and spending didnt sit well with them

I can see where a party that has been energized by the TEA PARTY would seek that higher taxes and increased spending way beyond inflation, way beyond the needs – is wrong

I can see that, especially in this climate

EricPWJohnson on June 4, 2011 at 2:54 AM

The Problem Palin has with ACES is

1. She wanted to raise taxes on the oil companies

2. It would be unfair to speculate why

3. She brags about it often

4. 25/26 Democrats voted for her taxes

5. a minority of the Republicans did

6. those Republicans are now on record opposing her taxes

7. the Cato institute said she raised taxes and spent more money and it was welfare

8. How can you reconcile, raising taxes to reduce government?

Look I have no problem with what she says – I have a problem with what she DID as Governor

There is a difference

EricPWJohnson on June 4, 2011 at 3:47 AM

Palin is so far over the heads of her yahoo detractors that it’s hilarious. She has the whole multibillion-dollar media stepping and fetching like the Camptown Races cowboys in Blazing Saddles, and a fatcat reporter literally caught peeing on the side of the highway. And they keep trying to convince us that she’s the dumb one.

DaMav on June 4, 2011 at 5:49 AM

If conservative critics just have to criticize somebody, let it be Obama.

We all are guilty of breaking the 11th commandment. Palin fans are pretty brutal against Romney, and so on and so forth.

scotash on June 4, 2011 at 6:02 AM

The heat in Anchorage was too hot. So, she quit. Explain to me how she makes it in D.C.?

tommylotto on June 3, 2011 at 12:08 PM

First, Anchorage is not the capitol of Alaska.

Second, she quit to avoid bamkruptcy due to a quirk in Alaska law that allows any idiot to lodge an ethics complaint with zero supporting evidence, then requires the Governor to defend it out of their own pocket.

Third, you already knew my second point, as you get it every day in your paid troll breifings, but it is all you clowns have left so you still try to go with it.

Fourth, you aren’t bright enough to have known my first point.

Siddhartha Vicious on June 4, 2011 at 9:02 AM

“He who warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms – uh – by ringing those bells and – um – makin’ sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warnin’ shots and bells that – uh – we were going to be secure and we were going to be free,” ‘Cuda on Paul Revere’s mythical ride.

Akzed on June 4, 2011 at 9:37 AM

There is only one way I would ever, and I mean ever, vote for Sarah Palin: If she’s the GOP nominee vs. Barack Obama.

76United on June 4, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Actually, I did some poking around…

She was right.

Akzed on June 4, 2011 at 10:06 AM

Palin fans are pretty brutal against Romney, and so on and so forth.

scotash on June 4, 2011 at 6:02 AM

That “brutality” is almost always policy-based, not because of some deep visceral personal disgust with Romney. We usually don’t have to spam Romney threads with insults against his intelligence, or family, or clothes. I wouldn’t really call that “brutal”.

pseudoforce on June 4, 2011 at 10:08 AM

Those posters who analyze every word and nuance of anything Palin says are dumbass idiots.

Amjean on June 4, 2011 at 10:09 AM

Also, I am starting to wonder if Tommylotto, Petunia,
Cdseven, etc. are one and the same person. Its pretty
much the same drivel; Palin bashing 24/7 without any
substantive facts.

Amjean on June 4, 2011 at 10:13 AM

This country has learned the hard way that just because you “like” or “agree” with a candidate that it doesn’t necessarily qualify you to be POTUS.

I like Palin and I agree with her on pretty much every issue BUT is she ready and qualified to be POTUS? I’d like to think so but I just don’t know. Also, the woman will NEVAH get a fair shake from the MSM and sadly too many sheeple wont look at her fairly or objectively thus reducing her chances.

Yakko77 on June 4, 2011 at 11:23 AM

She quit to make money. She quit. Period.

Not even close. You’re just repeating lefty talking points. Gov. Palin had become the target of one frivolous ethics charge after another, a campaign coordinated out of the Obama For America campaign and funded by George Soros. In other words, it had unlimited funds, something neither the state of Alaska nor the Palins had to defend themselves. The Soros monkeys even moved to prevent the Palins from establishing a legal defense fund, something even President Clinton was allowed to have.

She had no choice but to resign to avoid bankrupting the state as well as herself and Todd personally from legal fees to defend herself against frivolous, phone charges.

pdigaudio on June 4, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Palin fans Conservatives are pretty brutal against Romney.

FIFY.

pdigaudio on June 4, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Ck finally let it slip this week, it’s not her turn. That’s the way the Repubs play it in DC. It’s how we ended up with McLame the last time. For someone who’s not schooled, she seems to be schooling the lsm pretty good.

Kissmygrits on June 4, 2011 at 12:04 PM

There are two types of pundits: Those who know why Sarah Palin quit, and those who know it and pretend they don’t know it.

(h/t Rush)

gryphon202 on June 4, 2011 at 12:27 PM

Oh if only I could get a message to Mark Levin! He asks, “is there some big issue disqualifying Palin?” Yes Mr Levin, there is!. She is extremely “weak” on immigration issues: http://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/2012-presidential-hopefuls-immigration-stances.html (not that Krauthammer would care about those issues, either)
And you, Mr Levin, are in a position to apply pressure on Sarah Palin. This is something that she could correct quickly. And you’d be doing her a great service by pointing out this weakness. All of those pandering yes men and women that she surrounds herself with aren’t going to tell her. Darvin Dowdy

Darvin Dowdy on June 4, 2011 at 1:11 PM

All of those pandering yes men and women that she surrounds herself with aren’t going to tell her. Darvin Dowdy
Darvin Dowdy on June 4, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Please list the panderers and yes-men and women who surround Ms. Palin, and give links of those instances where they have actually pandered.

or not. I have no power over your rants.

Tennman on June 4, 2011 at 1:27 PM

And you’d be doing her a great service by pointing out this weakness. All of those pandering yes men and women that she surrounds herself with aren’t going to tell her. Darvin Dowdy

Darvin Dowdy on June 4, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Perhaps instead of being a slathering pandering NumbersUSA flunky, you could try finding a candidate whose stance on immigration you can and will support. That’s not a values judgment on your opinion concerning the matter, just an observation that your chosen method of sniping at the problem from a comments page probably won’t do much good in solving the problem.

gryphon202 on June 4, 2011 at 1:40 PM

I’ve thought this repeatedly, as pundit after pundit and columnist after columnist has pointed out all that’s wrong with the GOP field.

We are our own worse enemies. Never saw or heard a lib pundit going after a Dem no matter how crazy that Dem was or is.

Herb on June 4, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Darvin Dowdy

Darvin Dowdy on June 4, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Redundant. Redundant.

hillbillyjim on June 4, 2011 at 4:36 PM

What I like best are his affirmations of Palin — not so much because of any personal affinity for her, but because of a personal affinity for positivity.

Good point. The PDSers are just big globs of sour negativity.

pseudoforce on June 4, 2011 at 4:54 PM

Never saw or heard a lib pundit going after a Dem no matter how crazy that Dem was or is.

Herb on June 4, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Wouldn’t fit their meme of no personal responsibility…

Gohawgs on June 4, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Herman Melville may be smiling…

Gohawgs on June 4, 2011 at 5:17 PM

EricPWJohnson on June 4, 2011 at 3:47 AM

As I understand it, Palin was not passing taxes, but negotiating the sale of Alaskan public natural resources, which, until she was governor, represented a corrupt bargain between the oil companies and the people their money put in office.

Count to 10 on June 4, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Actually, I did some poking around…

She was right.

Akzed on June 4, 2011 at 10:06 AM

Those posters who analyze every word and nuance of anything Palin says are dumbass idiots.

Amjean on June 4, 2011 at 10:09 AM

Alright, pot found kettle?

Palin bashing 24/7 without any
substantive facts.

Amjean on June 4, 2011 at 10:13 AM

EricPWJohnson provided a few. I suppose you ignored them.

AshleyTKing on June 4, 2011 at 8:00 PM

As I understand it, Palin was not passing taxes, but negotiating the sale of Alaskan public natural resources, which, until she was governor, represented a corrupt bargain between the oil companies and the people their money put in office.

Count to 10 on June 4, 2011 at 6:49 PM

No she wasn’t passing taxes, that is what the legislature did, perhaps beyond what she wanted.

The sale of public resources goes back to statehood, 1959. So has it been corrupt that long? The corruption you are referring to was a disgrace to our state. However, it touched a few legislators, not the whole. It was started by one company, VECO, and not the big oil companies. The big three oil companies were not involved.

AshleyTKing on June 4, 2011 at 8:04 PM

AshleyTKing on June 4, 2011 at 8:04 PM

And, the corruption contributed to Gov. (and former US Senator) Murkowski being defeated in his 2006 re-election bid…

Gohawgs on June 4, 2011 at 8:51 PM

It is common to all who have spent too much time inside the beltway. The party is superfluous; those who are in simple do not believe that those who live outside the beltway (figuratively as well as literally) have what it takes to be a political leader in this county. Thomas Sowell lays the argument out well in his book “The Vision of the Anointed”. Charles is one of the anointed and Palin is not, pure and simple. and neither is Cain or Trump. although I agree that Trump would be a disaster as a candidate. He would start a reality show to raffle off nights in the Lincoln bedroom!

pgrossjr on June 4, 2011 at 9:11 PM

And, the corruption contributed to Gov. (and former US Senator) Murkowski being defeated in his 2006 re-election bid…

Gohawgs on June 4, 2011 at 8:51 PM

It had nothing to do with Lisa. If Sarah wanted national experience and to do us all a favor she would have run against Lisa and I would have supported her to the hilt.

AshleyTKing on June 5, 2011 at 2:52 AM

Sarah, to the hilt. Or the kilt. Both.

AshleyTKing on June 5, 2011 at 2:53 AM

It had nothing to do with Lisa. If Sarah wanted national experience and to do us all a favor she would have run against Lisa and I would have supported her to the hilt.

AshleyTKing on June 5, 2011 at 2:52 AM

Gohawgs wasn’t talking about Lisa Murkowski, Ashley. Gohawgs was referencing Lisa’s father, corruptocrat Frank Murkowski — whom Sarah Palin did run against and beat for her gubernatorial berth. The “former senator” designation should have been a clue there, as Lisa has not served out her first term yet.

gryphon202 on June 5, 2011 at 3:35 AM

The “former senator” designation should have been a clue there, as Lisa has not served out her first term yet.

gryphon202 on June 5, 2011 at 3:35 AM

But unlike the “quiter”, Lisa will actually finish her term.

Monkei on June 5, 2011 at 4:42 PM

But unlike the “quiter”, Lisa will actually finish her term.

Monkei on June 5, 2011 at 4:42 PM

More likely is that Lisa will be forced to RESIGN once CORRUPTION charges are filed against her:

No stranger to corruption, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski secured $6 million in federal funds to build a road leading straight to a plot of land she bought – but was forced to sell – after being exposed July 16th by the TPMmuckraker website.

Just as a dog always returns to its vomit I am certain that Murkowski will return to her ‘roots’. ;o)

DannoJyd on June 6, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8