Gabe has done what was beneath me (star blogger syndrome, etc.) and read the relevant law.

(1) Win a primary. <--Murkowski can't do it this way if Miller wins.

(2) File a no-party petition. <--Murkowski can't do it this way, she missed the deadline.

(3) Replace a primary winner by party petition.

It's this last one that they may be thinking of. By party petition 48 or more days before the general election, a candidate may be placed on the general election ballot if the primary winner dies, withdraws, resigns, or becomes diqualified.

Presumably AIP has a candidate who won yesterday. She could replace that candidate if AIP files a party petition 48 or more days prior to the general election. It is ridiculously easy to file such a petition. It simply must be signed by the party's state chairperson or by two members of the party's central committee.

I'm assuming there's still time to do this? Is it more than 48 days from Nov. 2? I was told there would be no math.

So, there you go. More: Gabe's not sure that AIP actually participated in the primary, so it's not clear if they have a candidate that could be replaced this way... however, I assume (assume) there's some minor party out there, the Greens, Reform, whoever, who did.

Ass-ume.

Casey Kasem just put out this (Content Warning) long-distance dedication to Lisa Murkowski.

More: Gabe's looking at who had primaries -- the Libertarians?

Also, of course, she could ask the Democrats to run as their candidate -- and who knows, she's almost one now; who knows.

From Larry Sabato, Clarification: Yes those 8000 outstanding ballots are not just R ballots, but a mix of both D and R, so let's say, tops, 6000 are R's. She'd have to win 4000-2000, or 2:1, to pick up 2000 votes from the absentees.

Of course, we now understand she doesn't care at all about Republican votes....

More Gabe: By his reading, you only get on the ballot by those three means -- primary win, independent filing, replacing existing candidate.

He says that a minor-party cannot just put someone up by caucus. (Although I have to say this strikes me as odd.)

But if his reading is right (and he is a lawyer), then Murky can only replace a candidate who in turn had previously won a primary -- and only the Libertarians, Democrats, and Republicans held primaries.

So one of those three, and I don't think Miller will agree to it.

Murky: It's "Premature" To Discuss My Already-Decided End-Run Around The People's Decision: And this article seems to indicate it's the Libertarian candidate's ballot-slot she's got her eye on.

As Gabe suggested.

Or the Dems... As I suggested. Speculation: Hey, why shouldn't the Democrats dump their sure-loser candidate in favor of the pro-choice, big government Murky?

So right now she's talking with the Libertarians and Democrats. On the phone with the Libertarians, she's suddenly realizing she's been in favor of gay marriage and drug legalization all her life (no one had informed her of her position previously), and with the Democrats she's realizing... um, that instead of voting with them 43% of the time it wouldn't be all that much to vote with them 73% of the time.

Original Reportage! But a little late. Drew wrote to the AIP about this possibility, and they wrote back:

The chairwoman of AIP responded...

Senator Murkowski is a registered Republican, not AIP. She therefore cannot be a candidate for this Party...we are not a "rent-a-party" for the Republicans. There is NO possibility regarding her "running" as Alaskan Independence Party candidate.

But we know it can't be AIP based on Gabe's legal opinion, so... not as timely as it could have been.

Posted by: Ace at 12:58 PM | Comments (126)
Post contains 486 words, total size 4 kb.

Via Congressman Jason Cahffetz (R-UT) who says, "There must be limitations on this".

"This" is the use of full body scanner technology on American streets.

As the privacy controversy around full-body security scans begins to simmer, itÂ’s worth noting that courthouses and airport security checkpoints arenÂ’t the only places where backscatter x-ray vision is being deployed. The same technology, capable of seeing through clothes and walls, has also been rolling out on U.S. streets.

...

Though Reiss admits that the systems “to a large degree will penetrate clothing,” he points to the lack of features in images of humans like the one shown at right, far less detail than is obtained from the airport scans. “From a privacy standpoint, I’m hard-pressed to see what the concern or objection could be,” he says.

But EPIC’s Rotenberg says that the scans, like those in the airport, potentially violate the fourth amendment. “Without a warrant, the government doesn’t have a right to peer beneath your clothes without probable cause,” he says. Even airport scans are typically used only as a secondary security measure, he points out. “If the scans can only be used in exceptional cases in airports, the idea that they can be used routinely on city streets is a very hard argument to make.”

Chaffetz seems to be leading the charge against this.

There may well be some exceptional emergency cases where this technology can reasonably used but like anything else, it can be over used. I know a lot of people don't like 'slippery slope' arguments but I think history is pretty clear that once a technology is opened up like this, the envelope will always be pushed. Think of UAVs now being used in law enforcement, closed circuit TV systems and now in the 9th Circuit, the government can sneak on to your property an place a GPS
device on your car and track you.

more...

Posted by: DrewM at 12:28 PM | Comments (115)
Post contains 933 words, total size 7 kb.

Yes, it is secret; the Murkowski insider won't say what they have in mind.

With a loss to Joe Miller looking likelier by the hour, Senator Lisa Murkowski is looking into a third party run a source inside her campaign tells The Daily Beast. Shushannah Walshe reports from Alaska.

The ongoing battle for who won the Republican primary in the Alaska Senate race will come down to the absentee ballots, but in an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast, a source within the Murkowski campaign says they know of one possible legal option to pursue a third party run. If Murkowski is not victorious when the absentee ballots are counted and decides to wage an independent party bid, they might consider using this option, which the source wouldn't describe, but did confirm they were seriously looking at.

Are you kidding me? Have you people no useful employment skills other than spending other people's money? Shit, a lobbyist job in DC consists chiefly of thinking of new ways to spend other people's money while actually spending other people's money as you run up big tabs on your company account.

Is there no stake sharp enough to get the job done with these god-damnable bloodsuckers?

As you might know, from Allah's twitter stream (where I also got this beauty), yesterday was the deadline for independent-bid filings; and yet... they have some kind of sketchy loophole to get around that?

Murkowski has a nicely-comped future in the para-politics (lobbying) at the moment. If she even breathes another god-damned word about this, it's over.

And you can try to make a salary as the rest of us must -- not trading on your connections but on your actual useful wealth-creating skills. How's that nightmare grab ya, Lisa?

Wishcasting: I hope that this is just the "Denial" or "Bargaining" step in the five stages of loss and that soon Acceptance will dawn upon the Murkowski camp.

Because I have the same thing to say to Establishment types like Murkowski as I have to say to insurgents like Clint Didier: If you stand for election in the primary and lose, you -- get this -- lose.

You had a chance in a fair contest and you lost. That's it. That's how the rules work and that's how we keep score.

We are not so desperate for your singular talents that Washington DC cannot possibly exist without you. Didier? We will endure without your voice. Murkowski? Don Yong will keep the federal dollars flowing. Charlie Crist? If you want to be on TV so god-damned bad they could always use a tangerine-colored Roger Sterling sort of father figure type on Jersey Shore.

Get over yourselves. No one owes you a cushy job and no one owes you a living.

Is This The Way? Dunkirk writes

If you read the article...

Gotta confess, I didn't. What I read, I quoted. Then posted.

... the ploy is kinda clear. She's going to go get the Alaska Independence Parties nomination so she can be on the ballot. I seem to recall a bunch of MFM people making a big f'ing deal out of Todd Palin being associated with that group at one time or another, but if it gets them a squish I'm sure they'll be all about it.

Ah. So she's not filing for an independent bid, but attempting to get the nomination of parties which haven't yet selected a candidate...?

AIP's Website: Senate candidate "TBD-- Become A Candidate Today! You still have time to become a local, municipal, borough or board candidate in the 2010 elections. Contact J.R. Myers at 907-262-7560 for more information."

Thanks to DrewM.

AIP's Mission: From their website -- they want to stop being American.

Until we as Alaskans attain our Ultimate Goal, the AIP will continue to strive to make Alaska a better place to live with less government interference in our everyday lives.

The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:

1) Remain a Territory.
2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status.
4) Become a State.

Posted by: Ace at 11:45 AM | Comments (215)
Post contains 748 words, total size 5 kb.

Hmmmm...

Hmmm...

In case you had any doubt, yeah, he likes being a dickbag towards "Tea Baggers" at rallies.

I am "hmmm..."-ing this because I'm not prepared to go as far as Gateway Pundit; there is smoke, but not solid evidence of fire.

It is interesting, though.

The media is once again is embargoing stories that undercut their beloved Narrative, that the Tea Party is a clear and present danger to democracy itself, and no one on the left, apparently, ever says a single out-of-line thing or behaves in a violent manner.

For example, check out this Angry White Man cursing out an elderly Holocaust survivor at a Ground Zero Mosque protest.

One of his fellow lefties attempts to restrain him in his hate, and he unabashedly continues, vowing no one has the right to "censor" him.

Will the real face of leftism be revealed? Of course not.

Note his final bon mot regarding the Holocaust survivor -- "Obviously he didn't learn his lesson."

Now, it's not quite fair to say that he's saying Jews should have "learned their lesson" from the Holocaust to remain "in their place." The full quote makes it (reasonably) clear that he means that Jews first and foremost should be concerned about "tolerance" for a religious minority. (I put "tolerance" in quotes; this is his thought, not mine.)

And yet... Is this not, let us say, a touch insensitive? To declare a Holocaust survivor should have "learned his lesson" from the Holocaust?

Particularly since maybe he did "learn his lesson," eh? The lesson of "Never Again"?

And a Jew certainly has reason to be concerned about an Imam who hobnobs with foreign clerics and apparently supports Hamas. As was noted when Mohammad Abbas was revealed to be a Holocaust denier, one commentator said that for Palestine, that did make him a moderate.

See, she said, the awful truth is that in Palestine, if you deny the Holocaust you're a "moderate."

If you're a non-moderate you admit the Holocaust... and endorse it.

Just seems strange to me that we have an awful lot of lefties saying some decidedly angry, insensitive things, but it's only the right that apparently has the standard put upon them that at all times they must speak as measuredly and softly as Jean Luc Picard at a performance of The Mikado.

And this other guy...? This "Ripper McCord"? He's an unperson; the story is an unfact.

MinTruth stylebook guidance is that political-oriented violence can only be committed by the Tea Party/racist right and if it wasn't committed by the Tea Party/racist right then it wasn't committed at all.

And oh, by the way, the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building was an "anti-government" rightwinger, and you know he's a rightwinger because his suicide note contained a condemnation of capitalism and a paean to communism.

And oh, by the way, at a "Peace" rally in 2005 Cindy Sheehan declared "The enemy is the government!" and I don't remember anyone in the MFM being terribly upset by the implications of such an anti-democratic, hateful, violence-charged utterance. And she has, as the MFM decided, "Absolute Moral Authority," so if she says the enemy is the government, then by God, the enemy is he government.

Posted by: Ace at 11:03 AM | Comments (97)
Post contains 544 words, total size 4 kb.

I meant to get to this yesterday but real work invaded and I didn't have a chance to get to it. There was a lot of talk about General Conway saying that Obama's July '11 withdrawal date was giving "sustenance" to the enemy in Afghanistan. His remarks were actually quite a bit more nuanced than that.

In terms of the July ‘11 issue, you know, I think if you follow it closely, and of course we all do, we know the president was talking to several audiences at the same time when he made his comments on July 2011.

In some ways, we think right now itÂ’s probably giving our enemy sustenance. We think that he may be saying to himself -- in fact, weÂ’ve intercepted communications that say, hey, you know, we only have to hold out for so long.

But let me give you a different thought. Okay, if you accept what I offered earlier as true, that Marines will be there after 2011, okay, after the middle of 2011, whatÂ’s the enemy going to say then, you know?

What is he going to say to his foot troops, where youÂ’ve got the leadership outside the country trying to direct operations within -- because itÂ’s too dangerous for them to be there -- and the foot troops have been believing what heÂ’s saying, that theyÂ’re all going to leave in the summer of next year, and come the fall, weÂ’re still there hammering them like we have been? I think it could be very good for us in that context, in terms of the enemyÂ’s psyche and what he has been, you know, posturing now for, really, the better part of a year.

I think this is a case of making lemonade out of lemons. Strategic ambiguity can be a good thing and a powerful tool. Not so much in COIN fight though where you are trying to develop not only security on the ground but a faith in the local government. Everyone knows that if the US leaves, the Afghan government disappears about an hour and a half later.

Now there may well be a psychological advantage to demoralizing the enemy if they think the end is in sight only to have the goal posts moved on them but if that's the case, it's going to be by accident rather than design.

Obama's talk to 'multiple audiences' is mainly an effort to manage domestic politics and not anything approaching sound political/military tactics.

Still, if it turns out that the ambiguity does help the effort, even in some backwards way, we'll take it. This is war after all and not figure skating...there are no style points.

In looking over the transcript of General Conway's remarks, I found something else I think is interesting and that we don't hear much about...we may be winning.

Q: So you think it could take until after July of next year for any sort of awakening or reconciliation process to really get going?

GEN. CONWAY: You know, IÂ’ll tell you, we visited with Admiral Harward, Bob Harward, who runs detention in Afghanistan for ISAF. And it was really interesting to talk with him about the forensics of what he is discovering as he goes about his interrogation and questioning prisoners and so forth. Our enemy is getting tired, too. TheyÂ’re getting hammered, to a much greater degree than we are. And theyÂ’re asking themselves, "Hey, is this all worth it?" And theyÂ’re asking themselves that now.

So, you know, I think the combined effects of that over the next year or so until next summer, when they realize that we may begin the process in July of 2011, but itÂ’s certainly not going to all be done in a month, or two months, or three months -- that I think itÂ’s only going to compound his thought process that maybe this isnÂ’t going to end well.

How much of that is happy talk from the military and how widespread is the feeling within the ranks of the insurgents? Who knows but it's important to remember we are fighting men in Afghanistan, not machines. Everyone has a breaking point. Are we reaching theirs? There's no reason to think so but if there's ever going to be a political settlement in Afghanistan it's going to have to be matched with a military squeeze. We don't hear much about the insurgents getting fed up but maybe some are.

It comes back to this fuzzy July 2011 date. Is it just a mark on the calendar and not much will change or will it lead to a firmer commitment ahead of the '12 presidential campaign to start winding things down for real? If it's the latter, instead of being demoralized, the insurgents might realize that the end is honestly in sight this time.

Of course, everything in Afghanistan depends on Pakistan and they aren't likely to get tired of this anytime soon since they tend to view everything as part of their on going existential fight with India. People never get tired of those fights.

That's the beauty of Afghanistan, just when you think there is a glimmer of hope you can always find something to cure you of that.

Added: Contra Conway...Afghan Defense spokesman says time line is a great comfort to Taliban.

"This is giving more reason and propaganda for the anti-government elements to prolong the fight," Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Zahir Azimy said of President Barack Obama's timetable on Wednesday, according to Reuters.

"Such assertions could be used in favor of insurgents for ... empowering their forces and giving reasons to fight," he said. "The withdrawal should be based on the capability of the Afghan security forces."

I'm not a military historian but I don't recall too many successful strategies that involve bucking up your enemy while scaring your allies.

Thanks to "Bomber" in the comments for the heads up.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:17 AM | Comments (50)
Post contains 1014 words, total size 6 kb.

A part of me craves the comfort of pudding, but I can't say which part that is in mixed company.

just talked to some solid Alaska sources. They do not think there is any realistic chance Lisa Murkowski can make up the votes she needs.

She would need 60% of the absentees to win. Now, that's kinda-sorta possible, given that maybe many of these were sent before Miller got a lot of publicity... But DrewM. rebuts this nicely: If you thought the contest was uncontested, and you were just going to vote for the R-brand candidate no matter who it was, why would you go through the trouble of voting absentee in the first place?

That's like doing extra paperwork to guarantee that I won't post before 12. Why not just let nature take its beautiful restful course?

Slate: continues being mocked, as it should be. I always used to refer to this as "amateur online web-zine Slate."

Iowahawk writes:

Slate 8/23: Miller Doomed By Palin Endorsement.
Slate 8/25: Miller Won Because Palin Didn't Campaign For Him.

Wishcasting, not forecasting.

Posted by: Ace at 09:50 AM | Comments (118)
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

Clint Howard, longtime character actor who most frequently appears in brother Ron's movies, turns out to be a conservative. He is extending the Clint Howard Hypothesis -- no matter what you're watching, there is an even 10% chance Clint Howard will appear in it -- to politics.

Clint Howard told TheDC that he got involved with the project when an acquaintance of his, Eric Peterkofsky, approached him with the idea. “This is something that is right in my wheelhouse, both as an actor and as a conservative minded citizen,” Howard said. “I’d been looking for opportunities to do something like this and when it come up it seemed like a no brainer.”

Howard has no illusions of grandeur. According to him, celebrities who get too heavily involved in political activism can become tiresome. He hopes to avoid this pitfall and act soley as a concerned American.

“I understand that show business people can wear the public a bit thin when it comes to politics. I know they wear me thin,” Howard said. “I’m not a policy wonk and I don’t dream of being a political operative. My goal as a citizen is to do what I can to help the causes that I personally believe in. To me, it is the same as walking the precinct.”

Ad from Heritage Action for America below. more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:07 AM | Comments (105)
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

It's come to this.

Posted by: Ace at 08:47 AM | Comments (75)
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

As of 10:20am eastern (which is 6:20 in Alaska) Joe Miller is leading incumbent RINO Lisa Murkowski by just under 2,000 votes with 98% of the vote counted.

Still unaccounted are the absentees.

Most of the precincts that hadn't reported were in rural areas, particularly Western Alaska including the regions around Bethel, Nome and Kotzebue, where paper ballots are counted by hand. Counting was to continue through the night, according to the Division of Elections. There were also some precincts yet to report in the Dillingham-Aleutians region and the university area of Fairbanks. But all those of tend to be Democratic-leaning areas where many independent voters might choose the Democratic primary ballot. Those who are registered Democrats aren't allowed to vote in the Republican primary so can't have a say in the Miller-Murkowski race.

The final results of the race won't be known for over a week. The Alaska Division of Elections said over 16,000 absentee ballots were requested and as of Monday night 7,600 had been returned. The first count of absentees will be next Tuesday and there will be two subsequent counts as the absentee votes trickle in on Sept. 3 and on Sept. 8.

It's hard to imagine why the absentees would break for Murkowski in greater numbers than the in person vote. In fact, given the grassroots enthusiasm level for Miller, it seems his voters would be more likely to go through the process of getting an absentee ballot and following through on it.

The pudding is on hold but it's in the building.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:32 AM | Comments (338)
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

Brand Democrat™ from Slublog.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:05 AM | Comments (160)
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.