1 I'm ready for my closeup, Mr DeMille

2 Note to Timothy McKeever:

BLOW ME

3 We believe that the Joe Miller ads promote witchcraft. And I'm the state witch; I don't need this pressure!!!!

4 Pompous, an inflated sense of entitlement, out of touch, and really, really ugly.

5 Look, all we need to do is trick her into saying her name backwards, and she will return to her own dimension.

6 I'm ready for my closeup, Mr DeMille

My first laugh of the day.

7 Yes, sore loser laws!  And since we seem to like naming laws after people (like "Megan's Law"), we could name the new law after her.  Call it "Durwood's Law."

8 In that picture she looks almost like a female Hitler shouting to the crowds in front of the Richstadt.

9 Once again:

Will someone please by this bitch a pony already!

10 Just wait until Obama runs the media.

11
She's bringing a real 3rd World vibe into the election cycle.  Good job, murkooskow.

12 But daddy got me a golden ticket!!!!!!

13 Throw a bucket of water on her and get it over with.

14 John Raese for W-Virginia.

I love the way he serves up the CNN reporter in this clip...
PLEASE pass this on... this guy rocks!

15 Posted by: lowandslow at October 05, 2010 09:41 AM (GZitp)


Lisa, I've told you to leave daddy's computer alone.

16 Evita

17 Didn't she live next door to the Cleavers?

18 I don't think sore loser laws are right either. An individual has the right to run for office up to the general election. Party affiliation is irrelevant. Their desperation, their sore loser-ness, their inability to take a hint by primary voters should be capitalized on by their opponents at every opportunity. And, Holy Cow! She really is Norma Desmond.

19

Thanks Slub, you've inspired me. I now know what I am going to be for Holloween. Its been bugging me that whenever I see Murky Lebowski I can't figure out what or who she reminds me of, I've had an epiphony.

  http://tinyurl.com/2429ldu

 

20 Some wrap themselves in the flag, Lisa poses like Lady Liberty (except she's holding a breast, and forgot her torch)

21 Angle up 3 in NV 49 - 46.  The move has been made, people have made their decision.  New fox news poll.

22 She is a sore loser and a traitor. The voters recognize that. She is toast.

23 Evita Murky: Don't cry for me Alaska

24 I should go up there and campaign for her! Haw haw...and grab that ass of hers too! haw haw.

25 Can you dig it?

26

said they are under a "legal and moral obligation" not to air the new ads from Tea Party Express

The Tea Party should go after them for this threat. I dispise constant legal action but instead this would make a great commercial----------Lisa Mookycattlesled wants to SHUT YOU UP. Show a look alike duct taping people's mouths.

27 Damn, girl.  Even I didn't cling that hard...

^{Though I admit to a resemblance otherwise...}

28 s o u r g r a p e s

29 Yeah, I remember Pat Robertson issuing letterhead threats through his mouthpiece back in 'eighty and eight, when his dodging of Korea came up. The only response was, "If you sue someone for libel, they're liable to prove it."

Nothing ever came of Rev'rum Hurricane's threat. Nor will it of Murkowski. Think the FCC gives a flip what a three-quarters-out-the-door courtesy of her own party's voters Senator wants?

30 I DIDN'T QUIT LIKE THAT EVIL SARAH!

31 And why is she giving the vulcan hand gesture?  Show us your ears oh Murky one.

32 31 I DIDN'T QUIT LIKE THAT EVIL SARAH!
Posted by: Lena Mancuso at October 05, 2010 09:57 AM (IoUF1)

You can't quit, Lisa.  We fired you.  Just like we fired your old man.

33 she looks like michelle's long lost white twin sister

34 What about Miller? If he's so desperate to gain power that he welcomes out of state interests to come in and lie about his opponent, what does that say about him? What did he lie about? Other than whatever it is that Murky is saying..

35 I wouldn't hit it. Too crazy for me

36 Posted by: lowandslow at October 05, 2010 09:58 AM (GZitp)

Yeah, that about says it.

Rule of the blogosphere:  Just because you wrote it, that doesn't mean anyone is obligated to (a) respond, or (b) care.

37 vengence is thine!

38 What. A. Tool.

39 If she isn't +10 over Miller she has no hope as a write in. Why did she do this - she could have taken two years off, done something useful, and crushed Begich in 2012 - now she is toast.

40 So what does that say about us if we're so desperate to gain power we resort to that?

Posted by: lowandslow at October 05, 2010 09:58 AM (GZitp)

It says that maybe we've finally got some back bone and are playing by the Statist's own rules. However I have yet to see any questionable "nasty" campaign tactics coming form the Tea Party, unlike the assault on Odonnel and the guy running againts that gem Greyson in Florida.

 

 

41 I said in my post I don't give a flying fuck about Murkowski but Slublog wants us to think this is solely about her desire to retain her Senate seat Hasn't that been obvious by now that this is exactly what it's about?

42 Why don't some of you people have the guts to address what I wrote? I said in my post I don't give a flying fuck about Murkowski but Slublog wants us to think this is solely about her desire to retain her Senate seat. I don't think that's all there is to it. I think a part of her write in bid has to do with revenge because lets face it the Tea Party group did come into the primaries and launched a nasty campaign against her that wasn't all that honest.

So your argument is that Murkowski is entitled to run out of revenge because the voters of Alaska were too stupid to understand the ads during the primary campaign and the only reason Murkowski lost was because of those ads, and not because she has taken stances that the voters don't agree with?

If you really want to go with that argument, you're entitled to it. 

43 That spoiled brat better not lose my senate seat or I'll lock her in the basement again.

44
Why don't some of you people have the guts to address what I wrote?

I'll try being gutsier if you try being smarter, hmmmmkay?

45 Actually she has to wait till 2014 to get rid of Begich, no surprise ' low and slow' would support a corrupt hack, who still wanted a carbon tax, just not the Kerry tax, just like Inglis

46 I like that "legal and moral obligation" line.  Not only are they saying it's against the law to air their ads, but you're morally bankrupt if you choose to do so.

47 "I love you and hope you love me...you do, right? Right?

.......

I WILL NOT be ignored Alaska.

48 for the low and slow amongst us:

ahhhhh, politics is such a mean game.  How about everyone sign a commitment to truth, honesty and justice....

I'll even bet Murky didn't get every penny for her campaign(s) from inside Alaska too....

If you want purity, go find a kindergarten BEFORE the kids come in...

49 So what does that say about us if we're so desperate to gain power we resort to that? You got a mouse in your pocket? The purported political sins of people none of us have ever heard of, in a place 95% of have never been, doesn't taint or define shit. The Tea Parties aren't so "desperate to gain power", but you may very well be desperate for something to criticize them for.

50 She's the perfect Democrat.  Why isn't she one, officially? 

51

Someone at Fox News spelled that scrunt's name wrong.  Twice.

52

the Tea Party group did come into the primaries and launched a nasty campaign against her that wasn't all that honest.

Example and link

And the Tea Party went after her, why? Perhaps she voted with the libs? That's dishonest.

53 Posted by: lowandslow at October 05, 2010 09:58 AM (GZitp) Karl Rove?

54

What about those bastard Senate Republicans who insisted on treated Murskankee weith "respect" while she does everything she can to undermine the legitimate Republican nominee's chance to have the seat?  They're as despicable as she is.

Just reminds me why I hate the GOP almost as much as I hate the Dhimms...

55 54 She's the perfect Democrat.  Why isn't she one, officially? 

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at October 05, 2010 10:12 AM (eNxMU)

Murky, Christ and Castle in the new cinematic tour de'force:

***I've got nuttin, how bout some help mo-rons***

 

 

56

Don't bring me home to Alaska

The truth is I've always served you

Those dumb teabaggers

They're all just lyin'

I'll bring the pork home

Just write my name in

57 Out of state interests? Are you kidding? You think this bitch didn't have "out of state interests"?  You're not talking to a bunch of libby idiots who can be fooled by rhetoric and talking points.

58 OT: Michelle Obama is paying $20,000 to go places/see things no other First Lady has ever experienced.  An app with a webcam that  watches you work out!

LINK

59

Someone at Fox News spelled that scrunt's name wrong.  Twice.

Posted by: Cicero at October 05, 2010 10:12 AM (Jl3/t)

Bwahahahaa ,the massive right-wing conspiracy machine is working its magic!

60 OK, 2014, even better. A four year break to earn money, repair relationships with the tribes, etc.

61 I'm not saying it's the only reason she's running but I think it's a big part of it. There is a backlash from the Tea Party party organization from California inserting themselves into that primary, I don't think you can deny that. You want to assume her write in bid is just some Evita complex, I'm just saying there's more to it then that.

No, there's really not.  Politicians derive power from people, who express their preference through elections.  She lost the election.  In choosing to run, she is showing contempt for the people and their votes.

You're free to call it backlash, or blame whatever boogeymen you wish, but all that matters is that the voters spoke, and she's too arrogant to listen to them.

62 you don't start some longshot write in campaign when the compelling reason you have to run is.........what? I bring home the pork?

Yes, why not?

63 She's Charmin' Charlie without the tan,, one of the big turnarounds happened when
a video of her 'splungy' attitude to Obamacare, went viral, and even her strongest
supporter on the Radio, Fagan, took a second look at Miller.

64

Why don't some of you people have the guts to address what I wrote?

Well, not that I'm really in the habit of trying to comment on total drivel, but since you insist I'll make an exception.

 I said in my post I don't give a flying fuck about Murkowski but Slublog wants us to think this is solely about her desire to retain her Senate seat. I don't think that's all there is to it. I think a part of her write in bid has to do with revenge because lets face it the Tea Party group did come into the primaries and launched a nasty campaign against her that wasn't all that honest.

Do you have some specific examples to be addressed?  First if you understood anything about the Tea Party at all you'd realize their isn't a single tea party group, but rather lots and lots of small groups that all have certain things in common, but are not controlled or organized by any single individual or group.  So your premise is flawed at the outset, "We" can't control the actions of a single tea party group.  Second you present an accusation, that this tea party group or groups "lied" about Murkowski with no supporting evidence and simply wish to assume that your statement is fact.  I don't live in Alaska, I didn't see any of these ads, and I would prefer to have some actual evidence, you know, some real facts to backup your assertion before offering the analysis you are currently stomping your little feet and demanding. 

So what does that say about us if we're so desperate to gain power we resort to that?

If you understood anything about Tea parties, conservatism or what's currently going on around you you'd realize that "we" are not "desperate" to gain power, we are showing the despots in Washington who has the real power.  We the People.  We are starting to exercise that power that they have spent years trying to convince us we don't have.  That's what the tea party movement is all about.

65 Sleeza's picture reminds me of Candice Bergman playing a former beauty queen who couldn't let go of her ill-gotten title in "Miss Congeneality". "It's a scholarship program!"

66 Saw something on Brett Baeir last night.  Apparently 88% of her funding is coming from out of state and she is making a big deal about the TEA PARTY people coming on plane, train and cruise ship to her state to "interfere".  The kicker was the giant rally he showed for leeza..hosted by the democrats.

67

Someone at Fox News spelled that scrunt's name wrong.  Twice.

Posted by: Cicero at October 05, 2010 10:12 AM (Jl3/t)

Bwahahahaa ,the massive right-wing conspiracy machine is working its magic!

Someone at FNC is definitely a Moron.

68 We the People. We are starting to exercise that power that they have spent years trying to convince us we don't have. That's what the tea party movement is all about. This.. If low and slow cant understand this simple concept. There's no hope.

69 If she hadn't been such a tool, she wouldn't have gotten the challenge, When Newsweek profiled her, for her willingness to consider the Carbon Tax, of a piece with her backing from BP, it was pretty much all over right then

70
Posted by: lowandslow at October 05, 2010 10:25 AM (GZitp)

Stop digging. 

Or not, but so far this is pretty boring.

71

Just who do you people in Alaska think you're dealing with here?  This is a country where you serve me, not the other way around.  You serve me at my pleasure..got it?  Now shut your fucking flapping mouths, pay your taxes, and stop with this voting nonsense.

72

lowandslow, it's called free speech. 1st ammendment. Google it.

If Murky doesn't like it, tough shit.

If it's libel, sue.

Or re-legalize dueling.

As far as all you anachronistic geezers and opportunistic demagogues whining about 'out of state' interests, maybe you'd have had a legitimate point back when the individual states did anything besides set up luxurious pension plans and get bailed out by the feds.

These days, who you vote for in Alaska effects me just as much as who we vote for in Illinois.

With Obamacare on the table, who you vote for in Alaska may be an issue of life or death.

73 After attacking Miller on Tea party money, I think Murky admitted that 80% of her money is from outside Alaska.

74

And ultimately, the people of the state vote in the primary.

Blaim Californians all you want - they didn't vote. They just talked.

They have a right to talk and what's more, Alaskans have a right to hear them if they care to listen.

Alaskans have voted and will vote again. Whether or not they want to listen to California attack ads is up to them, not Murkowski and not you.

75 She was pissed off about this Tea Party group from outside the state coming in. She knows damn well they helped defeat her so this is her way a striking back. Posted by: lowandslow What about her out of state funds? Also, you're assuming that there isn't an in-state Tea Party that was on Miller's side. At the very least you've poorly clarified that. Yes, she is pissed that she lost. Whatever the reasons, she lost. The VOTERS told her that she was fired. The voters defeated her. But yes, this is her way of striking back. I think pretty much everyone here knows this already.

76 Lot of good information in the comments section of this thread.  alaskans forget her land deal which got her an ethics complaint and her ownership of the Alaska Pasta Company.

Cumo can sell shoes and she can sell pasta.

77 Posted by: dananjcon at October 05, 2010 10:16 AM (pr+up) Murky, Christ and Castle reprise the classic performances of Debbie Reynolds, Gene Kelley and Donald O'Conner in the new cinematic tour de'force: "Slingin' Poo Again" Are you happy now?

78

Aright...I actually have work to do...later roons.

 

79

"Don't Cry For Me, Alaska"
sung to the tune of "Don't Cry for Me, Argentina" from EVITA

It won't be easy, you'll think it strange
When you gather and ask, "What's your deal?"
And I tell you to stuff it, I'm going to run.

You won't believe me
All you will see is my sour-puss face
As I cling bitterly to my seat,
Refusing to exit the race.

I couldn't let it happen. Who asked for change!
Oh no, this cannot be real.
The Senate long gone, my sinecure done.

So I chose freedom.
I tried independent.  Libertarian, too.
But nothing impressed me at all.
I just can't accept this from you.

Don't cry for me, oh Alaska!
The truth is I will not leave you.
You may decry me,
Beg and revile me,
But I'm not leaving.
So just quit asking.

And as for fortune, and as for fame,
They aren't what I'm really about.
I just dig the power and perks I can claim.

I'll cry collusion,
I'll say you're abusing my lily-white name.
The Tea Party's money is slime.
Joe Miller's campaign is insane.

Don't cry for me, oh Alaska!
The truth is I will not leave you.
You may decry me,
Beg and revile me,
But I'm not leaving.
So just quit asking.

Have I said too much?
My lawyers are saying it's time to sue.
And all you have to do is look at me to know
That every word is true.

80

    About 25 to 30   residents stood outside the Loveland Museum/Gallery this morning   protesting a portion of an exhibit that appears to show   Jesus Christ involved in a sex act.

      The lithograph is spread  over  12 panels, each about 7- by 7-inches, and is called "The Misadventures of the  Romantic Cannibals."

  LINK

the PIC in question
(Warning: Jesus is getting a blow job in final scene)

81 What about Miller? If he's so desperate to gain power that he welcomes out of state interests...

Out-of-state interests? Like a political party?

You're saying Miller should be defeated because I donated to his campaign, right?

82

37 I wouldn't hit it. Too crazy for me
Posted by: that guy who married Amy Bishop

 

...now that made me laugh, thanks

83 Slublog wants us to think this is solely about her desire to retain her Senate seat.

Um, in what way is it NOT about her desire to retain "her" Senate seat.

84 Of course she's arrogant but not about holding on to her seat. Maybe it's me, I don't think she's running to win. Maybe because I believe she can't. I think this is just a stick it to the Tea Party before I go type thing. That's why I'm not buying into this she's desperate to hold on to power thing.

Yeah, she's just desperate to piss on the party that she claimed to have been a member of. She's just desperate to had the fascists an election so she can have her "revenge".

Neither motivation -- clinging to power or petty revenge -- is very mature.

85 I'm under an obligation to tell Moorkookski and her attorney to go fuck themselves, but first,

YOU WILL BLOW ME

86 she is working from obama's playbook.

87

Yes it's sour grapes but it's sour grapes because how the primary went. She was pissed off

OOoOOooooOOOoohh.

Tough. Shit.

She's not entitled.

You don't "win" elections you are granted them. It's not based on the candidate's merit but the voter's choice.

about this Tea Party group from outside the state coming in.

1) Alaskans cast the votes, not the Tea Party group.

Deflect all you want. You're ultimately resorting too "Those damn clever Californian's fooled all our dumb-hick Alaskans who are too dim to be granted free and open access to the marketplace of ideas".

That's how democrats explain all their losses. People are too stupid and a few folks who are evil tricked them all.

2) But it was OK when out of state groups were giving her money. It was OK when the out-of-state NRSC was sending lawyers from DC.

88 She was pissed off about this Tea Party group from outside the state coming in. She knows damn well they helped defeat her so this is her way a striking back.

This notion that somehow out-of-state groups can corrupt the election, primarily through funding, is quaint. I guess the various National Republican and Democrat entities that provide monetary support to their in-state candidates should be outlawed, hunh?

89 If we are going to bitch about "out of State money" let's make it uniform. If I am not mistaken 80% of ALL Senate race contributions come from out of State, including this scrunt's.

That has long been one of MY campaign reform planks. All candidates must run using funds from constituents in the district that they are seeking office in. Penalties would be severe for violation.

I would also make House districts much smaller. House members were meant to be close to their voters with Senate members not close at all. Currently the House members represent more voters than any of the original Senators did.

That would be a start.

90 I don't think she's running to win. Maybe because I believe she can't. I think this is just a stick it to the Tea Party before I go type thing.

So, she's not a power-crazed entitlement queen, she's a bitter, spiteful hag.

Can't it be both?

91 Oh, and some stricter sore loser laws might help as well.

So you're not okay that Joe Lieberman ran as an independent several years ago?

Sore losers are seen as that, and really won't gain much traction (as Murkewskilinsky is discovering).  Sometimes, however, someone has a true, substantive disagreement with their party-of-record, and will want to run as an independent on that basis.

I do think, however, that the two major parties should, within their own by-laws, require someone who is running as an independent after losing a primary to renounce their party affiliation (with all that goes with it: losing seats or at least seniority on committees and sub-committees, etc.)

92 She looks like Madame DeFarge in Mel Brooks History of the World Part One.

93

You're saying Miller should be defeated because I donated to his campaign, right?

Basically, yes.

94

Thanks for the ht, momma. 

The "artist" must have celebrating receiving his NEA grant.

As a future member of the North American caliphate (pbj), I call upon a fatwa on the heads of those who depict a Messenger of God in a scene of depravity. 

Actually, having my car broken into in front of my house this weekend made me think the Muslims do have the right idea when it comes to anti-crime measures. 

95 I don't think she's running to win.

No shit, which is why I'm going to pull her pants down and give her a spanking.

96 Are those asterisks on her dress?  How appropriate for an accidental Senator and an afterthought of a candidate,

97

What about Miller? If he's so desperate to gain power that he welcomes out of state interests to come in and lie about his opponent, what does that say about him? Not that I give a shit about Murkowski but lets not pretend that all these Tea Party groups and candidates are shining examples of virtue.

Seriously?  So, all the $1.8 million in Murcluckski's war chest came from the residents of Alaska?  Get real.  She's still being a stinkin crybaby......

98 Vic at October 05, 2010 10:42 AM (/jbAw)

No, it wouldn't.  Like it, or not, because of the 17th Amendment, Senators, while elected locally, are National figures.  What Rep Joe Barton does cannot, without a lot of outside-of-Texas support, affect much of anything in, say, Missouri.  Kay Bailey or John Cornyn, however, have much more power, and they're harder to remove from office.

Since this is the case, all Senatorial elections are national matters, and I should get to have a say (not a vote, quite obviously, but at least the ability to voice my opinion) in who gets elected.

Of course, I really say repeal the 17th, and let State Legislatures have their power back.  But maybe that's just me.

99

Of course she's arrogant but not about holding on to her seat. Maybe it's me, I don't think she's running to win. Maybe because I believe she can't. I think this is just a stick it to the Tea Party before I go type thing. That's why I'm not buying into this she's desperate to hold on to power thing.

Posted by: lowandslow at October 05, 2010 10:33 AM (GZitp)

You do realize that those two motivations aren't mutually exclusive, right?  She can be running a write-in campaign to hurt the Tea Party AND because she wants to hold on to power.  Nonetheless, her write-in candidacy will not hurt the Tea Party, but the GOP and all of its members.  I guess she forgot that without the GOP she would've never been a U.S. Senator to begin with.  Let's not forget that this woman only became a U.s. Senator because her Republican father appointed her to his seat.  Anyone that would even consider accepting that appointment is someone who craves power.  She's a jerk and is exactly the type of politician Republicans should NOT be supporting.  But you keep defending her self-absorbed behavior by behaving in the same way here, as evidenced by your attention-grabbing comment: "Why don't some of you people have the guts to address what I wrote?"

100

I'm sure it is.

Posted by: lowandslow at October 05, 2010 10:47 AM (GZitp)

Then stop minimizing one motivation (her desire to keep the Senate seat) and promoting the other (to stick it to the Tea Party).

101 Just remember that her "conservative" colleagues in the senate refused to strip her of her power that she is now using as a club against Joe Miller.

102 118 - exactly.

103

low and slow just wants to bash the Tea Party.

 I think this is just a stick it to the Tea Party before I go type thing. That's why I'm not buying into this she's desperate to hold on to power thing.

Yeah, obviously she doesn't want to hold onto power??? That's why she's legally threatening the press?

Without the tea party ferreting out these pretenders we'd be stuck with scrunts like her and Crist.

You're "concern" about the tea party being "out of state" is laughable.

The people of alaska voted.

104 Off Topic, but since Harry Reid's son is about to get an ass-whoopin' from a Hispanic Republican and New Mexico is also about to elect a Hispanic Republican Governor and Florida is about to elect a Hispanic Republican senator... would Dingy Harry care to take back his racist remarks about how no Hispanic would ever vote for a Republican?

105

Can't. See Buckley v. Valeo. Money = free speech.

Posted by: Mallamutt at October 05, 2010 10:45 AM (OWjjx)

The principles being debated in my plank are differnt that those argued in Buckley.

106

The more I look at it, it's the ugliest damn dress I've ever seen in politics.  It's even ugly by Alaska standards. 

She's not seriously running for any office--she's looking to lead a movement.  Of my bowels.   

107

118 Just remember that her "conservative" colleagues in the senate refused to strip her of her power that she is now using as a club against Joe Miller.

 

Reason #479,000 that I'm not a Republican.

108 125 Good. Admitting your errors is healthy.

109 The more I look at it, it's the ugliest damn dress I've ever seen in politics.  It's even ugly by Alaska standards.

It's a photoshop - Murkowski as Evita Perone.  Sorry.  Will make that more clear.

110 No, it wouldn't.  Like it, or not, because of the 17th Amendment, Senators, while elected locally, are National figures.

That is a relatively recent phenomena brought about by that 17th Amendment.  Currently, good or bad, Senators now feel like they represent the interests of their Party more than they represent the interests of their State.

This is what the founders were very scared of and why most of them were dead set against political parties.

Even without repeal of the 17th amendment is is my opinion if Senators were forced to rely strictly on their own State for campaign contributions thyey would gho back to feeling more beholden to their State.

Contrary to what the lying polls say, the ones who give the money get the attention. 

111 her ownership of the Alaska Pasta Company.

Posted by

 

I see no problem with this.

112 What's up with the ink-stained dress?

113 Re: Out of State Money

Personally, I don't like it.  The nationalization of our local elections has, IMHO, got out of hand.

But.. until there are election campaign laws against it, it's the way things work.

The left has been doing this for years.. look at their very successful websites like ActBlue.  Look at the money bomb campaigns that go on over at Daily Kooks, MoveOn, etc..  And then they have the nerve to complain about monied interests backing Tea Party candidates from out of state!  The irony is delicious..

This year.. I don't give a crap.. as long as conservatives beat the libtards and take over Congress, I'll be happy.

114 The "artist" must have celebrating receiving his NEA grant.

I saw this on the news yesterday.  Supposedly, there was no grant money used in this so-called "artist's" project.  Oh, and the message they're trying to convey:  two guesses, kiddies.  It starts with R and ends with M.  If you guessed RACISM, I've got a shiny nickel for ya.  I always think of Jesus receiving BJ's when thinking of racism. 

115

I wasn't, I was just responding to Slublogs post that her write in bid was all about holding on to power. I just said I think there's more to it then that, he doesn't agree. So be it.

Posted by: lowandslow at October 05, 2010 10:53 AM (GZitp)

Well, perhaps if you had written it that way instead of the combative way that you did in which you questioned the integrity of many of us for not responding to your initial post, we would've received your comments in a more positive fashion.

You're pointing your finger at the wrong people.  Murky doesn't like the Tea Party because they opposed her, as they should've based on her actions as a U.S. Senator.  When I see her, I see a thin-skinned, self-important jerk.  If we're going to change the horrible direction of the country and economy, we need to get replace people like her with better representatives of the people.  She wasn't the worst GOP Senator, but she was certainly part of the problem.

As for your apparent anger at Tea Party groups donating money on behalf of Miller's efforts against Murky, I think that's been sufficiently attacked in this thread by others for being completely absurd considering the amount of out-of-state money that goes to every candidate of both parties in every election.

116 Even without repeal of the 17th amendment is is my opinion if Senators were forced to rely strictly on their own State for campaign contributions thyey would gho back to feeling more beholden to their State.

I think it would backfire, especially in smaller states, because it would make Senators even more beholden to the national party; which would still be able to funnel money to their candidates.

Now, if you capped participation by out-of-state groups, but allowed unlimited donations from in-state constituents you might well create senators who were more attuned to in-state interests. I don't see that happening any time, um, ever. Not because the political establishment is really concerned about corruption so much as they are concerned about well-financed opponents challenging their incumbents.

117

Even without repeal of the 17th amendment is is my opinion if Senators were forced to rely strictly on their own State for campaign contributions thyey would gho back to feeling more beholden to their State.

That's non-sense McCain-Feingold talk.

Learn the lesson, Vic.

If only people would work harder for the sake of others, why, then communism would work.

So maybe if we pass a law that says they have to...

118 it's my candidacy and i'll shit all over it if i want too......

119 You would also greatly enhance the power of the national parties., While the candidate may be restricted to raising funds in district, the national partis would not be.

You have missed my point entirely. The "national" Parties would not be allowed to contribute to in-State elections at all.

120 The Alaska media will probably kowtow to her, too.  Anything to stop those damned meddling Tea Partiers . . .

121

132 What's up with the ink-stained dress?

She's trying to impress the Clinton crowd.

122 I'll stop donating to out of state candidates when they stop having an influence over my out-of-their-state life.

Unless and until that happens, it's moneybomb season.

123

That's non-sense McCain-Feingold talk.

Learn the lesson, Vic.

McCain-Feingold was a POS incumbency protection racket that discriminated against smaller candidates. 

Physician heal thyself.

124

Unless and until that happens, it's moneybomb season.

Release the hounds!

125

She's trying to impress the Clinton crowd.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at October 05, 2010 11:07 AM (zgZzy)

Then she should have been wearing a Cankle-Enhancing pantsuit.

126 Lawyers making shit up.

Film at 11.

Miller should win this thing by 150 points.

127 Vic:  Just out of curiosity, you're saying you'd disband the NRSC, NRCC, etc?

128 Desperation, thy name is Milwerski, Mulecowskee, Smith.

129

The "artist" must have celebrating receiving his NEA grant.

The "artist" is a Stanford professor. He was "critiquing religious institutions". I guess we're free to depict Mohammid the same way?

130

Yes it's sour grapes but it's sour grapes because how the primary went. She was pissed off about this Tea Party group from outside the state coming in. She knows damn well they helped defeat her so this is her way a striking back.

 

Hmmm, I don't recall you being upset over the donations Barack Obama received from overseas donors with fishy names when he ran for president. 

131

147 Lawyers making shit up.

It's what we do!  It's all that we do!!

132 In any case, ya'll are missing my first part of this. Currently 80% of ALL senate race contributions come from out of State.

One can not bitch about your opponents use of out of State money while sucking it in yourself right and left.

133 Gee low and slow said the tea party express LIED about Mooky and then when it was pointed out that he was bashing the tea party he acted like he didn't. Curious.

134

Hmmm, I don't recall you being upset over the donations Barack Obama received from overseas donors with fishy names when he ran for president. 

Posted by: runningrn at October 05, 2010 11:10 AM (8GYOu)

Hey! Those donations were completely legit as far as anyone knows.

135 Vic:  Just out of curiosity, you're saying you'd disband the NRSC, NRCC, etc?

Posted by: MWR at October 05, 2010 11:09 AM (4df7R)

LOL, if I had my "wish list" I would disband ALL political Parties.

136

 Think about it seriously Vic.

I, living in one state, would not be permitted to donate to a candidate living in another state.

'Kay.

But ..... I can run an issues ad right? Promote my public awareness campaign?

I cannot give cash to the senate candidate for some ridiculous reason but I can run my own pro-life ad right? And if he's the only pro-life candidate, this won't benefit him or influence the election will it?

So... oh what, I cannot run a pro-life ad in another state's media market????

If I can, now you've done NOTHING. You've just made everyone coy and created barriers against nothing, except for barriers against transparency and candor.

What about oil company ads pushing their 'green' energy development? How is it NBC can push Earth Week crap down my throat.... that isn't possibly political?

Al Gore's Inconvienent Truth, that The Day After Tommorow stuff, shall be labeled "Not for showing outside California during an election season"?

When? "In an campaign season"? That's more than half the time.

And what about national organizations? Where is the NRA allowed to use it's money? The Club for Growth? The NRSC? GM? BP? GE?

Also, is the President allowed to campaign for party members or is that an 'in-kind' contribution?

137 uh, I'm not going into *BONG*.

Posted by: Mallamutt

 

Puny, timid mortal. You and your megafonts are no match for *BONG*.

138 137 Now, if you capped participation by out-of-state groups, but allowed unlimited donations from in-state constituents you might well create senators who were more attuned to in-state interests.
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at October 05, 2010 11:03 AM (PLvLS)

Nothing would prevent an out-of-state (or out-of-district) group from setting up an office / subsidiary within the state or district and picking up right where they left off. "Hey, we're one of you, too!"

139

McCain-Feingold was a POS incumbency protection racket that discriminated against smaller candidates. 

Yes, that too. And also an absurd and counter-productive (and unconstitutional) limitation on free speech, that sought to ostensibly take money out of elections but ended up driving even more in.

Since you couldn't give to the candidate directly, you just ran an ad that inadvertantly favored him with a 501.

Consequently you had all sorts of money pouring in with all different actors and no real accountability on the mud-slinger factor. All other issues (like constitutionality, incumbant protection) aside, it actually made substantially worse all the things it ostensibly was supposed to alleviate.

Physician heal thyself.

How the hell does that apply to me? I'm not advocating any of these things. I hate McCain-Feingold and you're falling into the same trap the conservatives who supported that did.

At least Fred Thompson learned his lesson.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

140 As long as "The People" have a say in the members of "The States' House" Senators will be National figures.  The Founders basically saw the Senate as a group of Ambassadors from the States- selected by the State legislatures.

The House was supposed to be "The People's House" and its members were always elected "democratically."

Any nonsense talk about capping campaign contributions, or prohibiting them, is useless.  As several posters here have mentioned, you're either infringing on someone's 1st Amendment rights, or there are so many loopholes that all the law does is make more money for lawyers.

You want out-of-State funding out of Senate elections?  Repeal the 17th Amendment.  If you're not willing to fight for that, you're not willing to fight for the one thing that would actually lead to the objective you want.

141

Nothing would prevent an out-of-state (or out-of-district) group from setting up an office / subsidiary within the state or district and picking up right where they left off. "Hey, we're one of you, too!"

Yet one more example of what will happen.

People are dynamic. They will adapt their behavior to a changing legal environment and continue with whatever you were trying to stop, even if you were trying to stop it for everyone's own ultimate good in your opinion.

You can't 'compensate' for privledge with laws, all you do is change the composition of the privledged group who ends up benefiting and getting away with everything.

Under Vic's scheme, you can run whatever ad you want wherever you want, so long as you have enough money to rent 50 PO boxes and set up 50 front groups. But if you're a regular shmuck, you're shit outta luck.

There are only 2 options when this happens. You admit that there are natural limitations on what powers the state has, the law is toothless and that it has done nothing except drive everything into an opaque, byzantine legal underground.

OR, you get increasingly tyrannical to try and force the matter and correct the behavior.

The only fair environment is a free environment.

142 "Oh, and some stricter sore loser laws might help as well."


No.

Hell no.

I don't care how many of these pathetic sore losers we have to put up with, I cannot even begin to support the idea that someone cannot run for office just because they were ousted by their own party in a primary. Enacting these kinds of laws would just be a gift to the Left (who would have been able to prevent Lieberman from keeping his office and replaced him with a hard leftist), and it would continue to erode the freedoms we are fighting so hard to protect.

143

What happens if Ace starts writing posts about Joe Miller?

In case you have not noticed, Ace is an out-of-state interest.

Shall the FCC fine his blog? Or just have a firewall block his sight from Alaskan IP's?

Or are bloggers for some special reason immune from these laws and somehow distinct from TV and dead-tree print when it comes to political speech?

144

I can't believe I read all the comments and no one mentioned Slu's one major error.

With regard to the charming dictatorial couple of Argentina, Juan and Eva, IT'S NOT SPELLED "PARONE", IT'S SPELLED "PERON".

My pedantry is now appeased.

 

145 With regard to the charming dictatorial couple of Argentina, Juan and Eva, IT'S NOT SPELLED "PARONE", IT'S SPELLED "PERON".

Fixed. Gads that's embarrassing.

146 Whenever the reaction to someone who cheats by violating or circumventing the law starts, 'There ought to be a law...' I have to stifle the instinct to grab the speaker by the lapels, shake them up, slap them soundly, and yell, "They ignored the OLD laws!  What in hell makes you think NEW ones will do any good?!?"

Solid instinct.  Logical follow-through needs work.

147 As for groups moving into a State and setting up a local office to "continue" where they left off, I would have no problem with that, as long as all their funds came from in-state. Anything else would be a sham money laundering scheme.

On the "issue advocacy ads" my main problem with those is how the rules were tailored to favor liberal groups as opposed to conservative groups. Also how movies like "inconventient truth", "Day After Tomorrow" and anything by that fat slob communist didn't count. The other thing that bothers me is the MFM. Hell every news article they write should be considered an in-kind contribution.

So, on that front I would allow open season anything goes unless a candidate by name or Party was mentioned. In addition, in order to get rid of the BS with the MFM I would restore the laws we had in place that forbid any person or organization from owning a significant portion of the media in any State. Currently 3 major companies own ALL of the news media in SC from small town papers to major TV news organizations. (and they are all PR organs for the Democrap Party).

On repeal of the 17th I don't think advocates of that will get what they desire. For example here in SC if we went back to the old way instead of having Jim Demint and asshole Graham, we would have two asshole Grahams if the State Legislature appointed them.

148 She's shocked, shocked that Miller is getting money from outside Alaska (she pockets money given to her from lobbyist)

149 I still want to know where the Tea Party lied, or stretched the truth, re. Mancowfleas. I just don't see it.

150

So, you'll fix it with more skillfull regulation.

Sure you will.

You're not learning the lesson Vic. I know you're capable of it, but you've a vested interest in tilting this windmill and making it work, and you're throwing good neurons after bad.

It won't work the way you want it to work, not even if you yourself were in charge of it. It will make things worse for you and everyone, and if you kept trying all you'd do is trample everyone's rights in the process.

Praytell, HOW shall you catch up these sham money-launderers, without ensaring all manner of innocent others?

And your "problem" with McCain-Feingold is JUST that it let's liberal issues fly? You want to see "The Day After Tommorow" banned from 49 states? Seriously? You want to ban movies based on ideological content in the name of purifying the locality of the political process?

What the bloody hell is the point of a scheme that allows everyone to continue to support candidates, but simply makes them do so with a 'wink-wink-nudge-nudge'? Do you just hate candor?

It is a thought experiment. Write down what regulations you would right. THEN, ask yourself how you would get around them, if you had to. And if you're not too crafty and circumventing your own safeguards, ask others for help and see what they'd do. Then, write down more regulations you could pass to close the gaps. THEN, repeat. And repeat. And repeat.

Then take a damn good look at where you've gone, for this to be at all effective, and ask yourself if you really support that.

What you've got is a utopian goal that will never happen, the only question is how many eggs you think it's worth breaking in pursuit of getting others to behave the way you think they ought.

151 And your "problem" with McCain-Feingold is JUST that it let's liberal issues fly? You want to see "The Day After Tommorow" banned from 49 states? Seriously? You want to ban movies based on ideological content in the name of purifying the locality of the political process?

Go back an read it this time.

152

Ditto, dude. I wrote more than that.

153

Let me try to cut a bit of text here and ease your eyes.

So, on that front I would allow open season anything goes unless a candidate by name or Party was mentioned.

What the bloody hell is the point of a scheme that allows everyone to continue to support candidates, but simply makes them do so with a 'wink-wink-nudge-nudge'? Do you just hate candor?

154 How about a Slu-shop that turns Murcowskeee into Gollum?

155 It is because it would be nearly impossible to write a regulation that would ban "issue advocacy ads" unless you simply banned everything.

So if some pro-abortion group want free access to abortions they can write all the ads they like about "pro-abortions", but by the same token, the anti-abortion groups can write all the ads they want calling it murder.

The minute one of them using out of State funds mentions a name or a Party they would be in violation.

Look, no law is ever perfect, but what we have now is a fkn abomination. The incumbents still get reelected 95% of the time and the political parties own the Candidates, not the people.

The overall idea is to return more power to the States, take it away from the national groups and the Parties.

156 OMG, I looked that the picture and what I saw was the wicked witch from sleeping beauty.  She has the face, those cheek bones are perfect.  so, we've found her a job post election, she can work at disney and dress up as the wicked witch from sleeping beauty.

157 Rush is saying he thought the dark background in the O'Donnell commercial is a mistake and he's saying "alright I might be wrong this time but I"m never wrong"

158

Good grief, were did I ever say I was upset about it, Murkowski is.

Well, in your original post you claimed the Tea party group in questioned lied in it's ads against her, as of yet I would note you still have not posted any corroboration for that claim.

Also in a follow up posting you said the following:

Why don't some of you people have the guts to address what I wrote?

Not exactly a call for reasonable discussion, and certainly not giving you the "victim" status to which you now apparently aspire.  You were the one that opened the ball on all of this with your own snark. 

Now if you prefer a reasoned discussion I'm all for it, first I would ask for a second time that you prove your original premise that the tea party group you mentioned did indeed run ads that lied about Murky or her record.

Once that is accomplished we can perhaps provide better analysis and discussion.  Until then, if you don't like people responding with snark then don't post it yourself and maybe you'll get a better result.

159 How about a Slu-shop that turns Murcowskeee into Gollum?

I would never, never stoop that low! How dare you, sir!

_Ahem.

160 That is a creepy report i'm hearing about whether or not israel is responsible for that stuxtet virus since they recently started a unit for stuff like this.  It isn't a report really or a commercial it's one of those CNET rants they all love to put on.  I'm hearing it on the big talker iin philly

161 The very first caller on Rush is yelling at him for saying something negative about Christine O'donnell.....and she's right.

162

How about a Slu-shop that turns Murcowskeee into Gollum?

Strange, I thought it was spelled Mirklopscee...

Or maybe it was Murquoscee

Man, that's going to be one brutal write in campaign.  I bet Khadafi even gets a vote.  Or was that Quadafi?

163

OMG, I looked that the picture and what I saw was the wicked witch from sleeping beauty.  She has the face, those cheek bones are perfect.  so, we've found her a job post election, she can work at disney and dress up as the wicked witch from sleeping beauty.

And what's Nancy supposed to do for work after the election?

164

It is because it would be nearly impossible to write a regulation that would ban "issue advocacy ads" unless you simply banned everything.

Yes, this is correct. This is half my point. You're entirely right.

But it does not answer the question.

What the bloody hell is the point of a scheme that allows everyone to continue to support candidates, but simply makes them do so with a 'wink-wink-nudge-nudge'? Do you just hate candor?

You cannot ban issue advocacy ads because you simply cannot. You'd have to ban everything.

With that knowledge in mind, what then is the point of banning campaign endorsements while allowing issue advocacy that inevitably advocates candidates' campaigns anyway?

What does this exactly accomplish?

Apart from obviously, itself. You cannot name the politician everyone knows you support because you cannot name the politician everyone knows you support.

Why should we not be able to speak their names? What does it accomplish?

Do you just like byzantine legal complexity, for it's own sake?

You cannot say "it will get out of state influences out of local elections" because it clearly WILL NOT. They'll all be running ads advocating for the specific issues their preferred candidate has chosen to emphasize and run on which will have the same net effect.

It is, just like McCain-Feingold, hillariously counter-productive to it's own stated goals. A complete fiasco.

Do you know what effect you are now painting? Groups like the NRSC, or the NRA cannot give the money to the local candidate to run in his local election on his local issues. What they CAN do, is run independant ads about national issues. All the money is still there. But now an even greater portion of the money spent in a given election cycle is spent on ads put out by out-of-state agents directly, regarding national issues, and even less (none?) is spent by local agents that got donations from out of state. You've made the media environment for the election even less local.

Out of state people have money to give. Period. They care about the outcome. They will give it. But now, to an even greater extent, instead of giving it to people in the state - that will not be allowed - you're regulating that they must give this money to national advocate groups who will spend it themselves, the exact opposite of the effect you claim to want.

You're driving ad money into out-of-state hands and increasing their importance in an election cycle.

Look at AK, it's a great example, not a populous state with a lot of local money.

You're telling me, for the sake of making politics more local, you want to tell Americans they cannot give money to Joe Miller, and they cannot buy ads promiting Joe Miller, they cannot give money to the AKGOP or the AK Tea Party, but they CAN give money to the Tea Party Express in CA, and run ads in AK about how nameless incumbant senators have racked up uncontrollable debt? This is making things more local?

165 O/T:  Rush just referenced this article.  I feel justified that I didn't wast my time.  Like Spitzer, between her and lynn white on batchelor the other night, I don't want to listen to liberal blond ditzes that try to ruin perfectly good television. 

166 I'm still waiting for any of those alleged "lies" and/or "misrepresentations" that keep being mentioned as being made by these "out-of-state interests".

Lowandslow has alleged this several times, and after having his arguments shredded, and even after he admitted that Murksuckskee is both playing petty revenge games AND trying to keep the seat she never earned - and was fired from by her bosses - he has not bothered to provide so much as a single link of any alleged lie that has been issued, never mind any evidence that it is, in fact a lie.

I'm sure, that as a concerned christian conservative seeking the best candidate for his representatives, will get right on this for us, rather than making the allegation and then pretending that it was someone else...

167

No law is ever perfect, but a law should not be passed if it's only effect is it's potential to do the exact opposite of what it was supposed to. Just because none are perfect doesn't mean none are terrible.

Just because what we have now is an unacceptable abomination doesn't mean that just anything is better.

168 Posted by: StuckOnStupid at October 05, 2010 12:53 PM (e8T35)

well, look leeza can play the queen link

and nancy can play the witch link

even found harry a job link

but this is so leeza  link

169 So wait a minute...we're supposed to believe that even though the people of Alaska have spoken, they're so stupid they didn't realize they were being manipulated by people from California, so because of that stupidity, their decision should be ignored.  If I was an Alaskan, this would make me even angrier.

170 Lisa's new profession:  Mallcopski.

171 Devil's Advocate:

A couple of years ago another Senator lost his party's primary.  He decided to run again anyway as an Independent.  The Right Blogosphere cheered him.  He won.  How is this different than Senator Lieberman?

Note: I don't live in Alaska and am not a particular supporter of Murkluski.

172

Devil's Advocate:

Don't think Gloria Allred will be too happy when she finds out your stealing her clients.

 

173

Note: I don't live in Alaska and am not a particular supporter of Murkluski.

Isn't that spelled Mirclopskee?

174

well, look leeza can play the queen

and nancy can play the witch

even found harry a job

but this is so leeza

That's a lot of link work for a disney gag.  I tip my hat

175 Regulation or not, until the size and scope of the Federal Government is pared down to somewhere reasonably close to that of its actual charter, EVERY election to a federal office is a national election.

176 "The people have spoken, the bastards"

177 Devil's Advocate:

A couple of years ago another Senator lost his party's primary.  He decided to run again anyway as an Independent.  The Right Blogosphere cheered him.  He won.  How is this different than Senator Lieberman?

Note: I don't live in Alaska and am not a particular supporter of Murkluski.

Posted by: hadsil at October 05, 2010 01:27 PM (VBH8s)

That's a good question imo but it was a case in Connecticut where the difference between Lieberman and Neddy LaMont was on a single issue, the war on terror.  Other than that they were both libs but the Kosshits liked Neddy because he was anti-war.  With Murdooski she is very different as far as not being a conservative at all which Miller is.  She is a scrunt with a rancid cooter though.

178 Why is Lisa Peronski covered with giant black spiders?

Okay, that question may be a bit pointed. "For what purpose" is Lisa Peronski covered with giant black spiders?

179 All NFL Jerseys on our store at cheap prices-We also can say CHEAP NFL JERSEYS.The good place for you to choose