September 22, 2010
— Ace Russ was wondering about this -- what if you push her too far and she starts voting with the Democrats in the Lame Duck session?
Yeah, I guess that's what they thought. Still sucks.
Thanks to Melissa Tweets.
Posted by: Ace at
11:06 AM
| Comments (135)
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at September 22, 2010 11:09 AM (9Cooa)
Posted by: Oldcat at September 22, 2010 11:10 AM (z1N6a)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at September 22, 2010 11:10 AM (9Cooa)
Posted by: billygoat at September 22, 2010 11:11 AM (5qJM5)
Posted by: DrewM. at September 22, 2010 11:11 AM (U1NcL)
Russ was wondering about this -- what if you push her too far and she starts voting with the Democrats in the Lame Duck session?
Yeah, I guess that's what they thought. Still sucks.
Thanks to Melissa Tweets.
Posted by: Ace at 03:06 PM
Be pragmatic Ace, not so maximalist.
With current polls, the risk of Miller losing his race is very low.
The risk of getting spite votes in lame duck that make things like amnesty possible is much higher;
Objective risk management would dictate in this case that you mitigate the risk of spite votes by not throwing her to the curb as a matter of political practicality.
Prior to seeing the polls, I would have said, kick her to the curb; now that I've seen them, not pissing her off is the more prudent approach.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at September 22, 2010 11:13 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at September 22, 2010 03:08 PM (7rfUg)
Not much, I don't think. He was interviewed by Hugh Hewitt (yesterday?) and he commented (if I recall) that he was way behind Veruca Salt in fundraising. He mentioned something about $"160,000".
She has way more than $1M to spend.
Posted by: aquaviva at September 22, 2010 11:13 AM (TRx/d)
They know that if she loses, she's gonna start voting with the Donks in the lame-duck session ANYWAY.
IDK what the Senate schedule is like, but the House is going into recess next week. If the Senate is similar, then they've let her stay on in exchange for 10 days of loyalty.
Posted by: The Q at September 22, 2010 11:13 AM (pfStM)
Posted by: Dr Spank at September 22, 2010 11:13 AM (xtAfO)
The only way she loses anything is if she loses the race.
Posted by: Rocks at September 22, 2010 11:14 AM (Q1lie)
Um, wasn't she shown the door because she's already inclined to vote with the D's when they need her? And how does the GOP kissing her sorry butt now change the largely inevitable outcome that she will be rejected (again) by Alaska voters in November? I don't see the upside,
Posted by: Methos at September 22, 2010 11:15 AM (EQa35)
Dats sum big tent, dat is....
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at September 22, 2010 11:15 AM (OIw0R)
Hopefully if they can't see the pragmatic nature of the decision, they just take it as the establishment giving them the fat finger and vote Miller in droves as a result.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at September 22, 2010 11:16 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo ( NJConservative) at September 22, 2010 11:16 AM (LH6ir)
I'm a "pragmatist" but based what was likely to come up for a vote and the fact that she is harder to get rid of than an undead, I would rather she voted with the Democrats so she can never run as a conservative again.
The GOP leadership needs to develop some spine.
Posted by: Y-not at September 22, 2010 11:18 AM (osFsP)
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at September 22, 2010 11:18 AM (RkRxq)
Posted by: EmilyM. at September 22, 2010 11:18 AM (jVGvd)
Posted by: Truman North at September 22, 2010 11:18 AM (G5JPI)
This reminds me of why I love the Republican Party so much.
Let's say you kick her out, why would she vote Democratic party line knowing it would put a final nail in any chance she had to win the write in campaign.
Alaska isnt Pennsylvania. This isn't like Specter switiching and hoping to out lefty the left wing. She has to run as a moderate, and voting for democratic policies won't help her.
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2010 11:18 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at September 22, 2010 11:19 AM (7rfUg)
As far as I know she didn't vote for Stimulus, and didn't vote for Obamacare, and wouldn't vote for Cap and Trade, so while "imperfect" she makes the minimum grade.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at September 22, 2010 11:19 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: conscious, but incoherent at September 22, 2010 11:21 AM (YVZlY)
Here's a two things to think about that you obviously haven't given thought too.
1. Lame duck session AFTER she loses the general, AFTER the Democrats have been punished but are still in power.
2. Woman scorned....
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at September 22, 2010 11:21 AM (0q2P7)
I just read the CNN article.
Someone f'cking explain this to me.
We already know the lame duck session isn't going to be a Dem grab bag because there are 4 senate seats that will seat the new senators immediately, and we are going to win at least 1 of them.
At best this is the GOP hedging their bets. At worst, and what I suspect, this is the GOP helping Murkowski win a write in campaign
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2010 11:21 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: EmilyM. at September 22, 2010 03:18 PM (jVGvd)
In case you have noticed no R senator has been in charge of anything important for awhile.
Posted by: Rocks at September 22, 2010 11:22 AM (Q1lie)
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at September 22, 2010 11:22 AM (JxMoP)
Proof? Daavid Gregory and Politico are expecting this to cause disruption in the GOP with lots of PO'd tea party people. I would suggest ignoring this. It's no big deal and it is obvious to me that the press wants us to get all angry and stuff and strip her of everything, so that people will feel sorry for her.
Posted by: Miss Marple at September 22, 2010 11:22 AM (bixjr)
Posted by: Dr Spank at September 22, 2010 11:22 AM (xtAfO)
The risk of getting spite votes in lame duck that make things like amnesty possible is much higher;
Objective risk management would dictate in this case that you mitigate the risk of spite votes by not throwing her to the curb as a matter of political practicality.
Bingo. No room for error here. We can't afford to act emotionally with this scrunt.
Plus, it's a stick. If she steps one toe out of line, they can pull it.
Posted by: AmishDude at September 22, 2010 11:23 AM (3wPsb)
11 Not much, I don't think. He was interviewed by Hugh Hewitt (yesterday?) and he commented (if I recall) that he was way behind Veruca Salt in fundraising. He mentioned something about $"160,000".
Those who are so inclined need to start sending money to Miller. As for the Princess, remember who's the current minority leader. Perhaps they also figured they didn't want her running around and whining and moaning so close to the election. Of course, a real leader would have tried to silence that, but McConnell is not the aforementioned.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at September 22, 2010 11:23 AM (Yq+qN)
Posted by: Mitch McConnell at September 22, 2010 11:23 AM (osFsP)
Posted by: Fritz at September 22, 2010 11:24 AM (GwPRU)
what if you push her too far and she starts voting with the Democrats in the Lame Duck session?
If she's such a reliable Republican voter, how did she get beat in the first place?
Posted by: maddogg at September 22, 2010 11:24 AM (OlN4e)
Push her too far? Vote with the Dems.
We cannot be allowed to be held hostage like this.
btw, a Democrat would not *dream* of doing this to the Democrats. We have a serious problem in leadership in the Senate.
Posted by: the serious comic at September 22, 2010 11:24 AM (uFokq)
This is what she is going to campaign on. That she can bring back the pork because of her position, that the republicans are letter her keep.
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2010 11:24 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at September 22, 2010 11:25 AM (xy9wk)
Posted by: The GOP Leadership at September 22, 2010 11:25 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Mitch McConnell at September 22, 2010 11:25 AM (osFsP)
In case you have noticed no R senator has been in charge of anything important for awhile.
Posted by: Rocks at September 22, 2010 03:22 PM (Q1lie)
No one likes a nit-picker.
Posted by: EmilyM. at September 22, 2010 11:26 AM (jVGvd)
what if you push her too far and she starts voting with the Democrats in the Lame Duck session?
Again, I was under the impression that at least four of the Senate seats up for grabs in november automatically seat the winner the next day.
So if we win 1 of those seats, that gives us 42 senators. That way if Kapowski defects, we still have 41 seats to filabuster a lame duck session.
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2010 11:27 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2010 11:28 AM (wuv1c)
What is the odds that she is going to fuck them in the lame duck session anyway if she loses?
She has already proven she is a damn sore loser so the odds are good she will fuck them.
Let's just pray that this isn't used by the assholes who support her in AK as ammunition for "keeping" her seat because AK considers this to be very important position for AK.
The AK liberal rag we are always linking to was eat up with this shit this morning.
Glory be to the Republican leadership. Never pass up a chance to throw away victory in hopes of being a permanent loser.
Posted by: Vic at September 22, 2010 11:28 AM (/jbAw)
Posted by: maddogg at September 22, 2010 11:28 AM (OlN4e)
----
This.
I hate to say it (because it's an oxymoron), but the GOP leadership is over-thinking this one.
Posted by: Mitch McConnell at September 22, 2010 11:29 AM (osFsP)
Oh and who is Mike Castle attacking after his loss now? Democrats?
Of course not, Sean Hannity.
Look Castle, I agree Hannity is a douchebag, but at least he knows which direction he is supposed to fire in. Too bad the same can't be said for you.
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2010 11:29 AM (wuv1c)
This represents EVERYTHING that's wrong with the GOP "establishment". Collectively, they can't scrounge up the BALLS to do what is right – strip this POS of every single position/committee membership she possesses.
I am NOT impressed with the "argument" she's likely to lose those positions anyway. You lousy GOP leadership turds in Washington! Next round is 2012. Next round we're coming after you
Posted by: alwyr at September 22, 2010 11:29 AM (w2++y)
In a normal year, probably it would be fine for Congress to take extended leaves. However, it needs to be shouted from the rooftops that they're going on break again without a fucking budget.
Yes, that constitutionally required thing.
Posted by: Garbonzo the Garrulous at September 22, 2010 11:29 AM (23kaI)
Snowe has already bad mouthed conservative extremism. How long before she starts building capital with her party to be? She voted for stimulus remember? And one version of Obamacare in committee; And watched Arlen go down in flames.
Collins Pretty much the same except she has until 2014 to face the music.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at September 22, 2010 11:30 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Mitch McConnell at September 22, 2010 11:30 AM (YVZlY)
The possibility of her voting with the Dems (if she keeps her position) versus the CERTAINTY of her voting with the Dems (if she loses it).
It's Delaware ALL OVER AGAIN!!! YAY!!!!
Lets have a huge pragmatist/purist rumble out back. I'm bringing my purity blessed 2x4 with nails in it.
Posted by: s'moron at September 22, 2010 11:31 AM (UaxA0)
Allahpundit also makes the great point.
If she loses November 2, isn't she going to defect to the democrats anyway?
this makes no sense, there is no way to explain this, and worse yet, the GOP doesn't even offer an explanation.
I hope Cornyn and the group get enough phone calls and decide to strip her tomorrow.
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2010 11:31 AM (wuv1c)
47 Personally, I think the GOP is passing the chicken around again. Maybe they should dump the pachyderm and start using Colonel Sanders as the GOP mascot.
It's the Senate and Mitch McConnell; what did you expect? When was the last time he took a stand for anything?
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at September 22, 2010 11:32 AM (Yq+qN)
What next? If Losah M. gets her ass handed to her again in November, will the the McConnell-led wimps let her keep her seat in the next session because the witch plays nice with them?
It's hard enough to fight the America-hating, pork-loving traitors on the left; having to deal with the gutless swine on the right makes it even uglier.
O/T: Sheppie-Poo Smith is being wonderfully relevant today. He's gushing about some fucking police chase that happened in Miami this morning, and pimping Bullshit O'Reilly's new book.
Posted by: MrScribbler at September 22, 2010 11:32 AM (Ulu3i)
Posted by: Pragmatic Republican at September 22, 2010 11:33 AM (EQa35)
Posted by: maddogg at September 22, 2010 11:33 AM (OlN4e)
No. She won't do anything. She'll skulk, probably won't even show up, but there isn't any point in her doing anything like that.
Posted by: AmishDude at September 22, 2010 11:34 AM (3wPsb)
Keep in mind Murkowski's biggest selling point in her write in campaign is that frigging position she holds. That is the entire basis for her campaign.
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2010 11:34 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Badonkeydonk at September 22, 2010 11:35 AM (YYkW9)
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 22, 2010 11:36 AM (QxSug)
If she loses November 2, isn't she going to defect to the democrats anyway?
No. She won't do anything. She'll skulk, probably won't even show up, but there isn't any point in her doing anything like that.
and if they strip her of her position, she will be motivated to do that?
At this point we are making a bet on a women who has shown she has no shame, honor or integrity. So why give her the benefit of that position.
If she is inclined to screw republicans, which it is pretty clear she is, then she will do it with or without the committee position.
Why let her stay in her pork fort?
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2010 11:36 AM (wuv1c)
I don't think any of us can say that with certainty.
If there are important votes coming up in the lame duck session and her vote is needed, won't it go to the highest bidder and isn't the highest bidder more likely to be Obama? Hell, he can give her a czar(ina) appointment and she'll be rolling in clover for a couple of years.
Posted by: Y-not at September 22, 2010 11:36 AM (osFsP)
Posted by: Blue Hen at September 22, 2010 11:37 AM (R2fpr)
Or is this how it's going to be when Lindssssey and Orrin and the Maine twins get primaried in their next cycle?
Posted by: LibertarianJim
Is this what they're trying to forestall? People keep muttering about one or both of the Maine sisters being targeted, and about when they decide to either switch or run as an Independent. Hopefully they're trying to defuse this. I hope.
Posted by: Blue Hen at September 22, 2010 11:40 AM (R2fpr)
Posted by: richard mcenroe at September 22, 2010 11:40 AM (PTZ7x)
The other senators didn't vote against her for one reason, she may win.
If she wins she will caucus with the Rs. If she does that she gets to vote on who is on every committee and who will be it's chair just like every other R. If you wanted to be one of those chairman are you going to piss off a potential vote now just to strip her of the ability to be ignored by the D's till Jan 1? No.
Posted by: Rocks at September 22, 2010 11:40 AM (Q1lie)
Posted by: Barry the Obama at September 22, 2010 11:41 AM (D18z1)
Posted by: TC at September 22, 2010 11:41 AM (BAtLQ)
In a surprise move, Senate Republicans decided not to remove Sen. Lisa Murkowski from her top position on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Wednesday, according to several Republican senators who refused to explain their decision.
She threatened to start voting with Dems, or airing dirty laundry; perhaps both.
The other option is they didn't do it because they didn't want to; not admitting why gives them cover because people will now think it's because Murky is threatening to caucus with the Democrats.
The latter had BETTER not be the explanation.
Nonetheless, do people now understand WHY the less moderate amongst us are freaked out about 'moderates' like Snowe, Collins, McCain, Graham, etc? They have no principle at all, and will do whatever it takes to try and hang onto power. They simply cannot be trusted.
Posted by: blindside at September 22, 2010 11:41 AM (x7g7t)
Russ was wondering about this -- what if you push her too far and she starts voting with the Democrats in the Lame Duck session?
So what?
I bet you $50 she does it anyway.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at September 22, 2010 11:41 AM (ZJ/un)
Posted by: Joe Lieberman at September 22, 2010 11:42 AM (pfStM)
This, dear Lacey, is why all 535 members of Congress need to be thrown out of office without delay.
We are in a war we're losing, the economy is dying, our freedoms are being eroded daily, and all the self-absorbed pashas in D.C. can think of is entertaining themselves.
I have no respect for these arrogant quasi-humans. The few that aren't quite in a position to deserve trials and imprisonment are fit only to stand in unemployment lines.
Our "royalty" must go. Every last fucking worthless leech of them.
Posted by: MrScribbler at September 22, 2010 11:43 AM (Ulu3i)
Posted by: Chris R at September 22, 2010 11:45 AM (AO4qz)
Also, she's lost. She's toast. 27% and falling fast. I agree that the GOP needs to whip their members into line, but I can't help thinking that there are a lot more personalities involved here and this is not the hill you want to die on.
Posted by: AmishDude at September 22, 2010 11:47 AM (3wPsb)
The only way to make sure Mukalopski doesn't screw us is to send her money. Be a realist and contribute to her campaign to insure she doesn't stab us in the back 15 more times before she heads off to scrunt heaven. That's the real realist dealing with the real world in real time really well thought out real strategy. Do it for the children.
Posted by: Searedsucker suit at September 22, 2010 11:49 AM (rMMMP)
Allahpundit also makes the great point. If she loses November 2, isn't she going to defect to the democrats anyway?
The GOP who are playing nice, might get her to "stay GOP" since the voters, not the party, rejected her. Throw a little cue that her voting record was the problem, too liberal, and she had the Lame Duck to fix it, and float a totally empty promise to support her in a bid for Governor of Alaska, something she would totally bite into for her hate of Palin, as incentive to keep that critical ending voting record conservative. Then, when the gavel falls, they say "was it good for you" and pretend thereafter like they've never seen her before in their lives.
It's like you guys never played politics or something. Miller looks to win handily; so in lame duck promise her future support you'll never give, and you've already *proven* you will because you didn't kick her off committee.
Calculated, to get her vote for two months. A useless chair position and an empty promise.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at September 22, 2010 11:49 AM (0q2P7)
Maybe not just her. I could see Snowe pitching a snit fit over this.
Posted by: AmishDude at September 22, 2010 11:50 AM (3wPsb)
Posted by: DocJ at September 22, 2010 11:50 AM (dt6br)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at September 22, 2010 03:33 PM (pLTLS)
Pathetic. No wonder we all think they are a joke.
Posted by: jewells at September 22, 2010 11:50 AM (l/N7H)
Posted by: Dede Scozafava (I lost and now I'm horny) at September 22, 2010 11:54 AM (D18z1)
And the only way to ensure you don't die in an automobile is to never get in one, but that doesn't stop you from putting on your seatbelt does it Mr. Hyperbolic? Reasonable steps can be taken to mitigate that risk without putting the election results in real jeopardy.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at September 22, 2010 11:54 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Reiver at September 22, 2010 11:54 AM (4GKna)
Mike,
If this is the scenario, then isn't Lisa smart enough to know that?
The only one who can really give her anything of value right now is President Obama. She'd be stupid not to take his phone calls.
Posted by: Y-not at September 22, 2010 11:56 AM (osFsP)
_________________________
With apologies to the late great Ogdred Weary:
Oh what has become of Lisa Murkowski?
Is there any hope her campaign's alive?
Why haven't they found her, it's rather ghastly
To think she was acting like a child of five
The dear little thing was last seeing playing
Alone by herself at the edge of a park;
There was no one with her to keep her from straying
Away in the shadows of oncoming dark
Before she could do so a silent and glittering
Motor drew up where she sat nibbling grass;
From within came a nearly inaudible twittering
A tiny green face peered out of the glass
She was ready to flee when the figure beckoned--
An arm with two elbows held out a tin
Full of uncounted votes; she paused, a second
Reached out as she took one, and lifted her in...
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at September 22, 2010 12:01 PM (eNxMU)
Posted by: ak pud at September 22, 2010 12:05 PM (ZrS0c)
And expect tomorrow's "Contract 2.0" to be a big bag of fucking epic fail too.
Posted by: someone at September 22, 2010 12:07 PM (DfAwB)
Posted by: dr. lizardo at September 22, 2010 12:13 PM (bz+co)
Reasonable steps can be taken to mitigate that risk without putting the election results in real jeopardy.
I think we are talking about two different things, here. Rewarding the behavior of someone actively working against the chosen party nominee (even symbolically) weakens the party leadership. It sends the message that if you run against an incumbent in a primary and they go rogue after losing, leadership will not be in your corner, but watching, neutral, from afar. That should encourage good candidates in the future?
How is hedging with Mudhoney not putting election results in jeopardy? She's not the candidate of the party. She dilutes the vote.
Crossing your fingers and hoping she votes with you as a lame duck if you support her now is part of the problem, not a solution. If she has no principles, like Arlen, it is a wasted exercise.
Posted by: Atomic Roach at September 22, 2010 12:14 PM (rMMMP)
Lisa Murkowski: No.
Mitch McConnell: Ah. Yeah. So, I guess we should probably go ahead and have a little talk. Hmm?
Lisa Murkowski: Not right now, McConnell, I'm kinda busy. In fact, look, I'm gonna have to ask you to just go ahead and come back another time. I got a meeting with The Messiah (PBUH) in a couple of minutes.
Mitch McConnell: I wasn't aware of a meeting with Him (PBUH).
Lisa Murkowski: Yeah, He (PBUH) called me at home.
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at September 22, 2010 12:21 PM (xy9wk)
Posted by: Cat Filters at September 22, 2010 12:21 PM (cX9pO)
Posted by: schizoid at September 22, 2010 12:25 PM (CC/K4)
Leave her be and let the process work. Remember, Miller is running on an outsider platform. If the leadership goes too heavily on her, she will start claiming to be running as anti-establishment and may fool enough people to her side and cost Miller. Right now she seems to be losing so just let her lose and keep supporting Miller. Worry less about McConnell and more about getting rid of the Dems that we can. Besides, Mitch ain't had a lot to work with lately.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with you. The GOP needs to send a clear message of who they will support, and the bulk of her campaign is based on how much pork she can bring back to the state based on her seniority status. If that is taken away, then her platform is taken away for running the write-in campaign. By not taking a side, the GOP appears wishy-washy at best and is encouraging future behavior from RINO's who act the same as Sen. Murkowski.
Posted by: ak pud at September 22, 2010 12:32 PM (ZrS0c)
Forget all that strategy, folks, Sen. Hatch says it's simply a matter of "good taste."
Un-friggin-believable.
Posted by: Y-not at September 22, 2010 12:35 PM (osFsP)
Posted by: Y-not at September 22, 2010 12:36 PM (osFsP)
State law says votes shall only be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate, and if the name is written as it appears on the write-in candidate's declaration of candidacy -- or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.
On the form declaring her write-in candidacy, Murkowski will have to write in the name she wants voters to use on the ballot. Her campaign is exploring whether or not she could use “Lisa M” or something easier for voters to remember. She has until five days before Nov. 2 general election to file the form.
According to the ktuu.com website, this is what Murkowski can do for her write-in campaign. Also, I cannot find it, but one official has stated they will interpret the state laws liberally, so this could be interesting.
Posted by: ak pud at September 22, 2010 12:42 PM (ZrS0c)
Thanks for digging that up.
Gawd, this is going to be messy, but I sure am glad that we're being polite to her. That'll help a lot on election day.
Posted by: Y-not at September 22, 2010 12:44 PM (osFsP)
In that case, isn't there someone else that can sign on to the ballot with just a slight variation? Like, say, 'Lisa Mi'? I, frankly, don't mind confusing those voters.
Posted by: jmflynny at September 22, 2010 12:47 PM (QR5c+)
Posted by: ak pud at September 22, 2010 12:47 PM (ZrS0c)
Next target.....
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at September 22, 2010 12:47 PM (OIw0R)
Posted by: DngrMse at September 22, 2010 12:49 PM (2H8W8)
Posted by: bigred at September 22, 2010 12:50 PM (cX9pO)
123...
I'm still trying to interpret the law up here for write-in votes, but from what I'm gathering, they will give the benefit of the doubt to Murkowski on the write-in votes. I still don't think that will have much bearing on the outcome. Miller will win. But it would have been nice if the GOP leadership had followed through and stripped Murkowski of her seniority since that is the main platform of her write in campaign.
Posted by: ak pud at September 22, 2010 12:51 PM (ZrS0c)
This is yet another reason I'm almost 'meh' about R's taking the Senate. Remember when Bunning tried making a stand against unemployment extension by trying to make the Dems live by the Paygo law the grinning idiot Ø just signed into law? Instead of the R's standing beside him, they ran. Well here we are with a RINO that has lost her fucking election being allowed some sort of courtesy even though she is making OUR PARTY spend even more money (on top of the money she already received from OUR PARTY) trying to keep her seat from being taken because she is a power lusting bint. You know, maybe if they didnt already announce they were gonna do it, I'd be all for her just staying, but dont come out the next goddam day and reverse yourself. Look like idiots and pussies.
Posted by: Schwalbe at September 22, 2010 12:57 PM (UU0OF)
bigred,
I'm pulling for Johnson to wipe the floor with Feingold in November!! I understand your point, and I personally think that 27% is as high as she will ever go, plus it looks like she is pulling more votes from the Democrats than Republicans. I guess we'll see how this plays out with her being allowed to keep her seniority, though I'm really not in favor of it.
Posted by: ak pud at September 22, 2010 12:58 PM (ZrS0c)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 22, 2010 12:58 PM (plsiE)
Calculated, to get her vote for two months. A useless chair position and an empty promise.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at September 22, 2010 03:49 PM (0q2P7)
It makes sense to keep Lousa Musclejawski on the R side for the next couple of weeks. The whole bring pork to Alaska schtick didn't work for the primary, why would it carry her in the actual election?
Posted by: Museisluse at September 22, 2010 01:00 PM (DTfXb)
NRO
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at September 22, 2010 01:04 PM (OIw0R)
Museisluse,
That's a good question. The primaries are closed here in Alaska, so if you are not a registered Republican, Independent, or Undecided, you cannot vote in the Republican Primary here. I think Murkowski is going for the Union and Native vote with this write-in campaign, which would tend to be democratic, and hoping enough of the people that supported her in the primary vote for her in the general. I think that is her strategy.
Posted by: ak pud at September 22, 2010 01:06 PM (ZrS0c)
Posted by: bigred at September 22, 2010 01:09 PM (cX9pO)
bigred,
Sorry to hear about your layoff. This is just frustrating because she is as arrogant as her father is. For some reason they think the state of Alaska cannot survive if we do not have a MurCOWski in office. And some dumb bozos up here actually support her, instead of respecting the will of the voters. It's not our fault her supporters didn't bother to show up for the primaries.
Posted by: ak pud at September 22, 2010 01:14 PM (ZrS0c)
Posted by: Drider at September 22, 2010 01:44 PM (wtDSn)
This is the holy rino empire lead by TheeRomney and his merry band of Beltway chevaliers. This is just the visible part. They are doing everything they can do to defeat Miller. Not because they care about Miller; but, because Miller is Palin's guy. Defeat her guy on her turf and she looks weak (hell, she is weak). Where do you think her Merkness has gotten all that money?
Sarah or no Sarah, I'm starting to long for the days when whatever happened in Alaska meant absolutely nothing to any sane person living anywhere else.
Next clown that tells me "its different in Alaska" had better start running.
“… Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.” (Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis, describing the end of the Roman republic in Satire X, A.D. 200)
Posted by: VADM (Red) Cuthbert Collingwood RN at September 22, 2010 03:00 PM (UL/HQ)
For the first time in my life, I'm proud to have Al Franken as a senator.
Posted by: snookered at September 22, 2010 03:00 PM (jchJh)
Posted by: Mike at September 23, 2010 03:51 AM (D3MNp)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2185 seconds, 263 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at September 22, 2010 11:08 AM (7rfUg)