Alaska Libertarian Party Open to Selling Out?

[brenden.b]

The title says it all. I read the following in an article from the Anchorage Daily News:



Murkowski wouldn't discuss whether she'd pursue a third-party candidacy or independent write-in candidacy to keep the seat if she loses the Republican primary. "It is way, way, way too premature to even be talking about that," she said.

If Murkowski loses the primary, there is a possibility that she might able to run on the Libertarian ticket in the November general election. But that would require the Libertarian Senate candidate, David Haase, to agree to step aside, and for the Alaska Libertarian Party to agree to put Murkowski on the ballot.

Alaska Libertarian Party chairman Scott Kohlaas said he was open to the idea and that party leaders were discussing it. "There's a chance," Kohlhaas said on Wednesday.

Haase didn't rule out the idea, saying he'd certainly listen if Murkowski wanted to step into his place.



All I can say is "wow." Would the Libertarian Party seriously consider taking on Lisa Murkowski only to gain political access? Murkowski is one of the biggest pork providers in the Senate and is no friend of the Liberty movement, so why would the chair of the Alaska Libertarian Party be even open to this sort of idea?

I smell a sell out...

[YumYum]

All I can say is "wow." Would the Libertarian Party seriously consider taking on Lisa Murkowski only to gain political access? Murkowski is one of the biggest pork providers in the Senate and is no friend of the Liberty movement, so why would the chair of the Alaska Libertarian Party be even open to this sort of idea?

I smell a sell out...

The Libertarian Party is the party of "principles first".

[FrankRep]

The Freedom Index (http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/Freedom_Index_111-3.pdf) scores Lisa Murkowski at: 80% Constitutional -- 57% Overall


Lisa Murkowski's Bad Votes:


NO (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-19) on Mexico City Policy - No foreign aid for Abortions
YES (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-31) on SCHIP - State Children’s Health Insurance Program
YES (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-115) on National-service Programs - Serve America Act
NO (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-201) on S.Amdt. 1138: To strike the provisions relating to increased funding for the International Monetary Fund.
YES (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-202) on Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009
YES (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-340) on Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations
YES (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00016) on Ben Bernanke Confirmation.
YES (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-202) on Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009
YES (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-242) on Fiscal 2010 Defense Authorization / expanded federal Hates Crimes law attached as an amendment.
YES (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-287) on Transportation-HUD Appropriations
YES (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-261) on Agriculture Appropriations
YES (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-248) on Energy-Water Appropriations
YES (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-298) on Interior-Environment Appropriations

[Slutter McGee]

The Libertarian Party needs a political win if they want to survive. It is that simple.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[klamath]

The Freedom Index (http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/Freedom_Index_111-3.pdf) scores Lisa Murkowski at: 80% Constitutional -- 57% Overall


Lisa Murkowski's Bad Votes:


NO (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-19) on Mexico City Policy - No foreign aid for Abortions
YES (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-31) on SCHIP - State Children’s Health Insurance Program
YES (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-115) on National-service Programs - Serve America Act
NO (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-201) on S.Amdt. 1138: To strike the provisions relating to increased funding for the International Monetary Fund.
YES (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-202) on Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009
YES (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-340) on Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations
YES (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00016) on Ben Bernanke Confirmation.
YES (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-202) on Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009
YES (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-242) on Fiscal 2010 Defense Authorization / expanded federal Hates Crimes law attached as an amendment.
YES (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-287) on Transportation-HUD Appropriations
YES (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-261) on Agriculture Appropriations
YES (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-248) on Energy-Water Appropriations
YES (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-298) on Interior-Environment Appropriations
Add a vote for TARP in there. The TARP votes is what kills these incumbents.

[fisharmor]

NO (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-19) on Mexico City Policy - No foreign aid for Abortions

I wonder how many other senators didn't understand the double negative involved in the vote... and then I wonder if bills are deliberately phrased with double negatives.

[MRoCkEd]

They better not

[FrankRep]

I wonder how many other senators didn't understand the double negative involved in the vote... and then I wonder if bills are deliberately phrased with double negatives.

Lisa Murkowski is Pro-Abortion, not a mistake.

[Spider-Man]

They're not going to do that.

[KCIndy]

The Libertarian Party needs a political win if they want to survive. It is that simple.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee


What's the point of winning if you've won by becoming that which you oppose? :confused:

[YumYum]

Lisa Murkowski is Pro-Abortion, not a mistake.

I have a question that maybe you can answer: When the Republicans controlled the Executive Office and the Congress for 51/2 years under Bush, why didn't they pass a bill outlawing abortion?

[FrankRep]

What's the point of winning if you've won by becoming that which you oppose? :confused:

In this case, Lisa Murkowski is not a good candidate anyway.

[specsaregood]

I have a question that maybe you can answer: When the Republicans controlled the Executive Office and the Congress for 51/2 years under Bush, why didn't they pass a bill outlawing abortion?

Because they hate babies? And because of "republicans" such as Lisa Murkowski?
I doubt they had the votes to "outlaw" abortion anyways as it would require an amendment. BUT they could have passed Dr. Pauls sanctity of life bill that would have removed abortion from the federal level and returned it to the states where it belongs.

[erowe1]

I have a question that maybe you can answer: When the Republicans controlled the Executive Office and the Congress for 51/2 years under Bush, why didn't they pass a bill outlawing abortion?

Because they need the issue to stay fresh as a matter of urgency to pro-life voters, primarily by holding out Supreme Court nominations in front of them like a carrot leading a donkey. They need to be able to say, "This could be the election that makes the difference between overturning Roe v. Wade and further entrenching it for another generation." And then, win or lose, they need to be able to use that argument again the following election, ad infinitum.

[YumYum]

Because they need the issue to stay fresh as a matter of urgency to pro-life voters, primarily by holding out Supreme Court nominations in front of them like a carrot leading a donkey. They need to be able to say, "This could be the election that makes the difference between overturning Roe v. Wade and further entrenching it for another generation." And then, win or lose, they need to be able to use that argument again the following election, ad infinitum.

Your answer makes a lot of sense. Thousands of lives could have been saved during that time but the Republicans choose to keep the issue alive rather than save lives.

[akforme]

Because they need the issue to stay fresh as a matter of urgency to pro-life voters, primarily by holding out Supreme Court nominations in front of them like a carrot leading a donkey. They need to be able to say, "This could be the election that makes the difference between overturning Roe v. Wade and further entrenching it for another generation." And then, win or lose, they need to be able to use that argument again the following election, ad infinitum.

There are a lot of things that are election issues. When the debate gives the politician more power then actual change this is what you get. ANWR is another one for up here. GOP owned everything and couldn't get it open. Mostly because the oil companies don't want it open.

[brenden.b]

What's the point of winning if you've won by becoming that which you oppose? :confused:

Best response of the thread yet... This is exactly why I posted this article...

[YumYum]

Best response of the thread yet... This is exactly why I posted this article...

I agree, that was a good post. Its like saying "I should become a practicing sinner so I can win sinners over to Christ." I like the mantra "Principles first!"

[HOLLYWOOD]

Com'on y'all... when you hold a trump power card, which gives you more power than you have ever held in the party's existence... you are going to milk it all the way to November.

I say, the Alaskan LP should invite Murkowski in, find out the insider gist of these elitists. Find out the internal workings of these thieves, then "Sand Bag" the beeAtch, dumping her like a sack of potatoes.

[ClayTrainor]

What's the point of winning if you've won by becoming that which you oppose? :confused:


Best response of the thread yet... This is exactly why I posted this article...


I agree, that was a good post. Its like saying "I should become a practicing sinner so I can win sinners over to Christ."

+1. Well said, y'all. :)

[NewFederalist]

Has anyone even asked the Libertarian nominee to withdraw yet? If so, what was the response? That will seal the deal anyway if the current nominee won't move aside to to provide a vehicle for a Murkowski run in November.

[WaltM]

the State with the lowest population density?

not my concern!

[Legal Plunder]

The Daily Caller has a new article up about this:


Wes Benedict, executive director of the Libertarian National Committee, told The Daily Caller that Murkowski hardly fits the Libertarian Party mould. “As far as I’m concerned if Murkowski is for bringing our troops
home and for ending the war on drugs and if she voted against the TARP bailout and she is for reducing spending then maybe she could earn a spot on the Libertarian ballot,” he said. “But my understanding is that she voted for the TARP bailout and that is just insanely un-Libertarian.”

Scott Kohlhaas, state chairman for the Libertarian Party of Alaska, told TheDC that a number of things have to happen before any decision is made. “Rumors are flying but I really have no comment on them because, I mean, Lisa would have to decide to do it and then our candidate would have to decide to voluntarily step down [and] then our executive committee would have to vote on a decision.”

Kohlhaas said he has no illusions about the fact that Murkowski is not a Libertarian, but says that having her run as one would be a way to get more publicity for the Party and possibly help the Party gain seats in state legislatures
. “There are 7,000 state legislative seats out there and we don’t have one,” he said. “As far as getting the name out there, this episode is doing that much better than any one state legislative seat would. And in terms of morale for our Party a state [senator] would be a real gain for us.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/27/libertarians-weigh-murkowski-run/#ixzz0xoF10XdD


Personally, I much rather like Joe Miller's comments made last night to David Asman / Fox Business (http://newsminer.com/bookmark/9291082):

ASMAN: But out of the gate, Joe, what do you start with? Healthcare?


MILLER: Oh, absolutely. Defund it. I mean a repeal would be perfect but obviously that would get vetoed. So defund everything. Get rid of the socialist aspects of government, not just in health care but the other entitlement areas that are driving us into insolvency.


ASMAN: Of course you're going to have a -- you’re going to have a president who is going to veto anything if there's a Republican Congress that the Republican Congress tries to enact.


MILLER: Well, you got to fund it and the Congress has to have an affirmative vote to do it so that's a good start point.


ASMAN: So starve them -- starve them of the funds, starve the beast, so to speak.


MILLER: Absolutely, and have the courage to shut down the government if we have to.


ASMAN: OK. Joe Miller. Great to see you, Joe. Thanks very much for being here.

[libertythor]

MILLER: Oh, absolutely. Defund it. I mean a repeal would be perfect but obviously that would get vetoed. So defund everything. Get rid of the socialist aspects of government, not just in health care but the other entitlement areas that are driving us into insolvency.


ASMAN: Of course you're going to have a -- you’re going to have a president who is going to veto anything if there's a Republican Congress that the Republican Congress tries to enact.


MILLER: Well, you got to fund it and the Congress has to have an affirmative vote to do it so that's a good start point.


ASMAN: So starve them -- starve them of the funds, starve the beast, so to speak.


MILLER: Absolutely, and have the courage to shut down the government if we have to.


ASMAN: OK. Joe Miller. Great to see you, Joe. Thanks very much for being here. [/INDENT]



I will be sending Joe Miller a check.

[brenden.b]

I hope he will ALSO before calling for repeal. For the President's hand on it, make him veto it and make him look foolish. This sounds like Eric Cantor who has been whining about how hard it is to repeal legislation. Yeah, well, conservative always talk about shrinking government but never actually do it.

I want a REPEAL, not just a de-funding!

[ChaosControl]

**** the LP. GOP Lite.

[Brett85]

I have a question that maybe you can answer: When the Republicans controlled the Executive Office and the Congress for 51/2 years under Bush, why didn't they pass a bill outlawing abortion?

Maybe because they didn't have the votes? And maybe because Roe v. Wade prohibits the government from outlawing abortion?

[specsaregood]

Maybe because they didn't have the votes?

They should have had enough votes for the sanctity of life act.

[Brett85]

They should have had enough votes for the sanctity of life act.

You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. There may have been 55 pro life members of the Senate at the very most.

[specsaregood]

You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. There may have been 55 pro life members of the Senate at the very most.

There were 55 republicans in 2004, who should have voted pro-life with the party on a sanctity of life bill. You don't think there were another 5 prolife blue dog dems?

Either way, I don't consider it a valid excuse not to try.

[Brett85]

There were 55 republicans in 2004, who should have voted pro-life with the party on a sanctity of life bill. You don't think there were another 5 prolife blue dog dems?

Either way, I don't consider it a valid excuse not to try.

Not all Republicans are pro life. Far from it. Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Murkowski are all pro choice to go along with a few others. Ben Nelson from Nebraska is the only pro life Democrat as far as I know. Also, the Republicans did pass a number of pro life bills. The main one was the Partial Birth Abortion ban that Ron Paul voted for.

[qh4dotcom]

The Libertarian Party needs a political win if they want to survive. It is that simple.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

She won't win as a Libertarian...she will just split the conservative vote and Alaska will wind up having two Democrat Senators

[Slutter McGee]

She won't win as a Libertarian...she will just split the conservative vote and Alaska will wind up having two Democrat Senators

Not arguing with you on that. You are right. But from a Libertarian Party perspective...they do need an actual win sometime.

Sincerley,

Slutter McGee

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

She won't win as a Libertarian...she will just split the conservative vote and Alaska will wind up having two Democrat Senators

Murkowski isn't conservative, so how will she split the conservative vote? If anything she'll split votes from the Democrat.

[libertybrewcity]

I don't think people would give much money to Murkowski. When she announces she would be a traitor to the Republican party. The establishment Republicans wouldn't support her with money. No one would support her with money. Libertarians wouldn't even vote for her because they know she is a liberal schmuck.

[qh4dotcom]

Murkowski isn't conservative, so how will she split the conservative vote? If anything she'll split votes from the Democrat.

She doesn't have a (D) next to her name....and she has been lately voting like a conservative and against the Democrat bills.

[heavenlyboy34]

What's the point of winning if you've won by becoming that which you oppose? :confused:

An important question that many here should ask themselves.

[heavenlyboy34]

Not arguing with you on that. You are right. But from a Libertarian Party perspective...they do need an actual win sometime.

Sincerley,

Slutter McGee

Here (http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/11/libertarians-elected-and-re-elected-to-office/) is a list of elected/re-elected Libertarians. How many more have to occur for you to consider it an "actual win"?

[specsaregood]

Here (http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/11/libertarians-elected-and-re-elected-to-office/) is a list of elected/re-elected Libertarians. How many more have to occur for you to consider it an "actual win"?

That right there is comedic gold.

[libertythor]

Not arguing with you on that. You are right. But from a Libertarian Party perspective...they do need an actual win sometime.

Sincerley,

Slutter McGee

The LP needs to get a bit more aggressive, just like the Ron Paul grassroots was. Jesse Ventura's win didn't equate to a surge of the Reform Party because the Reform Party grassroots wasn't aggressive.

I recommend that RP Republicans stay registered Republican but become dues-paying members of the Libertarian Party. That is what I do. That would give you the opportunity to participate in both processes because the LP goes by actual party membership for determining eligibility to participate in the nominating processes.

[Slutter McGee]

Here (http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/11/libertarians-elected-and-re-elected-to-office/) is a list of elected/re-elected Libertarians. How many more have to occur for you to consider it an "actual win"?

Something above Parks and Recreation Supervisor. Something above a mayor. How bout a statewide office for starts.

See when somebody in our little movement wins something small it is great for us. The Libertarian Party is 30 years old and we will have more high level victories in two years than they have ever have.

So tell me again?

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Badger Paul]

"The Libertarian Party needs a political win if they want to survive. It is that simple."

It would be an empty victory, since Murkowski would jump right back into the Republican Party the minute she got back to Washington and would caucus with her fellow GOP Senators. No, this is political fools gold, nothing more.

[NewFederalist]

Doesn't matter now.