Murkowski to run as write-in candidate; state GOP condemns move

The Los Angeles Times ^ | September 17, 2010 | Kim Murphy

[Norman Bates]

Won’t amount to a hill of beans.

[ASOC]

McAdams is running ads right now.

He isn't going to drop out to help liza.

Look at who is backing LIsa

Big money interests that feed at the public troughs. Just the kind of folks Miller wants to stop.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Can you deny that Liebermann is just about always voting with the insurance companies and for anything that helps Israel?

Can you deny that Ronald Reagan is just about always voting with the private sector and for anything that hurts the Soviet Union? Does this mean that Reagan was in the pocket of businesses and being controlled by opponents of the USSR? Or was he a man with principles, who regularly acted in a manner consistent with them?

Leibermann may be a flaming lefty on social issues (and someone I disagree with almost universally in that arena), but he has been consistent on many issues enough that I tend to believe that his stances are principled (even if he follows principles I do not hold). It even cost him his spot within the Democrat party. You've insinuated something very different...

[kevao]

Alaska is not fair game for outside extremists.

LOL. Over 80% (87% I believe?) of her own campaign contributions came from outside Alaska.

[grania]

If for nothing else, I disagree totally with Lieberman's decision to run as an independent after he lost the primary. I'm saying that is the precedent for what we're seeing now; that would be neocon globalist losers who decide it's okay to run as independents after they lose a primary.

There really should be a law that once a candidate loses in the primary they can no longer run for that office at that time. The exception would be, of course, if the person who won the nomination in their party dropped out.

[Agamemnon]

Not at all. I voted for and campaigned for Republicans, whenever the party had someone serious running.... I actually didn't mind Bill Weld at first.

So you are bowing your head in shame now, just like you told everyone else to do?

I voted for Perot his first time, and campaigned for him.

You know and I could have guessed that too. I'll bet you started out as a member of the "Buchanan Brigades," at the time he was brandishing a pitchfork and that Uncle Sam hat.

So, looks like I have you to "thank" personally for the election of Bill Clinton in 1992.

Bill Clinton was only elected with a plurality in 1992 and in 1996 with your Li'l General in there who got rich on the government tit himself by automating the Social Security system and was just as much a part of the problem as any other Beltway Bandit ever was.

Perot was as much a champion for the self-righteous as was/is Pat Buchanan. Neither have done anything substantive to progress the cause of conservatism.

Perot has vanished, and Buchanan is just another has-been establishment "conservative" who is about as meaningful as another Reagan speechwriter glom-on like Peggy Noonan, who mistakenly believe their words somehow made Reagan what he was. Both are pompous self-righteous sell-outs. Perot was never anything more than an opportunist with a vendetta against anything "Bush."

Your posts have just proved my point. You have absolutely no reason to think of yourself as such a purist, and least of all in a way that has you telling others to hang their heads in shame.

Maybe there's still some land up there in Townsend, MA for sale at that old JBS "end- times" hangout with the bomb shelters once known as "Patirot's Place," where you can sit and judge the Conservative perfectionism of others.

Start hanging your head in shame over that Perot vote, and admit the fact that Weld was no conservative.

Spare us all the lectures.

[grania]

You achieve nothing by dissing others who want a real lot of change, but maybe have different priorities.

In my mind, these are the big issues...get invaders out of the US for good, get serious about protecting our southern border, abolish as much federal stuff that's unconstitutional as possible (first of all, Obamacare), bring jobs back to the US for US citizens. Those things will go a long way toward fixing the budget mess.

[mrsmith]

“Look at who is backing LIsa
Big money interests that feed at the public troughs.”

Yep, the same people that are backing McAdams.
They want to win. If they tell him to go away he will.

If he leaves Murkowski becomes a 60-40 favorite. Good odds even for a write-in.

[Agamemnon]

You achieve nothing by dissing others who want a real lot of change, but maybe have different priorities.

OK, so who was it that said the following then?

I never did that, because the lesser of two evils is still evil. Bow your heads in shame, those who did!

You can't have it both ways.

Face it: your vote for Perot elected Clinton in 1992.

Oh yeah, that was the way to "send the message" wasn't it. Why don't you just threaten to throw yourself off the cliff next time. That will be sure to get their attention.

Don't you think it's about time you showed a little voter's remorse, yourself, instead of preaching to others about bowing their heads in shame, because their only choice was a lesser of two evils -- particularly in a state like MA?

While not necessarily enthusiastically, I voted for Bush in 1992 and Dole in 1996, and every other (R) on the slate.

That said, unlike you, I'm not responsible for facilitating Clinton's wins, nor am I the one responsible for allowing him to gain the keys to the Executive Mansion bathroom to play with himself, or to lie to grand juries that resulted in shame of International proportions, as it resulted in to dragging the whole country through impeachment procedings, or to increase China's offensive capacities allowing top-of-the-line Westinghouse guidance systems to be exported for installation in their rockets, or to so diminish the stature of the US in the eyes of the world as to result in the 9/11 catastrophe.

Do you get much sleep at night?

You are correct in one sense: my priorities were substantially different that yours.

[grania]

Face it: your vote for Perot elected Clinton in 1992.

I was okay with that. Bush I raised taxes after promising not to, he didn't see the dangers of NAFTA and other trade agreements, and he really expanded the Department of Education. I'd prefer to say that those of you who voted for Bush instead of Perot are the reason Clinton won, and the path to globalism continued.

Would we be any less of a globalist country if Bush had won a second term?

[ASOC]

If McAdams drops out, the Feds would show up for an investigation.

Politics here may be crooked, but not that crooked - at least up to now.

[Agamemnon]

I'd prefer to say that those of you who voted for Bush instead of Perot are the reason Clinton won, and the path to globalism continued.

You can "prefer" to say anything you want. Perot is just as much of a "globalist" as Bush.

The self-righteous aren't "righteous" because they're "forgiven" -- whether in their own minds or even in the mind of God, Himself, per se, but they are that way, because they tend to project their own guilt on to others.

Projection of your own guilt re: your 1992 vote for Perot is still and will always be your own little demon to tackle.

Your vain attempts to spread the blame for getting Clinton elected will only continue to collapse under the burden that its inherent sophistry in so doing presents.