Posted on 03/28/2013 8:08:34 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Does this count as a "yes" on Same Sex Marriage (SSM) for purposes of the pool? Susan Collins's dodge was transparently an attempt to avoid further irritating conservatives when she's staring at a Republican primary in Maine next year. Murkowski's not under quite the same time pressure as she's not up again until 2016. Could be that her reservations are legit. But maybe we're looking at this the wrong way: Because Collins comes from a blue state, she has to sound friendly-ish to gay marriage no matter what her true views might be or else she's potentially in trouble in the general election. Murkowski faces no similar dilemma in a red state like Alaska. She could take an adamantly anti-SSM line and likely benefit from it (or at least suffer no consequences for it) in both the primary and the general. The fact that she's not taking that line but rather sounds about as friendly-ish as Collins suggests that she too secretly supports gay marriage and is simply hedging to make things a little easier for herself if/when she runs again for Senate. Remember, she’s already been successfully primaried once before; she knows the risk in not taking a hard enough line, and yet she’s refusing to take it anyway. That shows some commitment to the pro-SSM side.
I’m going to count it. Congratulations to cmsinaz, who defied conventional wisdom by picking Murky over the handful of Democratic holdouts as the next SSM domino to fall in our pool!
When asked about same sex marriage — which is currently being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in two separate cases — Murkowski seemed to indicate a softening on her previous stance.
“I’ve got two young sons who, when I ask them and their friends how they feel about gay marriage, kinda give me one of those looks like, ‘Gosh mom, why are you even asking that question?’”…
“We have so many issues in this country to focus on that worry us, that I question why there is such focus on the simple right of people to love whom they will,” she said.
This is the only political issue I can think of where United States Senators routinely cite their children’s opinions as a guiding star for how they should vote. I’m not even thinking of Rob Portman, who cited his son in declaring his support for SSM but not because of his “opinion”; I’m thinking of Claire McCaskill, who felt obliged to note that “my children have a hard time understanding why this is even controversial.” Plenty of kids also have a hard time understanding why weed is illegal, but apart from Rand Paul, there seems to be zero movement in the Senate towards legalizing marijuana. If you believe Pew, support for making abortion legal in all or most cases runs highest among the 18-29 group at 64 percent. (Fun fact: A majority of the same group doesn’t know which issue Roe v. Wade dealt with.) Why no Senate GOP swing towards pro-choice in the name of letting the children lead us? I support SSM but I do so on the merits, not because my politics is shaped by 15-year-olds. For all his faults, McCain’s quite blunt about why the GOP’s suddenly seen the light on amnesty: “Elections. Elections.” Wish Murky and McCaskill would be that honest about their own demographic motivations vis-a-vis SSM.
In case you disagree that Murkowski’s comments above should count for purposes of the pool, here’s a bit more from another interview she did. Does this sound like someone who’s still “evolving”?
“The term ‘evolving view’ has been perhaps overused, but I think it is an appropriate term for me to use,” she said in an address at the Chugiak-Eagle River Chamber of Commerce, according to the Chugiak-Eagle River Star.
Murkowski elaborated on her stance to Alaska Public Radio. “I think you are seeing a change in attitude, change in tolerance, I guess, and an acceptance that what marriage should truly be about is a lasting, loving, committed relationship with respect to the individual,” she said.
That’s not the sort of phrasing you typically see from someone who still has reservations. The word “evolving” is itself a giveaway. Has anyone who’s ever used that term to describe their views on gay marriage eventually reversed course and decided no, turns out they can’t support gay marriage after all? Wouldn’t that, per their own rhetoric, constitute “devolution”? If you’re starting out anti-SSM and inching your way towards being on the fence, chances are you’ve already heard, considered, and dismissed any arguments that might have kept you firmly in the opposition. What’s stopping most of these politicians from “evolving” the rest of the way is, I suspect, pure risk assessment. How far can they go towards supporting gay marriage before this issue starts to hurt them politically? Democrats from blue states can go pretty far, which is why there are only 10 or so left in the caucus who haven’t endorsed the practice yet. (Read Noah Rothman at Mediaite about the Dems who’ve waited until now, at a moment of maximum political safety, to finally declare their support.) Republicans can’t go far at all, so “evolution” is going to take much longer. But maybe, per Murky and Collins, not as long as we think.
So, another ol’gal who know what she like.
Just another sick pervert in congress huh...?
hope we can remove this bitch next time she runs.
What is up with this “Evolving” nonsense..what the hell are these RINOS, Pokemon..I am sick of these RINO trash who are worse than Dems..at least we know what Dems are..Commie scum..but RINOS are 10 times worse..they are Dems but they put R’s next to their name and trash the Republican name
Shut up, Murkowski! You didn’t even win your re-election legally or honestly. Real conservatives hate your lyin’, flip-floppin’ ass, and your special name-recognition won’t save you next time. Just see what happens to that worm in Louisiana in 2014.
Alaska? Why are you sending such trash to the US senate? Seriously? Mark Begich and this skunk?
Its a nice little double swipe. When they "evolve", its their way of siding with the miscreants and calling many neanderthal's for not subscribing to their views.
Personally speaking, I could give to shits about homosexual marriage. Go for it. And reap all the crazy laws that will crop up in "family court" that ensues in divorce.
If you are a real conservative, you can't have it both ways. Either you respect individual liberties or you do not. If you do not then you are wielding the government for your own power in your own beliefs.
I don't approve of the homosexual lifestyle, but I also don't want a federal government so strong it is even in the arena of deciding what some citizens can and cannot have in the first place!!!
Sorry, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; who the hell are YOU to decide?
Lisa will come out of the closet herself if it will get votes.
Murkowski is worthless, but so to are the people asking her these questions for not asking the most important question of all.
When Murkowski goes on with the nonsense about the right of someone to love whom they will (which by the way is not in question at all by anyone), why isn’t she asked to say how she thinks the Sup Court should rule. More specifically, she should be asked if she thinks her evolving support for gay marriage is enshrined in the Constitution? Does she think the Sup Court should impose recognition of gay marriage on Alaska and the rest of the nation, or does she think Alaskans should decide the issue for Alaska?
That’s why all those Republicans who signed the amicus brief against Prop 8 are loathsome. If they worked to convince Californians to vote the other way that would be one thing, but to ask the Sup Court to embrace the ‘living Constitution’ is inexcusable. If you buy into that sort of jurisprudence for gay marriage, then why not for abortion, or the Second Amendment, or property rights, or any thing else?
At least Senator Portman explicitly said that he thinks the matter should not be settled by judges, and should instead remain with the states. For some reason that little nugget got ignored by the media in their gleeful reporting of Portman’s evolution.
It sounds like she wants to play lead guitar for Barry and the Evolvers. What a mental midget.
Not to worry nobody’s having kids except pro-life and Muslims folks.If you have a child they are probably an only child or you might suffer enough to have another.Dogs out number kids 4 times and cost more at the doctor but only live 10 years.If they could talk and vote we would have it made except for Pit Bulls.Getting back to the kids,only pro-life and Muslin and South American kids matter cause the rest don’t want kids.South America fell to have a kid give me money so it’s the pro lifer’s and Muslims.I think the Muslin’s will win in the birth plan.
Has the uterus evolved into a rectum?
I remember the last time this Witch ran I was livid with John Cornyn. Wrote him several seathing letters.
Do not remember the details of that now, but I remember the Cornyn backed this looser against a conservative candidate. And by hook & crook she defeated him.
Murkowski will do anything for money and power. Highest bidder. Totally Corrupt.
I found this comparison of Murkowski and Cornyn interesting:
Murkowski is the senator who in 2010 gutted bipartisan legislation to protect the US power grid from EMP.
This was the year she ran as an independent. Was the spiking of the bill the payoff to those who financed her campaign?
Without a religious foundation...or rather without a biblical foundation...it’s easy for the media to manipulate the public on gay marriage. For vast majority of Americans that biblical foundation was wiped out at least a generation ago. Politicians are doubly corrupted...not only do most not have solid foundation in Christ but they worship at the idol of power and money. It’s a given that they will fold on this issue.
If I looked as ugly as she does, I might consider evolving too!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.