The bitter, clingy death cry of incumbency: Pity Evita Murkowski
Alaska GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski, ousted by primary voters two weeks ago in favor of Tea Party favorite Joe Miller, announced Friday that she’ll pursue a write-in bid to keep her seat. She won’t take electoral rejection for an answer, dammit:
“Well, ladies and gentlemen, friends and supporters, the gloves are off and I’m fighting for Alaska,” she said. “Alaskans deserve a fighter in the United States Senate who will always stand up for Alaska, who understand our great potential, who has the experience, respect and seniority to accomplish that. I am that senator.”
Murkowski frequently invoked former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, who served for 40 years as a senator and died last month in a plane crash. Taking the stage, Murkowski said she wished Stevens could have attended the rally Friday night.
“This is Alaska, where we come together, and we embrace one another for who we are, not because we may share the same political label, but because of who we are and what we contribute to our state,” she said. “This is what makes Alaska great, not our political labels.”
“Today, my friends, my campaign for Alaska’s future begins,” she said. “We’re in this together.”
“Experience, respect and seniority.”
Yes, there’s that “I am an entrenched incumbent with ‘standing’” culture of entitlement again — wrapped in the morbid mantle of Big Government GOP porker Ted Stevens.
The voters already sent their message:
Entrenched incumbency is not an argument for more entrenched incumbency.
And still, she clings to the trappings of power with self-pitying bitterness.
Slubog dubs Murkowski’s announcement the “Don’t Cry For Me, Anchorage” speech and posts the photoshop of the day:
The truth is, Alaska left you. Time to move on.
***
Joe Miller to NRO: Murkowski’s “lifeblood is power.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Subscribe to the Michelle Malkin newsletter
February 22, 2012 12:44 PM by Michelle Malkin
33 CommentsSurprise: UK’s Version of ‘Buffett Rule’ Failing to Bring in Expected Revenue
February 22, 2012 11:05 AM by Doug Powers
53 Comments
The high priests of eco-destruction
February 22, 2012 07:50 AM by Michelle Malkin
124 Comments
Gallup: Unemployment Climbing Back to 9% for February
February 21, 2012 02:56 PM by Doug Powers
70 Comments
Overnight Open Thread: Dems Try to Manufacture New Voting Bloc
February 20, 2012 10:24 PM by Doug Powers
55 CommentsDisability Claims Up As Unemployment Benefits Run Out
February 19, 2012 11:16 PM by Doug Powers
70 Comments
It Wouldn’t Be Saturday Morning Without Another Friday Night Solyndra Document Dump to Sift Through
February 18, 2012 09:52 AM by Doug Powers
41 Comments
Categories: Politics
Sister Toldjah
» Quote of the Day: “There is no male equivalent for abortion”Hot Air
» Open thread: The last debateRedstate
» Obama the Tax Cutter? Think AgainHot Air
» Poll: Romney on the rise in Arizona?
“He found religion because it’s election season, jsm.”
Quite possible Solo. As noted not counting on his words which are a bit different than before actually resulting in actions that are different. Possible and probable are two different things.
I will say this though. Its the partnership between McCain and Kyl that has resulted in some changed words. Kyl’s position has not wavered in regards to the matter. Could be Kyl’s influence will be the one that impacts McCain’s “new” position the most.
Will not believe any of it until I see it of course. But there is a glimmer of change noted on McCain’s part.
You could be 100% right though.
I hope so. Getting rid ofCreeping Charlie in my yard seems eaier.
“”it’s hard to argue he would not have engaged in sabotaging Hayworth”
Given McCain is a professional politician at this point of his life I’m sure it is possible. Problem is that JD never representing anything of a challenge to McCain. McCain didn’t even have to think about “What if JD wins?”
JD was and is not a Miller in Alaska. JD ran a pitiful campaign. So pitiful in fact one has to wonder if he was running to win or running to get his next radio show gig.
It was quite bizarre.
That’s why these folks who want to try to make some meaning out of McCain’s win and JD’s loss in terms of RINO this, voters that, are off base for AZ. The campaign was not about any of that. JD was not a “conservative” candidate and so AZ had a chance to choose between a RINO and a conservative.
That was not McCain vs. JD.
JD vs. McCain was not Castle vs. O’Donnell or Miller vs. Murkowski in Alaska.
Many of us in AZ wish we could have found a Miller.
“Who is pretending to be objective? I HATE THE GOP!!!”
“Quoting the Bible is not virtue. It’s a mental crutch in lieu of virtue.”
Anything else you’d like to share with us today Phil to help us understand your point of view?
Phil?
So phil this election are you going to stay home and not vote OR are you going to vote for the Republican candidates in your area even if they aren’t as conservative as you post you are?
That’s where the rubber meets the road. So what are you going to do Phil? You going to act in a way that leaves the left in power or are you going to attempt to oust their majorities?
Tell us. I’m dying to hear what you will do. No more pontificating. What will you actually do?
Leave the left in power?
Attempt to unseat their majorities?
Simple questions.
Answer?
That is simply not true. Just before Palin endorsed him, McCain was on the ropes, with JD rocketing up in the polls and McCain falling. I do not remember the precise numbers when Palin jumped in, but it was something like a dead heat.
Palin’s endorsement took the wind out of JD’s support, and it deteriorated from there.
This is one of the reasons I’m ambivalent about McCain winning the general. When he’s back in the Senate Palin will have to answer for every one of his ‘reach across the aisle to get something leftist done’ stunts.
Murkowski’s true motivation and inner-self is laid bare.
Her vindictive progressive ego is revealed. Where there should be grace , a darker trait is exposed: revenge. Not for Miller, nor the GOP, but for her former
subjectsconstituency. She is a great example of corrupted power, which apparently runs in the family business. Spitefulness is not attractive.A dark nature always reveals a dark heart.
1) Murkowski’s margin of loss was quite small.
2) So slight in fact that she should easily be able to pull enough votes from Miller to enable the democrat to win.
3) Having done so she can apply for an receive a very cushy well-paid and very powerful job in Obama’s Leviathan.
As far as I can see this is a very rational calculus. It is amusing, however, to watch the geniuses over at National Review throw a fit over Murkowski’s antics. “She gave her word!” Oh my, what on earth did they expect?
The point of all this being that once the State becomes sufficiently powerful (and yes, we are there), it really doesn’t matter what the electorate does. All those RINO’s and Democrats that lose this November will simply take on new jobs and powers come next January. And you think the Republican House of Representatives (should such a thing happen, of course) will then cut off their water? Not a chance.
The left’s take on this:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/17/100788/alaskas-murkowski-declares-write.html
I believe there’s more to than that when it comes to McCain & Graham. I really believe they hate conservatives and they’ll do anything they can to make conservatives unelectable on a national level. If they get rid of us who will oppose their move the party/country to the left agenda? The dems? What better way to get rid of us then to join the dems in legalizing millions upon millions of
third worldersnew democrats wanting their fare share of the gubmit pie. Just something to ponder.OT:
HAPPY BIRTHDAY AIR FORCE!!!
(beat Navy!)
“That is simply not true. Just before Palin endorsed him, McCain was on the ropes, with JD rocketing up in the polls and McCain falling.”
Since I was involved here in AZ in such matters I can tell you that you are incorrect.
There was never a time that McCain was in danger.
The blow to JD’s campaign as far as coming from McCain was the series of ads featuring JD and JD’s own words. Stuff like the infomercial ad killed JD. Then JD’s lack of response and presence was self inflicted. He was no where. That is JD’s doing. Not McCain’s.
Palin’s endorsement came later in the campaign in terms of McCain’s certainty of winning.
For all the campaigns that you hear Palin made a difference, like Miller, like O’Donnell, you’ll not hear she made a difference for McCain.
The way you have framed the race between McCain and JD is incorrect.
JD is no Miller, Rubio, O’Donnell, etc.
“it really doesn’t matter what the electorate does.”
Wow been… that’s quite hopeless.
Why don’t we just suspend voting?
Phil?
Leave the left in power?
Attempt to unseat their majorities?
Of course. That’s what it means to be part of the ruling class.
Here is the story of the polls for McCain and JD over the campaign:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arizona/election_2010_arizona_republican_primary_for_senate
The only poll numbers that matter:
http://recorder.maricopa.gov/electionresults/Aug2010PrimaryStatic.aspx?electdate=8/24/2010
“take on new jobs and powers come next January”
I guess in a sick way the current state of the economy and the government’s fiscal unhealthiness might be a good thing? No money for those jobs?
Kind of hard to respond when you don’t have the cash. How much did McCain spend on his reelection? I believe it was over 20 million. So much for Johnny boy getting the money out of politics.
“you don’t have the cash.”
While JD did not have McCain’s money, JD had money.
Not only that consider the framing, inaccurate mind you, that he was the conservative’s conservative candidate.
Look at those states where that was actually the case. What happened in the face of opponents having more money to spend? Grass roots movements.
Folks in Alaska knew Miller was what they were looking for. The result is Murkowski’s money was not THE factor in the campaign.
JD IF he was what we were looking for would have had the support of regular folks looking for a conservative. The idea that in AZ we aren’t looking for a Miller or a Rubio is absurd. We’d love to be able to get behind a real conservative and replace an inconsistent McCain.
We’re read for a grass roots movement.
Didn’t happen.
Why?
JD IF he were the candidate some folks want to make him out to be, there’d have been that grass roots support despite the money difference.
It is funny however how folks allow their spite of McCain to skew all sorts of things including who JD really is.
No, I think the system worked exactly as he envisioned it. He never made any attempt to limit the resources of incumbents.
Concur.
??????????????
No. I’m not. I’m surprised you don’t know it.
If you are claiming after JD officially entered the race it was all downhill, that is true, but his slide in the polls had already begun after Palin endorsed McCain, before JD made his formal announcement.
Most posters here should remember that. It’s why Phil turned against Palin.
So…….. Phil, JD,
How do you think Lee did at Gettysburg?
Let’s take care of the general election first shall we? We need you working on that one with us. Then we can dissect JD and John’s race.
“any attempt to limit the resources of incumbents.”
Very true except that in places where incumbents spent more money but still lost races to candidates like Miller, O’Donnell, etc., you have to allow that money can be over come IF a candidate is actually a conservative.
Money has been shown to not be the ultimate determinant.
Which is a good and hopeful reality.
“I’m surprised you don’t know it.”
I posted the links to the polls for you.
If you don’t want to accept them, your call Roland.
Your framing of the race and JD’s popularity is incorrect.
“Phil turned against Palin.”
Phil never was “for” Palin.
“Who is pretending to be objective? I HATE THE GOP!!!”
That is not a new position for Phil.
“Let’s take care of the general election first shall we?”
Amen.
A poll in late July?
JS, this kind of casual deceitfulness wins you no credibility.
“this kind of casual deceitfulness”
What deceit? I posted the link for you. If you have a problem with Rasmussen, take it up with Rassmusen.
So the polls show you to be incorrect and your reply is to accuse me of deceit?
You are wrong Roland. Too bad you can’t admit it.
You can post a link to credible poll that shows you to be correct you know Roland. Please do.
If I am wrong, I can easily admit it.
Please show me the numbers that support your framing of JD’s campaign. I’d like to see them.
At 42% for Hayworth in April, they were close to dead even, if 13% were also ‘some other candidate’ or ‘undecided’ back then.
“before JD made his formal announcement.”
So before JD was actually running he was winning. But once he was actually running he was losing?
Please post a link to credible polls that support your framing Roland. I’d very much like to see the numbers.
I just quoted from your own link.
“they were close to dead even”
Huh? Even if it was the case that at JD’s highest point and McCain’s lowest it was close to dead even, that reality does not support your framing Roland. Are you trying to say this somehow supports your framing of the JD vs. McCain race?
JD at his best and McCain at his worse being dead even illustrates what my point of view is. Not yours.
So I’ll ask you again do you have some credible poll that supports your point of view as you just supported mine.
Sigh. That was precisely my ‘framing,’ as anyone who has been following the thread can see.
I’ve got other things that need doing. Ciao.
“McCain was on the ropes, with JD rocketing up in the polls and McCain falling.”
Something that looks like this Roland?
That was you right Roland? I could be wrong. Just checking.
Sorry Roland but I just double checked post 108 and that was you and how your framed the JD vs. McCain race.
Too bad you’ve bailed on the dialog.
The good news is most Independents and Republicans will NOT spend the time to write spoiled brat Lisa’s name on the ballot. Everyone wants to get in and get out of the booth fast. Write-ins are not memorable candidates when the ballet is in your hand. There is a certain amount of professionalism and respectful structure to having a name printed on a ballet that lures people to the check-marked names. Just toss a glass of Alaskan glacier water on this Wicked Witch of the West and watch her melt.
Right, although off topic. We were discussing specifically the Arizona race, and that’s what I referred to. I frankly don’t think McCain has ever been interested in any other (well, except for winning the Republican nomination for President – although he didn’t show much interest in actually winning the election).
You took that fragment out of context because you can’ help being deceitful.
What I actually said, how I was ‘framing’ it, was:
All of which is 100% true, and you know it.
btw, it looks like Palin had endorsed McCain no later than late Jan. 2010 (the time of the earliest articles discussing it), although I couldn’t find an article that gave the exact date.
jsm and roland I think you might both be talking over each other a bit without actually disagreeing with one another.
I agree with jsm, living here in AZ JD lost because of JD not for any other reason. Though I do disagree with you about McCain and the question of honor. I believe he has no honor and no shame. He attacked JD like a baboon on crack, I’ve never see so much poo flinging. As to the question of honor Benedict Arnold was also once a war hero.
As for Kyl he was right behind McCain and supported the amnesty bill. I remember receiving a response from Kyl’s office about why amnesty was the right thing to do.
Roland
I don’t know the exact date but JD was still on the air when Palin gave her support to McCain. So your time line though not exact seems correct to me.
Possibly. But I think few people understand the nature and power of money and propaganda. Enough unscupulous propaganda make anyone look like a fool or a knave.
Most people think, “Maybe so, but not me. I can’t be fooled.”
If you think that, you have not even begun the road to wisdom.
I wasn’t in AZ, so I don’t know exactly how the campaign went down. I could only watch the aftermath as each thing unfolded.
Did JD make mistakes? Everyone makes mistakes.
Should JD have lost in a boder state being invaded and conquered when he was running against the architect of McCain-Kennedy??
Give me a break. A tub of lard should have beaten McCain.
That tells me McCain’s victory had to do more with the effectiveness of McCain’s giant propaganda machine rather than anything JD did or didn’t do.
“You took that fragment out of context because you can’ help being deceitful.”
I quoted your whole sentence. Hardly out of context.
So you are saying you didn’t mean to say “McCain was on the ropes, with JD rocketing up in the polls and McCain falling.”?
That is not only your sentence Roland that sentence is quite consistent with your posting on the matter.
So which is it?
You think “McCain was on the ropes, with JD rocketing up in the polls and McCain falling.” OR you think that early on when it was about even that was the best JD did and fell down hill from there.
Those are two very different points of view Roland.
Please tell me which you think it is.
It is sad though that in being asked to clarify your own words you resort to accusing me of being deceitful.
“I wasn’t in AZ, so I don’t know exactly how the campaign went down.”
Well you post like you are an authority on it Roland.
I give up. I’ve been trying to argue with an idiot.
Roland,
It is clear your mind is made up and this in not about the facts.
McCain simply must be cast in a bad light by yourself, and some others, so if McCain won it means nothing about JD but everything about McCain.
And again you are wrong.
The JD vs. McCain election demonstrated nothing of the sort because it was not the kind of election we’ve seen in Alaska, Delaware or Florida.
Grass roots movements that have succeeded this primary season in which conservative candidates have won against well funded incumbents makes your conclusion suspect. IF all of the incumbents with money won primaries, ok, you conclusion would be valid. That is not what unfolded this election cycle.
Money matters. Absolutely. But it is not the ultimate determinant of election outcomes IF a candidate can tap grass roots movements as we see going on with the Tea Party and conservatives.
The fact that JD didn’t tap that same resource as Miller, O’Donnell, Rubio, etc., also stands out a as a stark fact regarding JD.
Your desire to bash McCain is getting the way of the facts.
“I’ve been trying to argue with an idiot.”
Roland it is YOUR sentence sir.
You just can’t seem to get to you made a mistake hey?
So I have to be an idiot?
I’ve asked you several times to address your statements. You do not. But its about me?
Which way is it Roland?
“McCain was on the ropes, with JD rocketing up in the polls and McCain falling.”?
Or
The best JD was to tie McCain and went down hill quickly?
It can’t be both and both are apparently your positions.
“All of which is 100% true, and you know it.”
No Roland it is not. It is 100% false. I’ve demonstrated the best JD did for you. I’ve asked you time and time again to show me the poll numbers that demonstrated McCain was on the ropes and JD was sky rocketing and in the face of my inquiry you call me deceitful and an idiot.
That is the substance of your argument? No facts but name calling?
Kinda sad there Roland.
McCain was never on the ropes. JD never was sky rocketing. Palin’s endorsement made no difference to McCain’s victory.
Them’s the facts folks.
Sorry if that makes me a deceitful idiot.
*yawn*
Power corrupts. Murkowski can’t stand the concept of losing power. She’ll find out that she doesn’t have many true friends once she has to leave office and no longer has the power that comes with being a U.S. Senator.
“yawn”
Yes. I know.
Problem is observations that can be drawn from Alaska, Florida and maybe Delaware, too soon to tell for sure with Delaware, the same observations can not be drawn from AZ’s election.
AZ’s election was not the same setup as Crist, Miller and it appears O’Donnell. I don’t know O’Donnell well enough to be certain.
So when I point that out the McCain bashing begins as if proving McCain is a bozo means JD was a conservative’s conservative.
McCain issues do not prove JD was a Miller, Rubio or O’Donnell.
Then the point gets lost quickly as the McCain haters on this forum go off on their tangents.
My apologies for the yawn factor.
“she doesn’t have many true friends”
The positive flip side is Miller will find out who his true friends are as well.
This is a good time to be a Republican. We’re moving forward and getting back to our fundamentals.
Every time a Castle or Murkowski acts as they have it makes it easier and easier to get back on our proper conservative foundation. The games have begun!
In watching what is happening, it is clear that to some of these supposed republicans, loyalty is a one way street. Starting with Scozzafava and continuing with Crist, Bennett, and now Murkowski, the RINOs are being “outed” and they don’t like it. This will have to continue for at least a decade if the Republican Party and the nation are to be saved from socialism.
“This will have to continue for at least a decade…”
I’m going beyond the decade thing. I think the proper time frame is the rest of our lives and we pass the same diligence on to our children and our grandchildren.
The great awakening that has happened due to Obama’s election and all that surrounds it is hopefully permanent.
We allowed the left and left thinking people to lull us into a false sense of security by their never ending incrementalism.
Never again.
We start reversing that process this fall and move to take it back in the same way.
Wrong. McCain typifies what is wrong with left leaning Republicans in that nobody ever knows where they stand.
McCain can claim today he wants responsible border control, but tomorrow he says “build the damn fence”.
I am old enough to have seen quite a large number of “build the damn fence” moments from McCain, and would gladly see him retired be it by a Republican or a lying “moderate” Democrat.
I DESPISE McCain’s waffling on so MANY issues going back MANY years, and will not care in the least to see him out of office.
May have to steal Hillarybots Party Unity My A$$ meme. This right on top of the Castle/Rove meltdown is going to sting them with the Indies bigtime. Could be an upside.
“Wrong. McCain typifies what is wrong with left leaning Republicans in that nobody ever knows where they stand.”
You don’t know where McCain stands on EVERY issue?
I disagree if you are of that opinion.
McCain is no Castle. Does not dismiss the issues on border security and amnesty. However there are “R’s” who are left of McCain and in the case of Castle I’d say there are Democrats posing as Republicans.
Would that we had a Miller or Rubio in AZ. But to say that McCain is THE problem in the GOP is a bit much.
Well it’s Michelle’s blog so when she posts, it’s hardly a tengent. And in case you hadn’t noticed, she – uh – isn’t a McCain fan.
And I think it’s past time he went off into the sunset. Arizona is getting overrun with illegal aliens and he’s ok with that.
“isn’t a McCain fan.”
Yep. But she also does not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Did she post in this thread so that my reference would have been to something MM posted? And she consistently makes her case without nastiness or hate.
The idea that Phil or some of the others who attack McCain can defend their postings by hitching their style to MM is absurd.
I know where McCain stands on certain issues on certain days, but have been absolutely shocked when he has changed those stands from one day to the next to suit his political aspirations.
You disagree all you want. I have known McCain long enough to know that he is one of the worst weasels I have ever seen politically, and whatever you say in defense of him is either naivete or an attempt at blowing smoke at me, and I get rather PO’d at smoke being blown at me about McCain.
You want to suck up to him? Fine. Just don’t claim he has any regard to what is in Republicans best interest here because that is flat-out BS! McCain always thinks of what is in HIS best interest.
How would you know this? That old fool has been all over the place on border security and amnesty.
You know what? You and McCain SERIOUSLY PI$$ me off when you try claim McCain gives a D@MN about border security or illegal aliens.
McCain played games with that issue for MANY YEARS and wanted amnesty passed, but didn’t see anything wrong until Krentz was killed. ONLY THEN did he start sounding like he wanted anything done on the border.
A FEDERAL politician having a CONSTITUENT killed on the border which is a FEDERAL responsibility should have been CLAMORING from BEFORE the day HIS CONSTITUENT was killed for something to be done to secure the borders.
McCain has done NONE of that.
For you or McCain to claim he has done anything about border security is to DISGRACE Krentz’s memory, and DISGRACES all those who have suffered violence at the hands of illegal aliens.
“off when you try claim McCain gives a D@MN about border security or illegal aliens.”
“For you or McCain to claim he has done anything about border security”
Having trouble reading rep…?
What I expected. Nice to see such a respectful response.
What else would you expect me to say rep…?
You totally misread my comment and then went off.
I didn’t say McCain has done anything about the border.
You misread it.
I said McCain not being Castle does not dismiss McCain’s border issues.
Even when I’ve said McCain’s words have at least changed on the border/amnesty issue I have carefully said it is only his words and I need to see some action.
So you misread it and you are wrong.
If that is disrespectful to you, so be it. But you are wrong.
Given McCain’s age, this is probably his last election, and October is probably the last time anybody will hear him say anything positive about border enforcement or negative about amnesty. Not that he’s said much of anything negative about amnesty. I despise McCain, but there isn’t much I can do about him since I don’t live in Arizona, so I don’t get my u-traus in a knot over him. The conservatives in the Senate will just have to work around him or over him until such time as he quits or dies.
“this is probably his last election”
Most likely.
Its ok though rep…. You aren’t the only person on this forum who lets their hatred of McCain get in the way of their objectivity.
Its kinda the norm for a group of you McCain bashers.
I didn’t misread anything. For you to suggest otherwise shows you are an A$$ trying to obfuscate.
You want to show what I misread or where I was wrong is one thing, but to just declare I misread or am wrong suggests I cannot comprehend your writing or am stupid.
p!$$ OFF!
I see your clear support for McCain although he is a weasel. I spoke against McCain because he is a weasel and could care less about his constituents, yet you defend that.
Whatever.
Principles mean nothing to you, OK.
You want to look foolish at defending McCain? Fine.
Will McCain get re-elected? Likely.
Will McCain deserve re-election? Not a chance in hell.
Do I care for a response from you? No.
Call me what you like. McCain’s voting record is documented and forever.
“Call me what you like.”
I was hoping to call you a big enough man to admit your mistakes and apologize.
It appears however this is not the case.
“McCain’s voting record is documented and forever.”
I thought you said you didn’t know where McCain stood on issues?
His voting record doesn’t tell you where he stands on issues?
Point them out.
“Point them out.”
I already did.
Typical of a McCain supporter.
I won’t bother spelling it out for you since you are so in love with McCain it wouldn’t matter.
Does your wife/girlfriend know of this fetish?
Sad Rep… just sad.
Like I’ve noted, you aren’t alone in letting your McCain hatred obscure your objectivity.
You misread my comment.
“Typical of a McCain supporter.”
Its typical of a McCain support to point out your inconsistency?
On the one hand you don’t know where McCain stands but on the other you implore me to look at his voting record because his voting record illustrates where he stands on the issues?
“I see your clear support for McCain although he is a weasel.”
You mean like where I wish we had a Miller or Rubio so we could have beaten McCain in the primary? That clear support?
McCain Derangement Syndrome.
Who would have thunk it?
What does this mean?
Is this the syndrome where poeple who won’t vote for him are thought to be traitors?
The harder they try the harder they fall. A gracious loser has an easier time with a comeback try. Gain a reputation as a really sore loser and you have to wait a generation or so to get back in the game.
Murky is doing herself in.
{^_^}
“thought to be traitors?”
The word I used by the way is treasonous not traitors.
Its a simple matter Aloha. What are you going to do this fall when faced with a choice?
Are you going to act in a way that leaves the left in power or are you going to act in a way that does your very best to impede the Obama agenda?
We know for certain IF the left is in majorities after Nov what they will do. We’ve seen it up close and personal for the last two years.
What will happen with a Republican majority can be reasonably speculated from here until the cows come home. We don’t know for sure what will or won’t happen if they are in the majority in Congress.
We do know for certain the left will furhter Obama’s agenda if they keep their majorities.
So what are you going to do Aloha?
Act in a way that allows the left to further destroy our country? Treason.
OR
Hold your nose as you may need to do and vote Republican?
Please where the rubber meets the road, what are you doing to do?
I guess there is a third choice. Insult me because I know what’s at stake this fall and am choosing to put the country’s good ahead of my own personal opinions.
What kind of peson are you then? Your interest over the country or the country’s good over your opinions?
Also Aloha wondering if you have the guts to actually answer my question. Phil did not. He chumped out.
My question is THE question for this election. Its the bottom line. The answer to it sorts folks in to two groups. Folks who put their self interest ahead of the country, folks who put the country ahead of their self interest.
As Palin said about or stay in the truck…
Its that kind of question.
You going to subject us to more leftist majorities OR are you going to join us and do everything we can to impede Obama?
Which side are you reall on?
Phil seems to actually be on the left despite his pontificating about being all conservative like.
Where are you going to stand this fall?
Speaking of this fall. This is inciteful and dangerous.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100919/ts_nm/us_usa_elections_obama
1. This is why we need a preferential voting system.
2. So I guess Joe Lieberman was “bitter” and “clingy” as well.
Aloha?
Thanks for insult. I’m in a different time zone…
I had a choice yesterday and voted for the people I thought would be best for the job.
Sorry, i guess i used forrest instead of trees.
So lets look at this article and how Obama is framing issues and himself.
Than compare that to how some folks are framing themselves and issues on this very forum. Folks who are certain they are non-Obama folks.
Anything sound familar? Sound basically the same?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20016851-503544.html
My, isn’t that AMAZING how both folks sound and frame issues almost exactly the same…..
“I had a choice yesterday”
Primary a different beast than general. Context changes things a great deal.
But I can see, you as others on this forum who want to pontificate avoid making it clear how you will act in November.
Being transparent about where the rubber meets the road kinda takes the wind out of all that pontificating hey?
Especially if you have to swallow real hard and admit that you’ll be doing the same thing I’m going to be doing.
This time its about voting to impede as best I can so as to stop the Obama agenda.
Or even worse, you’ll be acting in a way to extend it.
Kinda hard to take either way for some of you chest thumping folks here on MM hey?
Tea Party being held hostage by the GOP now?
I always find it fascinating that some of these self professed more conservative than anyone else’s conservatism, all full of themselves, talk, frame matters and react just like Obama. Isn’t that insightful?
Talk about know them by their fruits, that old watch what they do, not what they say thing.
Find myself reasonably wondering just how many of these self portryed as chest thumping conservatives on this forum are nothing more than Castles. You know Democrats at heart?
Ahem. Hey Lisa, seniority is zilch unless one of parties gives you credit for it by awarding a chairmanship. Since you resigned, I doubt the GOP (they’d better not) will give you much, certainly not the cherry ones that allows you to bring home the bacon.
Maybe Murkowski should consult with Charlie Crist on the wisdom of running an independent campaign after losing as a Republican. The arrogance of the elites is breathtaking. Alaska is more conservative than Florida and we have seen Crist for what he is. I bet that Murkowski will be seen as a Democrat and suck more votes off of that candidate than she will from Miller.
Really?