Reply With Quote
Maybe she should join the democrats.
She cannot possibly win. Worse yet, she would probably slant the election for a sure democrat win.
ing sore crybaby loser. She belongs with the demonrats.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...mear-campaign/
(CNN) – Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski is defending her choice to mount a write-in campaign in the wake of her defeat to a Tea Party-backed candidate, telling CNN’s Candy Crowley she was the victim of a “smear” campaign.
“What happened in my particular race, you had the Tea Party Express, this California-based group, come in at the last minute in a campaign, run a mudslinging, smear - just a terrible, terrible - campaign with lies and fabrications and mischaracterizations,” Murkowski told CNN’s Candy Crowley in an exclusive interview. “They came in, dumped $600,000 into a small market here in Alaska, and they absolutely clearly influenced the outcome.”
Murkowski lost her bid to political novice and Alaska attorney Joe Miller late last month in an upset that stunned national Republicans. But party leaders have since said they are supporting Miller, and have urged Murkowski not to mount a write-in bid. Murkowski herself resigned from her leadership post last week ahead of the write-in decision.
Speaking on CNN, the Alaska Republican said she is not concerned with making the Republican leadership happy.
“I am listening to my cons uents. That's what it's all about,” she said. “It's not about trying to make the Republican Party happy … it's trying to respond to the people of the state of Alaska. I'm going to give them a choice.”
Since her announcement of a write-in bid Friday, Murkowski has faced fire from several members of her own party, including Sen. Jim DeMint, who called her a “hypocrite,” and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who said she was “cheating.”
“It's trying to respond to the people of the state of Alaska,” Murkowski told CNN in response. “I'm going to give them a choice. And if the people on November 2 say, we don't like her, that's fine. But that's part of what we're doing here. That's part of the process as well.”
Murkowski also suggested that DeMint – who has repeatedly supported Tea Party-backed candidates over establishment picks this election cycle – may be waging a civil war within the GOP.
“I think he has made people uncomfortable. I think that he has kind of rattled the cages, whether it advances to a full-on civil war, I don't know. What I’m looking at right now is what's going on in my state. I'm responding to that. And quite honestly, what's happening within the conference is - I’m not focused on that. I'm focused on what's going on here back home,” she said.
No Lisa, the Tea Pottiers want their country back. It's not your country anymore....
Maybe she should join the democrats.
She cannot possibly win. Worse yet, she would probably slant the election for a sure democrat win.
ing sore crybaby loser. She belongs with the demonrats.
winner and corporate tool Miller says today that national unemployment insurance is illegal under the Cons ution.
over to you, Cons ution-self-wrapped assholes.
Will he ever say that federal welfare dollars that float Alaska is unCons utional?
Um, I'm pretty sure that's exactly the plan. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," especially if she feels wronged. It's clear as day that corporations are putting money into elections under the diguise of Tea Party banners - or do people really think grassroots folks were throwing that kind of money at Miller because they "believe" in him?
It's a free ing country, don't tell someone not to run for office as a write-in. That's un-American, to get angry at someone for giving the voters more options than Democrat or Republican.
WC applauded Joe Lieberman for doing exactly the same thing a couple of years ago.
That was different. He had the full force of the DNC pushing him out rather than fair election campaigning. He won for that reason. the people revolted. These two cases are different.
Please WH. I know you are smarter than you appear when you make such posts.
More alike than different, really.
WC, you are a horrible idiot, a hypocrite and your constant cries of, 'I'm not a republican' are a joke. Just like you.
no they aren't hypocrite
Yes, in your alternate reality, I am an imbecile. I admit it.
What happened to the Wild Cobra of two years ago? And who is this idiot that hacked into his account?
It's in the alternate reality of lib s that I am the imbecile. Not in this reality.
It's comedy gold, really. You're just so angry. It's a shame I can't really take your posts seriously anymore.
Think I care?
^^^ angry?
Maybe WC really does care behind his angry facade of not caring.
It's a shame because he used to have decent posts interspersed with the partisan knee-jerking... But his anger has really taken over...
WC has his lucid moments, and I look at his misfired humor more as goofy foray into lightheartedness than pure fail, at times.
There's a lighter side of WC.
joe lost the primary, and ran as a third-party independent. isn't that what Murkowski is proposing to do?
Honest answer, WC. You applauded Lieberman when he did what you criticize Murkowski for considering, right?
The simple facts are accurate for caparisons.
We talked about nuances before, right. Not all things are equal here. The democrat leadership wanted Lieberman out because he wouldn't "play ball" with their partisan antics over the war. We have more-less the reverse here. What I see is we have a career politician being ousted for playing ball with those of the left.
She has a decent conservative record, but voted for Health Care and other liberal minded things. The Tea Party was able to point this out, and get her replaced. Lieberman had a better liberal record than Murkowski's conservative record. However, the democrat establishment pushed him out because of his views on the war.
I don't really know all the details, but I remember the deciding factor in the primaries being the different viewpoints on the war. When it came to campaign fund raising, Lieberman raised more, but Murkowski used a great deal of his own wealth.
In the end, Lieberman won. In the Alaska election, she is a spoiler rather than a candidate that can win.
So it's pretty much the same. The only nuance for you is the party to which each belonged.
Thanks for clearing that up for us.
nuances!
nuance: that special place where I can be hypocritical based on results.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
