Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Email Us
Since losing renomination as a Republican on August 24, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski remains unclear on how she will proceed. Tea party and Sarah Palin-fueled long-shot Joe Miller narrowly upset Murkowski to win the GOP nod.
Initially, it was thought the Libertarian Party of Alaska might ask their nominee to step aside and allow Murkowski to seek re-election on the LP line. But the party’s state committee would have to approve, and they’ve flatly said “no deal” to putting the Senator on the ballot.
Her only other option right now would be to run as a write-in to retain her Senate seat. The last major write-in effort mounted in Alaska was by Republican State Senator Robin Taylor in 1998. She lost the GOP primary for governor, but the party later backed her as a write-in when the winner of the primary was caught up in a scandal.
In the end, Taylor finished second with 18.1% as a write-in, just slightly ahead of the Republican on the ballot… but far behind Democratic governor Tony Knowles. Former State Representative Ray Metcalfe, the candidate of the Republican Moderate Party, captured over 6% of the vote in that strange year.
In fact, only one person has ever been elected to the U.S. Senate as a write-in candidate. In 1954, Strom Thurmond won 63.1 percent of the vote in South Carolina.
But Murkowski might have another option. Despite saying “no way” to letting her take over the LP’s ballot line for U.S. Senate, the party and the Senator have continued to have contact and are negotiating for some reason.
One possible path for Murkowski to take is to convince either the Libertarian or Alaskan Independence Party to allow her to replace their nominee for governor. The deadline to make something happen is September 15th and both parties have qualified candidates for that office.
For the Alaskan Independence Party, this has worked before.
Former Alaska governor Walter Hickel made numerous failed bids to return to the governor’s mansion, losing three Republican primaries — in 1974, 1978 and 1986. In 1978 and 1986, Hickel went on to mount a write-in campaign… finishing second in 1978 with 26.4% and fourth-place with 2.8% in 1986.
Four years later, in 1990, Hickel would be offered the nomination of the Alaska Independence Party when the party’s original nominee agreed to step aside.
Hickel would go on to win the governorship.
If Murkowski switches races would she be a viable candidate for Governor? It’s hard to say. But she would probably draw a lot of votes from incumbent Sean Parnell, who is a close ally of Sarah Palin. Causing him to lose the election might be worth it for the Senator.
To say that Murkowski and Palin have history would be putting it mildly.
Frank Murkowski resigned from his long-held U.S. Senate seat in December 2002 to assume the governorship. At the time, Palin was said to be on the “short list” of possible appointees to fill his now vacant U.S. Senate seat. But, of course, Murkowski ultimately appointed his daughter, then-State Representative Lisa Murkowski, as his successor.
In addition to campaigning hard for Miller this year, Palin first won her term as governor of Alaska in 2006 when she defeated incumbent Frank Murkowski.
Murkowski and Palin can’t stand each other. You would assume that the opportunity to possibly retake the governorship for her family, or at a minimum score some political payback, has got to be on the table right now as these negotiations move forward.
So, in short, you are suggesting she run for Governor out of spite and possibly cause the loss of the Republican nominee all in the grand design of a pseudo-war between her and Palin. Is this what news organizations have been reduced to? Cheerleaders for chaos? Would you be suggesting the same thing if she had been a Democrat or you’ll be tearing her apart?
Pardon me, but here’s another option: how about Murkowski for nothing. Her credentials are mundane – a long time politician who earned mediocre marks form left and right, she obviously doesn’t seem to fit into the AK GOP, most certainly not the Libertarian Party, or even the AK Independence Party – which advocates issues she either hasn’t spoken a word about during her career or which seem antithetical to her voting record – such as home schooling rights of parents and the privatization of government services.
The establishment U.S. Chamber of Commerce bestowed an 86% approval rate on Sen. Murkowski in 2008, while the National Small Business Association rated her 50% on their side in 2007-2008. She has a weak rating on the hot button issue of immigration: the National Latino Congress gives her a 40 % score in 2010 and the American Immigration Lawyers Association 60 percent in 2007-2008. In 2007-2008, English First, the lobby promoting English as the legal standard for American law and practices, gave Senator Murkowski a grade of “C.” Based on lifetime voting records on immigration issues in, the immigration reform group, Americans for Better Immigration, assigned Senator Murkowski a grade of “C-.” Overall, neither side has much respect for her legislative commitments and leadership.
She has earned support from the pro-choice EMILY’s List and was endorsed by the pro-gay rights Log Cabin Republicans. The TEA party-friendly Freedom Works ranks her at 50%, the conservative publication Human Events puts her in the top five “RINO’s” in the United States Senate, and Citizens Against Government Waste gives her a lifetime rating of 54%. Hardly numbers that inspire thoughtful voters.
Moderate Republicans generally do not fare well in in AK, and this year many GOP activists want to turn away from the Bush era big government/”compassionate conservative” policies and pursue creative new initiatives that will buck the tax-and-spend bi-partisan establishment on Capitol Hill. No better example of that grass roots movement’s success can be found than in the upset defeat of Sen. Murkowski. Given the fact that she is now sending out signals that she is available to “serve” in various offices under several party labels is further proof that Ms. Murkowski is a politician first and a legislative leader second.
Just to be clear: I’m a Republican and don’t have much use for Murkowski or her father. This piece was speculating about political strategy. She’s openly telling the media that she’s still negotiating with the LP. If they ruled out the US Senate nomination, then there’s got to be a reason they’re still talking.
Now that would sound like a long-shot… Which is why I outlined one of her possible motivations. Revenge.
Austin:
Your piece was right on target – indeed she is well-positioned to give a black eye to Tea Party republicans and Palin supporters. I was venting about Murkowski as a poignant example of why politicians are ranked lower than used car salesmen and post office bureaucrats.
In dealing with her it’s not a matter of politics, it’s a matter of principal. Murkowski is not by any stretch a libertarian. She’s barely even a republican. The Alaska Libertarian should not even encourage her to seek office. End of discussion.