Betrayal: AK GOP HQ Phone Banked For Murkowski On Election Day
The first of two exclusive reports this morning concerning Alaska's unresolved Senate race.
A reliable source unaligned with either GOP senatorial campaign in Alaska, and positioned to know, confirmed for me last night that the Alaskan Republican Party (ARP) stepped up their efforts on behalf of Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the closing days of the election, going so far as to phone bank for her from the Alaska GOP's headquarters on election day.
While technically not a violation of any rules, the rules are conveniently rather slim. Grassroots Republicans I spoke to in Alaska view it as a betrayal of an open and fair primary in which the GOP establishment should not be taking sides. It also raises significant additional concerns.
Given that the ARP is so obviously not neutral and in a position to potentially influence the outcome, it may explain why candidate Joe Miller believed it necessary to fire a shot across the bow of those who might look to steal the election. A pdf of Miller's formal protest at previous link. A Murkowski observer stands accused of using confidential information to resurrect a previously disqualified ballot. It might not be long before we get into Al Franken territory with Murkowski at this rate.
Sources in Alaska claim her father, Frank, who appointed her, is livid that his daughter may have squandered away what some believe the Murkowski family sees more as a family heirloom, than a repository of the public trust.
Furthermore, with rumors swirling about how honest a broker the NRSC really is in dispatching forces to Alaska, the state GOP could be positioned to provide cover for an NRSC determined to meddle in the race.
It isn't as if Cornyn's NRSC wants another independent-minded conservative like Jim DeMint to join the club on the Hill. And when one thinks of how influential any one senator can actually be, especially within party ranks, there is far more at stake here than what some pundits seem to believe.
There are additional reasons why we may soon see what amounts to a civil war within the GOP in Alaska, one that could easily spill over nationally, infuriating the Republican base if the establishment attempts to steal this election for Murkowski. And Murkowski will do the GOP brand no good among the grassroots if she pulls a Sorry Charlie Crist and opts for another route.
In that regard, another motivation for Alaska's Libertarian Party to embrace Murkowski, besides the money Erick mentions, is the opportunity to secure a spot on the ballot in future elections and broaden their overall influence. The Libertarian candidate must secure 5% of the vote to pre-qualify for ballot placement in future elections. That would likely be an easy goal with Murkowski running under their name.
John Cornyn, Chairman of the NRSC, has been upfront that the NRSC will help incumbent Republicans being challenged. But there is a problem with Murkowski. I have confirmed through multiple sources that Lisa Murkowski has already approached the Alaska Libertarian Party. In exchange for putting her on the Libertarian ticket in November, Murkowski will hand the Libertarians a sizable chunk of her +$1 million war chest.
“Grassroots Republicans I spoke to in Alaska view it as a betrayal of an open and fair primary in which the GOP establishment should not be taking sides. It also raises significant additional concerns.”
Is the moment at hand for a tea change?
If only Miller could broadcast this with a bullhorn, concede now, run as the Libertarian, take all his voters with him, win in the general and effectively make the ARP a mere third party from now on.
“we may soon see what amounts to a civil war within the GOP in Alaska, one that could easily spill over nationally…”
Cue the Patrick Henry speech.
“If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.”
The NRSC, and now the ARP are proving that they are nothing more than agents of the powers in DC. They do not seek to be honest representatives of the people, they serve the ‘new crown’ that is modern DC. Doing so they violate the principles of the republican party and the very principle of a republican form of government.
Some may say it is hyperbolic to speak of approaching slavery, I do not think it excessive to consider the inevitable outcome if we fail to correct this problem soon.
If Alaska Libertarians run Lisa they will have to change their name to the Opportunists Party. I suspect most Alaska libertarians are more libertarian than anywhere else. Can’t see them selling out this way. They would split, maybe the new entity could be called the Murkowski Anti-Palin Party. Good luck with that. Palin wins big.
Thomas D, You’re not exaggerating. Now Obama wants to make our fisherman into government employees with a small army of commissars going out on their boats to keep them in line. Compared to the distant Crown of colonial times, DC is far more oppressive.
Outrageous.
Our ruling class has one priority above all others: protecting our ruling class.
Thanks for reminding me to send my political donations to someone other than the GOP establishment organizations.
The Club for Growth and Tea Party Express, I imagine, thank you as well.
I didn’t realize that it was considered a betrayal for the Republican Party to favor one Republican Party candidate over another in state primaries. Heaven forbid. Time to trash the anti-abortion, bible thumping, pro Christian-theocracy establishment and invite the Tea Party movement in to put all those haters in their place.
//sarcasm off//
What I find interesting about the Tea Party/Libertarian movement is that for many years one could reliably look to the top Libertarian websites to find the latest rant against the evil Christians. Mocking Christians and their beliefs and hurt feelings (e.g over the pubicly funded SF “homoerotic Last Supper” posters) was great sport for Libertarians. Now Libertarians/Tea Party are trying to minimize the extent of anti-religious bigotry within their movement and frankly they are being no more honest about their agenda then are Liberals.
I think it’s great that pressure is being put on Republican politicians to place greater weight on fiscal responsibility. But these regularly scheduled “outrages” (BETRAYAL!- snort) and calls for wholesale replacement of the Republican Party, with groups that despise the faith of a vast majority of Republicans voters, are dishonest and misleading.
I don’t see where this is a problem. Party organizations in most states (except where prohibited by law) routinely make pre-primary endorsements–whether made by local conventions whose delegates are elected at by primary or caucus or by party bosses–and use party resources to support favored candidates. In Minnesota, for example, party endorsements at every level are made. The DFL party endorsed Margaret Anderson Kelliher for governor and spent beaucoup bucks on her behalf, but she lost the primary to Mark Dayton, who spent even beaucouper bucks.
It remains to be seen how the Minnesota DFL will react to its nomination being “stolen” by the “wrong” candidate, who had the support of the people who voted, and not merely the insiders and activists to attend caucuses and conventions. Where the civil war will erupt is when the party does not accept the primary results and tries to torpedo its duly nominated candidate. For example:
1) I read that the Murkowski forces have lined up a legal team from the RNC to fight this in the court. RNC stay out of this!!!
2) The Democrats in South Carolina are strong-arming US Senate primary winner Alvin Greene to pull out, and have gotten trumped up charges that he showed porn to a college student (gasp!) filed against him. Greene may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but from all accounts he’s a former Marine and a gentle soul taking care of his aged father, and dammit, he won the primary, so they have an obligation to him!
Howard, your facts are wrong on Greene. He was arrested back in November when nobody knew who he was, and the charges are not “trumped up.” He approached a stranger in the USC library, immediately showed her the porn and suggested going back to her room. It was menacing and not the first instance, according to media reports. I imagine you call him “gentle” because he tends to be quiet but recent encounters with the press suggest he is non compos mentis. I’m not defending the South Carolina Democrats – you’re right, they, the “establishment” have treated their candidate dreadfully and are indeed trying to oust the voters’ choice – but my home-state.
“While technically not a violation of any rules, the rules are conveniently rather slim. Grassroots Republicans I spoke to in Alaska view it as a betrayal of an open and fair primary in which the GOP establishment should not be taking sides.”
Come on, these days it seems to be the rule rather than the exception for the national GOP to take sides in a primary race.
“John Cornyn, Chairman of the NRSC, has been upfront that the NRSC will help incumbent Republicans being challenged.’
No kidding. By far the most disgusting spectacle I’ve seen this year was the way the GOP establishment went all out to save John McCain’s butt in the primary.
“Sources in Alaska claim her father, Frank, who appointed her, is livid that his daughter may have squandered away what some believe the Murkowski family sees more as a family heirloom, than a repository of the public trust.”
What?!?!?
Paraphrasing from Scott Brown, “It’s not the Murkowski’s seat, it’s not the Republicans’ seat… It’s the People’s Seat!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJEEQHOnI2Q
“What I find interesting about the Tea Party/Libertarian movement is that for many years one could reliably look to the top Libertarian websites to find the latest rant against the evil Christians.”
I think you’re a bit mixed up. It was Murkowski who signed the following Senate dclaration: “It is the sense of the Senate that the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right; and such decision should not be overturned.” Meaningless as such a thing is, it tells you which side she falls on.
Murkowski is the one threatening to join the libertarians. You need to read more before commenting, I suggest.
Sent the following to the National Republican Senatorial Committee…
I am a fairly conservative Republican…
——————-
Here is some advice re: a report I read about your …
sending Sean Cairncross (SP?) to Alaska
AT THE REQUEST OF LISA MURKOWSKI … ETC…
———————
Stay the hell out of this …
We Alaskans know what we’re doing…
If Lisa’s folks did not show up for the primary…
That is her tufski shitski…
You should be 100% with Joe if the absentees vote
confirms his nomination…
Lisa is likely to switch to the Libertarian ballot if she
loses the nomination anyway… You will then look like
MONSTROUS DUMMIES … if you try to save her NOW …
—————————
We Alaskans have spoken…
Let it alone…
P.E.R.I.O.D …
E.X.C.L.A.M.A.T.I.O.N. P.O.I.N.T.
Why is Michael Steele silent about this behavior?
Mike Jackson,
While I absolutely agree that much of the Libertarians are anti-Christian bigots, I’m thinking Sean may be right here.
With much of the Libertarians, you want to ask them the following: Which would you rather have a SoCon dominated R Party and victory, or more socialism? They would try to dodge this by saying neither, but that’s not any sort of likely option.
What we have are Libertarians as Chihuahua snapping at the heels of the SoCons who try to defeat the RINOs. In effect, the Libertarians are the lapdogs/attack dogs of the RINOs.
And while the Libertarians have LOUDLY claimed the Tea Party is theirs, I am somewhat doubtful. It would not surprise me if most Tea Partiers are SoCons. After all, SoCon to Libertarian is about 60 to 1.
So, I’m reasonably comfortable with Miller winning. And I’m way skeptical of Murkowski’s goodness. So, right now, if I had a vote, I’d vote for Miller, barring new information.
would you rather have a SoCon dominated R Party and victory, or more socialism?
Who says the SoCons won’t give us both? See GW Bush’s new prescription drug entitlement, his TARP bailouts (where he said “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system”), or his massive expansions of government spending and regulation for a few examples. Lying about supporting limited government doesn’t win you any points while you’re removing more of those limits. And lying about wiretaps and torture doesn’t make a politician any less socialistic; it just means he prefers a more old-school brand of socialism.
It would be at least tolerable for liberty if Conservatives elected people who were actually, well, conservative – but giving a pass to any authoritarian who falsely *claims* to be a conservative is just irredeemable; that’s one of the reasons people were so willing to fall for an authoritarian who was falsely claiming to be a centrist liberal.
>”Who says the SoCons won’t give us both? See GW Bush’s new prescription drug entitlement”
Because everybody knows that GW Bush was a dedicated social conservative, right?
The lies you libertarians tell yourself …
About the SoCon-dominated R party: I suspect I’d rather have more socialism, thank you. At least the D’s are pretty obvious about what they’re trying to do, and if I have to live through an economic collapse I’d rather do it before I get much older. It’s going to take a huge effort to overturn more than a half century of ruinous economic policies, and if they’re more interested in enforcing social conservatism it just isn’t going to happen. Doom and gloom, rack and ruin. The R’s need to reverse the trend, not just slow it, and this is just about the last chance they have to do so.
Shannon, whether I’m right about Alvin Greene is not the issue. You seem to have fact-checked this better than I did, so I’ll concede that much to you.
The issue is whether this would have been followed-up by law enforcement authorities to the extent it has had Greene not been nominated, and at whose behest was it so-followed up.
By the way, I am a huge fan of Jim DeMint, my second-favorite US Senator (edged out only by Tom Coburn). No doubt he will win easily enough. I just hope he knows how to handle this situation with the delicacy it requires.
If there were Senatorial term limits, the policy of supporting incumbents in primaries would be reasonable….but since not….no way.
SM is of course, right. Libertarians think RINOs and Big Gov’t Conservatives are SoCons when that is not the case, in general.
Daver, I too suspect that that is the case for a lot of Libertarians. Give them a choice between Sound Morals and Sound Economics and More Freedom on the One Hand (the SoCon Stance) or Bad Morals, Bad Economics, and More Impingement of Liberty (the RINO and the Liberal stance) and they choose the second.
Its the Fiscon only people that are the weaklings trying to slow down things. Its the SoCons that have the nerve to bend the arrow backwards.
I don’t know enough to generalize, but I’ve been in a few conversations with social conservatives who have said roughly that they weren’t interested in playing in a fiscally conservative party unless they got some social conservative planks thrown in. I had mentioned Newt Gingrich’s Contract With America as a starting point, they thought it didn’t go far enough on the social end. Obviously way too few people involved in this to extrapolate from, but it didn’t leave me with a good feeling as to where their priorities lay.
I’m a bit put off by your reference to sound morals. Maybe you’re talking about the abortion issue–to me, this seems way too contentious to worry about for the current emergency. To me, the most reasonable policy for the republicans to adopt on this would be that the party has no official position on it. I think that polls taken of tea party attendees tend to support this–that the polls suggest that the fiscal problems are much more important than abortion or gay marriage issues.
I spent three terms as a Republican Precinct Charman in north Texas. While I, personally tend toward the Libertarian Wing of the Party there is a reason the Socons have the power they do. They work in the elections. When they do not work hard in the elections, the Party loses, see George HW Bush’ second term, oh wait, that was Bill Clinton. See George W’s lead in the polls evaporate in 2000 after the DWI surpise. Or see how well our pal McCain did in ’08.
The Libertarian wing of the Party had no power because they did not get out and work, ie, walk the precincts, man the phones, drive folks to the polls, etc. The Country Club Republicans have power because it takes mone. The Socons have power because they work. It takes both. and, please note what happens when the Socons stay home. Clinton. A GW Bush so wounded by the bare win in ’00 that he had to bend over backwards to get anything at all. Hence Teddy Kennedy writing the “Education” Bill in order that the tax cuts squeaked through.Obama.
Daver,
I appreciate your courteous tone. Its not what I’m used to from Libertarians who tend to start at cranky.
The way I see it is that there is a basic conservative position, its all three of the legs of the conservative stool. And the fiscons and the McCainiacs threaten continually to walk unless they, the minority get their way. And then when they do, they often walk anyways…see Christopher Buckley.
Its also that the real fiscons strongly tend to be socons. Fiscons who are not socons tend to be wimps…see Arnold Schwarzanegger. Me, I want to close the Dept. of Education, shut down foreign aid, and lets get rid of funding science except for contagious disease research which you can maybe stretch as a military matter.
So, if you want fiscal conservatism, for real, you have to have socons. This is what I meant when I said socons had the nerve to bend the arrow backwards.
As to abortion, and other elements of sound morality (like anti-corruption and something Libertarians like…upholding of contracts), it does little good to kidnap a drunk and force him sober and then release him. He has to change from the inside.
And as to pragmatic issues, I’m going to point out that your side can choose to be pragmatic and not play the part of Chihuahuas as your side has for the last thirty years. If the Libertarians had been helping the Socons, we’d have more freedom now.
And lastly, why are not Libertarians out there with Operation Rescue? Abortion is the ultimate anti-Libertarian act.
It’s not my side–I gave up on capital L libertarianism quite a while back. I’ve voted libertarian in some local elections, where I didn’t dislike either candidate enough to vote against them.
I agree on closing the Dept of Education. The National Endowment for the Arts is a no-brainer. I disagree on foreign aid–there are some countries (those we have alliances with, those we have a strategic interest in, and those whose support annoys countries I dislike) that I think we should continue to support. You didn’t mention shutting down Ag subsidies–that needs to happen. Ag subsidies basically only help the corporate farm, although they are sold as helping the small farmer.
Funny that you mention chihuahuas–my mom had a dog that would act tough but then roll over on its back and pee on itself if a dog actually looked like it was going to fight back. She called it her Republican dog. She isn’t much impressed with the republicans in congress. Of course, they aren’t financially conservative, and I’m not sure their social conservatism amounts to more than mouthing platitudes.
Well, I’d like to continue supporting Israel. And the rest we can compromise on.
I didn’t mention Ag subsidies, but there’s a lot I didn’t mention in the List of Things To Get Rid Of. I want all corporate welfare gone.
Your mom is right about the Republicans in congress, and I suspect you’re right about their financial responsibility and moral seriousness. We need to boot them out, and replace them with a bunch of Socons and a handful of Libertarians.
See ya’ around the Intertubes. Vote down the RINOS!