Congrats, Sen. Murkowski

[goldcatt]

This proves my point about politicians. They will say and do anything to remain in power. She was not selected by the Republicans when they had their primaries so she pitched a hissy fit and ran a write in campaign.

Seriously, I mean, fuck democracy. How dare a plurality of Alaskans express their will by writing her name in and not caving into voting for the two choices presented to them by our two party system.

You didn't understand what I was saying. The point I was trying to make is her ego would not allow her to accept the will of the people in the primary. Her lust for power too strong. She had the right to run as a write in candidate and that is the point I am trying to make. Politicians will do anything or say anything to remain in power.

Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. I'm not inside her head. I also have no real interest or stake in who won that seat, not being an Alaskan.

But I do find it fascinating that certain folks who normally trumpet "freedom", "liberty" and "democracy" all over this board are suddenly up in arms that any person, regardless of her reasons or political leanings, had the utter gall to choose to run a campaign for public office that was perfectly legal in the State in which she resides. And even more disgusted with the fact that given the choices the plurality of residents in that State, regardless of their reasons or motivations, chose to cast their votes for her. Oh, the horror! Something must be done about it!

Ah, the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

 

[Article 15]

Seriously, I mean, fuck democracy. How dare a plurality of Alaskans express their will by writing her name in and not caving into voting for the two choices presented to them by our two party system.

You didn't understand what I was saying. The point I was trying to make is her ego would not allow her to accept the will of the people in the primary. Her lust for power too strong. She had the right to run as a write in candidate and that is the point I am trying to make. Politicians will do anything or say anything to remain in power.

Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. I'm not inside her head. I also have no real interest or stake in who won that seat, not being an Alaskan.

But I do find it fascinating that certain folks who normally trumpet "freedom", "liberty" and "democracy" all over this board are suddenly up in arms that any person, regardless of her reasons or political leanings, had the utter gall to choose to run a campaign for public office that was perfectly legal in the State in which she resides. And even more disgusted with the fact that given the choices the plurality of residents in that State, regardless of their reasons or motivations, chose to cast their votes for her. Oh, the horror! Something must be done about it!

Ah, the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

These are the same people who cheered Joe Lieberman on much like I am sure many who are now applauding Murkowski's campaign were spitting all sorts of fire and venom a Joe in 2006.

Hypocrites and partisans make up the majority of this board.

 

[goldcatt]

You didn't understand what I was saying. The point I was trying to make is her ego would not allow her to accept the will of the people in the primary. Her lust for power too strong. She had the right to run as a write in candidate and that is the point I am trying to make. Politicians will do anything or say anything to remain in power.

Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. I'm not inside her head. I also have no real interest or stake in who won that seat, not being an Alaskan.

But I do find it fascinating that certain folks who normally trumpet "freedom", "liberty" and "democracy" all over this board are suddenly up in arms that any person, regardless of her reasons or political leanings, had the utter gall to choose to run a campaign for public office that was perfectly legal in the State in which she resides. And even more disgusted with the fact that given the choices the plurality of residents in that State, regardless of their reasons or motivations, chose to cast their votes for her. Oh, the horror! Something must be done about it!

Ah, the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

These are the same people who cheered Joe Lieberman on much like I am sure many who are now applauding Murkowski's campaign were spitting all sorts of fire and venom a Joe in 2006.

Hypocrites and partisans make up the majority of this board.

I was thinking of Ole Joe as I was reading some of the comments. In fact, some of them still hold him up as a poster boy.

Yep, hypocrisy is rampant round these parts and not limited to one side. I still find it endlessly amusing though, especially when it's this blatant.

 

[Stephanie]

Sheeesh, so now questioning the elections of a POLITICIAN and their tactics used, is Hypocrisy.

you all shouldn't question folks, just sit down an shut the hell up, after all if there could be "fraud" of some kind, SO WHAT.

 

[Article 15]

Sheeesh, so now questioning the elections of a POLITICIAN and their tactics used, is Hypocrisy.

you all shouldn't question folks, just sit down an shut the hell up, after all if there could be "fraud" of some kind, SO WHAT.

Still waiting on you to show what exactly is fishy about the election.

 

[goldcatt]

But...but...but...A-A-A-A-ACORN! The SEIU! The DEMONRATS!

Of COURSE they stuffed the ballot box for a Republican primary candidate turned independent who will caucus and vote with the GOP.

This just gets better and better.

 

[Stephanie]

But...but...but...A-A-A-A-ACORN! The SEIU! The DEMONRATS!

Of COURSE they stuffed the ballot box for a Republican primary candidate turned independent who will caucus and vote with the GOP.

This just gets better and better.

oh brother.

 

[Madeline]

Sheeesh, so now questioning the elections of a POLITICIAN and their tactics used, is Hypocrisy.

you all shouldn't question folks, just sit down an shut the hell up, after all if there could be "fraud" of some kind, SO WHAT.

So IYO, running as an independent is "fraudulent"?

 

[Stephanie]

Sheeesh, so now questioning the elections of a POLITICIAN and their tactics used, is Hypocrisy.

you all shouldn't question folks, just sit down an shut the hell up, after all if there could be "fraud" of some kind, SO WHAT.

So IYO, running as an independent is "fraudulent"?

Huh?
Murkowski didn't run as an Independent, now did she?

 

[goldcatt]

Sheeesh, so now questioning the elections of a POLITICIAN and their tactics used, is Hypocrisy.

you all shouldn't question folks, just sit down an shut the hell up, after all if there could be "fraud" of some kind, SO WHAT.

So IYO, running as an independent is "fraudulent"?

who ran as an Independent?

Considering she did not happen to occupy the single Republican slot on the ballot and she is also not a Democrat, that would be Murkowski.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

This proves my point about politicians. They will say and do anything to remain in power. She was not selected by the Republicans when they had their primaries so she pitched a hissy fit and ran a write in campaign.

Seriously, I mean, fuck democracy. How dare a plurality of Alaskans express their will by writing her name in and not caving into voting for the two choices presented to them by our two party system.

You didn't understand what I was saying. The point I was trying to make is her ego would not allow her to accept the will of the people in the primary. Her lust for power too strong. She had the right to run as a write in candidate and that is the point I am trying to make. Politicians will do anything or say anything to remain in power.

No I understood. Im just saying results of a primary or party lines dont reflect the will of the people and if a party throws aside a candidate I fail to see why that candidate should just cave in and stop their campaigning (like you seem to be suggesting should have happened). The ultimate result was that the people of Alaska wanted her to represent them.

 

[Sallow]

She an extremist right wing ideologue. She's just not a crazy militant extremist right wing ideologue like Joe Miller.

She's voted party line all the time.

And that's not going to change.

 

[del]

She an extremist right wing ideologue. She's just not a crazy militant extremist right wing ideologue like Joe Miller.

She's voted party line all the time.

And that's not going to change.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Murkowski voted with the Republican party about 81% of the time in the 111th Congress.

That would make her a moderate, of sorts.

Interestingly, Scott Brown voted with the GOP about 82% of the time.

So Scott Brown, the Tea Party's old flame, is a Lisa Murkowski Republican, or vice versa.

Makes you wonder why the TP'ers despise her so much.

 

[goldcatt]

Murkowski voted with the Republican party about 81% of the time in the 111th Congress.

That would make her a moderate, of sorts.

Interestingly, Scott Brown voted with the GOP about 82% of the time.

So Scott Brown, the Tea Party's old flame, is a Lisa Murkowski Republican, or vice versa.

Makes you wonder why the TP'ers despise her so much.

I happen to like moderates and respect independent judgment more than knee-jerk party line reindeer games. Seems Alaskans may share that view to some extent. Good for them!

Honestly, I never cared enough to check out her record seeing as I don't vote for her, although the fact that she's no far right wing ideologue is fairly obvious. Interesting numbers.

 

[del]

Murkowski voted with the Republican party about 81% of the time in the 111th Congress.

That would make her a moderate, of sorts.

Interestingly, Scott Brown voted with the GOP about 82% of the time.

So Scott Brown, the Tea Party's old flame, is a Lisa Murkowski Republican, or vice versa.

Makes you wonder why the TP'ers despise her so much.

i voted for brown, and i'll do so again in 2012. the tea party (or some in it, anyway) would take credit for the sunrise, just like any other pol.

 

[GWV5903]

Seriously, I mean, fuck democracy. How dare a plurality of Alaskans express their will by writing her name in and not caving into voting for the two choices presented to them by our two party system.

You didn't understand what I was saying. The point I was trying to make is her ego would not allow her to accept the will of the people in the primary. Her lust for power too strong. She had the right to run as a write in candidate and that is the point I am trying to make. Politicians will do anything or say anything to remain in power.

No I understood. Im just saying results of a primary or party lines dont reflect the will of the people and if a party throws aside a candidate I fail to see why that candidate should just cave in and stop their campaigning (like you seem to be suggesting should have happened). The ultimate result was that the people of Alaska wanted her to represent them.

Then we should abandon the primary's altogether, waste of money in this case.....

This particular race was very close in the primary, 2,006 votes was the difference......

BBD is correct, Murkowski looks and acted like a brat, her desire to stay in power was her motive, primary's where developed to actually have the voters decide the candidates, not the political machine, you know the side most of us despise, or claim to.....

Miller may have been his own worst enemy, but the voters in Alaska ultimately chose to be their own, time will tell......who was Senator at the time of the Bridge to Nowhere????

Leave it Maddie to support such a great US Senator!!!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This proves my point about politicians. They will say and do anything to remain in power. She was not selected by the Republicans when they had their primaries so she pitched a hissy fit and ran a write in campaign.

Which is perfectly legal and she won the election fair and square.

Fair and square is a stretch, how do you lose the primary and win with write in's? Something is rotten about this one.....

It's called math.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Sheeesh, so now questioning the elections of a POLITICIAN and their tactics used, is Hypocrisy.

you all shouldn't question folks, just sit down an shut the hell up, after all if there could be "fraud" of some kind, SO WHAT.

What fraud?