Before there were tea parties there was the rise of the progressive blogosphere. We had our own insurgent candidates. Most notably, we had Jon Tester, Jim Webb, Donna Edwards, and Ned Lamont. There were others, of course, but mostly they didn’t win. I don’t think any of them could properly be considered radicals. But they weren’t the first choices of the Democratic power structure. When Ned Lamont beat Joe Lieberman in the 2006 primary, the power structure begrudgingly got behind him, but they did nothing like this:
Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) also reacted coldly to [Sen. Lisa] Murkowski’s decision [to wage a write-in campaign]. In a terse statement Friday night, he reported Murkowski has been removed as vice chairwoman of the Senate Republican Conference.
“By choosing to run a campaign against the Republican nominee, she no longer has my support for serving in any leadership roles, and I have accepted her letter of resignation from Senate leadership,” McConnell said in the statement.
Republicans said the decision wasn’t personal, but made clear they are cutting their ties.
“It’s strictly business,” a senior GOP aide said. “She’s running against a Republican. She’s no longer one of us. Period.”
I don’t think we necessarily need to behave like Republicans, but it makes me a little envious to see how they respect the decisions of their base voters. Lieberman wasn’t a member of the leadership, so the situations aren’t exactly comparable. But what about Lieberman’s decision to openly campaign for John McCain in 2008? Maybe a little stronger message in 2006 and he wouldn’t have dared to pull that stunt. Maybe he wouldn’t even have been a sitting senator in 2008 if the Democrats had sent the message to Connecticut voters that he was persona non grata with their conference.
Meanwhile, Murkowski’s decision has the Republicans nervous that she’ll split the vote and hand the seat to Democrat Scott McAdams (contribute here). I don’t know how likely that is, but it will be difficult for the anti-pork Joe Miller to withstand a combined opposition from most established figures and institutions in the state. (For some background on Alaska’s reliance on the federal government, this Sept 2nd piece from the Christian Science Monitor is pretty good).
The only senator to ever win a write-in campaign was Strom Thurmond in 1954, and he had the backing of South Carolina’s governor. Thurmond’s issue was Jim Crow, which he wanted to sustain in the South. In some ways, Alaska faces a similar choice. Are they going to continue to enjoy their way of life, which relies heavily on their influence in the U.S. Senate? Or, are they going to elect someone who pledges to disavow earmarks and wants Alaska to develop more self-reliance? Alaska’s lone representative in the House is Don Young (R-AK), who is known as a master of the appropriations process, just like the late-Sen. Ted Stevens. Freshman Senator Mark Begich (D-AK) is a more traditional politician, and he is still building his seniority. But you can expect him to campaign hard against Miller and what his proposals would mean for Alaskan’s standard of living. And, regardless of the challenges of winning a write-in campaign, expect Lisa Murkowski to buy a lot of advertising on the same subject.
I don’t think present polling means anything. We have to imagine Miller taking all this heat and criticism and still maintaining his support. That’s not easy to envision. If his numbers crater, as I expect they will, the only question is who winds up benefitting the most.
O/T, but brutal.
why would a woman ever vote for a Republican? I just do not understand when they play politics with their personal health.
If Murkowski won, do you think she would be a little more receptive to Democratic proposals as a “f**k you” to the Tea Party?
No. She’ll fall back in line.
And the republicans will welcome her back with open arms.
The republicans are interested in one thing only: win.
Well, remember that if Murkowski wins, she’ll be an independent. And independents don’t get any committee chairs unless they agree to caucus with either the Dems or the Republicans. Whoever is in the majority has more plush assignments. It would be hard to lure Murkowski away from the Republican caucus, as they would probably allow her to remain Ranking Member of the Energy & Natural Resources Committee. The most we’d be willing to offer is some subcommittee chair. She’s technically pro-choice, although she hasn’t voted that way on judges. She probably would, though, if she was in the Democratic Caucus. That’s worth something. I can envision a situation where the Dems have a significant center/right/independent subcaucus consisting of Crist/Murkowski/Ben Nelson/Joe Lieberman. They’d drive us nuts, but they’d be better than dealing with Rubio and Miller. Most likely, though, she’d caucus with the Republicans.
First sentence should read “committee assignments” not “committee chairs.”
I guess I wasn’t thinking so much in terms of caucusing. When people talk about party-switching or former partisans running as independents, I think it’s important to remember how difficult it can be for human beings generally to cast off the things they’re used to. That goes double for politicians and their institutional “homes.” Think about it: most if not all of Murkowski’s friends, colleagues, maybe even family members are Republicans. Her daddy was an important figure in the Alaskan Republican firmanent. It would be really hard for her to just give all that up, and have her friends and family constantly giving her skewed looks and asking “ya joined the Democrats???” in disbelief.
So I guess my question was more about whether she’d behave more like a “reasonable Republican” if she won as an independent. That is, would she consider compromising and voting with Democrats on major legislation, as, for example, the Senators from Maine do occasionally. I always heard Murkowski’s name tossed around as part of the rightward edge of that “reasonable” group, but never noticed her actually taking any maverick votes when it counted.
Murkowski didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left her. If she wants to stay where she is not welcome and caucus with a party that just kicked her out of the leadership, that’s her choice. But Charlie Crist had no qualms about splitting. Arlen Specter split. Lincoln Chafee and Jim Jeffords split. At some point, you look around and realize that the GOP no longer reflects your values.
So, I don’t think it will be an easy decision for her. Part of her decision will be based on what the Democrats are willing to offer her. It’s not like she’ll have an easy time in the next Republican primary, so the lure to stay is limited.
But, to answer your question, I don’t really know how her voting behavior would change if she won and then continued caucusing with the Republicans. She still has to worry about winning a primary down the line. On the other hand, she’s very angry, and she’s pretty moderate by instinct.
Boo:
Have you heard what campaigning will look like? If Murkowski and Miller spend all their time blasting each other, that will obviously be very good for McAdams. I hope they see each other as the greatest threat.
Murkowski is pissed off. She’ll probably consider it a vindication if McAdams wins. Don’t expect her to spend any money bashing him unless, at the end, it looks like he’s going to win.
Good. Nothing could be better than Murkowski and Miller turning their guns on each other, so to speak.
If what’s happening in Florida is any indication, that may be too optimistic, unfortunately.
I hope I’m wrong.
“But what about Lieberman’s decision to openly campaign for John McCain in 2008? Maybe a little stronger message in 2006 and he wouldn’t have dared to pull that stunt.”
Lieberman has learned several times since then that he will never be held accountable for his actions.
Hmm, I honestly can’t recall, did Booman support Obama here or not?
What I do remember, is that the idea of punishing Liberman in 2008 was growing (not a majority but it was an increasing minority position) until it was squashed by Obama.
And so it all began.
What makes you think that if Miller wins that he’ll maintain his anti-pork stance?
Because that is central to his campaign. It’s the main rationale for his candidacy. And because he’s likely to have a subcaucus of like-minded Republicans like Coburn, DeMint, Lee (of Utah), and perhaps others like Toomey, Paul, Angle, Buck, and so on.
And one could draw a line from Alaska to Delaware and question, with Snow, why it is that the Leader has not chastised Jim DeMint for supporting O’Donnell instead of the incumbent.
Lisa may fall back in line if she wins back her seat but the stress of a near suicidal campaign will force her to bring out more dirty laundry than just Miller’s. As the lines are drawn, who takes which side will be fascinating…where will Ted Stevens’ family stand?
Palin’s state may just have its welfare status and just how it got there spread far and wide across national media. Once the tbaggers see the real Palin roots, she could be in jeopardy along with Miller.
I thought this was playing out like Florida where Crist and Meeks are splitting votes letting Rubio win.
What I mean is the disaffected Murkowski voters are splitting party loyalty and the McAdams. Not enough to top Miller for either.
How can it be ‘playing out’ before it even begins?
Agreed, nothing is written in stone yet. My inarticulate point was the comparison with Florida race where Rubio is currently up with the independent and dem splitting the remainder of the vote.
What I have seen of the polling for AK shows that Murkowski is splitting McAdams voters not Millers as is hoped.
This is another case in which there is really no way to predict what will happen. Murkowski voters will have to decide who the winner is going to be McAdams or Miller. Most likely that will split between the party faithful who supported Murkowski and the independent swing voters who supported Murkowski. In the first group, there are probably a good number who have already moved to Miller. The question is how many independent swing voters move to McAdams and whether that will be sufficient to win. And how many stick with Murkowski, and will that be sufficient for her to overcome the handicap of a write-in.
Dems in Alaska are probably already hitting phones and the streets. McAdams, more than a lot of candidates, needs media money to build statewide recognition. Because of the size of the state in population and media outlets, that is a lot less money than is required elsewhere.
Once again we are in an election that is filled with great opportunity if we have the resources and volunteers to seize it. It’s not who agrees; it’s who marks their ballot. Tell the Tea Partiers that they’ve already won and don’t need to go vote.