Published by the Anchorage Daily News, 8/19/2010
Published by the Anchorage Daily News, 8/19/2010
Looks like one of our members got their letter to the editor published over at the Anchorage Daily News today -
Just a few days before the primary election, Lisa Murkowski initiated a negative campaign against Joe Miller due to poll results that revealed she was going to lose the primary election. She has conducted a negative campaign ever since, primarily because she can not run on her record; a record that was the reason she lost the primary election in the first place. As a result, she is attempting to demoralize those who support Joe Miller by destroying his character and integrity, and that of his family as well as his extended family, including the many tens of thousands Alaskans who support him.
The Murkowski campaign is aided and abetted in the assault to demoralize the Miller camp by powerful forces from both within the state and from Outside. These forces are keen to continue the status quo of Big Government as personified by Sen. Murkowski.
They are the I Want Mine people who have been getting theirs for decades, and
who fear what might happen to their businesses, corporations and unions if their I’ll Get Yours For You senator is no longer there (in Washington) to Get It For Them.
They will, most likely, be the first in line if and when the unthinkable occurs and the 13.5 trillion, or up to 20 trillion, dollar debt suddenly comes due. At that point, Lisa will not be able to help them any more.
Joe Miller has made it strikingly clear that the nation’s current course of Us Getting Ours is unsustainable. Many Alaskans cannot adequately comprehend that America is 13.5 trillion dollars in debt and has 130 trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities (promises to pay in the future). As a result, the mindsets of those who Want Theirs are allowed to rationalize the problem as though it is one of relative insignificance, and since the rest of America Got Theirs they believe Alaskans Should Get Theirs too.
If the national debt was as easily comprehended, as is a diagnosis of cancer, Alaskans might better understand the potentially fatal consequences that are associated with a 13.5 trillion dollar debt. Look at it like this:
When a physician informs a patient that he or she has cancer, one of the first question now a days is how bad is it? Is it treatable? A 13 trillion dollar debt is treatable, but a spoonful of sugar won’t help to make the medicine any easier to take. On the other hand, under Sen. Murkowski the debt will certainly grow to the point where the only treatment available will be palliative care, or life support. Imagine that; America on life support.
Not very many people walk out of the doctor’s office after a diagnosis of cancer suggesting the doctor is nuts, although a few may refuse treatment for a variety of reasons other than denial. Most of us would want to hear something to the effect, “if you have to have a cancer, this one is a good one to have” because it often responds really well to treatment.
Well folks, right now the 13.5 trillion dollar debt is in the category of a good debt to have if you have to have a debt. Joe Miller is promising to help lead us out of this debt, while Lisa Murkowski and those who support her are attacking Mr. Miller’s character and integrity in an effort to deny that 13 trillion dollars of debt is a serious problem, or to avoid discussing the issue by making it a non-issue, and even suggesting that it may be acceptable to increase the debt. They are intent on sending an individual who has been part of the problem back to Washington, to potentially cause the debt to metastasize, rather than to send Mr. Miller who wants to get a handle on the problem. Joe Miller and his supporters suggest, “if you want to change Washington, you have to change the people you send to Washington.” Miller and his supporters want to address the problem, while Mrs. Murkowski is openly offering the status quo, or to make it worse.
The Republican Candidate for senate’s character and honor has been the focus of numerous attacks from the Murkowki camp for more than a month, aided by a complicit media allied with the liberal political machine, as well as a significant number of establishment republicans. No recipient of a relentless attack of this magnitude can be expected to be unfazed by it and to completely resist becoming dispirited because of it; not Joe Miller, not his family, and in particular, not his supporters who elected him to compete against the Democrat Party candidate on the issues.
If this was a domestic relationship rather than a political contest, the Murkowski camp would be a candidate for a restraining order rather than a candidate for the senate; and the plaintiff would not be Mr. Miller. The plaintiff would be the citizens of Alaska who selected Joe Miller as the Republican Candidate for the US Senate, effectively filing for divorce from Mrs. Murkowski.
The senator is contesting the divorce, and she has powerful allies who have a multitude of reasons, most of them economic, to help her stay in power and in control.
As is the case with most domestic disputes, Mrs. Murkowski did not seek reconciliation. She has set out on a mission to destroy, first and foremost the man who is carrying the banner for the party with which she was once associated, and by extension, those who cast their votes to support him. She, like any other abuser, does not care who is hurt (children are often their victims.) Retaining power and the ability to control others is the only important thing to the abuser, and Mrs. Murkowski is demonstrating classical behaviors associated with a threat to an abusive person’s power and control.
Mrs. Murkowski is a good example why domestic abuse is a severe problem in Alaska. While it is widely reported in the lower economic classes, it is well hidden when it occurs in the upper economic classes. In a political environment verses a family environment, is it possible that a sitting senator could be as capable of abusing her political family, and getting away with it, as most upper class domestic abusers seem capable of getting away with being abusive. Mrs. Murkowski is angry at her political family, and she is striking out at it with intent to cause as much damage as possible. Her attacks are merciless, and they should not be tolerated as behavior one would expect of a lady, or of a sitting senator.
Mrs. Murkowski is abusing us in plain site and not being called for it.
Alaskans should be concerned about the abuses directed toward them and the candidate they support. Unfortunately, we will just have to tolerate it, just as so often happens to an abused victim. The victim of abuse inevitably continues to hope against hope in most cases that the abuser will stop; that the abuser will once again be the partner originally thought of as a kind and gentle partner. Please senator, stop. Please.
Just like domestic violence is covered up so successfully in the upper classes, the media, the unions and the establishment are not only covering for the senator as she verbally batters the family that was once hers; they are included among the instruments with which the abuse is delivered to the citizens of Alaska. Mrs. Murkowski is angry, and she is not giving up her power and control gracefully, or with any degree of dignity. She is using Alinsky tactics, employing the abusive behavior of Alinsky’s fifth rule: “Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.”
Many of us mistakenly believe that domestic abuse is limited to physical abuse. This commonly accepted conclusion however, is far from the truth. The fact is that domestic abuse becomes evident due to physical injuries, yet financial and emotional abuses are widely distributed across all socio-economic classes. These forms of abuse are not as obvious and as a result are not easily detected or reported. They often only come to the attention of authorities and researchers after the abuse has evolved to the level of being physical, a natural progression of many abusive relationships.
Unfortunately, the mental damage to an individual who is financially or emotionally abused is as damaging to a person as is a punch or a kick. Emotional and financial abuse is visible to family, to friends and to trained observers, yet in most cases there is nothing that can be done about it, in contrast to cases of physical abuse. The intent of the abuser in virtually every abusive situation is to demoralize and ridicule the victim into submitting to the degree of control and power the abuser desires to hold over the victim, and when emotional and financial abuses are no longer effective, violence or the threat of violence is inevitable.
When Mrs. Murkowski called the Republican Party candidate and those who elected him extremists, she fired the first salvo of many in an attempt to demoralize and ridicule those who once were her partners, but had decided to move on in a new relationship. In this context, virtually every statement from the Murkowski campaign can easily be viewed as abusive.
The media, in particular the Alaska Dispatch, has been equally or more abusive to the citizens of Alaska. They too seek power, as well as wealth, by abusing us rather than attempting to inform us as was originally intended under the auspices of the press being America’s Fourth Estate; the fourth branch of government responsible for watching over the other three branches, and reporting their activities to the people. A Dispatch article titled “Alaska Dispatch sues for release of Miller's records,” might as well have been written, Richard Koller sues AWAKE for Obama’s records. You can sue any one you want to for almost any reason, but the Dispatch just wanted a headline to print—an abusive headline. They inserted themselves in the story as an pseudo-advocate of the people for the sole purpose of a head line. We all know that our personnel records are some of the most highly guarded documents and extremely difficult to obtain, especially by a fine, upstanding rag like the Alaska Dispatch.
Alaska is currently known of as one of the leading states in the nation for domestic abuse. Domestic abuse is often a progressive condition; one that begins with ridicule, disparaging and demoralizing behavior, and all too often ends in severe injury or death. Attempts to protect children from witnessing abuse have been instituted as it has been clearly shown that children are much more than just innocent bystanders in abusive situations; they are victims too.
Why should we tolerate abusive behavior in the political environment within the political family any more than we tolerate abusive behavior in the domestic environment? Well, the governor is working on solving the latter problem, and the people of Alaska are responsible for addressing the former. We must not only hold those who are abusive accountable for their behavior, but we must hold each other accountable for making sure that abusive behavior will is not tolerated in the political realm any more than it is in the realm of the family.
A restraining order for Mrs. Murkowski, ordering her to campaign on her record and addressing what she can positively offer in service to the state and the country, instead of abusing her political family with Alinsky tactics would be nice. But Mrs. Murkowski is no longer a nice lady. She is a monster, just as the domestic abuser is a monster.
The most grievous aspects of the abuses perpetrated on the citizens of Alaska are two-fold. First of all, it is indicative of all that is wrong with society in the 49th state. Just like domestic abuse, Murkowski’s deplorable behavior is only acceptable because we Alaskans enable it by failing to respond appropriately to it. Mrs. Murkowski should be run out of town on a rail, but in our civil society we can do little more than send a message of disappointment, hailed from every village, every town and every city, that “we will not tolerate abusive behavior from our husbands, from our wives or from our politicians.” We the people of Alaska must demand the respect we deserve. We must also give that respect to others as well. First however, we must learn to respect ourselves, and when we do, it will be easier for us to respect others, and expect others to respect us.
Secondly, the children of Alaska are witnesses as well as victims of the abuse. As a result, Alaskan adolescents are being taught that it is ok to be abusive. At best, our young Alaskans, who are the future of the state, are being sent conflicting messages that create ambivalence during a time when ambivalence is already an imposing and difficult factor to be sorted out in a period when profound changes are also occurring. There is no excuse for ambivalence when it comes to being abusive, and abusive behavior by the senator should not be allowed to complicate the choices that our children will make.
They should not be confused about the choices as to how they will treat their family, their spouses, their political family or their political opponents. These young adults and adolescents spent the better part of their elementary years getting accolades and trophies for participating and playing fair, and suddenly they are witnesses to a sitting senator’s malicious behavior toward her opponent and tens of thousands of Alaskans, as if to say “fair play is for you, my child, but not for me. Do as I say, not as I do, or it is ok to be abusive, as long as you are running for office.”
Well, if it is ok to be abusive if you are running for office, how many other situations in life are abusive behaviors acceptable? With you spouse? Your parents? Your grandparents? Your friends? The indigent? The handicapped?
None is the correct response. Zero. Being abusive is unacceptable to us, and its demonstration by Senator Murkowski is also unacceptable. It is not only unacceptable;it is also deplorable.
Senator Murkowski, consider this as your restraining order. The people of Alaska do not condone or want to risk any imitation of the behavior you have demonstrated over the past few weeks. We expect you to set a better example for the people of Alaska and the nation, and we also expect you to use your significant influence over those who are doing your bidding to cease their abuses as well. It is expected that you will abide by this demand out of not only your own self-respect, but out of respect for the citizens of Alaska as well. In particular and most importantly, it is expected that you will abide by these demands for the children of Alaska. They do deserve better, Senator.
While a lot of Democrats demonize the Tea parties, most Republicans, in power at least, tread lightly. Rest assured that many folks in both camps feel threatened by the movement.
The heart of our effort is to realize a future in which we are assured equal opportunity, liberty and justice for all.
What is it in the mission and vision statement of the Anchorage Tea Party or any other Tea Party that threatens anyone and specifically the establishment Republicans and their support networks?
Show me, I must be from Missouri. Their problem is Power, pure and simple! The nerve of ''we the people'' to infringe upon their turf and relieve them of duty where determined necessary.
The RNC throws the Tea Party movement a bone in the media at the national level by applauding their enthusiasm, but a stand-offishness is palpable at every level.
Does an effort exist within the beltway boys 'click' to avoid or compartmentalize the Tea Party movement, to ensure at least a bit of distance is maintained from them, lest any hint of extremism rub off?
It appears that ''outsiders'' are welcome only if they behave according to club rules and a lot of us are coloring outside the lines.
Many must feel that the perception of extremism will result in losses for the Republican party, so the wisdom of those in power is to moderate the message, tone it down as it were.
In the race for US Senate in Alaska, we see that Liza Murkousky and her campaign have thrown the will of the voter under the bus. Somehow it is incumbent upon the incumbents to be redundant, never mind the will of the voter. Never mind the promise to abide by the outcome of the primary and never mind the purpose. Never mind a concession speech. Never mind the will of them ''Radical Extremists''.
Lisa claims that a huge percentage of voters didn't get to vote for her, thus her failure to win the Republican nomination in the primary.
Did we see the new Black Panther party or anyone else standing guard at the polls here in Alaska? I didn't think so.
There is a man living in Sitka, Alaska. From what I hear, he's a friendly fellow. He appears to be someone who supports the 'something for nothing' crowd, you know, special interests, unions etc. Similar indeed to Liza Murkousky. Both Scott and Liza want their ''fair share''. Of what? That's right, their fair share of the pork. Even Ted Steven's advised halting what he had been doing while things are like they are.
My parents taught me that there never truly was something for nothing out there. Either you work for what you receive, or you receive from someone else's work, let your conscience be your guide.
I don't question the 'heart' of any of the three Alaska Senate candidates. It's just that when history repeats itself and the history is not pleasant, one should consider traveling a different road.
There is a tidal wave coming across this nation. A sincere effort to restore personal liberty and prosperity is blooming. As my choice for US Senate Joe Miller states, a transition from Federal power to States' rights is what is needed. There is nothing radical or extreme in that statement. The more localized and limited a government, the better.
November beckons a renewal of that which made our country the beacon for the world drawing immigrants (legal) from everywhere to it. That being equal opportunity, liberty and justice for all.
P.S. Vote for Joe!!!!!!
This is reproduced from the National Review Article titled ' This is What a Radical Republican Looks Like' by Kevin Williamson
"Being a former member of the Republican party, I don’t often indulge my occasional desire to offer the GOP messaging advice. But every time I hear Barack Obama say something like this . . . It took time to free the slaves. It took time for women to get the vote.
. . . I wish the Republicans would response with an ad that says: “Yes, it took time to free the slaves. Time and a Republican president. One who had the courage of his convictions.”
As for women’s suffrage, the debate about the relative timing and importance of enfranchising women versus enfranchising blacks took place almost entirely within the Republican party. You know the famous episode in which Susan B. Anthony was arrested for illegally voting? The evidence against her was a note she sent to Elizabeth Cady Stanton, informing her that she had “positively voted the Republican ticket — straight.” Take that, Rahm.
Frederick Douglass should be as much the face of the Republican party as Reagan and Goldwater.
If the GOP had any brains (I know, I know!) it would spend a fair amount of money reminding the world: This is what a radical Republican looks like:
The Anchorage Tea Party is pleased to extend our full endorsement to Republican Senatorial Candidate Joe Miller. He is the clear conservative choice for moving Alaska into the future. His service to the United States as a decorated Military Veteran, Magistrate and Federal Judge as well as a conservative role model as a family man is the exact combination of leadership that this country so sorely needs.
With the Federal Government increasing the pressure to control each aspect of our lives, Joe Miller has shown he has the commitment to true Conservative principles that will be critical in the ongoing fight to return control of the government to its role as subordinate to the “consent of the governed”. We at ATP are committed to supporting that fight. Joe is our choice to stand shoulder to shoulder with as we move forward.
Joshua Saul, a fine young reporter for the Alaska Dispatch, asked a probing question of the Tea Party Express and the Anchorage Tea Party concerning an assertion that Lisa Mukowski’s campaign had disparaged the honor and service of Joe Miller, the Republican candidate for US Senate. He sought evidence for the accusation that the Murkowski campaign’s behavior was reminiscent of Vietnam era of politics.
None of the official spokesmen/spokeswomen could spontaneously cite a source, but an Anchorage Tea Party member, who happened to also be the flag bearer for the event and thus was there in some official capacity, responded to the question. This member stated, “Lisa Murkowski’s campaign website is where you can find the information. She has links to the various blogs that have written on the subject, so her website is a good source for the answer to your question. “
Today, a couple of days removed from the press conference, a visit to the Murkowski campaign website to confirm the sources reveals that the Murkowski Alaska Web Digest page does in fact provide links to stories from various media. Although the majority of the links are primarily from local legacy media sources such as the Anchorage Daily News, the Fairbanks Daily-News Miner and the Juneau Empire, there are also links to national legacy news sources, as well as to various local and national new media sources.
Among the new media sources credited for stories linked to by the Murkowski campaign is the Alaska Dispatch, Andrew Halcro, the Daily Kos, Progressive Alaska, and the Huffington Post. A citation from the AFL-CIO blog is also among the sources linked to on the Alaska Web Digest page at http://lisamurkowski.com.
The Alaska Dispatch, for whom Mr. Saul reports, published a commentary dated 2 Oct, 2010, “Outing Joe Miller” by Doug O’Haara, in which the author asserted, “The anti-federal money Miller enjoyed a military career, a professional education and gig as a magistrate that were all paid for by federal money. All these are honorable pursuits in their own right, but most definitely subsidized by the very government Miller purports to despise.”
Since he is a hard news reporter, no one should expect Mr. Saul to be aware of off center opinions, even if one of the opinions happens to have been published in the publication that employs him. Mr. Saul’s question was a valid question that received a valid response.
On the other hand the Murkowski campaign, the target of the accusation, did choose to link to the article. While it is true that a responsible reader would easily conclude upon visiting the article that it is an opinion article, rather than a hard news article, the fact that the Murkowski campaign linked to it in the first place does not reflect favorably upon the campaign, or the candidate, who is ultimately responsible for the content included on the web site.
Here is the teaser as published on the Alaska Web Digest of Murkowski’s official site -
“The anti-federal money Miller enjoyed a military career, a professional education and gig as a magistrate that were all paid for by federal money. Source: Alaska Dispatch”
It appears as though the Alaska Web Digest page had its debut at the Murkowski campaign home page Oct. 1, 2010. It is interesting that the Dispatch commentary cited above had strikingly similar content to an article published on the 27th of Sept. by Andrew Halcro, a blogger who happens to be an avid Murkowski supporter.
Comparing the comments about subsidies in the Halcro and the Dispatch articles, the language might not be judged similar enough, but the theme is strikingly similar.
First, from Mr. Halcro on 27 Sept.:
“From farm subsidies in the late 90's he willingly accepted from the federal treasury, to subsidized education and drawing a government paycheck for years, Miller is a fraud to be railing against government spending.”
Now again, from Mr. O’Haara on 2 Oct:
“The anti-federal money Miller enjoyed a military career, a professional education and gig as a magistrate that were all paid for by federal money. All these are honorable pursuits in their own right, but most definitely subsidized by the very government Miller purports to despise.”
Using the Dispatch article has the advantage of making the same point in a current publication, but it has an additional advantage as well. Halcro is a Murkowski supporter, while the Dispatch has some semblance of being non-biased. The Dispatch, after all, does have a disclaimer at the end of Mr. O’Haara’s column that reads in part, “The views expressed are the writer's own and are not endorsed by Alaska Dispatch.”
Here is what Mr. Saul wrote in his 4 Oct update to Tea Party Express releases new ads, “But a search through Murkowski press releases and public statements showed no evidence of her attacking Miller's military record. Various left-leaning blogs have done so, but as far as I can tell Murkowski has not done so directly.”
Parsing words are we Mr. Saul? The Dispatch should have published the facts, not covered for the senior senator.
The senior senator might have learned her lesson by labeling several thousands of her constituents as extremists. So, you are correct to say that she has not directly disparaged her opponent’s service. No Dispatch, she has not directly done it herself;but she has linked to those who have on her web page.
That after all, was what that white, female, flag-bearing Tea Partier extremist said is it not?
As you most likely recall, 10 days ago, constituents and members of the Anchorage Tea Party sent a letter to each of the legislators on Senator Murkowski's website listed as an 'endorsement' reminding them that Senator Murkowski has put their Primary election endorsement up on her website for her write in candidacy.
We asked each of the legislators to indicate whether or not they would endorse the Republican Party Primary election winner, Joe Miller, or continue to endorse Senator Murkowski’s write in candidacy.
We received only two communications from the list. Senator Kevin Meyer sent a letter both to me as well to the group verifying that his support would follow the Republican Party’s endorsement of the Republican Primary winner, Joe Miller. While Senator Murkowski’s website still carries Senator Meyer's endorsement, Senator Lesil McGuire was successful in having her endorsement pulled from the website. We cannot know for sure that it was a result of our communications, but Representatives Munoz and Johnson also were dropped from the Murkowski website.
For the seventeen other State Senators and Representatives still listed as supporting her write in candidacy, it should now be time for them to make decisions that will allow us to make decisions on their futures as well. Here is to hope that the continued endorsements are only oversights and will be remedied quickly. Fracturing of the Republican party base is not what we need as we move forward to the goal of bringing our country back to a more centrist limited government that has to adapt to living within our means. Endorsing the winner of the most heavily participated in Republican Primary in state history , the local, State and National Republican Party have sided with the majority of the voting Republicans in the state. What we are asking for is our elected officials to do the same.
We will be publishing this list up to election day. As our legislators update their status, we will reflect it on the list below. Feel free to contact your elected representatives and pressure them to take a stance. Don't know your district? For Anchorage residents go here, enter your address, select 'political' and you will be told.
As of 10/5/10
Sen. Gary Stevens District - R - still listed
Sen. Bert Stedman District -A - still listed
Sen. Charlie Huggins District -H - still listed
Sen. Lesil McGuire District -N
Sen. Kevin Meyer District -O - still listed
Sen. Tom Wagoner District -Q - still listed
Sen. Con Bunde District -P - still listed
Rep. Mike Chenault District - 34- still listed
Rep. John Harris District -12 - still listed
Rep. Kyle Johansen District -1 - still listed
Rep. Cathy Munoz District -4
Rep. Bill Thomas District -5- still listed
Rep. Jay Ramras District -10 - still listed
Rep. Anna Fairclough District -17 - still listed
Rep. Craig Johnson District -28
Rep. Charisse Millett District -30 - still listed
Rep. Mike Hawker District -32 - still listed
Rep. Paul Seaton District -35 - still listed
Rep. Alan Austerman District -36- still listed
Rep. Peggy Wilson District - 2 - still listed
It seems that a lot of people are trying to reproduce, for their own purpose and interests, a Tea Party type movement of their own. This is happening both locally and nationally. Good luck creating artificial momentum which manifested itself all on its own for the Tea Party Movement.
Starting locally, Lisa held an event yesterday outside the Loussac. With a showing smaller than any Tea Party Rally I have ever attended, it was a smattering of “gimme gimme types”, unions, democrats, and my favorite – former Anchorage Mayor Rick Mystrom (who we can thank for Mark Begich’s ascent to the US Senate). The scariest thing that happened was in the middle, when Lisa was trying to rally the troops saying this write-in candidacy was doable, she got the crowd to chant, “yes we can, yes we can, yes we can.” It was eerily reminiscent of a recent campaign for the Presidency where it became commonplance for Obama to get the crowd chanting the phrase, “yes we can, yes we can, yes we can.” Is that the sort of change we can expect from Lisa?
On the national side, the left in held their, ‘One Nation Working Together’ Rally outside the Lincoln Memorial on 10/2. Strangely similar to the Restoring Honor Rally held on 8/28 outside the same location by Glenn Beck. Best thing about their event - four hundred organizations, including all the major labor unions, the NAACP, the Sierra Club, Code Pink, the Green Party, the Communist Party, Planned Parenthood and hundreds more were not able to turn out as many people as Glenn Beck.
Once again it seems as though it takes a Brit to inform Americans about just how special the American system of government is.
America is viewed by Europe as a necessary evil, or at a minimum is in a love –hate relationship. Europe loves us for our money, but hates us for being the economic power that we are.
Contrary to the conventional understanding of the EU/American relationship, Daniel Hannan, EU Member of Parliament from England and author of The New Road to Serfdom appeared on the Glen Beck program Friday, Oct 1, 2010 to respectfully inform us about ourselves. MP Hannan succinctly explained an otherwise obscure reason that America is a special and gifted place in the world. He identified just one more reason why America is exceptional, and why many citizens of the world overwhelmingly seek to become citizens of the United States, while the current American government seems to be intent on making citizens of the United States into citizens of the world.
MP Hannan eloquently stated what makes America so special is the primary election process. The primary process, he explained, is a unique opportunity for the governed in America to impose on the party apparatchiks who will represent the governed, whereas in most of the rest of the world the party apparatchiks impose their wishes on the governed by selecting who will lead them.
Alaska’s Republicans exercised their unique opportunity to impose their will on the party apparatchiks when they elected Joe Miller as the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate. The Alaskan Republican Party dutifully acknowledged the will of the people and promptly stood on the same stage with the candidate.
Unfortunately, the incumbent senator refused to accept the will of the people and has mounted a rogue campaign to retain her possession of Alaska’s seat in the senate. Having lost the primary election largely due to a legislative record that was an affront to the will of the party that had formerly nominated, and thus elected her, the incumbent loser has succeeded, nonetheless, to put an exclamation point on the fact that her legislative record was not a representation will of the Alaska Republican Party. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that her allegiance to the party was never a factor to begin with.
The fact that she was appointed to begin with suggests that the party was initially denied the opportunity to adequately examine her allegiance to the party platform, and it took several years for the party to finally conclude that the incumbent senator might as well be a member of the Democrat party. While it is true that she did not break ranks with the Republican Caucus in the year running up to the primary election, her record clearly demonstrated that if she were not up for re-election, her loyally and her votes may have been similar to the record she compiled when re-election was not a determining factor.
While the incumbent senator has every right to proceed as she chooses, and as she has demonstrated over the coarse of her eight years of service to the State of Alaska, it is far more unfortunate that the Republican Caucus in the United States Senate failed to acknowledge the will of the Republican Party in Alaska. This is an egregious assault on all Alaskans by the Republican Caucus of the senate. Sanctioning the rogue senator’s failure to concede to the will of the people by allowing the rogue senator to retain a position of leadership, the caucus has sent a clear message to Alaska and the United States that rogue behavior is acceptable behavior as judged by the Republican members of the senate.
The Senate Republican caucus’s outright contempt for the will of the Alaskan Republican people is unforgivable. Furthermore, it demonstrates the body’s contempt for the concept that America is an exceptional place in the world as so eloquently presented by MP Hannan. Imagine, a foreigner who views us from the outside in and understands why America is so special, while the majority of Republican senators somehow succeed to demonstrate that they care more about one of their own than they care for the will of the party members of the State of Alaska. Moreover, their contemptible behavior clearly demonstrates either a total ignorance of the America that they represent, or they just don’t care about America, and what makes it such a special place as viewed from the outside in.
Sen. McConnel, et al: Have you no shame?
A moral necessity of the highest order