Murkowski denied Libertarian party spot. Write-in campaign still possible

[redcommander]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090704459.html

[redcommander]

She's also now saying she is still in the game.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090704459.html

[SvenssonRS]

...don't tell me we're about to see another Lieberman/Crist.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

She's also now saying she is still in the game.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090704459.html

Cool.

[redcommander]

...don't tell me we're about to see another Lieberman/Crist.

Perhaps, I personally thought she was going to go away after her primary loss, but that certainly is big news that she has actually sat down and spoken with the Libertarian nominee.

[Oakvale]

A) From a political nerd point of view, as we all are, we can presumably all agree that this makes the race way more interesting, but...

B) Miller will probably still win.

Still, I'll be interested to see a vaguely competitive Senate race. It's good to see the Libertarians might change their minds on endorsing Murkowski - throwing away their only chance of electing a Senator, ever, was lunacy.

[Barnes]

The Republicans will, of course, hold this, but it would be pretty cool to see a Libertarian Senator for a few months.

[Torie]

The power drive of some politicians just amazes me, as they destroy themselves to try to retain it.

[Zarn]

This could actually be a huge blow to the two major parties (particularly the ultra socially conservative individuals of them... i.e. Palin losing any remote chance of ever becoming president).

I never understood why the Libertarian Party refused to pick up moderate Republicans in addition to the strong fi-cons it has now. It provides a much better base in terms of politicians and supporters. It also allows the United States to move into the libertarian direction.

That said, the corruption and politics of Murkowski would need to change for it to be highly successful (I actually really don't like her, but Alaskans do). I really don't see a failure being too bad of a PR nightmare, however. It's not like the Libertarians have much ground to lose.

The ideology is great and all, but if they cannot reach out, how would Libertarians be any better than the neocons and statists in the two major parties?

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

So Murkowski wants to burn any bridge she has at an ambassadorship or some other cushy job?

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

The power drive of some politicians just amazes me, as they destroy themselves to try to retain it.

When you are a member of a club of 100 of the most powerful people in the world it's tough to leave that behind.

[Marokai Backbeat]

It's good to see the Libertarians might change their minds on endorsing Murkowski - throwing away their only chance of electing a Senator, ever, was lunacy.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

This could actually be a huge blow to the two major parties (particularly the ultra socially conservative individuals of them... i.e. Palin losing any remote chance of ever becoming president).

I never understood why the Libertarian Party refused to pick up moderate Republicans in addition to the strong fi-cons it has now. It provides a much better base in terms of politicians and supporters. It also allows the United States to move into the libertarian direction.

Perhaps because moderate Republicans are the ideological opposites of libertarians. Though I guess adhering to libertarianism has never mattered much to the Libertarians.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This makes no sense at all. The Libertarians would become "better than the neocons and statists in the two major parties" by bringing opportunistic neocons and statists into their own party?

[Vepres]

This could actually be a huge blow to the two major parties (particularly the ultra socially conservative individuals of them... i.e. Palin losing any remote chance of ever becoming president).

I never understood why the Libertarian Party refused to pick up moderate Republicans in addition to the strong fi-cons it has now. It provides a much better base in terms of politicians and supporters. It also allows the United States to move into the libertarian direction.

That said, the corruption and politics of Murkowski would need to change for it to be highly successful (I actually really don't like her, but Alaskans do). I really don't see a failure being too bad of a PR nightmare, however. It's not like the Libertarians have much ground to lose.

The ideology is great and all, but if they cannot reach out, how would Libertarians be any better than the neocons and statists in the two major parties?

Frankly, the LP is run by purists, who would probably consider me a statist. It is sad, because they could win 15% of the vote regularly if they accepted everybody who was fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

I found this humorous graphic that summarizes their general attitude:

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

This could actually be a huge blow to the two major parties (particularly the ultra socially conservative individuals of them... i.e. Palin losing any remote chance of ever becoming president).

I never understood why the Libertarian Party refused to pick up moderate Republicans in addition to the strong fi-cons it has now. It provides a much better base in terms of politicians and supporters. It also allows the United States to move into the libertarian direction.

That said, the corruption and politics of Murkowski would need to change for it to be highly successful (I actually really don't like her, but Alaskans do). I really don't see a failure being too bad of a PR nightmare, however. It's not like the Libertarians have much ground to lose.

The ideology is great and all, but if they cannot reach out, how would Libertarians be any better than the neocons and statists in the two major parties?

Frankly, the LP is run by purists, who would probably consider me a statist. It is sad, because they could win 15% of the vote regularly if they accepted everybody who was fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

I found this humorous graphic that summarizes their general attitude:

LOL, that's hilarious. Good one, Vep.

[Vepres]

This could actually be a huge blow to the two major parties (particularly the ultra socially conservative individuals of them... i.e. Palin losing any remote chance of ever becoming president).

I never understood why the Libertarian Party refused to pick up moderate Republicans in addition to the strong fi-cons it has now. It provides a much better base in terms of politicians and supporters. It also allows the United States to move into the libertarian direction.

That said, the corruption and politics of Murkowski would need to change for it to be highly successful (I actually really don't like her, but Alaskans do). I really don't see a failure being too bad of a PR nightmare, however. It's not like the Libertarians have much ground to lose.

The ideology is great and all, but if they cannot reach out, how would Libertarians be any better than the neocons and statists in the two major parties?

Frankly, the LP is run by purists, who would probably consider me a statist. It is sad, because they could win 15% of the vote regularly if they accepted everybody who was fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

I found this humorous graphic that summarizes their general attitude:

LOL, that's hilarious. Good one, Vep.

Well, purists compared to everybody except you

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

This could actually be a huge blow to the two major parties (particularly the ultra socially conservative individuals of them... i.e. Palin losing any remote chance of ever becoming president).

I never understood why the Libertarian Party refused to pick up moderate Republicans in addition to the strong fi-cons it has now. It provides a much better base in terms of politicians and supporters. It also allows the United States to move into the libertarian direction.

That said, the corruption and politics of Murkowski would need to change for it to be highly successful (I actually really don't like her, but Alaskans do). I really don't see a failure being too bad of a PR nightmare, however. It's not like the Libertarians have much ground to lose.

The ideology is great and all, but if they cannot reach out, how would Libertarians be any better than the neocons and statists in the two major parties?

Frankly, the LP is run by purists, who would probably consider me a statist. It is sad, because they could win 15% of the vote regularly if they accepted everybody who was fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

I found this humorous graphic that summarizes their general attitude:

LOL, that's hilarious. Good one, Vep.

Well, purists compared to everybody except you

Actually the Libertarian Party already has the reputation of being a Republican-lite party. "Pure" libertarians aren't even welcome in the LP, but neocon Republicans are.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Republicans will, of course, hold this, but it would be pretty cool to see a Libertarian Senator for a few months.

I'm pretty sure she'll still be pro-war, pro wasteful military spending, anti  gay marriage, pro making abortions harder to get, and so on.

[HAnnA MArin County]

The Republicans will, of course, hold this, but it would be pretty cool to see a Libertarian Senator for a few months.

I'm pretty sure she'll still be pro-war, pro wasteful military spending, anti  gay marriage, pro making abortions harder to get, and so on.

I was going to say, how are those libertarian positions? lol

[Dgov]

Yeah, this might have worked for the Alaska LP if The Senator was leaning towards being a Libertarian rather than a statist Republican.  Alaska is one of the most Libertarian states (bible belt it is not), coupled with small size and mediocre opponents would have made this the LP's best opportunity for a pickup ever.

Which is very lucky for the Republican party, given that I'd bet between 20-25% of the Republican party is Ideologically Libertarian (including myself) and a feasible Libertarian party would almost certainly cut into their margins.  In Texas the LP usually gets around 5% on the ballot in Congressional races after all.

[tmthforu94]

Her best option would probably be to stay silent for a couple years, move to the right on some social issues, then challenge Begich in 2014, where she'd have an excellent shot at getting back in the Senate.

[Хahar 🤔]

Frankly, the LP is run by purists, who would probably consider me a statist. It is sad, because they could win 15% of the vote regularly if they accepted everybody who was fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

I found this humorous graphic that summarizes their general attitude:

That's pretty ridiculous. The party that nominated Bob Barr is a lot of things, but purist is not one of them.

[Vepres]

Frankly, the LP is run by purists, who would probably consider me a statist. It is sad, because they could win 15% of the vote regularly if they accepted everybody who was fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

I found this humorous graphic that summarizes their general attitude:

That's pretty ridiculous. The party that nominated Bob Barr is a lot of things, but purist is not one of them.

If you go around to libertarian party member forums, they'll tell you nominating Barr was a terrible decision. I happen to agree, but we come to different conclusions. They say it was because he wasn't "pure" enough, while I think he was opportunistic and too socially conservative.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Frankly, the LP is run by purists, who would probably consider me a statist. It is sad, because they could win 15% of the vote regularly if they accepted everybody who was fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

I found this humorous graphic that summarizes their general attitude:

That's pretty ridiculous. The party that nominated Bob Barr is a lot of things, but purist is not one of them.

If you go around to libertarian party member forums, they'll tell you nominating Barr was a terrible decision. I happen to agree, but we come to different conclusions. They say it was because he wasn't "pure" enough, while I think he was opportunistic and too socially conservative.

LOL

Bob Barr's running mate, "Millionaire Republican" W.A.R. is still considered the front-runner for the LP nomination in 2012.

As for Barr doing poorly because he was "too socially conservative", that's another lol...

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/27/libertarians-weigh-murkowski-run/