Alaska Libertarians to Sen. Murkowski: No Thank You!

Publius at Big Government Blog:

Since her election night loss to conservative Joe Miller, Sen. Murkowski and her political allies have floated the idea of her switching to the Libertarian Party to continue her run for reelection. Apparently, Sen. Murkowski is fairly flexible in her political loyalties and inclinations. (Her past support for libertarian policies has certainly escaped us.)

Yesterday, the 5-member Executive Committee of the Board of the Libertarian State Party meet in an emergency session to consider Sen. Murkowski’s bid for the party’s nod. After a contentious three-hour meeting, the Board voted unanimously to deny Sen. Murkowski the party’s nomination.

Scott Kohlhaas, Chairman of the Alaska Libertarian Party and candidate for the state House said the decision was based on Sen. Murkowski’s voting record:

Sen. Murkowski voted for TARP. She voted to bailout Fannie and Freddie. Although no one from her campaign had approached us about her running as a Libertarian, the speculation had reached the point where we felt we had to take a clear stand.

We did the hard work to get a Libertarian candidate on the ballot. We didn’t do that hard work to then nominate someone with Sen. Murkowski’s record.

Prior to this announcement, there was speculation that the LP would sell out its principles to win a US Senate seat and polls showed Murkowski at 34% if she ran as a Libertarian. The party’s decision was kept under wraps to get maximum attention.

59 thoughts on “Alaska Libertarians to Sen. Murkowski: No Thank You!

  1. Robert Capozzi

    Propers to the AKLP. Well done.

    They didn’t reflexively foam at the mouth when this trial balloon was floated. They deliberated on whether this outside-the-box opportunity was indicated, and they determined it was not. Their reasons appear clear and forthright.

    Perhaps if Murkowski was “more” aligned with L thinking, a different decision would have been indicated.

    They didn’t get all sanctimonious on the matter, which does no one any good.

  2. Scott Lieberman

    “Robert Capozzi // Aug 30, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    Propers to the AKLP. Well done.

    They didn’t reflexively foam at the mouth when this trial balloon was floated.”

    ****************************************

    However, some “helpful” Libertarians in the lower 48 did reflexively foam at the mouth at the idea of a Libertarian Party state affiliate having the nerve to nominate a US Senate candidate who is not approved by the self-appointed Libertarian Purity Police.

    Of course, 99% of those “Police” live outside of Alaska.

    Scott Lieberman

  3. John Jay Myers

    We have to drawn the line somewhere, and I think it’s pretty clear this lady is not a Libertarian.
    So yes, forgive me for being the police on this issue, but by your standard, I shouldn’t run against Pete Sessions, the pro-war, bail out voting, corrupt congressman from Texas, because we shouldn’t judge people harshly.

    Gee whiz, I am so sick of this purity police nonsense.
    No one is trying to be the purity police by saying a patriot act voting, stimulus, pro war neocon, shouldn’t be allowed to take one of our slots.

    That’s just more like the common sense police.

    Do the people of Alaska want to vote for a Libertarian? They still can.

  4. Thomas L. Knapp

    Dr. Lieberman,

    Which part of “No affiliate party shall endorse any candidate who is a member of another party for public office in any partisan election” do you not understand?

    It should never have been an open question.

  5. Scott Lieberman

    “Dr. Lieberman,

    Which part of “No affiliate party shall endorse any candidate who is a member of another party for public office in any partisan election” do you not understand?

    Thomas Knapp”

    ****************************************

    I thought Mr. Knapp had resigned his National LP membership, or at least had unofficially resigned from Libertarian Party activism. If that is the case, then I could say MYOB, but…

    I have no idea what the ballot access and party registration laws are in Alaska, but I can’t imagine that Murkowski would be required to keep her Republican party voter registration had she become the Libertarian Nominee for US Senate. And since she would not be listed as a Republican on the ballot in that situation, it would be very difficult to make the case that she was ” a member of another party.”

    By the way – the current Libertarian Nominee for Governor in New York State is registered to vote as a Republican. And yes, it is legal to register to vote as a Libertarian in NY State.

    Mr. Knapp – do you think the LNC made an error in contributing tens of thousands of our members dollars to get Mr. Redlich – a “Republican” – on the ballot in NY as a Libertarian? Should the LNC disaffiliate LPNY for violating that Bylaw?

    Scott Lieberman

  6. Robert Capozzi

    tk, hypocrisy check. That rule is at the national level, yes? This was a state LP matter. I seem to recall you object to the LNC attempting to control state LPs and their candidate selections, the name LP, and other things.

    Do I misrecall your stance?

  7. Robert Capozzi

    jjm: No one is trying to be the purity police by saying a patriot act voting, stimulus, pro war neocon, shouldn’t be allowed to take one of our slots.

    me: Yes, prolly so. But let’s say the R was Hitler and the D was Stalin. Let’s stipulate that Murkowski is no friend of liberty, but she’s not nearly the foe that Hitler or Stalin are. Putting Murkowski on the L line might have been a relatively good move, especially if it stood a chance of providing coat-tails down ticket.

    AKLP’s leadership didn’t see the situation as quite that dire and opportunity filled, but they appear to have handled the situation in an adult fashion.

    It’s a relative world, one that can be viewed many different ways, depending on which lens you look at it through.

  8. Eric Sundwall

    oh dear . . . dragging us into it unh ? My response to this is as follows . . .

    Warren’s not running as a Republican for the office of Governor per se. He’s running as a Libertarian. Even if he changed his enrollment, it wouldn’t go into effect until after the elections at this point. If he wins or gets 50K he’s pledged to change enrollment.

    We’re technically not a ballot qualified party despite the 2003 decision by Judge Gleeson that one could technically register as a Libertarian. Compounded with that is the idea of the fusion system in NY. There are many cases of people attempting to enroll LP and in fact not being recognized by local or State BOE’s. The fusion system complicates matters for voters not so civically oriented as erstwhile Libertarians.

    The good news is that when I started getting involved there were just over 500 enrolled Libertarians statewide. Almost 3000 now. We’re doing something right despite the constant howls of incompetency by the peanut gallery.

    I think the purpose of that national bylaw was exigencies like this Murkowski situation that demands some sort of fealty of the moment (let alone the big bad elepant suddenly in the room). Warren’s been a friend and ally of the LPNY for many years and he’s often expressed fears and anxieties about the the GOP in the context of his Congressional bids as a Republican.

    Applying a hard fast rule is always problematic. I also don’t think the litmus test question for Murkowski is as important as party unity. The delegates in Alaska chose Mr. Haase in their process, fiddling with that process because of an ‘opportunity’ by the exec committee seems dubious at best. Are dedication and purpose to be so disregarded so cavalierly when a questionable opportunity knocks ?

    Maybe she could pull a Lieberman and win as an LP candidate, but what message does that send to the next highest bidder ? If anything, it should open the idea of a three way electorate split as a real voter option in future races for the ‘win/success’ crowd.

    If Murkowski didn’t even come knocking, at least the AKLP had enough savvy to capture a little media bump. Any Palin jokes come to mind with that in mind ?

  9. Robert Capozzi

    pc: Warren Redlich is ideologically libertarian.

    me: Yes, but isn’t he still registered R? Is LPNY in violation of that clause?

    I seem to recall that the legal beagles in the LP say No, not a violation. Read the rule very carefully and legalistically. What qualifies what? Is “endorse” the same as “nominate”?

    It says “No affiliate party shall endorse any candidate who is a member of another party for public office in any partisan election.” That’s not the same as saying “No affiliate party shall nominate any candidate for any public office who is a member of another party.”

  10. paulie Post author

    Robert, the point about the rule was Tom’s, not mine.

    I’m not a hyper-partisan, and I don’t eschew working across party lines when I see a benefit.

    Where the rule may be useful is in keeping us from becoming a nonideological catch-all party for sore losers from the majors.

    As long as we maintain a solid directional emphasis for smaller government in all major policy areas, I don’t have a problem with some cross-nominations on a case by case basis.

  11. Robert Capozzi

    es, good point. AKLP’s leadership played this well in the media, too. And, hey, getting some good press as a “player” only works to the good.

    It was worth thinking about for a few days, having a meeting, thinking it through.

  12. Eric Sundwall

    RC – I’m sure we just cross posted on this, so see my above.

    I think it would have been more a problem if Warren got the GOP and LPNY nomination. He’s technically a good standing member of the LPNY. It actually wouldn’t be much of a problem had he got the GOP nomination, because the LPNY nomination wouldn’t mean much when catapulted into that level of major party candidacy. A bemusing footnote if you will. Of course it wasn’t going to happen and we’re happy to have Warren as the real deal for the LPNY this year. I contend that we’ve gotten more media and recognition than the last three candidates combined. Even more than Mr. Stone’s latest plaything. On a regular, continued basis that is. The token shots on Hannity or Larry King notwithstanding.

    Lotsa LPNY’s are registered GOP or otherwise. We’re kind of dualists. Not sure a Cartesian or Jungian reference applies though.

  13. Robert Capozzi

    pc: Where the rule may be useful is in keeping us from becoming a nonideological catch-all party for sore losers from the majors.

    me: yes, that is useful. I sometimes got that vibe from Mike Gravel.

  14. Eric Sundwall

    I further note that it speaks to the LP’s continued success as a third party player. As much as folks want to decry the party as losers etc., the fact is that no other party was talked about or considered seriously with regard to this instance.

    If we get 50K in NY we become a major factor in a major state. Realizing how hard it is to get people to vote strategically in a heart and mind driven race every four years, we always have a helluva a battle. My only goal is not to have Wes Benedict beat me up with Texas success. 🙂

  15. Thomas L. Knapp

    Dr. Lieberman,

    You write:

    “Mr. Knapp – do you think the LNC made an error in contributing tens of thousands of our members dollars to get Mr. Redlich – a ‘Republican’ – on the ballot in NY as a Libertarian? Should the LNC disaffiliate LPNY for violating that Bylaw?”

    The bylaws provision should either be enforced or repealed. Having bylaws provisions which are subject to selective/arbitrary enforcement is a bad idea.

    When I was an LP member, I favored amending the bylaws provision to, at the very least, provide for “fusion” candidacies.

    Bob,

    You write:

    “tk, hypocrisy check. That rule is at the national level, yes? This was a state LP matter. I seem to recall you object to the LNC attempting to control state LPs and their candidate selections, the name LP, and other things.”

    I objected, when I was an LP activist, to the Libertarian National Committee making fraudulent ownership claims to the name “Libertarian Party” and attempting to exercise arbitrary influence over internal state party matters.

    The bylaws measure in question was not imposed by the LNC, it was imposed by the state parties themselves, through their representative delegates in convention. The LNC is merely the appointed enforcement agency for that provision. While it remains in place, it is the LNC’s job to enforce it.

  16. Robert Capozzi

    tk, thanks for clarifying. I sometimes toy with the idea that the state parties should all dis-affiliate from the national party and re-affiliate under a more BTP-type entity with streamlined bylaws and a less cumbersome name like Liberty Party.

  17. Gene Berkman

    The LNC rule against endorsing candidates of other parties was passed many years ago at the urging of Murray Rothbard, Ed Crane and others, who have long since abandoned The Libertarian Party.

    All the people who promoted the rule have dabbled in Republican politics since they left the LP. Seems like it should be repealed and the decision left up to the Libertarian Parties in the various states.

    That said, The AK LP did get publicity over this, and the story about their refusal to back Murkowski has gone out over AP.

  18. Marc Montoni

    I sometimes toy with the idea that the state parties should all dis-affiliate from the national party and re-affiliate under a more BTP-type entity with streamlined bylaws and a less cumbersome name like Liberty Party.

    I would support that only if they did so honestly and eschewed stealing the Libertarian Party’s database; and instead developed their own at their own expense.

    In addition, it would be a violation of even the most basic ethical standards for advocates of such an action to use LP-sponsored meetings or email lists to agitate for same.

    If you want to start a new party, then do it. Just don’t be a dishonest thief about it.

  19. Catholic Trotskyist

    Remember, the Green Party was also talked about for a possible Murkowski candidacy, by Green Party Conservative. Maybe this should be her next option, and those Libertarians who wanted Murkowski to run as Libertarian could endorse her. Then we would have a PLAS campaign!

  20. Richard Winger

    Alaska election law section 15.25.030 says a candidate who files a Declaration of Candidacy must be a member of that party. So I presume, if Senator Murkowski wanted the Libertarian nomination and the party wanted to nominate her, she would have then changed her party registration.

  21. paulie Post author

    Green Party does not have ballot status. AIP has already ruled it out. She either wins the recount or she’s out.

  22. Scott Lieberman

    “paulie // Aug 30, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    Green Party does not have ballot status. AIP has already ruled it out. She either wins the recount or she’s out.”

    *************************************

    She is not “out” if Sen. Murkowski loses the Republican Primary, but runs as a write-in candiate.

    Because of her name recogntion, FNC said she might be able to win the election as a write-in candidate.

    Don’t shoot me – I’m just the messenger.

  23. paulie Post author

    OK, you’re right. Not that it matters much to me, I don’t have a preference between Murkowski, Miller and McAdams. I should have said she is off the ballot if she does not win the recount.

  24. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth Marc Montoni:

    “I would support that only if they did so honestly and eschewed stealing the Libertarian Party’s database; and instead developed their own at their own expense.

    “In addition, it would be a violation of even the most basic ethical standards for advocates of such an action to use LP-sponsored meetings or email lists to agitate for same.”

    How can a party steal its own database? How does it suddenly become unethical for a party to use its own sponsored meetings or email lists?

    The LNC is not “the Libertarian Party.” It is an umbrella under which 50-odd (state, DC, territorial) Libertarian PartIES choose to gather.

    If one of those parties decides to walk out from under that umbrella (or is kicked out from under it), its properties (including its name, should it choose not to change that name) don’t magically become the property of the umbrella.

  25. Robert Capozzi

    MM, I said I toy with the idea. I don’t advocate it.

    I would say there is widespread dissatisfaction with the structure of the LP at the national level from many quarters. The foundational documents are part of that dissatisfaction for many; for me, they are single biggest obstacle to effectiveness. I remain a L despite my suggestions for optimization. (I’m sure we all have suggestions for improvement, yes?)

    My proto-idea might be a means to rectify longstanding disagreements. If the affiliate state parties left and reconstituted under a different umbrella, the organization left standing, the LNC, would serve little to no purpose. So, I would envision that it would sell its assets to the reconstituted Liberty Party, which would be structured more like the BTP, which is setup in a more 21st century way.

    To be clear, I have no interest nor resources to start another party. I’d like to see the LP become more effective and less setup for constant internecine warfare or to remain very, very small. The current model is simply not scalable, IMO.

  26. gaillightfoot

    As an former Alaska resident – you can take the gal out of the wilderness but you cannot take the wilderness out of the gal -, I have to add my opinion. It looks as if the only reason this has come up is the candidate wants to run even if she loses. Some states don’t permit losers to declare as another party’s or an independent candidate. Do sore losers make bad candidates? Possibly.

  27. Robert Capozzi

    Gail, not always. It worked for Lieberman and appears to be working for Crist.

    But, yes, reading between the lines, it appears a trial balloon was floated that in effect involved Murkowski using the LP’s line as a convenience to get on the ballot in Nov. The story may not be over, as the absentee ballots could cause this story to turn again.

    AKLP got their 15 minutes. With any luck, perhaps the AKLP could return to its heyday of Dick Randolph, Ken Fanning and Andre Marrou.

    The Rs and Ds are looking more and more like the Wizard of Oz, and the AKLP might just click it heels! Hope springs eternal.

  28. Marc Montoni

    How can a party steal its own database? How does it suddenly become unethical for a party to use its own sponsored meetings or email lists? … The LNC is not “the Libertarian Party.” It is an umbrella under which 50-odd (state, DC, territorial) Libertarian PartIES choose to gather. … If one of those parties decides to walk out from under that umbrella (or is kicked out from under it), its properties (including its name, should it choose not to change that name) don’t magically become the property of the umbrella.”

    Tom, your inability to understand why you’re wrong on this point is why, were you to return to LP-ing, I could never vote for you for any office. I oppose the balkanization of the LP. Your constant harping on the supposed ability of chapter members to walk away from the LP, with LP resources in their pockets, led me to believe your close associates (such as Kubby) were OK with that stance, so I could not support them, either.

    You have it exactly backwards, as you always have. Forcing the LP to beg and grovel before a *CHAPTER* is akin to forcing the national Boy Scouts to charter a chapter that formally endorses the aims of NAMBLA.

    Just remember, it was *you* who brought this up yet again.

  29. paulie Post author

    Your constant harping on the supposed ability of chapter members to walk away from the LP, with LP resources in their pockets, led me to believe your close associates (such as Kubby) were OK with that stance, so I could not support them, either.

    That’s not a reasonable assumption. If you want to know Steve Kubby’s views on that, ask him, rather than assume he agrees with Tom on everything – he does not.

  30. Thomas L. Knapp

    State affiliates are not “chapters” of a national organization.

    They are independent organizations that happen to be mutually affiliated with each other through a national organization.

    The LNC does not own the state Libertarian Parties. It doesn’t own their names, it doesn’t own their members, it doesn’t own their “resources” and it only owns their ballot lines to the extent provided for by the affiliation structure and during the period of affiliation under that structure.

    I have never, at any point, suggested that the LNC “beg and grovel” before one of the LPs which has chosen to affiliate with other LPs through it.

    I have, however, suggested that the LNC insist that the rules governing affiliation be enforced, and that the state LPs consider the LNC what it is (a mutual affiliation structure) rather than what you’ve fictionalized it as (the owner of the state LPs).

    If you assume that anyone who has not specifically said they agree with me on this issue does in fact agree with me on this issue, you’re a fucking idiot. Furthermore, no, I didn’t bring it up, you did.

  31. Marc Montoni

    Call me what names you will, Tom, you’re still off the ranch on the issue.

    And no, actually in this thread you were the one who reintroduced the discussion. If you don’t want to keep having this debate, then stop bringing it up.

  32. Thomas L. Knapp

    Marc,

    I’ll copy Brian Holtz’s method here and invite the readers to judge for themselves whether or not the link you offered points to any allusion whatsoever to this issue on my part prior to your tantrum about it.

    I’m not just off the ranch on this issue — I’m off the ranch, period.

    If you don’t want to keep losing this debate, then stop insisting on having it even when it isn’t relevant.

  33. Northern Exposure

    The AK Republican Moderate Party, the AK Green Party and the Alaska Veteran’s Party are all considered political organizations (NOT POLITICAL PARTIES) as they do not meet either test 1. Voter registration numbers or 2. Statewide electoral percentage.
    Currently, those numbers are around 9,500.

  34. Robert Capozzi

    mm, oh, yes, one of the possible upsides to my Reconstitute as the Liberty Party proto-notion is that I’d envision getting out of the Watergate.

    Overall, where it appears that you misunderstand the idea is that it would be agreed to by the party in advance. There’d be no “stealing” involved. It would be like BTP in that it WOULD be a national party, not a confederation of state parties. Resources would be allocated nationally, but members would have their say. Most business could be conducted online, with meetups and conventions done to build morale and good feelings.

    I’d also see active caucuses…abolitionists promoting a stateless society…constitutionalists promoting a strict adherence to the Constitution…lessarchists advocating reasonable steps to rollback the state…even hawkish Ls.

    There’s got to be another way of promoting liberty in an electoral context. Reconstituting as the Liberty Party grows on me.

  35. paulie Post author

    Well, to start with, you would have to register about 100,000 voters plus margin (maybe 120k) in California, as those are non-transferable with a party name change, among other things.

  36. Robert Capozzi

    pc, thanks. There are no doubt some seemingly large technicalities. We can fixate on those for another 4 decades. Big-picture solutions are often that way. Or we can keep doing what we’ve been doing because it’s comfortable and known.

    (Not to say that transition plans to minimize loss of residual brand equity would not be indicated, of course.)

    Back on AK, there’s this:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/08/30/libertarians_quash_third-party_option_for_murkowski.html

  37. paulie Post author

    Dondero is Kohlhaas’s campaign manager? LOL.

    Wonder if we’ll see a replay when/if the recount goes Murkowski’s way?

  38. Ken Moellman

    I saw a poll that showed that the Tea favorite wins in a 3 way race between himself, Murkowski and the Democrat.

    So, IMO, it would be very, very wise, if Murkowski pulls the R primary out somehow, to put the Tea favorite on the LPAK ballot line, and make the current candidate some sort of adviser on the campaign team.

    I think they made the right decision, given my experience with a somewhat similar situation here in KY in 2008, but I made sure not to interfere with those guys up there. I thought the publicity was good for LPAK.

    Best of luck to my counterparts in LPAK. It’s rough out in the national media.

  39. paulie Post author

    I saw a poll that showed that the Tea favorite wins in a 3 way race between himself, Murkowski and the Democrat.

    So, IMO, it would be very, very wise, if Murkowski pulls the R primary out somehow, to put the Tea favorite on the LPAK ballot line, and make the current candidate some sort of adviser on the campaign team.

    On the one hand, the TEA candidate is most likely unlibertarian on social issues and/or foreign policy. On the other, the current LP candidate has previous endorsed his opponent (Ted Stevens) and McCain-Palin, so maybe it would not be a trade down in ideological terms.

  40. paulie Post author

    On the third hand, having the LP actually elect a US Senator who will likely vote for making large areas of policy worse would not be a good thing, no matter how bad the current LP nominee might be.

  41. Richard Cooper

    Enrollment as a Libertarian in NY is meaningless as it gives no right to decide LPNY officers or candidates. Only dues-paid members have that right. Most LPNY members are not enrolled Libertarians.

    Warren Redlich is a member of both the LPNY and LPUS.

    The LPNY April convention was prior to the GOP convention in June and the GOP September primary. Had Redlich obtained
    the GOP nomination, they would be endorsing our candidate.

  42. Robert Capozzi

    pc: On the third hand, having the LP actually elect a US Senator who will likely vote for making large areas of policy worse would not be a good thing, no matter how bad the current LP nominee might be.

    me: I think I agree. It might be preferable, then, to remain on the DL than to have a poor, but winning, candidate. It gets more complex when trying to determine how the “poor” winning candidate will vote, since most votes are not pivotal to the change in direction. Most things that pass are negative, so voting no against something that passes was, on one level, a failure and doesn’t contribute to anything…it’s quickly forgotten.

    So, analysis of future performance get complicated and imprecise. I could imagine a situation where I’d support someone who I disagree with on many issues if that person might be pivotal on some important issues. Generally, these sorts of assessments are beyond consideration for a L candidate, since our candidates generally are not contenders.

    For ex., while I enthusiastically voted for Barr, I was rooting for Obama, holding my nose all the while, because I did not want McCain near the nuclear football. The man is too emotionally erratic, IMO. THAT, to me, was a pivotal issue in 08.

  43. Steve Stoltz

    Telling Sen Murkowski “No Thankyou” was exactly the right thing to do.

    Now that being Libertarian is becoming more popular, we must chastise politicians who pay lip service to the word Libertarian if they don’t adhere to the principles of Libertarianism.

  44. Robert Capozzi

    ss, “chastising” might be one way to go. As a general matter, do you go along with someone who chastises you, or do you resent them? My guess is resentment is the more likely reaction for most.

    Another way to go would be use the opportunity, if possible, to educate, if not the politician, then the electorate.

    So, perhaps the AKLP could have made a bit more hay out of this issue. Off the top of my head, they could have said something like:

    Our candidate stands for limited government across the board. Sen. Murkowski voted X, Y and Z, and in this election she has shown no signs of reversing these anti-taxpayer, anti-citizen, and anti-peace that she holds. While we would welcome the Senator to reconsider her views — views that we believe are fundamentally away from the direction of liberty and justice, values that Ls and the American people share — it would be inappropriate for her to run on our line. Our line is not for sale. Our liberty is not for sale.

    This country sorely needs a change in direction. Haase, our candidate for US Senate, and the rest of the LP will continue to articulate our message of peace, freedom and liberty, as clearly and forthrightly as we can.

    Or something.

  45. paulie Post author

    Our candidate stands for limited government across the board. Sen. Murkowski voted X, Y and Z, and in this election she has shown no signs of reversing these anti-taxpayer, anti-citizen, and anti-peace that she holds. While we would welcome the Senator to reconsider her views — views that we believe are fundamentally away from the direction of liberty and justice, values that Ls and the American people share — it would be inappropriate for her to run on our line. Our line is not for sale. Our liberty is not for sale.

    This country sorely needs a change in direction. Haase, our candidate for US Senate, and the rest of the LP will continue to articulate our message of peace, freedom and liberty, as clearly and forthrightly as we can.

    That would be good if it were true. Small problem:

    http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2010/08/more-crazy-in-lp.html

  46. Michael H. Wilson

    I don’t think Haase has an understanding of the Libertarian points regarding foreign policy given what I read on his website. A grammar coach might help along with some spelling points.

  47. George Phillies

    Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire, which tends to be a good source of short nonpartisan political news notes, reports that 5000 of ca 20,000 absentee ballots have been counted in the R primary, and the split so far is 52-46 Murkowski. With that split, she will not win the primary when all votes are counted.

    On the other hand, the Republican candidate is more than a bit eccentric in some of his stands, at least according to some reports.

  48. Robert Capozzi

    pc, hmm, yes, I see…I might abstain on my Senate were I an AKan. OK, I might put the last graph this way:

    “This country sorely needs a change in direction. The LP will continue to articulate our message of peace, freedom and liberty, as clearly and forthrightly as we can.”

  49. Pingback: You say yes, I say no, Murkowski and Alaska Libertarians say maybe | Independent Political Report

  50. Pingback: Murkowski's libertarian credentials | Independent Political Report

  51. Pingback: Associated Press: Alaska Libertarian not stepping aside for Murkowski | Independent Political Report

  52. Pingback: No Libertarian ballot line for Murkowski | Independent Political Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *