AK-Sen: Murkowski: “I’m Still In This Game”, But Libertarians Don’t Sound Enthusiastic

How? That’s not exactly certain. But a week after saying she would be “coming home” at the end of her Senate term, Lisa Murkowski’s tone has changed:

Murkowski told The Associated Press on Tuesday that she’s been inundated with calls and e-mails from supporters, asking her not to leave the race. She says she’s been humbled and is listening – and weighing her options. …

“But what I’m looking at is my state and the future of my state for my kids. So, I have not made that determination that I’m going to give up. I’m not a quitter, never have been. And I’m still in this game,” Murkowski said.

She met briefly Tuesday with the Libertarian candidate, David Haase after friends of hers – without her direction, she said – approached his party, asking if they would consider a Murkowski candidacy. She said she had an interesting discussion with Haase but made clear she’s not interested in changing her “political stripes.”

Besides a third-party run, Murkowski also could seek a write-in candidacy, which she called high risk. Or, she could decide to stay out of the race. …

She has until five days before the general election to decide on a write-in run but acknowledged a decision needs to be made soon. She said she’s listening to Alaskans and giving “considered thought.”

So let’s get this straight: Friends of hers have reached out to the state Libertarian Party, and she’s even gone so far as to meet with Libertarian nominee David Haase, but claims she’s not interested in changing her “political stripes”. And, for their part, the Alaska Libertarians, who already voted against allowing Murkowski on the ballot, are publicly saying that having her on their ballot line is probably not going to happen:

…Party chairman Scott Kohlhaas said the meetings are leading up to a discussion with Murkowski herself if she decides she wants a spot on the party’s ticket.

But it’s unlikely Libertarian leaders — who have disapproved of Murkowski’s voting record in the past — will allow her on the ballot before the Sept. 15 deadline, he said. “I tried to warn the Murkowski people that they’re trying to climb Mount McKinley here … it’s probably impossible.”

Murkowski has eight days to somehow make a Libertarian run happen, if that’s what she’s interested in. The Libertarians, for their part, are the most curious players here — voting to block Murkowski from their ballot, and calling a switch “probably impossible”. Are they trying to get some major concessions out of Murkowski in exchange for their ballot line? Or do they just like the attention of a United States Senator for a change?

UPDATE: More details on Murkowski’s play:

Libertarian Party nominee David Haase told POLITICO he met with Murkowski at the home of a private citizen Tuesday morning in Anchorage, where they discussed whether she was in interested in replacing Haase as the party’s nominee on the ticket this November.

“My answer was that I was considering it and I wanted her to come up with some reasons why, and she’s considering that,” said Haase….

Haase said that he and Murkowski agreed they would touch base again Wednesday and would make a decision on the issue tentatively by Friday – just five days before the Sept. 15 deadline to make changes to party nominees on the ballot….

Nonetheless, Murkowski and Haase discussed the matter – and it appears the senator made some efforts to discuss some of her more Libertarian-leaning positions during the meeting.

Haase recalled that Murkowski told him that she has “reservations” about the Federal Reserve – a pet issue for the Libertarian nominee – and reminded him that she supported an amendment this year that would have called for an audit of the country’s central banking system.

What a crazy race. Who knows if any of this will pan out. Also, I’m not surprised to see Murkowski tout her “reservations” about the Fed. After all, we wrote that little bit of PR for her a week and a half ago:

Anyhow, I wonder if Murkowski’s support of a David Vitter amendment which supported a stronger audit of the Fed than the one that ultimately passed might endear her to the Libertarians.

SSP: Like reading Lisa Murkowski’s memoranda a week early!

UPDATE: The Anchorage Daily News has much more, and by the sounds of it, the Libertarians are pretty cool to the idea:

In order for Murkowski to run as a Libertarian, Haase would have to step aside and the party would need to reverse its vote barring her from the ticket.

“It would be a serious flip-flop,” party chairman Kohlhaas said. “And I don’t think it’s happening.” …

Haase said Murkowski does have Libertarian tendencies but that her support for the war on drugs is a problem. Party chairman Kolhaas has also identified other Murkowski positions as a problem for the Libertarians. Those include her vote to authorize the war in Iraq and her 2008 vote in favor of the Bush administration’s Wall Street bailout plan, which Murkowski has said she regrets.

Haase said he might be willing to talk to his party’s leadership on Murkowski’s behalf. “If she convinced me I would do everything I can to convince them. But she hasn’t convinced me. And she hasn’t decided that she wants to run…she doesn’t want to be seen as somebody that will switch parties just to get elected.” Haase said.

Kohlhaas said the Libertarians are trying to be polite. But he said he understands [Murkowski] “is not going to change her stripes,” and if that’s the case it would be impossible for the party’s executive committee to reverse itself and allow Murkowski on the ticket.

37 thoughts on “AK-Sen: Murkowski: “I’m Still In This Game”, But Libertarians Don’t Sound Enthusiastic”

  1. So much drama in Alaska!  It certainly sounds like the wheels are in motion, though.  I feel like a Murkowski candidacy is just too tempting for the Libertarians to turn down.  Have they ever had a credible candidate in a Senate race?  Of course, this would be bad news for Scott McAdams, and potentially bad news for everyone else if this somehow results in a Miller victory.

  2. Hasn’t Alan Grayson made a big thing of this? Strange bedfellows indeed. Goodness knows what will happen here but it is fun to follow.

  3. I like McAdams and think he could give Miller a real run for the seat, however I’m not willing to risk what essentially would be a coin flip at best to put Miller in the Senate.  

    So with that being said, if Murkowski was assured of winning if she ran, I’d be more than fine with that.  

    What I don’t want is a Florida situation where she splits the 60% of the Dem/Centrist/Moderate GOP vote with McAdams and Miller pulls 40% to win.  

    Ideally McAdams would pull 40%, and have Miller and Murkowski split the other 60 virtually right down the middle to win 40/30/30.  

    If it’s a three way race and I was advising McAdams I’d have him not attack Murkowski, because that could turn her voters to Miller if she falls behind as a 3rd party.  Let Miller do all the attacking, and have McAdams focus on the issues.  That way if Murkowski is polling behind her voters might start voting against Miller if nothing else, and throw their vote strategically to McAdams on Nov 2nd.  

    Further I’d advise McAdams to start reaching out to Murkowski voters now while Miller and Murkowski camps are still at odds given her toying with the idea to run.

    Ultimately I don’t think she will run though, odds are long that she could win. She could play spoiler to Miller though, but it would hurt her legacy.  

  4. Miller is the official candidate of the NRSC, but how much money would they spend on him if Murkowski were running a strong 3rd party campaign and McAdams were way back in 3rd place.  Even as a libertarian I assume she would still vote for McConnell.

  5. But, Mayor Daley announced he is not running for reelection and Rahm Emmanuel is being talked of as a potential replacement. Big surprise.

  6. Republican just penned an article talking about Joe Miller. She talks about how Joe Miller left the party in March of 2008 and decided to come back in October of 2009. Her last two paragraphs are the most interesting though.

    I’m beginning to think Miller suffers from a personality disorder. We know from his amateurish performance at the 2008 Republican convention that he acts impulsively and irresponsibly – ignoring reality and failing to count his votes. And for someone who’s never been elected to anything, his sense of self-importance seems wildly inflated.

    With his well-rehearsed lines and fake bodyguards, it’s inevitable that some will be drawn to Miller’s act, but I’m still not buying the script. He doesn’t get the rules, he can’t work the system and he’s not honest. He’s a bearded, unfamous Lindsay Lohan. Another warped drama queen.

    Read more: http://community.adn.com/adn/n

Comments are closed.