Jump to content

Alaska Tally Shows Murkowski With 1,706 Vote Lead


WestVirginiaRebel

Recommended Posts

WestVirginiaRebel
alaska-tally-shows-murkowski-vote-lead
Fox News:

JUNEAU, Alaska -- Sen. Lisa Murkowski built a 1,706 vote lead over GOP nominee Joe Miller in Alaska's still-undecided Senate race after election officials added the last big batch of absentee ballots on Monday.

Murkowski, the Republican incumbent who waged a write-in campaign after losing the party nomination to Miller in August, has 92,164 votes. But that total includes 7,601 write-in votes that have been challenged by the Miller campaign.

Miller has 90,458 votes.

He has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to have the state follow election law, which calls for write-in ballots to have the oval filled in and the last name of the candidate or the name as it appears on the declaration of candidacy. In the Senate race, it would be "Murkowski" or "Lisa Murkowski."

The state has been using discretion in determining voter intent, allowing minor misspellings and pointing to prior case law as the basis for the move.

Murkowski's camp has said Miller is seeking to disenfranchise thousands of voters who made an effort to write in her name but had trouble doing so.

Miller observers have challenged the 7,601 write-in votes for things such as misspellings, legibility issues, extra words or oddly filled-in ovals.
________

Hey Joe, where you gonna get votes now...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe Miller = the Al Gore of Alaska! I feel sorry for the people of Alaska.

 

1362599_02bcdea730.jpg

 

It figures that this breaks your heart...

 

Where's the sympathy for the poor people of NC....and no "Al Gore" slams on DEM Bob Etheridge?

 

(Oh, I forgot that Etheridge isn't one of those horrible Conservatives.)

 

Recounts in the tight race for the NC 2nd District seat in Congress will take place on Wednesday and Thursday.

 

Republican challenger Renee Ellmers led seven-term incumbent Democrat Bob Etheridge by 1,489 votes, slightly less than 1 percent of all ballots cast, when vote totals were certified Friday. Etheridge immediately requested a recount.

 

BTW, DEM Congressman Bob Etherige is the 'lawmaker' who physically attacked an student journalist earlier this year.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

righteousmomma

I FEEL SORRY FOR ALASKANS TOO!

"After all Joe Miller was the Republican Party nominee in the November 2, 2010 U.S. Senate election in Alaska. He faced Democrat Scott McAdams, and incumbent Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, who, after losing the primary to Miller, ran a write-in campaign."

 

And now poor Alaskans may be stuck with this RINO Murkowski AGAIN.

So sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest areafiftyone

I FEEL SORRY FOR ALASKANS TOO!

"After all Joe Miller was the Republican Party nominee in the November 2, 2010 U.S. Senate election in Alaska. He faced Democrat Scott McAdams, and incumbent Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, who, after losing the primary to Miller, ran a write-in campaign."

 

And now poor Alaskans may be stuck with this RINO Murkowski AGAIN.

So sad.

 

That is because alot Democrats broke for Murkowski because their candidate was not worth it. Apparently in their eyes they had a wimpy Democrat running. Murkowski was the better of the three to them. And there was NO WAY they were going to vote for Miller. Alot of Republicans and Independents switched over to Murkowski when Miller's past started coming out. Some were protest votes against Palin. This is what I was reading when the election was going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Murkowski was the better of the three to them.

Areafiftyone!

 

I guess that we will have to disagree on that one.

 

Murkowski has "a past and record" that I find odious... especially her actions after losing the legitimate and uncontested Republican primary. Talk about an Algore look-alike.

 

Edited to add:

 

Murkowski... the sweatheart of A51 and the NYTimes.

 

NYTimes Hit Piece on Palin with their dupe Murkowski

 

Murkowski Says Palin Lacks “Intellectual Curiosity”
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest areafiftyone
Murkowski was the better of the three to them.

Areafiftyone!

 

I guess that we will have to disagree on that one.

 

Murkowski has "a past and record" that I find odious... especially her actions after losing the legitimate and uncontested Republican primary. Talk about an Algore look-alike.

 

I'm not saying Murkowski is the better candidate (far from it) - what I'm indicating is how the Alaskans voted. Unfortunately for Joe Miller - being the conservative was not enough to put him over the top when it came to the general. It helped him in the primary but primaries are really just showing how well a person does with his/her base, but that was not enough. Unfortunately, Independents rule in Alaska and unfortunately for Miller they went to Murkowski. Who knows what they were thinking - but regardless of how people in the lower 48 feel - Alaskans are in their own little world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shoutAreafiftyone

 

 

I never heard from you here.

 

What are you, if you are not a conservative? Forget the R that you claim as being behind your name. Anyone can stick an R or a D or an I behind their name. It's just a label, a flag of convenience, like flying the Liberian flag or the Panamanian flag on a tanker. It certainly is not a philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest areafiftyone

shoutAreafiftyone

 

 

I never heard from you here.

 

What are you, if you are not a conservative? Forget the R that you claim as being behind your name. Anyone can stick an R or a D or an I behind their name. It's just a label, a flag of convenience, like flying the Liberian flag or the Panamanian flag on a tanker. It certainly is not a philosophy.

 

I am a Republican and I refuse to be called a conservative - like I said - I am Republican in the mode of Teddy Roosevelt, Chris Christie, Giuliani and others who believe in fiscal conservatism, smaller government, freedom, a strong America and a strong military. But want social issues OFF THE TABLE in politics. They are not into social issues and think they are a way of getting people all riled up. I personally don't care if a person is religious, is not religious, is waiting for religion, or is not sure about religion. I don't care about gays - if they want to live a certain lifestyle let them, Guns are a no brainer - no one is trying to take away your guns and if they tried they would probably fail and there would be protests (and I would be out there protesting with them), that is why it's never a big issue in a presidential campaign. Even in liberal NYC - you can own a gun. Abortion is the law of the land - I believe you can educate people into not getting an abortion rather than trying to take away the law - education is a big key to keeping the abortion rate down especially with young people and it seems to be working. So, social issues mean SQUAT to me when it comes to politics. All they do is cloud the water with emotion and bring out the worst in people. They build anger resentment from both sides and invoke hatred. People try to pump you or goad you as to what religion you are, and how you feel about certain social issues - and when they finally get what they want (which is usually an opposite answer to how they personally feel) they label you, bottle you and send you out to sea. In that way I am a Republican. I don't call myself a conservative - never had and never will. That is all I can say. I am what I am. Now you have your answer as best as I can give it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I have with all of this is the attitude that people are qualified to run for office just because they claim to be a Conservative. This is true even if the state they want to represent would prefer a RINO. Social conservatives have no right to dictate what is done all over the country and then to get angry at anyone who questions their viciousness over RINOs. RINO is the most obnoxious term which is why people use it.

 

The leaders of every organized religion get to tell their followers what to do. Social Conservatives don't have the same right to issue moral requirements to everyone who wants to be a Republican. It's the quickest way to lose.

 

My new Senator, Mark Kirk, is a good Republican even if he does not make social Conservatives happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My new Senator, Mark Kirk, is a good Republican even if he does not make social Conservatives happy.

 

Oh please. A "good Republican" would not vote for Cap & Tax and other parts of the Obama agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I have with all of this is the attitude that people are qualified to run for office just because they claim to be a Conservative.

Stella!

 

I guess that we're both even then. I'm don't care for "the attitude" of your comment above.

 

You guys throw out the supposition that everyone who is a social conservative is totally stupid and shallow. I'm generally a social conservative but I'm not a single issues voter nor require a 'litmus test'... and I don't just vote for someone because of what they call themselves.

 

Is that what you think about the people on this forum who tilt socially conservative? That's the message that I get.

 

Nobody here is trying to dictate anything to you. You're whining about the label RINO but you feel free to broad brush, generalize, and spend your life trying to dig up anything negative you can find on a "SOCON" conservative candidate or leader.

 

The leaders of every organized religion get to tell their followers what to do. Social Conservatives don't have the same right to issue moral requirements to everyone who wants to be a Republican.

 

What does religion have to do with this discussion... anymore than it does with the religion of liberalism? Is the implication that SOCONS are the Taliban?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest areafiftyone

The problem I have with all of this is the attitude that people are qualified to run for office just because they claim to be a Conservative. This is true even if the state they want to represent would prefer a RINO. Social conservatives have no right to dictate what is done all over the country and then to get angry at anyone who questions their viciousness over RINOs. RINO is the most obnoxious term which is why people use it.

 

The leaders of every organized religion get to tell their followers what to do. Social Conservatives don't have the same right to issue moral requirements to everyone who wants to be a Republican. It's the quickest way to lose.

 

My new Senator, Mark Kirk, is a good Republican even if he does not make social Conservatives happy.

 

I was curious and looked up RINO in Wikipedia:

 

The word was introduced nationally in an article by Gardner Goldsmith, which appeared in Investor's Business Daily in 1998, and came into widespread usage around 2000, particularly during the election campaigns of that year. While the term is new, the concept of being a member of a party but not representing its mainstream is not uncommon in American political history. In 1912, former President Theodore Roosevelt, then-President William Howard Taft and Senator Robert LaFollette fought for ideological control of the Republican Party and each denounced the other two as "not really Republican." The Taft faction went on to control the national ticket until 1936.

 

Those Republicans who are labeled RINOs sometimes counter that the conservatives who call them RINOs are too far right and too politically naïve. They point out that they can and do win in moderate and liberal areas, and they claim that without their votes the Republicans would have lost control of Congress. Moderates in the Northeast and upper Midwest often point out that the GOP is a historically moderate party with roots in the Northern United States, while many of their conservative critics (especially in the South) are recent converts to the party.

 

Really very interesting how it developed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Area51!

 

Teddy Roosevelt was an original advocate of progressivism and helped found that movement. It was that ideology that was rejected by the 1912-1936 Republicans. He was also what many would consider a variation of a "green" candidate, in that he started the nation's first National Park System, and he was also instrumental in bringing about the Meat Inspection & Pure Food & Drug acts; after reading socialist Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," a story of the Chicago meat industry. Even though he vilified Sinclair; he plainly believed many of his socialist/progressive idea's.

 

After reading your posts above, I'd agree with most of what you've said; with the exception of your Teddy Roosevelt example and the equating of Joe Miller with ManBearPig. [unless, as with Gore you're saying he's flogging a dead horse]

 

In fact, I would almost say you seem to be more of a pure libertarian.[i.e.- less government, taxes & intrusion + more freedom]

 

I believe our government should be a "laissez faire" republic. However, I also firmly believe in the guiding principles of our founders, including religion; not as a creation & condition of the state, but in private practice & as a general framework for our body of laws. Theological thought and some canon law were combined with Greek-style Democracy & English common law [derived from the Magna Carta.] to make our Declaration, Constitution & Bill of Rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a fiscal and social conservative, but I'm willing to bend on one depending on the candidate. My main issue fiscally is the damage Obambi is doing to our country, while my main SOCON issue is the 2nd Amendment.

 

I asked during the campaign what Stella and A51 had against Christine O'Donnell when they couldn't even vote for her. They both gave reasonable answers that I may not have agreed with, but I understood where they were coming from. I have problems with the NRA endorsing, before it didn't endorse, Harry Reid(in fact it cost them renewal of my membership).

 

The fact is, while the RATS are culling their herd of anybody who's not a Pelosi/Boxer liberal, the GOP should focus on the few Blue Dogs left in the House and Senate and trying to lure them over to the Good Side of the Force. The tent is big enough if we don't go for each other's throats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WestVirginiaRebel

The issue here isn't so much whether Murkowski should win (she seems pretty much useless), but that she is, and according to the recount that Miller asked for. It was a mistake on his part that allowed him to fall into his opponent's trap IMO, and unfortunately for him, it looks like he fell for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shoutAreafiftyone

 

 

I never heard from you here.

 

What are you, if you are not a conservative? Forget the R that you claim as being behind your name. Anyone can stick an R or a D or an I behind their name. It's just a label, a flag of convenience, like flying the Liberian flag or the Panamanian flag on a tanker. It certainly is not a philosophy.

 

I am a Republican and I refuse to be called a conservative - like I said - I am Republican in the mode of Teddy Roosevelt, Chris Christie, Giuliani and others who believe in fiscal conservatism, smaller government, freedom, a strong America and a strong military. But want social issues OFF THE TABLE in politics. They are not into social issues and think they are a way of getting people all riled up. I personally don't care if a person is religious, is not religious, is waiting for religion, or is not sure about religion. I don't care about gays - if they want to live a certain lifestyle let them, Guns are a no brainer - no one is trying to take away your guns and if they tried they would probably fail and there would be protests (and I would be out there protesting with them), that is why it's never a big issue in a presidential campaign. Even in liberal NYC - you can own a gun. Abortion is the law of the land - I believe you can educate people into not getting an abortion rather than trying to take away the law - education is a big key to keeping the abortion rate down especially with young people and it seems to be working. So, social issues mean SQUAT to me when it comes to politics. All they do is cloud the water with emotion and bring out the worst in people. They build anger resentment from both sides and invoke hatred. People try to pump you or goad you as to what religion you are, and how you feel about certain social issues - and when they finally get what they want (which is usually an opposite answer to how they personally feel) they label you, bottle you and send you out to sea. In that way I am a Republican. I don't call myself a conservative - never had and never will. That is all I can say. I am what I am. Now you have your answer as best as I can give it.

 

 

Funny, I consider myself a Conservative and refuse to be labelled a Republican. Like it or not, social issues ARE a part of politics, and will continue to be so as long as there are liberals out there pushing a socialist agenda and social "moderates" willing to ignore social issues. One cannot be a fiscal Conservative while being disinterested in the social agenda, because social and entitlement programs are now the biggest expenditures of our government. You cannot claim to want smaller government while turning a blind eye to the social agenda that is being foist upon us either, since ever social program started by the government means an expansion of government. Further, social conservatives are much less likely to be passing measures that interfere with my life.

 

Like it or not, social issues are a big part of the political landscape and will not go away in our entitlement society. Liberals push the agenda while "moderates" look the other way, or go along instead of making tough decisions. This is the way we ended up with Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare.

 

Oh, and by the way, they are after your guns, and failing in taking them away, they are after the ammunition. The Second Amendment was added to our Constitution as a means to off-set a strong national government, and those that want to control us resent it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1711702527
×
×
  • Create New...