Skip to comments.Murkowski (The Winner?) Desperate: Wants Her Day In Court
Posted on 12/03/2010 10:09:03 AM PST by RileyD, nwJ
By Thomas Lamb | 12/03/10 | 1:43 AM EST |
I find it telling that Lisa Murkowski wanted to intervene in the Joe Miller vs. State of Alaska case because she felt that she could lose.
Kendall said Murkowski was at odds with the state over its deciding not to count another 2,016 ballots for her.
Many of those did not have the ballot ovals filled but had her name written in. Others, according to attorney Scott Kendall, had "Lisa M." written in or various misspellings.
Video link for spelling bee here in body of article.
(Editor's note: notice the misspelling of Murkowski (an actual mistake) by the ad agency at the end of the video)
Considering she wants to have 2016 votes that the State of Alaska determined were not votes to be counted, you have to ask; did Lisa Murkowski cheat on passing her bar exam?
Because no lawyer in their right mind would try to get a court to overturn votes that are contradictory to what a politician spent a gazillion dollars on to make sure didn't happen.
The court allowing Murkowski to intervene has the look of a conniving politician who is desperate to hold on to something given to her early on. And while A.P. glossed over Kendall's remarks, votes that were challenged and not counted were misspellings like Murcowshit.
Talking about correct spelling: Desperate... ;^)
How about disparate? Don’t know if it would be appropriate in this case, but I figured I’d muddy the waters a little bit.
I’d like to hear some final numbers and see a final ruling on what will be counted. Otherwise I’m not convinced that she “looks” desperate. Obviously her lawyers wanted in on the case so they can press their positions on anything they don’t like. And it only makes sense she wants every vote she can get because you don’t know what rulings will come later.
Lisa the Liar is desperate to keep what her daddy gave her.
What is the current status on this fiasco??
Still in Court?
Yours is the most reasoned analysis. Of course she has an interest in the litigation; even if we all hope she loses, the fact that she intervened hardly communicates any sense of desperation.
There won’t be any final numbers until the court makes its ruling and you that will likely be appealed by one side or the other.
Well, I believe that is what this litigation is about, at least partially - final numbers. As I understand it, Miller is challenging "x" number of ballots because of spelling errors, or other documentary inadequacies. I'm not positive, but he may also be trying to challenge some of the rulings he lost prior to the election, like the placement of the write-in lists in the polling places.
Having said all that, Murkowski leads in preliminary numbers by almost (or perhaps a bit more than) 10K votes. I can't envision a scenario where Miller makes up that kind of ground, not in a race where there were only 255K cast in total. I think his challenge can best be described as Quixotic.
Has anyone come up with a number, based on past election turnout, how many of Murkowshit’s numbers were crossover Rat voters? Just curious.
Have the Military and all absentee ballots been counted yet?
I haven't seen them yet. And, given the remoteness of AK, it's quite possible they don't exist. I can't imagine that there was a lot of exit polling done at the polls themselves.
Logically though, I'd have to presume that it's a sizable number if for no other reason that the few votes that the Dem in the race actually got, just 60K out of 255K.
I think that they have, but by no means take that as a definitive answer. I could very well be wrong.
Lose with honor, Joe, and eventually your day will come.
Yes, that's the camp I'm falling into. I have no problems with conservatives fighting fiercely in court to protect the electoral process. But, I'm not sure if challenging spelling is a long-term winning strategy ESPECIALLY when you're down 10K votes. That's a lot.
Of course you are right. Wonder if voter turnout was the same as usual or higher.
Remember that it was not a presidential election year, so those turnout numbers are always slightly depressed. But, I believe that I read that for a non-presidential election year, turnout was pretty robust in AK, something around 50%.
Her wanted to intervene isn’t telling of anything. It’s totally normal legal practice.
Joe is trying to stop the erosion of the rule of law. The state was/is trying to change the rules(law) in the middle of the election. State law clearly states what is a valid ballot, Joe is trying to hold the law to what is written. That is Honorable.
Getting votes counted by changing the rules after the game is over is even more Democrat behavior.
That's why they are in court. If Miller wins in court Murkowski's lead drops to approximately 2,000 prior to a recount and an application of the court's ruling. If the court changes the law or ignores the law (same thing) then Murkowski wins ... if appleals to higher courts uphold the court. If the court rules in favor of the law, expect Murkowski to appeal as she knows she may very well lose in a recount with a fair application of the law.
Murkowski knows the risk, that's why she is not trusting the state to make her case strongly enough. But Murkowski's paid videos are the best evidence against her position.
Murcowski didn’t win; Miller lost
Miller is smug, lazy, and dishonest. He was so smug that he ignored all advice from fellow conservatives on how to present his message. (Like losing the ugliest beard in North America.) Miller has the personality of a dung beetle and the political skills of a trout.
Almost any true conservative could have won, but Miller has the special ability to make almost everyone who meets him want to run and wash.
He even managed to piss off a judge that he worked for-—a judge who might have been a good ally.
Miller deserved to lose; his smugness and ineptitude are an embarrassment to conservativism.
Wonder if the turnout was really higher or if the rumors of ballot stuffing by the Murkowski camp are true. If he Republican establisment in AK and the Rats were working together, this becomes quite plausible.
What a conundrum. Murkowski said that if "voter intent" can be determined from the ballot, that should be the standard for counting the ballot. Then she claims that a write-in vote for "Murcowshit" is a simple misspelling and the voter clearly intended to vote for her? I can think of a couple reasons someone might have written that on their ballot, none of which involve wanting to vote for Murcowski. LOL!!
The law is very specific about spelling. It has always been enforced. Lisa the Liar wants us to make an exception for her. She has always had things handed tp her. It is her right.
The irony? Her Daddy was instrumental in getting this law passed.
My understanding of writein votes is that the election law says the spelling must be EXACT.
She knew the rules going in.
It’s more than a matter of losing with dignity it’s following the law. If he didn’t do this he’s saying the law as written doesn’t matter, that they can be manipulated to serve an arbitrary wish of someone. It means some people are above the law. That’s extremely hypocritical of someone who’s going to Washington to MAKE laws. It’s time to stop politicians who think laws don’t apply to them.
Everyone knows Murkowski is a tool; however getting votes thrown out because they failed to spell it right is Democrat behavior.
Lose with honor, Joe, and eventually your day will come.
The law was written because two write ins with close names make an accurate count impossible.
Also, why does this country need people who can’t spell and/or follow directions voting?
Let’s be clear on what Democrat behavior is:
1) recount until you win
2) invalidate or don’t mail out military ballots
3) other assorted cheating ...
The rule of law is not cheating.
If he quits, I do not see him coming back.
He needs to fight this good fight. It is the right thing to do on many levels.
I think the most telling piece of information would be how the last write-in in AK was handled... if those votes had to strictly adhere to no misspellings and filled ovals, then I think that adds a lot to the debate and truly puts things in perspective... if rule of law was good enough for that candidate why are there different rules for lisa, and it makes joe look a little belligerent...
I keep googling and trying to find this information wherever I think it might be, but so far I have had no luck... any ideas?
makes joe look a little LESS belliggerent... sorry.
Sorry, don't have any information on the last time Alaska had to look at write-in's ... however, I think I found the last time they looked at voter intent and it was a very different case.
In fact, the rules for the non write-in ballots required the DOE to take into account voter intent where as write-in ballots appear to exclude voter intent reference spelling. Information on the other case may be found here. Hope this helps.
My eyes sorta glaze over when over it comes to financial or legal stuff, but this quote of yours did it for me.. I understand...
“No trick involved. Statutes in that case directed looking at voter intent. That is the smoking gun here, because you are correct, “Our case with Miller is totally different.”
The Alaska Supreme Court applied the statute as written in that case. If they do the same in Miller vs Murkowski, voter intent will not be considered.”
$$ CHA-CHING $$
that is basically what I was talking about - how did they do it last time before lisa - rules are for other people - Murkowski...
It would also be a real smoking gun if there is another recount in recent history that makes your very point regarding Miller’s case... they applied the statute then.
I HAVE NOT GIVEN UP HOPE! I don’t know much about Miller, for me it’s the principle... Repubs have to start standing for something... thanks so much.