Despite Vote, Libertarians Haven’t Ruled Out Murkowski

CQPolitics ^ | 9/6/2010 | CQ-Roll Call Staff

[dirtboy]

Why would the Libertarian Party want a RINO? They are completely opposed to every thing they believe.

They see a chance to win with a flawed candidate, purely out of name recognition.

Which makes them political prostitutes.

[uscabjd]

Thanks Sarah,

Maybe we can add this state to Colo and NV of sure wins we can now loose. But at least there will be no RINO, and that, after all, is what’s important. Harry Reid thanks you.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Losertarian party is nothing more than democrat light.Abortion and open borders with a splash of isolationism. What is conservative about that?

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Aye carumba!

[Robbin]

“Thanks Sarah”

So, you would rather have the biggest rino in alaska as long as she could win? Is that what you’re saying? Because if it is, YOU are a RINO and are part of the RINO PROBLEM... Not part of the conservative solution.

And yes THANK YOU SARAH for giving us a CHANCE to pick up a conservative over a RINO.

[ebersole]

I dont’ know about NV and AK, but Sarah Palin had nothing to do with the collapse of the GOP and with the TP endorsed candidate. Our state was dumb enough to do it without any outside help,

Which candidate in CO did you believe to be a sure win? I didn’t hear of one. The state of CO is not red it is BLUE. The state of CO has two democratic senators, a democratic Governor, state legislature and state senate which are both controlled by democrats

[LonghornFreeper]

They see a chance to win with a flawed candidate, purely out of name recognition.

Which makes them political prostitutes.

I don't see what the choice of Carly Fiorina as Republican candidate for Senator in California has to do with this thread...

Oh, sorry, you were talking about the Libertarians taking Murkowski, not mainstream Republicans (including Sarah Palin) endorsing Fiorina, just like they did Arnold before her. Yeah, I do agree that the Libertarians picking Murkowski would be really dumb.

[truthfreedom]

Let’s wait and see. If the Libertarians do give Murk the nom, you have a point. Until then, you really don’t.

And have you been paying attention to the horrible behavior toward the conservative Christine O’Donnell by the Delaware GOP?

[dirtboy]

And where the flock did that come from? You must have pulled a muscle to make that pointless point.

[truthfreedom]

She isn’t a libertarian. Miller is much closer to a libertarian.

[FreeAtlanta]

I don’t care what liberals think and do. < /sarcasm... sort of >

[samtheman]

Dope-atarians.

[Howie66]

Good point and yes I have.

The “establishment” GOP is as bad as anything as far as I am concerned.

Can’t wait until we clean them out, too.

[LonghornFreeper]

The point was very simple. Republicans, especially those of the "go with the candidate who can win" mindset, should look in the mirror before calling Libertarians "political prostitutes". If you want an example, another poster on this thread was actually blaming Palin for taking away an "easy win", i.e. Murkowski.

If you are not one of the Republicans who advocates taking any candidate who "can win", then the comment wasn't addressed to you specifically, I just picked your particular post from the half-dozen or more on the thread accusing Libertarians of being "political whores", "losertarians", etc.

Just like being pregnant or not, you can't be "a little bit of a political whore". You endorse one obvious RINO, then you are a political whore, at least until you publicly change course. Sarah Palin has done enough for conservatism that, at this point, I'm willing to give her a pass for Fiorina and McCain, but most Republicans haven't even come close to earning that.

I would note, in fact, that if the Libertarians do in fact allow Murkowski to run on their ticket, than all of those negative comments about them will be true. Nonetheless, almost all of them apply equally well to most Republicans. Remember, for example, that George W. Bush actually campaigned FOR Arlen Specter against conservative opposition in the primary at one point.

[Al B.]

RINO losers like Murkowski would rather make war on conservatives than on the Marxists. The Dems are looking for an alternative to their loser candidate. Murkowski should just run on the Dem line. It would simplify things.

[freekitty]

LOL

[dirtboy]

You endorse one obvious RINO, then you are a political whore,

Bullcrap.

Libertarians hold themselves out as political purists. Yet they are now tempted to endorse a candidate who is the ultimate expression in political nepotism.

Someone the GOP just rejected, to the party's credit.

So you can stuff your moral equivalence argument where it don't shine.

[onyx]

Sore loser has not endorsed Joe Miller and I suspect she will have to be coerced by Cornyn and her Senate colleagues, if she is to finally endorse him at all.

The Libertarian party needs money and the amount of $1 million dollars from Murkowski to the Alaska Libertarian party was floated before the absentee count. I don’t know the legality of such dealings.

She’s a sore loser, but is she completely vindictive and stupid?

Remember, the source of this “news” comes via the ADN.

[ansel12]

I agree, thanks Sarah, Joe Miller will win this race.

[ansel12]

In a race between Tom Campbell and Barbara Boxer, endorsing Fiorina was the right thing to do, and it worked, Campbell lost.