Lisa Murkowski on Principles & Values
Independent Sr Senator (AK)
Murkowski's assertion is a mixed blessing for national Republicans, who support the man who defeated her in the GOP primary, Joe Miller. On the one hand, her continued candidacy stands to hurt Miller by siphoning off votes from him, making way for Murkowski or Democrat Scott McAdams to win.
On the other hand, Murkowski signals she will continue to caucus with the Republicans in the lame-duck session and, if she wins reelection, throughout the next Congress.
Murkowski vowed that she would return not only as a Republican but with her seniority intact--including her plum committee leadership spot--next year. "In January, I will return with the most seniority on the Natural Resources Committee," she said. "I will not lose a minute of seniority and I will continue to build on that."
A: If this is not a Republican state, it's certainly more of a conservative one. Though we have [Democratic] Senator Mark Begich, it's certainly not a Democratic state. I think Alaskans are looking at me as one who has clearly demonstrated that I can represent all Alaskans and I think the real question is whether Miller could really represent all Alaskans.
Q: If you win, would you consider caucusing with the Democrats?
A: No. I'm a Republican. I'm running as a write-in Republican candidate. So, I'm not my party's nominee. Does that give me a little more flexibility & independence? Perhaps, yes. Keep in mind, over half the people in this state chose not to align themselves with any party at all. So, in order for me to represent them, I have to have that approach: you're not going to find me 100% in alignment with the party position but I'm 100% aligned with Alaska's position.
MURKOWSKI: Well, let me tell you, Jim DeMint or the Tea Party Express, far be it for them to determine whether or not the senator representing the people of Alaska is conservative enough for them. I'm trying to do is represent the people of my state. Maybe from Jim DeMint's perspective, you know, I'm not conservative enough for him. But the question is, do I represent the values of the people of the state that I represent?
MURKOWSKI: What happened in my particular race, you had the Tea Party Express, this California-based group, come in at the last minute in a mudslinging, smear campaign, with lies and fabrications and mischaracterization. They dumped $600,000 into a small market here in Alaska, and they clearly influenced the outcome of that election. But you have a process here where so many Alaskans did not have an opportunity to speak up and vote for the person that they wanted to.
Q: But isn't that how the process works? And you're now kind of undermining the Republican Party?
MURKOWSKI: It's not about undermining the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. It's about representing the people of the state of Alaska. And if the people of the state of Alaska are going to stand up and say, Lisa, you've got to give us an opportunity to participate, to give us a choice.
MURKOWSKI: “I have made no point hiding from the fact that my father appointed me to this seat. I didn’t ask Alaskans to accept that or get over that, if you will,” she repeated her stock answer. “What I’ve asked is that Alaskans look at the job I’m doing in the US Senate.”
KNOWLES: Knowles, however, expressed regrets for a policy failure, not campaign gaffes. He said he wished he had gotten subsistence on the ballot as an issue when he was governor.
"In the past month, many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make the law--it is to apply the law. And it is clear, I believe, that my record in two courts reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its terms; interpreting statutes according to their terms and Congress's intent; and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and my Circuit Court. In each case I have heard, I have applied the law to the facts at hand."
The GOP controls the Senate by just one vote. Even with today’s margin, the GOP doesn’t have effective control of the agenda as the Democrats use the filibuster to kill pro-growth reform or crucial judicial appointments. The next Senate could confirm two U.S. Supreme Court justices.
If the Republicans do manage to pick up a few extra seats in the Senate, there could also be an ideological shift toward pro-growth issues. Right now, the balance of power is in the hands of the RINO Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter. With a seat pick-up for the GOP, plus the addition of GOP superstars, Olympia and Arlen would no longer be deciding votes. We could move away from watered-down Republicanism toward a genuine pro-growth agenda.
Members of the Club are economic conservatives, like-minded political contributors who are frustrated with the ideological drift of both parties today. Club members have a shared goal of contributing to and electing more Reaganites to Congress who are willing to stand for the issues like: cutting taxes, controlling federal spending, personal accounts for Social Security, ending the death tax, eliminating the capital gains tax, fundamental tax reform, providing true school choice and minimizing government's role in our daily lives.
The stakes are mighty high in the Senate elections. That’s why we’re providing you now with our outlook for every competitive Senate race and a list of our top tier choices. The “A” List Candidates make this list because their races are competitive and they are the very best on economic issues. The “B” List Candidates are all in hotly contested races too, but they are not as rock solid on economic growth issues.
|Other candidates on Principles & Values:||Lisa Murkowski on other issues:|
Retiring in 2014 election:
Retired as of Jan. 2013:
Senate races Nov. 2016:
AK: Murkowski(R) vs.Begich(D) vs.Lamb(R) vs.Stevens(L)
AL: Shelby(R) vs.Crumpton(D) vs.Bowman(R)
AR: Boozman(R) vs.Eldridge(D) vs.Gilbert(L) vs.
AZ: McCain(R) vs.Ward(R) vs.Kirkpatrick(D) vs.Mealer(I)
CA: Sanchez(D) vs.Harris(D) vs.Chavez(R) vs.Del Beccaro(R) vs.Sundheim(R) vs.Brannon(R)
CO: Bennet(D) vs.Glenn(R) vs.Neville(R) vs.Frazier(R) vs.Keyser(R) vs.Littleton(R)
CT: Blumenthal(D) vs.Kudlow(R) vs.Wolf(R) vs.
FL: Jolly(R) vs.DeSantis(R) vs.Cantera(R) vs.Murphy(D) vs.Grayson(D) vs.Keith(D)
GA: Isakson(R) vs.
HI: Schatz(D) vs.Cavasso(R)
IA: Grassley(R) vs.Fiegen(D) vs.Hogg(D) vs.Krause(D) vs.Culver(D)
ID: Crapo(R) vs.LaRocco(D) vs.Minnick(D) vs.Pro-Life(C)
IL: Kirk(R) vs.Harris(D) vs.Zopp(D) vs.Duckworth(D)
IN: Stutzman(R) vs.Hill(D) vs.Holcomb(R) vs.Young(R) vs.
KY: Paul(R) vs.Conway(D) vs.Chandler(D)
LA: Fleming(R) vs.Boustany(R) vs.Maness(R) vs.Kennedy(D) vs.Cao(R) vs.McAllister(R)
MD: Edwards(D) vs.Van Hollen(D) vs.Flowers(G) vs.Szeliga(R) vs.Douglas(R) vs.Steele(R)
MO: Blunt(R) vs.Kander(D)
NC: Burr(R) vs.Rey(D) vs.Ross(D) vs.Wright(R) vs.
ND: Hoeven(R) vs.Marquette(L)
NH: Ayotte(R) vs.Hassan(D) vs.Rubens(R)
NV: Cortez-Masto(D) vs.Heck(R) vs.Angle(R) vs.
NY: Schumer(D) vs.King(R) vs.Long(R) vs.Gibson(R)
OH: Portman(R) vs.Strickland(D) vs.Sittenfeld(D)
OK: Lankford(R) vs.Johnson(D)
OR: Wyden(D) vs.Stine(D) vs.Callahan(R)
PA: Toomey(R) vs.Stern(R) vs.Sestak(D) vs.McGinty(D) vs.Fetterman(D)
SC: Scott(R) vs.Dickerson(D)
SD: Thune(R) vs.Williams(D)
UT: Lee(R) vs.Swinton(D)
WA: Murray(D) vs.Vance(R)
WI: Johnson(R) vs.Feingold(D) vs.Lorge(R)
Senate Votes (analysis)
Senate Office SH-709, Washington, DC 20510