One thing to keep in mind with Murkowski - she lost the crazy Tea Party vote in Alaska and she still won the seat in the end anyway. In a three-way race.

What this SHOULD be telling her right now is that she should look at the people who voted for her. She got the "sane Republicans" in Alaska but apparently she also picked up a hell of a lot of folks who normally vote Democratic because they were scared of a Miller win. If she can find a way make those folks happy - so that they want to vote for her instead of being afraid of voting against her - she should be set for a long, long time. She may even never have to worry much about a primary challenge again.

SHE'S A MUSLIM! too.

If she only cancels out Lieberman, that's still a lot more than any of us expected.

Murkowski always struck me as something of an opportunist. Until Miller, that meant that she kept her base happy, which included the embryonic TP crowd. When they split for Miller in the last election she learned where else she had support, and that coupled with the GOP's shameless teabagging for Miller may have swayed her - at least temporarily. Here's hoping Reid et al can capitalise on her newfound moderation while she still remembers who voted for her and who did NOT!

As for the rest of the list, I wouldn't be too comfortable with the New England mods. Snowe, Collins and Brown are much more conservative than has been predictable from the GOP in those states: they make nice noises but when the rubber hits the road they've been pretty close to party line. They may need Murkowski and her newfound pragmatism more than she needs them.

There's nothing Lisa Murkowski does anymore that can't be explained by the word "Palin." If Palin came out against kicking puppies, Murkowski would be on Meet the Press punting a litter of huskies.

You think YOU hate Sarah Palin, but you have nothing on anyone with the last name Murkowski.

Of course, Murkowski herself is no prize. If Palin were slightly less Palin I'd say they deserve each other.

for the umpteenth time, kirk is NOT part of any "mod squad"- and he never will be. 95+% of the time, he's going to be a reliable rubber stamp for yertle mcturtle... just like he was a reliable rubber stamp for the repub house leadership.

Karma's a bitch.

Murkowski's 'yea' votes only look extraordinary relative to the insanity of the republican party. It wasn't that long ago when those type of votes would make her look like a run-of-the-mill moderate. Now she is some sort of maverick, because the republican party is run by crazy talk show hosts, who whip up their audience of largely insecure white men with persecution complexes.

Actually, her re-election contest still isn't over:

Dec 21, 2010 - The [Alaska Supreme] court heard arguments Friday on Republican Joe Miller's challenge to the way the state ran the election.

A federal judge put a hold on certification pending resolution of the legal issues raised by Miller in the state courts. He has given Miller 48 hours from the time the Supreme Court rules to make his case in a separate federal lawsuit on any outstanding claims, if Miller wishes to do so.

Murkowski has declared victory.

I've often wondered what the Republicans have on their caucuases that causes even people with some decent instincts like Dick Lugar wote in lockstep with smirking jackasses like Jeff Sessions. Apparently, the leadership threatens their re-election prospects. But Murkowski took on both a primary challenge and the candidate backed by the Republican establishment and won. What influence could Mitch McConnell hold over her now?

Of course Murkowski is an opportunist, she's a politician, right? Murkowski has good reason to be exceedingly pissed off with the Republican party, and I wouldn't be surprised to see her supporting the Dems quite a bit in the coming two years.

It's important to recognize what's happening here as part of the 'collateral damage' that the TPers + Palin + Fox are doing to the Republicans. As ye sow, etc.

Murkowski is going to win her seat. Even if the AK Supreme Court throws out her disputed ballots, she wins with over 2000 votes. They are not going to go full hand recount, and I doubt the SCOTUS will take Miller's case, if it get to that.

Even though she is siding with us, what I find disturbing is the fact that its another example of the trivial nature to which Republicans view their role in constucting policy that will affect millions of people.

She was in no way a RINO prior to the election and the only reason she is voting this way to stick it to her party. That is simply amazing to me

Is it really just that easy for Murkowski and other Republicans to base their decisions not on concrete merits of a particular piece of legislation but rather on some personal self serving agenda??? Really??

Will Murkowski be part of the 'sane seven' who might occasionally break filibusters in the next Congress and thwart McConnell's plans for world domination?

As candidates I see the New England trio (Brown, Snowe, Collins), Kirk, Murkowski and... help me here...Lugar? Corker? Alexander (God help all of us)?

Any thoughts on Ayotte and whether she might become another closet moderate?

The $64 question for the "moderate" repubs is: How long will the Tea Party Phenomenon last? Murkowski is good for the next 6 years, and figures she won't have to deal with them again. Maybe the same for Kirk. (Remember, he voted for cap-and-trade and had a teabagger opponent in the primary as a result.) One of the Maine Twins is up in two years (Collins?) and definitely WILL get primaried- she'll be looking at doing a Murkowski if she loses. Brown is up in 2012. Massachusetts has a history of tolerating moderate repubs for governor. His only hope is to play the center.

If we get filibuster reform, this may do some good. Could at least get a few more judges confirmed. Maybe a SCOTUS seat if one comes up.

One reason that I can't stand the D.C. Dems is that they seem to have little to no strategic vision.

Those two Maine seats should be high on the Dems' list of potential pickups. In Collins' case, the
Dems should have snagged her seat in '08.

It is obvious that -- like Murkowski has -- the Maine Senators need to walk a delicate tightrope. They need to prove their conservative bona fides to the GOP base to stave off a primary challenge, but remain moderate enough for the general election. The Democrats' goal should be to make it impossible for Snowe and Collins (and Brown) to achieve this goal.

However, Obama and Reid, like complete idiots, take the totally opposite tack. They constantly treat Collins and Snowe as good-faith actors whose moderate tendencies cannot be questioned.

Having given Snowe and Collins the "moderate" stamp of approval, Snowe and Collins are thus freed to vote along with Boehner in order to please the GOP base.

The smart political move would be for Reid and Obama to constantly bemoan that Snowe and Collins have "followed their party on its extreme shift to the Right." Force Snowe and Collins to PROVE their so-called moderation through actual votes. PROVE that they can cross the aisle and stand up to their party.

Either way you win. Either Snowe and Collins move Left, possibly approaching Reid for a party switch. Or they don't and you can probably oust them (or their teabagger primary opponents) in a general election.

I had noticed this pattern in recent days, and it has given me a bit of a holiday chuckle. It won't help the Dems much under current rules, but if they succeed in weakening the filibuster, Murkowski's wild card status might prove helpful in marginal circumstances.

The key to any progressive legislation is splitting the iron unity of the GOP caucuses, while developing much more unity in the Democratic caucuses. Our goal should be a center-left majority in congress. The Tea Partiers actually want the same thing as we do -- the splitting of the GOP caucus.

I doubt the SCOTUS will take Miller's case, if it get to that

That would be the same SCOTUS that threw consiervative principles to the four winds in order to appoint Bush the Lesser president, now with extra conservative activists appointed by Bush himself?

The DLCers in Washington do have a 'strategic vision'. Unfortunately that vision is firmly fixed in the status quo. They believe in in 'safe seats' for each party and expect to fight their political battles in only three or four 'battle ground' states. Under DLC leadership state parties outside those battle ground states (Ohio, Florida etc) were basically ignored by the national party. 'Safe' seats were given the support they needed to stay safe and the other 'red' states were basically written off.

That was one of the reasons Dean was such a breath of fresh air. He rejected the notion of writing off states and did a lot of work to build of the party apparatus in 'red' states. It was one big reasons Democrats were able to capitalize so effectively on Bush's blundering. But Dean also fought an uphill battle against the DLC wing of the party to get the '50 state' strategy through (it took a insurgency campaign by the state parties to get him elected to the party leadership position over the objections of the DLC dominated Washington crowd).

With Dean's departure the party is returning to the DLC strategy of 'safe' seats and limited battle ground areas. Effectively ceding entire swaths of the country to Republicans without a fight.

"Is it really just that easy for Murkowski and other Republicans to base their decisions not on concrete merits of a particular piece of legislation but rather on some personal self serving agenda??? Really??"

Posted by: lib4 at 2:27 PM

Yes. And if McConnell wants her back in the fold, he will offer her something that she really wants and she will once again vote with the team. Her votes are an F.U. bird in the air as much as they are anything resembling moral conviction.

thorin-1 The DLCers...believe in in 'safe seats' for each party and expect to fight their political battles in only three or four 'battle ground' states.

Exactly. The Dems hold Senate seats in Montana and the Dakotas because of Dean. What happens when they lose those? Can Dems hold them, or find others? The answer should be yes, they can find others. Virginia and North Carolina need to become toss-ups every election. Texas is up 4 reps from the census, and most of that is Latino. Texas hasn't always been ultra Red. (Illinois hasn't always been blue.) Dems need to fight them all, because sometimes you get lucky. You can't win the lottery if you don't play.

lib4 -

Is it really just that easy for Murkowski and other Republicans to base their decisions not on concrete merits of a particular piece of legislation but rather on some personal self serving agenda??? Really??

Abso-fucking-lutely. What I suspect is going on with Murkowski is that she's not just peeved that the national GOP didn't have her back, she's realized that she's going to need to stretch her "independent" cred if she's going to continue to win in Alaska in the future. The die-hard right wing in the state will hate her guts forever, so she needs to make sure that the moderates are all hers - and even get some Democrats to commit to her for the future.

The thing to keep in mind with our democratic system of government is that politicians who choose to do the "right" thing for the "right" reasons are the exceptions. Most politicians select their stances on issues based on how it will affect their job down the road - will taking this stance make it easier to get re-elected? Will it make it harder? They avoid taking stances that make it harder to get re-elected and take stances that make it easier.

This is baked into our form of democracy. And I think too many liberals just don't want to believe it. That puts us at a disadvantage because if you don't "get" the mentality of a politician, you find yourself disappointed time and time again and then eventually give up in frustration. If you "get" the mentality then it becomes a process of finding ways to make it painful for politicians to take stances you don't like and easy for them to take stances you do like.

Conservatives understand this dynamic very well. I think it comes from their hatred of government and their expectation that all politicians will be slimy bastards who are just looking out for themselves.

It's possible that Murkowski's votes have not simply been a thumbing of her nose at the Republicans, but rather a signal sent to McConnell and the rest that she is prepared to go off the reservation unless she is accomodated. Her goal here might well be to persuade the leadership to restore her to a committee chair (plus whatever else is on her agenda).

This may be more than just payback by Murkowski. She accomplished something no one else had ever done- she won a Senate seat as a write-in. It's like having contracted smallpox and survived 300 years ago. She's proved she has immunity to a Tea Party challenge.

She has the opportunity to vote however she wants to, without worrying about party lines or pressures. She can vote her conscience (if she has one.) She can vote just to piss the GOP establishment off. She can vote by pure random whim. At least for a couple years. (Of course, she'll still be an oil slave, but that isn't too constricting.)

Murkowski is playing her hand very well. By going off the reservation at a time when the GOP strategy is to deny Obama any win of any kind, she increases her leverage. McConnell is faced with pacifying the Tea Party on the far far right and now her on the 'left'. She will have less power come Jan. 5, so she is maximizing her position for all it is worth while she can.

I doubt breaking the filibuster will be much of an issue in the next Congress because the House will not be sending any progressive legislation to the Senate and it will be pretty pointless to send any from the Senate to the House. The Senate issue will be holding enough Democrats together to block whatever cockamamie legislation Boehner sends over.

We have Palin to thank for Murkowski's write-in victory and Miller's defeat. Palin's popularity in Alaska is at an all time low. Alaska has some of the most conservative voters in the country but even they were not satisfied with a radical nut like Joe Miller endorsed by their goofy ex-part time governor. I hope Murkowski continues to vote against these goose-stepping Republican jackasses in the Senate. This was a twofer. We got rid of Miller and Palin got a well-deserved pie in the face from her former constituents who know her a lot better then we do.