GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski flip flops on federal funding for abortion, backs Planned Parenthood
DeMint tried to warn us. But Lisa lied. Now she’s fighting to make sure your taxpayer dollars are used to kill babies.
And how do Washington Republicans respond to this betrayal by Murkowski, who lost the primary, vilified a patriot like Joe Miller, and lied about wanting to use taxpayer funds for abortion? They promote Murkowski as spokeswoman for the Republican Party, of course.
GOP FAIL.
~Erick Erickson, RedState, March 11
Mar.14, 2011 6:00 am |
Health care, Political anti-life bias |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The Republican leadership had better be real nice to her. As an independent who is caucusing with the Republicans, she could flip to Democrat without suffering any political costs for doing so, and she has at the minimum another six years in office.
Joan, I sure hope she she flips to the Democrats. She pretty much votes Democrat, I’d rather her just switch to the party she votes with anyway.
Be nice to her?
They already were: she gave the Republican address.
Let her caucus w/ the Dems. Alaska will see how they screwed up in voting for her, and in the meantime the Tea Party will wipe the floor come 2012.
The more light that is shined on this bottom-feeding political cockroach, the better. And a pox on all RINOs for their treachery and faithlessness.
“Joan, I sure hope she she flips to the Democrats. She pretty much votes Democrat, I’d rather her just switch to the party she votes with anyway.”
http://www.conservative.org/ratings/ratingsarchive/2010/2010SenateRatings.htm
She pretty much votes Democratic, except for the 73% of the time that she doesn’t. I think it really demonstrates just how radicalized portions of the Republican voting bloc have become when many conservatives would prefer a Democrat who will vote with them 0% of the time to a moderate Republican who will “only” vote with them 70-80% of the time, all in the name of maintaining ideological purity. Frankly it doesn’t speak much to the credibility of the economic theories espoused by people when they don’t seem to possess the mathematical acumen to realize that 7 out of 10 is better than 0 out of 10. Just the other day I had someone here passing off controversial principles of supply side economics as though they were facts and not questionable assumptions that have been rejected by many leading economists.
Joan,
First of all, I think it’s fair to mention the fact that I am not a Republican but a pro-life libertarian so yes, I realize my standards for statesmen are often higher than what is often is attainable. But hey, why lower the bar just so you can include more people? I prefer to keep my high standards.
And about Lisa. I don’t give a rip about how many times she has voted along “party lines.” She hasn’t voted according to party lines on KEY ISSUES such as abortion. Also, she has proven herself to be of low character. She lost the primary fair and square, regardless of what you think about her politics. Yet she defied the Alaskan people and ran as an Independent because she didn’t get her way. She has served her time, it’s time for her release her grip on power and retire.
If you read the Redstate article, here was Lisa in October:
“Jim DeMint knows, as does Joe Miller, that I have always drawn the line on federal funding for abortion,” Murkowski said Wednesday in an interview with CNN’s John King.
Lisa Murkowski now:
“I believe Planned Parenthood provides vital services to those in need and disagree with their funding cuts in the bill,” Murkowski wrote in a letter to Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Vice Chairman Thad Cochran (R-Miss.). “I ask you to consider these programs going forward to determine if there is room for allowing continued funding.”
It’s not so much Ideological purity, which is a bogus argument IMO, but the fact she went back on her word.
As in untrustworthy.
As in liar.
So maybe she is in good hands with the other side.
“But hey, why lower the bar just so you can include more people? I prefer to keep my high standards.”
How are those high standards helping you accomplish your policy goals? Politics is a zero-sum bloodsport that punishes its players. If you’re not moving your offensive line closer to the goal or preventing the other side from doing the same, then you’re just taking abuse for no reason. High standards are a luxury that politically-minded people can’t afford. As a progressive Democrat, I will always support someone who votes according to my policy preferences 73% of the time over someone who does so 72% of the time and certainly over someone who would favorably vote 0% of the time.
BTW, I don’t think you entirely understand what libertarianism entails if you describe yourself as a “pro-life libertarian”. Libertarians only differ with conservatives on social issues; if you agree with the conservative stance on abortion, then you’re a lot closer to being a conservative than you are a libertarian.
I work in the politics so I am very aware of what it takes to be successful politically. Simply because politicians don’t agree with me does not mean that I won’t vote for them. I’m simply stating, as someone else posted here before, that the reason I don’t like Murkowski is because she went back on her word.
I understand that, but honestly my political views aren’t based on any party. It just happens that the Libertarian party aligns most frequently with my world view and political philosophy, diverging only on the life issue. So it’s perfectly acceptable to say that I’m a pro-life libertarian. Or, if you prefer, a pro-lifer who espouses most of the beliefs that libertarians do. ;)
There are other pro-life libertarians, meaning they support protection of vulnerable human beings, but say “let it be” on issues with no aggrieved party.
Liberty Belle:
You’re a pro-life libertarian? So am I. Welcome! Where do you hail from?
Joan:
As a supporter of unborn human rights and a libertarian, I can assure you that the only true libertarian is one who supports the rights of all human beings to live a human lifespan. Someone who would allow the destruction of the whole human race in the unborn stage through prenatal homicide is NOT a libertarian.
You are NOT a progressive. No progressive supports unlimited killing of human beings in the unborn stage. Nor do progressives support anti-free market economic and social policies which violate people’s rights and do severe damage to the economy. All of these things prevent human progress.
A true progressive supports unborn human rights, the free market and limited government, as well as respecting the rights of animals.
“High standards are a luxury that politically-minded people can’t afford.”
Wow. By your own admission, you should definitely go into politics yourself.
Reading comments like yours makes the non-voting policy of the Jehovah’s Witnesses seem just a little bit less crazy.
I do find it amusing that liberals are constantly whining that plutocracy and nepotism in our government need to be replaced with ordinary working people, and yet they supported the rich and influential Murkowski family in the election rather than the self-made man and Bronze Star-winning veteran Joe Miller. And why? Because Miller is one of those eeeeevil conservatives. The left’s “principles” are non-existent.
Actually, Joe Miller was born into a comfortably upper-middle class life that furnished his ability to attend West Point and Yale. He’s not some working-class scrapper who pulled himself up by the bootstraps. I can see how his “just woke up in a dumpster” facial hair could give you that impression though.
Joe:
Well said! I don’t understand how some “libertarians” can support all freedom/human rights EXCEPT the right to life for unborn babies. It simply does not make sense.
:) I hail from great Commonwealth of Virginia. You?
Also, Joan, that’s hardly the point. Joe Miller may have had money, but he did not come from a long line of politicians and he had not been in office for years before. He was new to politics, someone who is/was fresh from the private sector. So, in a sense, yes, he is a self-made statesman.