The Murkowski story embodies what’s wrong with the traditional GOP: Self-centered, dynastic, and looking to lobbyists as primary allies.Actually, it's worse than that, since the GOP is funding people in the primaries. Who are losing by the way.
Roger Simon- Murkowsky the Jerk:
Meanwhile, Ed Morrissey has a good roundup of some of the usual suspects thumb-sucking on whether the Alaska senator could possibly win this write-in candidacy, but I think they all miss the point. In this year of extreme populism, voters are ultimately going to gag on someone like Murkowski arrogantly trying to tell them it is business as usual, as if she has some form of droit de seigneur for her allegedly magnificent service in the US Senate.Corporate funding is playing less of a role in this election. After all, they can only vote once.Indeed. I'll go further. Murkowski is spelling her own death knell in politics. Forever. Her actions almost certainly will inspire a larger turn out for Miller, and the eternal disdain of voters across the nation. She may not care about the latter, but the former will be her downfall. And she can not discount the negative press that will accompany the national disdain. Which brings us back to Reynolds' comments.
Jonah Goldberg writes:
That is simply disgraceful. On what grounds should she run as independent? Because she really likes being a senator? Because she’s bummed the seat-for-life her father gave her turned out to be more temporary? I think independent campaigns or party switches are forgivable or understandable on some grand issue of principle. Joe Lieberman’s steadfast support for the war comes to mind. But reading this, it sounds like Murkowski thinks she should run because the people who like her have told her what she wants to hear. How is she anything more than Arlen Specter in a dress?Ummm. What gives Goldberg the impression Spector doesn't wear one? I always assumed he did.
Although it may not be an issue in Alaska, the problem with GOP politicians that view their seats as annuities is that they potentially threaten the seat. But as Spector and Crist are demonstrating, they more often just demonstrate that their appeal was always at least half squishy independents and Democrats.
The fact of the matter is that Fox's success is a testament that there was always a huge silent minority on the fiscal right that was unrepresented. Politicians are now just learning that. So in at least one way, the Tea Party doesn't have to necessarily exert its pressure in every race. Conservatives have proven that they do not have to hide in obscurity anymore. Their legitimacy emboldens them to run in primaries whenever they wish.
Further, the squishy middle is in some regard a non-entity, promulgated by perception and a lack of awareness of alternative. Free markets have not been taught and supported for more than a generation. Most people aren't even aware of them BUT INHERENTLY SYMPATHETIC TO THEM on sociological, psychological, philosophical and spiritual grounds.
I believe there is room for a totally free market channel on Cable, which is technically even further right than Fox. I also believe the majority of Beck's popularity is proof of that. Imagine a TV channel that articulately reacted to news and markets according to Mises, Rothbard and Hayeck 24/7. I believe they would trash the channels on the Left once and for all, and permanently move the country back to the right.
The reason that media must do the work is simple; free markets are not taught in school anymore. Virtually every student graduates a naive socialist. Absent this skewed perspective, the country would be much further right.