The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

BREAKING: Alaska Libertarian Party Calls Emergency Meeting About Murkowski

Posted on | August 29, 2010 | 71 Comments

Sources in Anchorage inform me that the five-member executive board of the Alaska Libertarian Party will convene in an emergency meeting today to discuss efforts by Lisa Murkowski’s supporters to secure the LP nomination for the Republican senator should she fail to overturn Joe Miller’s 1,668-vote margin in the GOP primary.

Meanwhile, about 5 a.m. ET today, Joe Miller sent a Tweet linking to this story by Sean Cockerham in the Anchorage Daily News:

Miller campaign spokesman Randy DeSoto said in an e-mail Saturday that there are many calls going out to Alaskans who voted absentee ballots, asking them who they voted for in the primary. . . .
“I believe, and time will prove it, (the calls) are being done for nefarious purposes,” DeSoto said in the e-mail. “It is definitely not being done by the Joe Miller campaign. It is being done, I believe, by the National Republican Senatorial Committee or someone they contracted with as the beginning of a legal battle to throw out ballots.”
It is public information who requests absentee ballots. Both the Murkowski campaign and the National Republican Senatorial Campaign on Saturday denied making calls to absentee voters.

Yeah, of course they’d deny it. Just like they’d deny harrassing Joe Miller’s volunteers. But there’s more from the ADN story:

NRSC Communications Director Brian Walsh . . . said the single NRSC lawyer sent to Alaska to assist Murkowski with the ballot count, Sean Cairncross, returned to Washington, D.C., on Saturday after 72 hours in the state. “This has been much ado about nothing,” he said.

Wait a minute: How much of its donors’ money did the NRSC spend to send its top lawyer to Alaska for three days? Because I’m planning my own trip to Alaska, I know that flights to Alaska can be very expensive. A short-notice booking for a three-day trip? And I’m betting the NRSC lawyer didn’t fly coach class, either.

UPDATE: Democratic polling firm PPP:

In a three way contest with Murkowski running as the Libertarian candidate Miller leads but with only 38% to 34% for Murkowski and 22% for McAdams.

See, this is how the Palin-hater Andrew Halcro (who is behind the Lisa-for-LP talk) helps out Murkowski, the NRSC and — not coincidentally — Democrats.

Encouraging hope of  a Murkowski third-party bid (“She’s still in it! She’s fighting for you!”) prevents Murkowski’s supports from coming to grips with the reality of her defeat, and thus delays efforts by Miller to unite the GOP base and reach out to independent voters. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Murkowski’s people are talking to McAdams about letting her have the Democratic nomination.

As for Andrew Halcro’s scheme, remember that the No. 2 official in the Alaska LP said it’s “99% . . . no way” that the Libertarians would take Murkowski.

UPDATE III: The Alaska LP executive committee meeting lasted more than two hours, but the committee members were sworn to secrecy about the result. A press conference is scheduled Monday in Anchorage — I’ll update with details later — and Alaska LP chairman Scott Kohlhaas could be making an appearance on Fox News.

Meanwhile, Dan Riehl’s Republican sources say that the NRSC is up to shenanigans on Murkowski’s behalf and adds:

 Murkowski could still win this election legitimately. But, if she wins it any other way, and especially if the NRSC helps her do it, the DC GOP’s house is going to start burning down before they even gain control of the one on the Hill.

Read the whole thing.

Category: Alaska, Election, Joe Miller, Senate

Comments

71 Responses to “BREAKING: Alaska Libertarian Party Calls Emergency Meeting About Murkowski”

  1. Kojocaro
    August 29th, 2010 @ 5:05 pm

    do the people at ADN even credit palin for joe miller’s victory?

  2. Kojocaro
    August 29th, 2010 @ 5:05 pm

    do the people at ADN even credit palin for joe miller’s victory?

  3. Kojocaro
    August 29th, 2010 @ 1:05 pm

    do the people at ADN even credit palin for joe miller’s victory?

  4. Brian O'Connor
    August 29th, 2010 @ 5:27 pm

    PPP: Alaska Senate –
    Miller 47%, McAdams 39%
    or
    Miller 38%, Murkowski 34%, McAdams 22%

  5. Brian O'Connor
    August 29th, 2010 @ 5:27 pm

    PPP: Alaska Senate –
    Miller 47%, McAdams 39%
    or
    Miller 38%, Murkowski 34%, McAdams 22%

  6. Brian O'Connor
    August 29th, 2010 @ 1:27 pm

    PPP: Alaska Senate –
    Miller 47%, McAdams 39%
    or
    Miller 38%, Murkowski 34%, McAdams 22%

  7. Joe
    August 29th, 2010 @ 5:37 pm

    The only way Lisa the Loser survives is if the absentee balots break for her. They won’t. So Lisa, stop lying and give up. You lost. At least Al Franken and Christine Gregoire stole their elections from the opposing candidate. You are stealing from your own party.

  8. Joe
    August 29th, 2010 @ 1:37 pm

    The only way Lisa the Loser survives is if the absentee balots break for her. They won’t. So Lisa, stop lying and give up. You lost. At least Al Franken and Christine Gregoire stole their elections from the opposing candidate. You are stealing from your own party.

  9. Thomas L. Knapp
    August 29th, 2010 @ 2:58 pm

    Predictions:

    1) The announcement after the Libertarian Party meeting will be a Murkowski shutdown announcement — “we’re not the GOP’s referees for sudden death overtime. We’re a political party which has already nominated its own candidate.”

    2) The absentee ballots will break 70/30 or better for Murkowski. So will the “spoiled/unclear intent” ballots (that will mostly be the geezer “can’t read this small print any more” vote, which will lean establishment). The smaller number of challenged voter ballots will probably be mostly Miller (infrequent voters whose records have been misplaced, etc., and who turned out specifically to support Miller).

    3) Murkowski will be the GOP candidate in the general election.

    Of course, I’ve been wrong before.

  10. Thomas L. Knapp
    August 29th, 2010 @ 6:58 pm

    Predictions:

    1) The announcement after the Libertarian Party meeting will be a Murkowski shutdown announcement — “we’re not the GOP’s referees for sudden death overtime. We’re a political party which has already nominated its own candidate.”

    2) The absentee ballots will break 70/30 or better for Murkowski. So will the “spoiled/unclear intent” ballots (that will mostly be the geezer “can’t read this small print any more” vote, which will lean establishment). The smaller number of challenged voter ballots will probably be mostly Miller (infrequent voters whose records have been misplaced, etc., and who turned out specifically to support Miller).

    3) Murkowski will be the GOP candidate in the general election.

    Of course, I’ve been wrong before.

  11. Kojocaro
    August 29th, 2010 @ 7:16 pm

    Of course, i’ve been wrong before

    but it wouldn’t surprise me if you were right thomas

    and btw i’am probably wrong about beck vis a vis mccain

  12. Kojocaro
    August 29th, 2010 @ 7:16 pm

    Of course, i’ve been wrong before

    but it wouldn’t surprise me if you were right thomas

    and btw i’am probably wrong about beck vis a vis mccain

  13. Kojocaro
    August 29th, 2010 @ 3:16 pm

    Of course, i’ve been wrong before

    but it wouldn’t surprise me if you were right thomas

    and btw i’am probably wrong about beck vis a vis mccain

  14. Robert Stacy McCain
    August 29th, 2010 @ 7:20 pm

    Well, Tom, I believe you’re right about prediction No. 1. There is no basis, however, for prediction No. 2. Various people who’ve looked the situation point out that:

    1. Thousands of those absentee ballots that were mailed out probably won’t be returned.

    2. At least 20%, and perhaps more, of the absentee ballots that are returned will be from Democrats, obviously won’t be voting in the GOP Senate primary.

    3. Of the actual GOP Senate absentee ballots that are still out, it appears that they’re generally from areas where Miller did well.

    The real question is this: Right now, Miller’s margin is greater than the 1% that would put it into the recount zone. But if the margin should narrow to less than 1,500 votes once the absentees are counted, Murkowski would be entitled to a recount, if she requests it. Would she then “pull a Franken” in a GOP primary? Would the NRSC back her up in demanding a recount? Or would they — as I strongly suspect — tell her to pack it in and concede.

    Like I said, this mischief by Halcro is all about keeping hope alive for the sore loser, to convince Murkowski’s supporters that she’s still in it, so as to embitter them against Miller. If the absentee count gets Murkowski to within a few hundred votes, that creates the possibility of a bitter internecine recount feud within the Alaska GOP continuing into late September, at least.

  15. Robert Stacy McCain
    August 29th, 2010 @ 7:20 pm

    Well, Tom, I believe you’re right about prediction No. 1. There is no basis, however, for prediction No. 2. Various people who’ve looked the situation point out that:

    1. Thousands of those absentee ballots that were mailed out probably won’t be returned.

    2. At least 20%, and perhaps more, of the absentee ballots that are returned will be from Democrats, obviously won’t be voting in the GOP Senate primary.

    3. Of the actual GOP Senate absentee ballots that are still out, it appears that they’re generally from areas where Miller did well.

    The real question is this: Right now, Miller’s margin is greater than the 1% that would put it into the recount zone. But if the margin should narrow to less than 1,500 votes once the absentees are counted, Murkowski would be entitled to a recount, if she requests it. Would she then “pull a Franken” in a GOP primary? Would the NRSC back her up in demanding a recount? Or would they — as I strongly suspect — tell her to pack it in and concede.

    Like I said, this mischief by Halcro is all about keeping hope alive for the sore loser, to convince Murkowski’s supporters that she’s still in it, so as to embitter them against Miller. If the absentee count gets Murkowski to within a few hundred votes, that creates the possibility of a bitter internecine recount feud within the Alaska GOP continuing into late September, at least.

  16. Robert Stacy McCain
    August 29th, 2010 @ 3:20 pm

    Well, Tom, I believe you’re right about prediction No. 1. There is no basis, however, for prediction No. 2. Various people who’ve looked the situation point out that:

    1. Thousands of those absentee ballots that were mailed out probably won’t be returned.

    2. At least 20%, and perhaps more, of the absentee ballots that are returned will be from Democrats, obviously won’t be voting in the GOP Senate primary.

    3. Of the actual GOP Senate absentee ballots that are still out, it appears that they’re generally from areas where Miller did well.

    The real question is this: Right now, Miller’s margin is greater than the 1% that would put it into the recount zone. But if the margin should narrow to less than 1,500 votes once the absentees are counted, Murkowski would be entitled to a recount, if she requests it. Would she then “pull a Franken” in a GOP primary? Would the NRSC back her up in demanding a recount? Or would they — as I strongly suspect — tell her to pack it in and concede.

    Like I said, this mischief by Halcro is all about keeping hope alive for the sore loser, to convince Murkowski’s supporters that she’s still in it, so as to embitter them against Miller. If the absentee count gets Murkowski to within a few hundred votes, that creates the possibility of a bitter internecine recount feud within the Alaska GOP continuing into late September, at least.

  17. johnl
    August 29th, 2010 @ 7:29 pm

    Good comments from TL Knapp. There is no buzz nationally in the LP about this race and libertarians hate Murkowski. If the GOP is dumb enough to dump Miller, I could see it as a big boost to the ALP to nominate him. So I hope they don’t come down too firm on the idea that the LP is a tool for continuing campaigns that start in the another party. So long as the person they nominate is an actual libertarian.

  18. johnl
    August 29th, 2010 @ 7:29 pm

    Good comments from TL Knapp. There is no buzz nationally in the LP about this race and libertarians hate Murkowski. If the GOP is dumb enough to dump Miller, I could see it as a big boost to the ALP to nominate him. So I hope they don’t come down too firm on the idea that the LP is a tool for continuing campaigns that start in the another party. So long as the person they nominate is an actual libertarian.

  19. johnl
    August 29th, 2010 @ 3:29 pm

    Good comments from TL Knapp. There is no buzz nationally in the LP about this race and libertarians hate Murkowski. If the GOP is dumb enough to dump Miller, I could see it as a big boost to the ALP to nominate him. So I hope they don’t come down too firm on the idea that the LP is a tool for continuing campaigns that start in the another party. So long as the person they nominate is an actual libertarian.

  20. BREAKING: Alaska Libertarian Party Calls Emergency Meeting About … « alaska
    August 29th, 2010 @ 3:36 pm

    […] Zobacz reszt? artyku?u: BREAKING: Alaska Libertarian Party Calls Emergency Meeting About … […]

  21. Thomas L. Knapp
    August 29th, 2010 @ 4:12 pm

    Stacy,

    I believe there IS a basis — more than one, actually — for prediction #2.

    I hope that we can agree that when I predicted the absentee ballots breaking 70/30 for Murkowski, I was specifically talking about absentee ballots which were actually cast (not just sent out) and which were cast for the GOP primary and not some other party’s primary.

    The two bases for predicting a distinct Murkowski lean in those absentee ballots are:

    1) Miller closed a huge polling gap as the election approached, but many of the absentee ballots were likely filled out and mailed earlier on, when Murkowski was the clear leader and when Miller hadn’t yet done whatever it was he did that brought voters over to him.

    2) Miller’s campaign was more grassroots than Murkowski’s. It operated on the ground in Alaska. A significant portion of the absentee ballots were cast not just by people who were going to be out of Alaska the day of the election, but by people who spend a lot of time outside Alaska — military personnel deployed abraod, people who winter in Florida but claim Alaska as their primary residence, etc. These people didn’t get both barrels from Joe Miller’s campaign. Murkowski had the advantage of incumbency and name recognition, but not the disadvantage of having Miller blast her record, with these voters.

    I also think you’re wrong to believe that the NRSC will pack it in if Miller wins within recount margin. While I understand the ax that you have to grind with NRSC, let’s get realpolitik here:

    The NRSC raises and spends a great deal of money.

    Who raises that money on the NRSC’s behalf? Mostly incumbent Republican US Senators.

    So, while the public perception of the NRSC is that its purpose is to elect Republican candidates — any Republican candidates — the reality within NRSC’s fundraising apparatus is that you back Republican incumbents to the death, even against other Republicans, even if it looks like the primary challenger enjoys more support from the party’s rank and file.

    The NRSC will give up on Murkowski when Murkowski gives up on the GOP nomination, and not a minute before.

  22. Thomas L. Knapp
    August 29th, 2010 @ 8:12 pm

    Stacy,

    I believe there IS a basis — more than one, actually — for prediction #2.

    I hope that we can agree that when I predicted the absentee ballots breaking 70/30 for Murkowski, I was specifically talking about absentee ballots which were actually cast (not just sent out) and which were cast for the GOP primary and not some other party’s primary.

    The two bases for predicting a distinct Murkowski lean in those absentee ballots are:

    1) Miller closed a huge polling gap as the election approached, but many of the absentee ballots were likely filled out and mailed earlier on, when Murkowski was the clear leader and when Miller hadn’t yet done whatever it was he did that brought voters over to him.

    2) Miller’s campaign was more grassroots than Murkowski’s. It operated on the ground in Alaska. A significant portion of the absentee ballots were cast not just by people who were going to be out of Alaska the day of the election, but by people who spend a lot of time outside Alaska — military personnel deployed abraod, people who winter in Florida but claim Alaska as their primary residence, etc. These people didn’t get both barrels from Joe Miller’s campaign. Murkowski had the advantage of incumbency and name recognition, but not the disadvantage of having Miller blast her record, with these voters.

    I also think you’re wrong to believe that the NRSC will pack it in if Miller wins within recount margin. While I understand the ax that you have to grind with NRSC, let’s get realpolitik here:

    The NRSC raises and spends a great deal of money.

    Who raises that money on the NRSC’s behalf? Mostly incumbent Republican US Senators.

    So, while the public perception of the NRSC is that its purpose is to elect Republican candidates — any Republican candidates — the reality within NRSC’s fundraising apparatus is that you back Republican incumbents to the death, even against other Republicans, even if it looks like the primary challenger enjoys more support from the party’s rank and file.

    The NRSC will give up on Murkowski when Murkowski gives up on the GOP nomination, and not a minute before.

  23. Murkowski-Gate Continues | Political Byline
    August 29th, 2010 @ 4:12 pm

    […] Murkowski-Gate Continues By Patrick, on August 29th, 2010 …and my hillbilly buddy from Calhoun, Georgia is all over it like a fly on dookie! […]

  24. Pat
    August 29th, 2010 @ 8:15 pm

    Linked Ya’ll.

    -Detroit Pat

  25. Pat
    August 29th, 2010 @ 8:15 pm

    Linked Ya’ll.

    -Detroit Pat

  26. Pat
    August 29th, 2010 @ 4:15 pm

    Linked Ya’ll.

    -Detroit Pat

  27. wormme
    August 29th, 2010 @ 4:21 pm

    Oooh crap, good point about the 1% recount, Stacy. Then Murkowski hires some Sith lawyers and away we go.

    The only good that could come of that is citizen outrage.

  28. wormme
    August 29th, 2010 @ 8:21 pm

    Oooh crap, good point about the 1% recount, Stacy. Then Murkowski hires some Sith lawyers and away we go.

    The only good that could come of that is citizen outrage.

  29. wormme
    August 29th, 2010 @ 8:21 pm

    Oooh crap, good point about the 1% recount, Stacy. Then Murkowski hires some Sith lawyers and away we go.

    The only good that could come of that is citizen outrage.

  30. Joe
    August 29th, 2010 @ 8:24 pm

    Stacy and Thomas, both excellent points. Thomas makes valid points for further narrowing, but whether that alone is sufficient to close the gap is the question. I am leaning Stacy’s way on that, but Lisa the Loser could win without shannigans (although shannigans is always a possibility!*).

    *Gregoire and Franken can tell you about that.

  31. Joe
    August 29th, 2010 @ 4:24 pm

    Stacy and Thomas, both excellent points. Thomas makes valid points for further narrowing, but whether that alone is sufficient to close the gap is the question. I am leaning Stacy’s way on that, but Lisa the Loser could win without shannigans (although shannigans is always a possibility!*).

    *Gregoire and Franken can tell you about that.

  32. Thomas L. Knapp
    August 29th, 2010 @ 8:36 pm

    I’m guessing that the uncounted ballots will give Murkowski a slim margin over Miller.

    Whether that’s the “natural” count or whether there are uncast absentee ballots being marked, fake-postmarked and put into the count even now, who knows? Democrats are best known for machine political fraud, but remember, Murkowski’s father was the governor at one point and odds are the family still has allies in the state’s bureaucracy.

    If it comes down to a recount, Murkowski wins. Classify it as shenanigans or not, but:

    1) Murkowski has the money and/or access to the money to lawyer up in a big way. Miller probably doesn’t.

    2) The side with the most lawyers has the ability to mount the most byzantine verbiage in challenging ballots cast for that side’s opponent.

    3) The people ruling on those challenges will be a) political appointees (who worship at the altar of byzantine legal language) and b) again, political appointees (see “Murkowski family’s history of influence in Alaska government”).

    Like I said, I could be wrong, but I think Murkowski will be the GOP nominee, and this isn’t a “wishful thinking” thing — frankly I don’t give a tinker’s damn whom the GOP runs for US Senate in Alaska.

  33. Thomas L. Knapp
    August 29th, 2010 @ 4:36 pm

    I’m guessing that the uncounted ballots will give Murkowski a slim margin over Miller.

    Whether that’s the “natural” count or whether there are uncast absentee ballots being marked, fake-postmarked and put into the count even now, who knows? Democrats are best known for machine political fraud, but remember, Murkowski’s father was the governor at one point and odds are the family still has allies in the state’s bureaucracy.

    If it comes down to a recount, Murkowski wins. Classify it as shenanigans or not, but:

    1) Murkowski has the money and/or access to the money to lawyer up in a big way. Miller probably doesn’t.

    2) The side with the most lawyers has the ability to mount the most byzantine verbiage in challenging ballots cast for that side’s opponent.

    3) The people ruling on those challenges will be a) political appointees (who worship at the altar of byzantine legal language) and b) again, political appointees (see “Murkowski family’s history of influence in Alaska government”).

    Like I said, I could be wrong, but I think Murkowski will be the GOP nominee, and this isn’t a “wishful thinking” thing — frankly I don’t give a tinker’s damn whom the GOP runs for US Senate in Alaska.

  34. Estragon
    August 29th, 2010 @ 8:45 pm

    Allow me to take a contrarian position.

    The speculation that the absentee and early voting would lean to Murky “because Miller closed so strong” is just that: speculation. The polling wasn’t great on this race and any conclusions drawn from it are bound to be as flawed as the polling itself.

    Neither is it at all justified by facts or logic to assume early absentee voters would tend to Murky. Early on, she was considered unbeatable (which of course contributed to the lack of polling) and Miller was virtually unknown. It is every bit as likely that those who voted before the Palin endorsement were anti-Murky or anti-establishment looking to send a message as to assume they were Murky’s partisans.

    Finally, on the subject of recounts: if you aren’t within about 0.1% of the total, a recount never helps. Anything over 0.2% is a very safe lead in an honest recount. And despite the paranoia and baseless accusations being thrown around here, there is NOTHING to indicate any shenanigans are in the offing.

  35. Estragon
    August 29th, 2010 @ 4:45 pm

    Allow me to take a contrarian position.

    The speculation that the absentee and early voting would lean to Murky “because Miller closed so strong” is just that: speculation. The polling wasn’t great on this race and any conclusions drawn from it are bound to be as flawed as the polling itself.

    Neither is it at all justified by facts or logic to assume early absentee voters would tend to Murky. Early on, she was considered unbeatable (which of course contributed to the lack of polling) and Miller was virtually unknown. It is every bit as likely that those who voted before the Palin endorsement were anti-Murky or anti-establishment looking to send a message as to assume they were Murky’s partisans.

    Finally, on the subject of recounts: if you aren’t within about 0.1% of the total, a recount never helps. Anything over 0.2% is a very safe lead in an honest recount. And despite the paranoia and baseless accusations being thrown around here, there is NOTHING to indicate any shenanigans are in the offing.

  36. Estragon
    August 29th, 2010 @ 8:51 pm

    Off topic slightly, but all about the RINO:

    http://tinyurl.com/29uhxee

    Sore loser crook Hayworth skips GOP unity rally, then lies about not being invited. What a filthy RINO he is – loses, then takes his marbles home to pout over.

    You lunatic fringe types need to make up your minds (such as they are). Are you Republicans or not? If NOT, how about stay the heck out of GOP primaries and affairs and especially stop calling your betters “RINOs” . . .

    If you have no party loyalty, then the “RINO” is YOU, isn’t it?

  37. Estragon
    August 29th, 2010 @ 8:51 pm

    Off topic slightly, but all about the RINO:

    http://tinyurl.com/29uhxee

    Sore loser crook Hayworth skips GOP unity rally, then lies about not being invited. What a filthy RINO he is – loses, then takes his marbles home to pout over.

    You lunatic fringe types need to make up your minds (such as they are). Are you Republicans or not? If NOT, how about stay the heck out of GOP primaries and affairs and especially stop calling your betters “RINOs” . . .

    If you have no party loyalty, then the “RINO” is YOU, isn’t it?

  38. Estragon
    August 29th, 2010 @ 4:51 pm

    Off topic slightly, but all about the RINO:

    http://tinyurl.com/29uhxee

    Sore loser crook Hayworth skips GOP unity rally, then lies about not being invited. What a filthy RINO he is – loses, then takes his marbles home to pout over.

    You lunatic fringe types need to make up your minds (such as they are). Are you Republicans or not? If NOT, how about stay the heck out of GOP primaries and affairs and especially stop calling your betters “RINOs” . . .

    If you have no party loyalty, then the “RINO” is YOU, isn’t it?

  39. Ian Lazaran
    August 29th, 2010 @ 8:57 pm

    The Juneau Empire reported that Murkowski won 54.1% of the early vote. There’s no reason to believe that the absentees are better for her than the early vote considering that the absentees from the analysis done by the swing state project and the miller campaign are coming more from Miller strongholds than Murkowski strongholds.

    If she’s only up 54-46 from early voters, her goose is cooked unless you’ll believe she somehow does better with absentees than early voters when the reasoning behind the two is the same.

    http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2010/08/republican-party-hack-lisa-murkowski-is.html

    The “questionable” ballots are election day votes and therefore, should favor Miller.

  40. Ian Lazaran
    August 29th, 2010 @ 4:57 pm

    The Juneau Empire reported that Murkowski won 54.1% of the early vote. There’s no reason to believe that the absentees are better for her than the early vote considering that the absentees from the analysis done by the swing state project and the miller campaign are coming more from Miller strongholds than Murkowski strongholds.

    If she’s only up 54-46 from early voters, her goose is cooked unless you’ll believe she somehow does better with absentees than early voters when the reasoning behind the two is the same.

    http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2010/08/republican-party-hack-lisa-murkowski-is.html

    The “questionable” ballots are election day votes and therefore, should favor Miller.

  41. Dan
    August 29th, 2010 @ 9:03 pm

    This is all VERY fishy to me. Rush and others on the radio tomorrow should go nuclear over this.

  42. Dan
    August 29th, 2010 @ 5:03 pm

    This is all VERY fishy to me. Rush and others on the radio tomorrow should go nuclear over this.

  43. Jim
    August 29th, 2010 @ 9:29 pm

    Sorry, no Rush tomorrow…he’s on vacation and comes back afer Labor Day.

  44. Jim
    August 29th, 2010 @ 5:29 pm

    Sorry, no Rush tomorrow…he’s on vacation and comes back afer Labor Day.

  45. Dan
    August 29th, 2010 @ 5:49 pm

    DAMN! We need him this week!

  46. Dan
    August 29th, 2010 @ 9:49 pm

    DAMN! We need him this week!

  47. Dan
    August 29th, 2010 @ 9:49 pm

    DAMN! We need him this week!

  48. Dan
    August 29th, 2010 @ 10:09 pm

    UGH this killing me. The libertarian party? WTF, thats the kind of person the NRSC is supporting, someone who is openly flirting with bolting the party!?

    Robert, how the hell can this be? It’s like the twilight zone.

  49. Dan
    August 29th, 2010 @ 10:09 pm

    UGH this killing me. The libertarian party? WTF, thats the kind of person the NRSC is supporting, someone who is openly flirting with bolting the party!?

    Robert, how the hell can this be? It’s like the twilight zone.

  50. Dan
    August 29th, 2010 @ 6:09 pm

    UGH this killing me. The libertarian party? WTF, thats the kind of person the NRSC is supporting, someone who is openly flirting with bolting the party!?

    Robert, how the hell can this be? It’s like the twilight zone.