Joe Miller Blames Native Alaskan Groups For 'Writing In Corruption'By Eric KleefeldIn a column on Friday in the Washington Times, Alaska Republican Senate nominee continued to rail against the apparently successful write-in campaign by incumbent GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski. In this new column, entitled "Writing In Corruption," Miller blames the federally-charted Alaska Native corporations, which have a big presence in the state, for supporting Murkowski. They did this, he writes, in order to maintain a pipeline of federal earmarks that sustain them.
In this effort, he says, they formed a "super-PAC" called Alaskans Standing Together, which conducted all sorts of underhanded activities for Murkowski--such as running an ad campaign against him, educating voters on how to cast a write-in vote, and getting out the vote with rides to the polls.Comment: Sounds like the Native corporations did what other special interest groups--businesses, unions, etc.--routinely do. In other words, sounds like Miller is a sore loser and crybaby.
For more on Alaska Native corporations, see
Alaska Natives Invest in Film Production and
Alaska Natives = Business Successes.
5 comments:
Well, he could be an even bigger crybaby like Al Gore and order people to lie in the courtroom in order to nullify the actual votes.
Whom did Gore order to lie in the courtroom?
Gore raised legitimate issues and had a chance of winning until the US Supreme Court awarded the presidency to Bush on partisan political grounds. Miller hasn't raised any legitimate issues that I know of. That's the difference between the two cases.
All I've heard of from Miller is "Lisa Murkousky isn't Lisa Murkowski." and "Write-ins shouldn't count!" and "I won the primary! WHAAAH! No fair!"
Anyway, all Alaskan corporations love earmarks. Earmarks aren't a major part of the budget, actually; they're .1% of the budget. A few years back, Democrats complained about earmarks because of Ted Stevens. Finally, most Indians, though not as monolithic as black people, vote for Democrats.
dmarks: Bush sued. Of course, the narrative is that Gore did. Just like the narrative is that Republicans always lower taxes and balance the budget and Democrats always raise taxes and borrow money. Just like the narrative is that the Democrats, who got us into Korea and Vietnam, are a bunch of pacifists. Just like the narrative is that s00per sekrit coding will fix all our voting problems. God, I hate elections.
Gore had no chance of winning, unless ballots without votes on them had been counted as Gore votes.
Bush won in November 2000. That's the truth. The Supreme Court let the actual vote stand. The Gore team's lies in court included false claims about standing law in Illinois election. Of course, their argument that subjective determinations of "voter intent" should replace how people actually voted is pretty outrageous too.
So far all I'm hearing is a lot of hot air about Gore's alleged lies, DMarks. I guess you have no evidence for your claim or you would've provided it.
With the ballots in various stages of completion, there was no single standard of "how people actually voted." That's what the courts were trying to decide before the US Supreme Court fabricated a reason for stopping the recount.
Here's what actually happened in 2000. Stop regurgitating your right-wing talking points and start learning the facts:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/121210.html
Bush v. Gore's Dark American Decade
The behind-the-scenes court drama began on Dec. 8, 2000. Bush was clinging to an official lead of only a few hundred votes out of six million cast in Florida when the Bush forces were dealt a crushing blow. A divided Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide review of ballots that had been kicked out by antiquated counting machines.
The recount began on the morning of Dec. 9. Immediately, the canvassers began finding scores of legitimate votes that the machines had rejected.
Despite a supposed reverence for states’ rights and a disdain for federal interference, Bush’s lawyers raced to the U.S. Appeals Court in Atlanta to stop the count. Dominated by conservatives, the appeals court held to established precedents and refused to intervene.
A frantic Bush then turned to the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington. There, in the late afternoon, the high court took the unprecedented step of issuing an injunction to stop the counting of votes cast by American citizens.
Justice Scalia made clear that the purpose of the court’s action was to prevent Bush from falling behind in the tally and thus raising questions about his legitimacy should the Supreme Court later declare him the winner.
That outcome would “cast a cloud” over the “legitimacy” of an eventual Bush presidency, explained Scalia. “Count first, and rule upon the legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires,” Scalia wrote.
Post a Comment