The strong possibility that Alaska's Republican U.S. Senator, Lisa Murkowski has lost renomination in a staggering upset has given me a lot to think about. Perhaps that's because Senator Murkowski was the first Republican elected official I met who I actually liked as a person.
Before I go any further, let me make clear that I don't agree with Senator Murkowski on pretty much any issue; apart from (maybe) a women's right to choose, which may in part have cost her renomination, I couldn't find any votes she took in which I would have agreed with her.
Rather, I'm writing this diary because I'm troubled by the ease in which an essentially reasonable, nice person can be purged out of office because her opponents felt she was...well, too reasonable.
More under the fold.
I met Senator Murkowski in July 2005. I was part of the Junior States of America (JSA)'s summer school program at Georgetown University, and our group (as part of the program) traveled to Capitol Hill. Apart from my successful Bush impersonation at the school talent show, the second trip was the highlight of the program.
I didn't think it would be at first. As part of the trip, we were having guest speakers come in to talk to us about government/politics and take our questions. While I was pleased to be one of the students chosen to introduce the guests, I was initially displeased to know that I would be introducing Lisa Murkowski. After all, I had consistently referred to her as "Daddy's Little Senator" in my blog posts in 2004, when she had won election to the seat over Democrat Tony Knowles.
That moniker, which I doubt was original, referred to the fact that her father is Frank Murkowski, who was elected Governor of Alaska in 2002 after a "short" (compared to Ted Stevens) career in the U.S. Senate (22 years). Murkowski therefore had the choice of who would replace him as a Senator. Apparently he passed over the Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska en route to choosing a pro-choice State Representative as his successor.
The problem was that it was his daughter. The nepotism issue almost cost Murkowski the seat in 2004, as she fought off a primary opponent with 58%, and edged Knowles 48-45% with the help of President Bush's coattails (62%). I remember there being a lot of ill-will in the blogosphere towards Murkowski, not for championing any particular right-wing issue, but on the nepotism issue alone.
Interesting factoid: Frank Murkowski was first elected to the US Senate after the Democratic incumbent was ousted in in the primary. His name was Mike Gravel.
I was, as you can imagine, a little irked that I had to introduce (in entirely positive terms) the Senator to my classmates. I tried my best to switch guests with the others, but had no luck. I waited in the corridor (it was in the Hart Office Building, if I remember correctly) for the Senator and her staff to arrive, and trying hard not to blurt out any DSCC attack points when I met her. Thankfully, I didn't. Nor did I end up shaking hands with a right-wing loon or a nasty, grumpy politician ("Great, another groups of kids I have to talk to...").
Senator Murkowski was, to put it simply a very nice, personable woman. She didn't put on any airs, and was quite eager to come and speak to the group. Before she spoke I had a 10-minute conversation with her; what I came away with was that, although we disagreed on virtually every issue, her views and mindset were reasonable. She is a mainstream conservative; by that, I mean that she supports big business and the free market, and is a hawk on foreign policy issues. The only daylight between her and, say, Mike Crapo or Richard Burr is that she is (partially) pro-choice.
What I mean by "reasonable" is that she didn't have a "holier-then-thou" attitude of "I'm right and my opponents are going to Hell." She could (and did, in front of our largely liberal gathering) defend her positions logically, using legal and philosophical ideas, instead of the angry, fundamentalist language her opponent this year used. Rather, as she said in her remarks to my group, "It's ok to disagree. We just can't be disagreeable in the process." From everything I've read, Mr. Miller seems to be disagreeable as well as being a right-wing Republican.
This is what I said when I introduced her:
"Senator Lisa Murkowski was appointed to the Senate in 2003, and was elected to a 6-year term last November. She served in the Alaskan House of Representatives before her appointment. As a Senator, Ms. Murkowski has voted largely the same way as her Republican colleagues..."
(At this point the program director looked ready to drag me offstage)
"The difference is that Senator Murkowski, unlike many of her Republican colleagues, is willing to work across party lines to get things done. She is an accomplished, capable legislator and a reasonable voice in a city that often lacks reason in its actions. I can honestly say, after meeting with dozens of members of Congress in our trips here, that Senator Murkowski is the first Republican I've met. I'm glad I did, and I think you'll be glad to have heard from her when she finishes."
(I kept the notepad where I scribbled that down. The page has Murkowski's autograph on it, but I can't remember when she did that.)
For me, having met her changed my opinion of her completely. While I disagreed with her record (and still do), I had a new-found respect for her as a person. From then on, I've always tried to give candidates I'm opposing the benefit of the doubt as people (until I meet them, that is - see my articles on Gerald Cardinale from 2007).
The overall point I want to make is this: Senator Murkowski is a conservative, to be sure - but more important is the fact that she is a rational one. The incoming class of Republican Senators in 2011 may contain several who are hardly in that same vein (Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Rand Paul, and now possibly Joe Miller). As the GOP Caucus grows more and more partisan, as well as more and more extremist in their views, it will become increasingly impossible for Democrats to reach across the aisle on any issue, let alone important ones like health care and taxes.
It was virtually impossible that Murkowski was going to lose in November; it is not much likelier that, barring a massive infusion of funds, Sitka Mayor Scott McAdams can overcome the GOP tide this year to defeat Mr. Miller. That's not a knock against McAdams; it's just a reflection of the political climate and our inability to be on offense in all but a few states.
I would consider her (likely) defeat, then to be a defeat for us as well. Lisa Murkowski was never a "swing" vote, but she isn't part of a movement that threatens to turn our country into a militaristic theocracy, either. I fear what we're losing in our country is an ability to disagree without being disagreeable. Our opponents are angrier, nastier and more ignorant than ever - and to be fair, sometimes we Democrats fail to listen to Lincoln's famous "better angels of our nature" as well.
Maybe I'm just naive, but I felt when I met Lisa Murkowski that it was possible for "Mr. Liberal" and "Daddy's Little Senator" to coexist in the same political dialogue. I highly doubt that "Mr. Liberal" would be able to do that with Mr. Miller.