WASHINGTON — Sen. Lisa Murkowski says she saw it coming, even before the public scolding last weekend at Alaska’s Iditarod dog sled race. Siding with Republican leaders on a contentious contraceptives vote was a mistake.
A moderate in an era of paralyzing partisanship, Murkowski, 54, may be a natural heir to the centrist role played by retiring Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe at a time when their party is hurting for female leaders.
“I think she’s in a position for that kind of role if she wants it,” Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., another fleeing centrist, said of Murkowski.
Others say she first needs to show more decisiveness and consistency.
Murkowski voted in favor of an amendment by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., to overturn President Barack Obama’s order that health insurance cover the cost of contraceptives even if providers object on religious grounds. She was backpedaling within days.
One woman in the Iditarod crowd yelled at the senator. Another was more civil, but made the same point: Murkowski ticked off a lot of women with that vote.
“With her vote, Murkowski showed her true colors and put her party’s anti-female agenda ahead of the Alaska women she is supposed to represent,” Fairbanks resident Michelle Cason wrote to the editor of the city’s Daily News-Miner.
Before the weekend was out, Murkowski told the Anchorage Daily News that she regretted her vote.
“I knew going into it that there was conflict there,” Murkowski said in a telephone interview this past week. When she got home to Alaska, she knew. “I think I made a mistake.”
Her statement of regret created new grumbles in Republican ranks.
Supporting the Blunt amendment “was the first time she ever did anything that was even remotely considered pro-life,” said Debbie Joslin, a Republican National Committeewoman from Alaska. “She could have won some new friends if she had just stayed constant there instead of flipping back to opposing the Blunt amendment.”
The contraceptives vote and recanting of it is not the first time Murkowski has flip-flopped on an issue. In the heat of her 2010 general election fight as a write-in candidate against tea party Republican Joe Miller, she said she probably would not vote for the $700 billion bank bailout in 2008 if she had to do it over again.
As Snowe and anyone who’s tried to forge their own way in Congress know, it’s much easier to be a reliable vote for one party or another. It’s tempting, as a centrist, to fall into the trap of trying to please everyone.
“Lisa is far too ... susceptible to party pressure, as the Blunt vote shows,” said Stephen W. Haycox, a professor at the University of Alaska. “She’s much more the political animal than Olympia Snowe.”
Murkowski denies she was the subject of any arm-twisting by Republican Senate leaders on the contraceptives vote, which she characterized as one in favor of religious liberty.
As a Republican who won re-election in 2010 with support from Democrats and independents, and without help from her own party after losing the primary to Miller, the two-term senator, lawyer and mother of two bristles at the criticism.
“If I were susceptible to pressure within my party, I would have walked away from my primary and accepted that,” Murkowski said.
The GOP poured a fortune into Miller’s campaign. Murkowski ran as a write-in and won re-election in a three-way race with 39 percent of the vote, keeping the Senate seat she and father, Frank, had held for nearly three decades. It was the first time a senator had won as a write-in candidate since South Carolina’s Strom Thurmond did it in 1954.
Returning to Washington, Murkowski resigned her GOP leadership post, but kept her clout as the senior Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. She’s still got a coveted seat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, which was led for years by her mentor, the late Sen. Ted Stevens.
Never a strict party loyalist, Murkowski has a head-start on independence. When President George W. Bush asked Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act, she was one of four Republican senators to insist that the terrorist-fighting legislation contain more civil liberties protections.
She’s also voted for some items on Obama’s wish list, including ratification of a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia and repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays serving openly in the military.
Conservative groups are deeply suspicious of Murkowski’s support for abortion rights. Focus on the Family, for example, labeled her a “squishy Republican” on the subject.
But voting for the Blunt amendment helped raise her ratings with some anti-abortion groups. The National Right to Life Committee, unhappy with her vote against a measure to stop sending money to Planned Parenthood, for example, has raised her rating from 66 percent in the last Congress to 75 percent now.
“I don’t fit neatly into anybody’s political boxes and I think that sometimes disturbs people,” Murkowski says. “But I don’t think most Alaskans fit neatly into the Republican box or the Democratic box. They don’t think of themselves that way.”
Comments (151)
Add commentThank you Senator...
Thank you Senator, for the result of your reflection and public acknowledgement of your change of heart. It is a stance that likely does indeed represent the majority of your Alaskan constituents.
In general, I think the majority of Alaskans are pretty well fed up with the "my party right or wrong" mentality that seems to prevail on both sides of the aisle these days.
Will the real Lisa...
...please stand up.
How could she vote for the highly charged and partisan Blount Amendment, and then say "I didn't know"? This was one of the more polarizing votes in congress this year, and it's kind of hard to believe that she just made a coin flip decision to support it.
You were reelected because Alaskans viewed you as being independent of the highly partisan stuff. This vote undermined that independence. Are you independent? Or aren't you?
You have to ask that question...
Latitude58? Lisa is as much a political animal as any person who has ever occupied an elected seat in Congress. Politics is all she knows, cut her milk teeth on it. She'd do anything to keep that seat, including voting however her party dictates, Alaska or no Alaska. We are not her main concern. As the old saying goes, it's easier to ask for forgiveness that to receive permission. In this case, she'll do what she has always done, exactly what her party wants. The "Independent" crossover was only to get elected and did not represent a fundamental change in her political views.
Flip flopping is good
When new evidence comes across your way, reconsiderations should be made. That's one of the signs of a free thinker.
I would like the senator to clarify exactly why, however, she thinks her support of a contraception ban was a mistake. I checked her website, read a few articles. Nothing very specific.
Why did you change your mind senator? Did you leave the Catholic Church or something?
Mike
Thank you, Lisa
I think Lisa Murkowski DOES want to represent the people who voted her into office. I'm glad I wrote in her name on the ballot.
The majority of Alaskans/Americans realize that this whole contraception issue is NOT an issue -- it's a ploy being played by extremists. Nowhere in this law does anyone HAVE to use the contraceptives/abortion. It's fairly ridiculous that the issue has gotten this much attention.
How often do we hear about a politician openly saying he/she regrets a vote so soon after the vote? She realized her mistake and voiced it.
I respect that. Thank you, Lisa.
I used to think Murky was a
I used to think Murky was a complete waste of space for Alaska but after the Olympia Snowe comparison Lisa might be a cashcow. Being wishy-washy and opinionless can be a great position to be in on close votes. I wondered how the pork would keep rolling after uncle Ted passed but I think Murky could do him justice by selling her vote to the highest bidder.....
It looks like she and Back-itch are paying attention to the dismal approval numbers Congress has and the decent showing Ron Paul has made in spite of MSM ignorance. A couple wolves in sheep's clothing doesn't constitute real change. Hold out for the third party Alaska!
Gutless Wonder
This is proof that Lisa is as stupid as her old man. First she votes the wrong way on a purely symbolic bill that has no chance of over-coming a veto, then she says she made a mistake,
angering people on both sides.
BOING ... BOING ... BOING
Like a bouncing ball Lisa position changes with the potential vote count for reelection.
The best part of the no-pills policy is the lack of objections to the coverage for vasectomies. Apparently irreversible medical procedures are not against the same religious fanatics beliefs.
It's good to see someone in
It's good to see someone in her position push back a bit against the rabid religous nuts who've mostly taken over the Republican party.
How do you figure, Wink?
She voted FOR the amendment. Actions speak louder than words.
" on the contraceptives vote,
" on the contraceptives vote, which she characterized as one in favor of religious liberty."
Now she is AGAINST religious liberty ?
"Obama’s order that health insurance cover the cost of contraceptives even if providers object on religious grounds".
And this is why the SCOTUS will likely reverse BO,...again!
islander, excellent observation
Vasectomies are illegal in catholicism. Great point. Insurance policies cover sterilization. Oh the hypocrisy.
Mike
Miller...
...would have voted the same way with no regrets or remorse. Take that as you wish. Whether Lisa comes across as good, bad or indifferent, she is, at least, capable of reflection. Probably a trait inherited from the maternal genes.
This political football is fraught with rhetorical symbolism. An ink clause on a policy that makes little monetary difference to the payer or provider. If you want contraception, it ain't hard to get. Not exactly expensive, either. Magma Copper Company was more than happy to pay for me to go under the knife so they were safe from another 9 months of OB visits, a delivery and another 18 years of health coverage. I bet they would be happy to pass out free condoms at the guard shack or just leave a box of them in the dry right next to the dust filters, salt tablets and ammonia capsules. Pretty stupid thing to fight about when our high dollar representatives should be focusing on keeping their constituents working.
Maybe during her next
Maybe during her next election campaign she should pass out rubbers that have "Vote for Murkowski" written on the packaging.
Another bill in our State Legislature
Senate Bill 191 has been introduced to our State Legislature. It requires a woman to have an ultrasound exam before any abortion. I don't think it will reduce abortions.
Similar bills have been introduced and passed in other state legislators and appears to be another one of those canned, pre-written bills supplied by the American Legislative Exchange Council. This group writes legislation, from an extreme right-wing, conservative perspective and distributes their messages to state legislatures.
I would much rather see our elected Congressional and State legislative representatives draft bills that their constituents want rather than just submit some proposal by a special interest group. Perhaps if they did that, and understood exactly what the bill was about, they wouldn't have to apologize for their vote.
Wally,...
...have you seen the newest ultrasounds? They look so much like the child that you can see inherited external features, short of eye color. Seeing your baby's face could give pause to someone who may previously just considered the occupant of her womb to be a mass of tissue and not a real human being with her mothers nose or her fathers chin. Out of respect for the prospective victim, an image that proves that he/she even existed would be appropriate. They don't even get a grave marker.
skirkz
Explain to me again, what business does the government have peering into a woman's womb?
skirtz
Yes, I have seen the newest and latest ultrasounds and I find them informative and amazing. Today, a woman and perhaps her spouse, can actually see that their new baby will be male or female, or they may be twins, or they may have a severe malformation. But all of this comes in the second or third trimester of pregnancy.
But what about a woman who has been raped, or the victim of incest, or has an embryo in the fallopian tubes and three children and may die? What about the "morning after pill"?
These are situations in which a person has to make a major decision in life. I am certainly not a woman, but I suspect that women who are pregnant, have a lot on their minds, trying to decide what to do, what they think or believe is right or wrong. It seems to be based on an assumption that all women are ignorant or don't understand what they are doing and someone needs to show them something But to add one more fear, or threat to the situation I personally don't think will reduce abortions.
When it comes to family planning, birth control and those issues, its another whole ball game. Much of what is said and proposed is based on religious belief and in my opinion, should not be imposed on others. Or, as Bill Moyer pointed out, there needs to be "Freedom of religion, and freedom from religion."
Much of our Western World "tradition" and belief comes from a Mideastern tradition of male dominance and control of women. It has nothing to do with Christianity or the teaching of Jesus. It comes from a time and culture in which all groups, tribes, clans, kingdoms and empires wanted as many new members as possible. Times and world population have changed.
The philosophical and theological questions and issues over ethics, what is right or wrong, have gone on for centuries. To try and settle these debates with simplistic, quick, easy answers in my opinion is not the way to go in the modern world.
Exactly, Lat.
What business does the government have legislating anything to do with birth control? There is no advocacy for the living person in the womb no matter how he/she got there (Professor?) regardless of religious belief or the lack there of. Human decency is completely disregarded in the whole political process.
"oops! I did it again!"
I'm seeing a pattern here...
She votes for volatile legislation along party lines (and don't be misled, she is indeed a republican to the core), then regrets it, then says, "Ooops! I did it again" as if that excuses her vote.
Her vote in favor of this legislation was an attack on women of this state.
She is no moderate. As previous posters have said above, she will sell her vote to whatever position gains her advantage. The will of the people who elected her are irrelevant. She tries to paint herself as a moderate or independent, and she is not.
Skirtz
To some extent I have to agree with you - government should not be passing laws that invade or destroy personal rights and responsibilities.
However, to say "There is not advocacy for the living person in the womb..." seems rather simplistic. There is a whole lot of advocacy and political persuasion across our nation on this issue, most of which I find is based on religious convictions, not science nor the desperate situations in which some people find themselves.
I have another very simplistic, unrealistic proposal. Let's say that every man before having sexual relations with a woman other than his spouse, must first watch a fifteen minute video of the problems of single mothers, the problems of unwanted children especially those living in poverty, the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases. If the man refuses to do so, the government will punish him. Let that guy be frightened and worried about what he is about to do, and if he doesn't submit, toss him in jail until his hormones decrease.
Jo
Let's be realistic. If you or I had a position in life where we had a good salary, health care, a wonderful retirement, access to investment possibilities, wouldn't you or I try to keep living the "good life"? And what if it wasn't something we had worked for over many years but was somewhat "inherited," that would make giving up that life style. I suspect you and I would be greatly tempted to do what in old Ayn Rand "Objectivism" proposes - forget helping family, forget helping others who through no fault of their own are suffering, just focus on benefiting oneself.
However, there was a person two thousand years ago who said that was not the way to go in life. His name was Jesus, later called the "Christ."
That's why I find "Christian" conservatives, Adam Smith,laizzes faire capitalists, those who want to impose their religious beliefs on others, quite contradictory. The real "core value" seems to be "my way or no way," "Me and no one else."
Slippery slope, skirkz
Assuming your premise is accepted that a fetus, of any biological stage of development, is a legal 'person' that the government has a vested interest in protecting...where does it lead?
What if the mother drinks while pregnant? Government needs to pass laws against that. What about the food she eats? The prenatal medical care she receives? Her level of stress and exercise? Risky behaviors she engages in like skiing or sports or driving cars? All need to be controlled or banned by the government.
And since she might not immediately know when she's pregnant, she'll have to behave as if she's pregnant anytime she's sexually active, even if she's using contraceptives, because they're never 100% effective you know. Therefore, she'll need to register with the government prior to sex so they'll know her status.
Wow! This 'government protecting the person' thing will really have our politicians inserting themselves into every crevice of a woman's life.
And why stop with the womb? The next obvious destination is the family. What you feed your children. How you raise them. The mother's work status. Their religious instruction...
Total government control of women and families. Hmmm, sounds familiar...where have I heard of that before...
I find it disturbing that
I find it disturbing that Obama is willing to throw religious liberty under the bus to change the subject in this election and thus enhance his election chances. I also find it disturbing that Lisa Murkowski regrets voting to protect religious liberty.
Whether or not you agree with the Catholic Church's views on contraception (and the fact is few people do agree with them), people's religious convictions should not become pawns in election battles.
What we have here is the government arrogating to tell the Catholic Church what are and what are not its core beliefs and I just find it very disturbing that Ms. Murkowski regrets standing up to defend the 1st amendment.
Again, Professor...
...more government intrusion. My comment on ultrasound was not advocating legislation requiring it. Merely a "simplistic proposal". As for your film... make them both watch it together. That ought to take the starch out of the situation. In order to bring the mood back the film could include a visual tutorial on condom application and insertion. While we're spending the taxpayers' money, let's just require an expert to be present to monitor and document the event!
I'm with you, Lat.
That's what I'm saying. You would argue with a fence post.
tearlach61
Let's not confuse religious freedom with personal responsibility and choice. It is one thing to say that a woman, if she is married, her spouse, and her personal physician have to make some major decisions in life, and saying that one is protecting "religious freedom."
I personally don't believe the present federal administration is attempting to dictate religious beliefs. They are saying, in my opinion, is that people should have access to medical services, including family planning and birth control regardless of their religious beliefs.
We can't say that if an industry wishes to toss out the rights of workers to have safe and healthy working conditions, and that the federal government says "No, workers have a right to safe and good working conditions,"
No one is telling the Catholic Church what its core beliefs should be, nor the Baptists, Episcopalians, Buddhists,atheists or Muslims . It simply saying that individuals, women in particular, have a right to find protection from unwanted pregnancies.
What I seem to find tearlach61
Is that non-participants in major decisions in one's personal life are saying "You must do what we tell you to do. You must dress a certain way, if you are female you must be subservient to males telling how to live your life, you must accept these invasions of your private life, this is what you must and must not do. Its an old Mideastern tradition, perpetuated over centuries.
It has nothing to do with the freedom of religions to teach their beliefs to their followers; it is imposing government control by those in power and control, telling the people how they must live their daily life.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the first amendment of our national constitution.
Mideastern?
Sorry, this is a new term for me. Mideastern tradition, where did this originate and how has our religious belief system been molded by it? And yes, the law of the land, reproductive rights of women, is being subjugated by means of whittling away at the edges of Roe v. Wade. I find these chess moves to be an affront to our Republic.
"I personally don't believe
"I personally don't believe the present federal administration is attempting to dictate religious beliefs."
That's easy for you to say, you are not the injured party.
The administration is compelling the Catholic Church to do something it does not want to do. It has said you the Catholic Church must do thus and such. The Catholic Church has said it does not want to do it because it violates the tenets of their faith. The administration said you must comply, end of story.
You look at that and say you don't believe their faith is being violated, but like I y are not the one being compelled here.