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 commentTearlach 1, where did you learn that rendition of events?
If religious liberty is being violated how come there is no talk of 1st Amendment lawsuits with the backing of billions of dollars being argued all the way to the Supreme Court?
It's because there is no legal case to be won here. None. Ask legal scholar David Boies. That's my source.
The Catholic Church is not being persecuted, it's just not getting everything it wants. Big deal. As John Stewart recently said, (paraphrase) sure, some Christians are being persecuted in Egypt and China. But to equate the prisoner making bricks in Beijing with gold-threaded prelates not being able to restrict access to orthotrycycline is quite insulting in its own right. As Stewart also said, (paraphrase) these religious organizations receive a hundred billion dollars in offerings each year tax free. Persecute my butt like that!
This is essentially a labor law issue, not a faith issue. Again, where do you get your information? I have no confidence you will reveal your sources. Surprise me.
Mike
Ken Dunker
A Mideastern tradition. All one has to do is read the Old Testament in the Bible, the Qur'an and other Mideastern records to see what they say and how the idea of male supremacy runs through them page after page.
"No one is telling the
"No one is telling the Catholic Church what its core beliefs should be."
It's not just about beliefs. It's about living out those beliefs. Helping the sick and the poor and teaching. The Catholic Church has been doing these things for centuries. It is an integral part of their faith. Now the government is saying it can no longer do these things unless it does it the governments's way.
This the thing with socialism. You have to do things the government's way or you can't do them at all. Why can't we go back to individual liberty. There must be other ways to meet contraceptive needs without forcing religous people to violate their beliefs.
Theology
No one in the present federal administration is attempting to control or limit religious beliefs as far as I can tell. If someone had factual information to support such an accusation I will gladly admit that I have been ignorant, that is not knowing what I should know to comment.
What I see is an administration saying that all workers have a right to safety, security and proper medical care no matter for whom they work. If they happen to work for a Catholic agency, a Muslim agency, a Buddhist or Baptist organization, their health care benefits must cover family planning and birth control information and medication.
How would some folks like it if a gold mining, coal mining, fisheries organization said "Because of our corporate beliefs, we will no longer provide certain health and safety measures because it is not in compliance with the corporate values." ??
Actually.
Our president tried that approach. He shifted gears to mandate business entities do so. While corporations were deemed 'citizens' since the early '70s, and are considered 'ruled' by administrative law, such as executive orders, how can they now be exempted? No one is compelling individuals to seek medical contraceptive assistance.
"If religious liberty is
"If religious liberty is being violated how come there is no talk of 1st Amendment lawsuits..."
I am sure there will be.
"No one in the present federal administration is attempting to control or limit religious beliefs as far as I can tell. If someone had factual information to support such an accusation I will gladly admit that I have been ignorant..."
Cardinal Donald Wuelf, Archbishop of Washington, D.C:
“This is the invasion of our religious freedom by a government mandate. This has never happened before. We’ve always been free to exercise our religious freedom. Now we’re being told we must do something that we aren’t able to do."
by the way, Murkowski
The entourage of the elite standing behind you is not necessary. Don't even know them. Were you speaking to me or the nation as a whole? Still, it would have carried a more independent message to me, personally, had you spoken to me individually. Appearance matters. Exactly why do public speakers require an entourage standing immediately behind them? But, I do admire your reflection. It takes courage to do so openly. Lord knows I have personally retracted from positions I have taken in my life upon reflection and new information. It is comforting to know someone in your position can do the same as I.
Tearlach
If my church had something against hand railings on the stairs, or grounded electrical systems, or plumbing sanitation... something basic to life safety building code... what's to stop them from invoking their 'religious freedom' rights so they wouldn't have to comply?
Are you trying to argue that churches should be exempt from all laws and regulations?
lat58
I do not equate this issue to 'hand-railings'. Please. You are referring to building integrity and safety issues.
Ok, Tearlach61, as I suspected. You don't want to discuss.
Please provide your sources. That's all I ask. And you might be right about lawsuits coming, but that's not what I dispute. There are no winnable lawsuits on the horizon according to David Boies, constitutional scholar and probably one of the finest lawyers in the US. Remember him? He lead the win against Prop 8 in California. I actually welcome lawsuits in this case. As Mr. Boies said, the witness chair is a very lonely place to try and lie. No, the clergy won't go near the witness stand on this issue. They'll just keep whining.
Prof. Olson, to clarify, Churches proper, Temples, Mosques and any mansion, duplex, ranch home, mobile home or shanty with the ludicrous parsonage tax exemption are also exempt from this ruling. Chancery office employees still get to be discriminated against by their leaders.
It's only non-Churches, non-Mosques, non-Temples etc., who happen to have an affiliation with faith-organizations that are being required to pony up and be American like every other employer. And remember, Pres. Obama generously compromised on the money issue by taking it off the table! Understand, he did not have to do that to remain in legal standing.
All in all though, I think this is a wonderful moment for people in powerful faith institutions. They get to bellyache every day they gather to worship X, and fire up their base to do their work for them without spending a dime. Brilliant.
There simply is no legal case to be won here. In my opinion, it's just a populist message for the sheeple and a chance to shake the cobwebs off of a secularly useless theology degree. It sure seems an effective angle to keep child abuse coverups off the front pages too.
Mike
Deja'vu all over again:
Deja'vu all over again:
Senator, I served with Olympia Snowe, I knew Olympia Snowe, Olympia was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Olympia Snowe.
Give me a break. To compare Lisa to Olympia is like comparing Dan Quayle to Jack Kennedy.
"Please provide your
"Please provide your sources..."
Ave Maria University has filed suit. Google it.
Copy paste the quote and google it. My point it, the Cardinal of the Catholic Church in the United States thinks there is a problem. He's the injured party here. It's their private institutions that are being commandeered by the Federal Government. There are plenty of intitutions that want to give contraceptives away for free, why does the Federal Government have to compell the Catholic Church to do so. This is what Obama's America has come to, compelling people to do this or to do that.
"There are no winnable lawsuits on the horizon according to David Boies, constitutional scholar and probably one of the finest lawyers in the US. Remember him? He lead the win against Prop 8 in California."
EEOC vs Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against the administration in a very similar case. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/story/2012-01-11/suprem...
"And remember, Pres. Obama generously compromised on the money issue by taking it off the table"
There was no compromise. Obama's compromise didn't make it into the final regs. Google: "contraceptive mandate compromise final reg"
"If my church had something against hand railings on the stairs...."
How is that comparable? There is only one way of preventing people from falling on a specific set of stairs and that's by putting handrails on that set of stairs. There are plenty of ways for the Government hand out contraceptives without compelling a private religious organization to bend to its will
With all the problems we have in the economy
Does it realy matter what will be the fate of birth control? Common. Get your priorities together.
Good articles on www.ariespost.com
You think the EEOC vs. Lutheran Church is similar?
That's what you are banking your position on? I really don't think you know what you are talking about. And I still don't know where you are getting your information from. My guess: a church e-bulletin.
There is not one case (I'm pretty confident about this) whereby a US court allowed a religiously-affiliated employer (the Lutheran case, if I recall correctly, was the Church proper, or religious organizations proper, not an affiliated organization) to have any exceptions from social labor norms like fairness, health, safety and equality. Faith organizations as employers do, however, get privileges that exempt them from fairness, safety, and equality. Just think about that.
Anyway, back to my point, do you have evidence to the contrary?
My guess? You have been told by people you enjoy the company of that religion is being persecuted. Hey, I don't doubt you believe this. Just show me the evidence, please. Show me how religious liberty is being violated.
I should think that this would be extremely easy to do.
Mike
Tearlach is wrong
Nope.
You are wrong.
No one is forcing anyone to use contraception.
Therefore, the Catholic church has no real argument.
The Catholic church is against the USE of contraception, not the AVAILABILITY of contraception.
Big difference.
Give it up. You're losing.
That's what you are banking
'That's what you are banking your position on? I really don't think you know what you are talking about. And I still don't know where you are getting your information from. My guess: a church e-bulletin.'
I googled it.
"There is not one case (I'm pretty confident about this) whereby a US court allowed a religiously-affiliated employer (the Lutheran case, if I recall correctly, was the Church proper..."
It was the school associated with the Lutheran Church. They taught kindergarten through 8th grade. The teacher involved taught math, language arts, social
studies, science, gym, art, and music. Teachers at the school did not have to be Lutherans. That's straight out of the court documents:
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0065p-06.pdf
Scroll down to the background which begins on the second page.
The government lost 9-0 and that was only this past January, with the current court we have now.
That school would not qualify for the religious organization exemption under Obamacare.
Tearlach61, that case was whether the teacher was
a ministerial employee. The Church proper in that case was the employer. The school was legally determined to be essentially a religious organization, not a mere religious-affiliated organization. And that's because it had a central mission to save souls, etc. In other words it was similar to a Christian "Taliban" recruitment camp, not a hospital or even a University like Notre Dame.
That's why that church retained its right to be able to discriminate. Don't get me wrong, I understand what you are saying, it was a very interesting case but it's fundamentally a different ball of wax. You might ask yourself why certain groups are pushing out misinformation like that. I know I would.
There is no precedent, indeed they are never upheld, whereby a non religious employer gets ministerial exemptions from labor laws.
Mike
Edited to add a couple extra sentences.
Wally and Mike - thank you
again for your thoughtfull, eloquent commentary on this issue. As a woman who uses birth control, and who also believes that freedom of religion includes my right to be free from religious control over my life - I applaud you both.
tearlach61 - wow.
I'm a little surprised that the shining example of "freedom of religion" you hold up is a case where a church school fired a long-time teacher once she became sick. Very Christian of them.....so you are saying that religious organizations shouldn't have to abide by basic labor laws protecting the rights of workers? Would that include handicapped workers, people of color, and maternity leave, in addition to firing without cause those who fall ill through no fault of their own?
Wow.
I guess I would just say that organizations who take public funds (such as church-affiliated hospitals and universities) and who are heavily subsidised by the government (such as churches - who pay no taxes) should probably live under the basic civil laws protecting all workers, in the country that supports them.
I would also encourage you to think about the logical conclusion of what you are proposing as "religious freedom". Aside from the fact that Catholic associated businesses have been supplying birth control (and viagra and vasectomies, apparently) for decades without a peep, and that a vast majority of Catholic and Christian women use birth control, both of which call into question the 'moral outrage' factor - -
Have you understood that if you 'win' this battle, it could mean that YOUR employer, if he/she is a Christian Scientist, would deny you any medical insurance? A muslim-affiliated business could deny a Catholic employee health insurance of their choosing within the Muslim faith? Or if someone is not circumsized, a Jewish affiliated hospital could deny them service? Or a woman with an ectopic pregnancy could be denied health insurance for surgery to save her life? The potential expansion of such a law would be enormous. Do not for a moment think it would stop at contraception, or the Catholic church.
Swimmer
I'm glad you chose to address that. The compartmentalization people of faith employ (speaking generally, not to anyone posting here in particular) in order to "justify" getting their special needs gods into society is mind numbing.
Richard Dawkins calls it lying for Jesus. Christianity is similar to Islam in that regard. Muslims can lie to infidels and justify it theologically. Likewise, we see Chrisitians lying or doing otherwise crappy things because, ostensibly, planting a "seed of faith" is their main aim sometimes. Honesty be damned.
Mike
@Mike -- that's over the top
aside from being a gross generalization, it's smug: and your history of posts does not indicate a disposition toward smugness. Benefit of the doubt.
I can't dispute how you feel Grendel.
Meh, freethinkers are typically called smug, shrill, strident, etc. When reason fails, people go emotional in their arguments.
I really don't give two coho if you think I'm smug. I am interested in the truth. What I appreciate are corrections of mistakes. If my comments are false, point them out and correct them. Do you think I am joking that lying for Jesus occurs?
Anyway, I can't do much with emotional pleas. Emotion, like calling me smug, can be persuasive in getting a point across to some audiences. But, emotion never adds to the truth value of a position. Ever. Only facts do that.
Mike
facts stand on their own;
generalizations, like lying for Jesus, reinforce stereotypes. Much like saying, "[filtered word] use contraceptives; Swimmergirl uses contraceptives, therefore --" Now hold on! There is no way I honestly think that sentence should be finished; but you get my point. SG- my apologies: your post was convenient, but not meant to use for offense.
Lying for Jesus is factual.
It is a bona fide phenomenon. Christians bear false witness to promote their agenda (planting "faith seeds" I presume). Richard Dawkins has all but trademarked the term (Lying for Jesus), it is therefore not a stereotype. It is used in very specific instances that occur a lot.
Your contraception analogy falls flat because you are too specific by singling out swimmer. You don't have evidence for your claim about swimmer.
Mike
???
Mike, this argument isnt going anywhere. "Christian" & "agenda" are diametrically opposed. And if you come back with "See, that's your emotional response," well, then, our argument is going nowhere.
The thing that makes Christianity such a tasty target for ridicule is that man is predisposed toward imperfection, and Christianity is an uncompromising appeal to our better nature. All I can say is, sure "Lying for Jesus" happens, but that's not Christian.
@Mike: I think Grendel is
@Mike: I think Grendel is taking issue because not ALL Christians lie to promote their religion. I would argue that most don't. The loud ones just lie enough to make up for everyone else.
Grendel / true Christians don't lie for Jesus
............................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\
ok, Grendel, how about...
......this one?
The vast majority of Christians and Catholics use birth control (the women, and their husbands by extension for 'allowing' it.) The current argument is that contraception is against the very core teachings of the Christian faith. So, aren't all of the Christians and Catholics using birth control every single day, in opposition to the "core" teachings - not actually Christian or Catholic?
I'd call that lying for Jesus.......particularly the ones who've used contraception but seek to deny them to others.
Are you honestly saying you don't believe the religious right (those in the news, the bishops, rush limbaugh, etc. etc.) don't have an agenda? Really? And if 'most' christians don't want there to be an 'agenda', then where is the blowback on those leaders from the millions of Catholic/Christians who are taking birth control?
Oh, and no offence taken - I know what kind of a person I am: honest, faithful, helpful to my friends and neighbors, happy, etc. Whether or not I choose to have sex doesn't change any of that, and I couldn't care two figs about what some narrow minded old man thinks - except that he influences other people in a negative way.
Sometimes I wonder if this is
Sometimes I wonder if this is all just a case of some bitter celibates trying to convince themselves that sex is bad and they're not missing anything.
maynnnnneeee
u honkerz still up on birf contro? anyboddy from da hud kno dey ratha hav birf contro den da trialz o unpland birfs, n itz dat eazy. dunno wuz so hawd bout it 4 yall. plus, the peepz on da aborshun tip sayin dey gainst it, but dey don suppowt no preventashun? c'maaannnnn neeeeeeegeeeeeee