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 comment@SG, again
you brought up lots of issues, so I'll walk the dog thru them:
1. careful with gross generalizations regarding "The vast majority of Christians and Catholics use birth control" this sounds like opinion, and I doubt there's documented GLOBAL proof of this;
2. "lying for Jesus", as Mike used it, is akin to proselytizing, or misrepresenting yourself for the sake of some agenda. As discussed (and beaten up with no ground covered), this oversimplification does not address the fundamental Church argument that life is a gift and an adherent's decisions should flow from that. Note: "should" is an important qualifier because we are by definition imperfect;
3. I dont speak for the religious right; nor do I align my politics with religion. That said, I dont want politics re-defining my religious beliefs and this is clearly the case with national mandates that force the occasion;
4. finally, by all means, practice b-control. I'm not saying you (collective "you") shouldn't. But dont make me pay for it. This, really, is the red herring: the federal govt has inserted itself in an issue where it does not have constitutional backing. This discussion should not be happening because the feds have overstepped, told the populace they are entitled to something they are not, and whenever someone gets an entitlement, someone else is paying for it. That, at its core, is un-American;
5. I'm sure you are honest, faithful, helpful to friends and neighbors, etc. Your happiness is not an entitlement; your pursuit of happiness (from same root as "happenstance", meaning opportunity to succeed or fail) is your entitlement.
md, you mentioned something about parsonage tax free or
something like that. Could you explain what you meant by that?
Lisa under pressure?
I can't imagine what it is like to be under the rule of thumb of Republican Men who represented women's issues (go figure on that one). Looking at the men who sat there in judgement on birth control..where were the women in all of this?
So much hype and rhetoric was Lisa really caught up in all of this? Was Lisa afraid to stand up against these men?
Where was Lisa in all of this? Why did Lisa not sit in that session with all those men? I don't buy it Lisa.
@Grendel: I don't believe the
@Grendel: I don't believe the constitution says anywhere that there are limits to what the government can provide for its people. As a matter of fact, the government is tasked to provide for the "general welfare" of the population. Contraception easily falls under "general welfare."
Furthermore, you're looking at this from an egoist point of view. Oh, YOU have to pay (a very miniscule percentage of all the taxes you already pay) for contraception. Tragedy! I have to pay for BS wars, BS abstinence-only sex education, a BS "war on drugs," and any number of other federal programs I don't agree with. So let's drop that line of reasoning--it is invalid. And more importantly, even though you do, in a roundabout way, pay for "entitlements," such entitlements improve our society as a whole.
And finally, I fail to see how the government ignoring a religion's values equates to the government violating the First Amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
The government is free to make secular laws that conflict with religious values. Passing secular laws is, in fact, the government's job. If the Catholic Church doesn't like having to abide by a secular society's laws, it can remove itself from that secular society.
The worst part about this whole controversy is that many of these people who side with the Catholic Church over the government were clamoring for the government to ban the "Ground Zero Mosque," which was merely trying to exist, not affect our secular laws.
@pp
do not confuse "welfare" with hand outs. Welfare, as in "fare well" falls into the same category as "provide for the common defense" -- the federal government is not going to buy your bandaids, fix your boo-boos, make sure you have prophylactics, etc. It is going to ensure you have the opportunity to fare well - as well as any other citizen, just as it provides the protections to ensure you dont fall prey to foreign invaders.
You bring up other valid talking points, but I'm tired of long posts (about as tired as you all are of reading mine). We'll get to them, appropriately.
@Grendel: where again does
@Grendel: where again does the Constitution differentiate between "handouts" and "welfare"? It doesn't, because those are things to be decided by congress. Again, there is nothing wrong, Constitutionally, with any entitlement.
The government could decide tomorrow to provide a guaranteed income for all citizens (which would be an excellent idea), provide each newborn child with a barrel of whiskey (to be consumed upon reaching adulthood), subsidize shoes for runners, and provide a pinata for every single citizen on their birthday. And there would be NOTHING Constitutionally wrong with these policies.
(also, being provided the opportunity to "fare well" is different than providing for our welfare)
Women have access to all the contraception they want..
..and at a pretty darn affordable price. The issue here is not that anyone is preventing access to birth control...because there is no attempt to restrict that by the Catholic church. The issue is that the govt is compelling the church to pay for it against their tenets and beliefs. And THAT is clearly a violation of the 1st amendment. President shifting it to the insurance company's for "free" is merely semantics and rather a cop out.
@dakotaman: actually, I'm
@dakotaman: actually, I'm pretty sure it doesn't violate the 1st Amendment. See above. The government is under no obligation to provide religious organizations an exemption which allows them to pick and choose what laws they'll abide by in the secular world.
If the Catholic church doesn't like it, they're under no obligation to run businesses at all.
@pp: You're right
-- the govt (Congress, that is) could decide those things tomorrow, and then the Supreme Court (the other govt) would have to sort it out. Because the legislature can pass any boneheaded bill it wants, and a president with an agenda (note: I'm neutral here) can sign that bill into law. But when it gets challenged -- like this Healthcare Reform Act, it's SCOTUS that will ultimately hold it up to the rigors of the Constitution, and, historically, saying "general welfare" is a legislative goal is not consistent with what the founders were saying.
Where "welfare" means health, happiness, prosperity, well-being -- Congress cannot legislate those! Do we want Congress defining our happiness? It is consistent with the foundation of the ideals to interpret Congress' role as providing opportunity for these things. Now to wheel this boat around: your b-control is available thru legislation, but that doesn't mean it's got to be provided.
@Grendel: I don't think
@Grendel: I don't think congress providing the people with anything--be it healthcare (which, thankfully, Scalia seems to be on board with), contraceptives (which really does count as healthcare), or puppies--conflicts with anything in the Constitution. Whether it conflicts with the founders' original intent is debatable, as it is for everything else we do, because the founders were not all of the same opinion about how our government should work, and they certainly couldn't anticipate the social and scientific environment in which we now live.
It's also important to note that the idea that we are guaranteed the pursuit of happiness comes from the Declaration of Independence--a document with no legal standing.
grendel - sorry...
I think our basic difference of opinion here is that I believe freedom OF religion means ALL religions, and NO religion. Churches are already exempt to the contraception rule. Under the compromise, businesses who receive public funds - MY tax dollars - are now able to discriminate against non-religious employees. Religiously affiliated groups received 140 million in aid under the stimulous package.
PP makes an excellent point in that we ALL pay for any number of things that go against our principals. Much of which is "unneccessary" depending on whom you talk to. I think it is exceedingly naieve to believe that this precident would only be applied to Catholics and birth control. What about ectopic pregnancies? You just have to listen to the news to realize many legislators would deny health care - let alone insurance - to these women.
You are saying that you believe that a person's personal moral code determines what government-supported programs for all of us they or their business will support with their profits/tax dollars.
If this is true, then you of course agree that as an athiest, I can immediately stop paying the percentage of my taxes that go to the funds all religiously-affiliated businesses recieve, for abstinance-only programming, and anything else having to do with religious organizations. You also agree that all Buddhists and Buddhist affiliated organizations may immediately stop paying for anything related to war, and Hindus may immediately stop paying for anything related to the safety of beef production, or the supply of beef products to school lunch programs or the purchase of beef by food stamp recipients, or health care related to people eating too much red meat. After all, steak is a choice - correct?
Certainly - Religious freedom, and the ability to NOT pay for things that one does not believe in, is applicable to ALL - correct?
Not a gross generalization
"The study, conducted by reproductive health institute Guttmacher, finds that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women use or have used birth control other than church-approved natural family planning.
...The analysis is based on a nationally representative U.S. government survey, the National Survey of Family Growth. Overall, the survey found that 99 percent of women have used birth control, and almost all of of those who don't want to get pregnant use some method of contraception. Eighty-nine percent of Catholic women, 90 percent of mainline Protestants and 91 percent of Evangelicals who are not currently trying to conceive use birth control, Jones and her colleagues reported."
Just to pile on to swimmer's argument about the idea of ALL religions getting an exemption, could one argue that those fundamental Mormon sects that allow young girls to be married off to older men be allowed to do so? They are in direct violation of a secular law and church leaders have been jailed - so apparently, there is a line in the sand on how "free" an American is to follow the tenets of their religion.
@SG
let's walk this back to the basics: the entitlements are the contention. It's absurd to think, "Well I dont mind my taxes paying for this war, but not that one;" or, "of course I want this soup kitchen to be funded, but not that youth center." Those nuggets are for another argument about deficit spending. It's entitlement, and this burgeoning attitude that the govt owes it ME, that is making us soft-headed and pudgy.
@Grendel: you know, a lot of
@Grendel: you know, a lot of people use that line of thinking, that entitlements make us "weak" because they, themselves, don't need to use those entitlements. I don't think you can find any real data showing that they do make us "weak," though, given the ambiguity of that term.
And hell, if you're concerned about being soft-headed and pudgy, why are you even in this society? Why aren't you living off the land, growing your own food, building your own shelter, making do with the bare necessities of life? Every single thing we refer to as "progress" is about making our lives easier. Social development, liberty, technology--all of it makes us a little more pudgy, and a little more soft-headed. It's absurd to draw a line in the sand at entitlements that can and do help a great number of people who don't have the luxury of being able to argue about entitlements with other people on the internet.
One more thing: the idea that "the government owes ME." Doesn't it? What else is the purpose of government, especially a government "of the people, by the people, for the people"? If government can make life better for the people it governs, shouldn't it?
grendel - you're kidding...
NOW it's about entitlements, NOT religious freedom? Come on! You can't be serious. I'm not at all surprised you didn't answer my questions about the other likely probabilities, using the same flawed logic - because you can't. You simply change the subject and toss out something else.
If we're talking about entitlements, well geeze - let's get rid of ALL health insurance - (President Obama's compromise in the current situation removed birth control from all private contracts between religious organizations and insurance companies, and instead asked all insurance companies to provide contraception directly to women) - there are certainly many other laws on the books requiring "entitlement" of health insurance to do things like treat people who contract aids, or babies who are born disabled, or cover people regardless of the color of their skin, probably their age, or a whole host of other things I'm sure one church or another would disagree with.
And how about all public education while we're at it? I mean, really - Catholic tax dollars go to fund public school that teaches kids basphemous things like the earth is more than 6,000 years old, and people can't walk on water. Clearly, it's a free 'entitlement' all kids enjoy.....
That's the most ridiculous turn around I've ever heard.
and grendel - -
it's not any more absurd than "I want my taxes paying for this prescription, but not that one" or "this surgery, but not that one" - - - - the tenant to your war comment is the same - why SHOULDN'T I be allowed to decide which war will or won't result in the defense of all Americans (and thus earn my tax dollars), if you can do the same with the health care of all Americans?
Jo MacNamara
Jo - she's a "republican to the core?" Wow, are you way off. As much as you pretend to know so much about Republicans by your rants I would think you would have a clue about this issue.
Okay: one at a time...
@PP -- I still believe this is the greatest society on the planet, and I have served in a good number of crummy little holes where the opposite end of the spectrum is the rule. All this govt owes me is the opportunity to make a living enjoying the freedom me & you earned by BIRTHRITE. This idea that govt owes its people a guaranteed income, a guaranteed higher education, a guaranteed prescription for free contraceptives is Act One of Theatre of the Absurd.
@SG -- THINK why the Church is up in arms about the notion of birth control being mandated -- because it's a NEW mandate on a NEW entitlement. It was not an issue until the feds made it one. Your 98% lying for Jesus numbers add up to nothing when the argument has ALWAYS been about the principle.
Now, I suspect you were venting about getting rid of all health insurance, otherwise I can only guess that you think there was no such thing as INSURANCE before Obama gave, bequeathed, came down from the MOUNTAIN with it...I think your real target is called TORT REFORM, which is the driving the price up & up because the docs can get sued for anything these days.
Then you went around the BEND on public education...let's just stay on topic, and if you dont mind I'd just as soon tuck this one in for the night because you dont get me, and I cant even begin to fathom the fogtrails you'll wander down next.
Abortion is the elephant in
Abortion is the elephant in the room here.
Not to jerk you all out of your rabbit hole but does anyone engaged in this discussion not understand that the real issue here is not forcing someone pay for birth control but laying the groundwork to force pro-lifers to pay for abortions?
@blackdog
I've had to take babysteps with this crowd; it's been hard enough to get the concept of progressive entitlement overreach to take hold.
misfire
misfire
Kudos for fighting the good
Kudos for fighting the good fight anyway......
pp can you clarify something for me? You said
"I can immediately stop paying the percentage of my taxes that go to the funds all religiously-affiliated businesses recieve, for abstinance-only programming, and anything else having to do with religious organizations."
Can you give me an example of this, religiously affiliated business, "that gets a percentage of my taxes"?
I can help with that...
The federal government provides tax dollars to a number of religious charities as part of community outreach. I've heard that the Catholic church alone received $2.9 million last year, but haven't seen anything to confirm that yet. I did find this story:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholic_charities_receives_large...
The good work done by religious charities shouldn't necessarily be mitigated by the potential harm they do by denying women's healthcare, but by the same token, they shouldn't reach out for federal money with one hand and castigate the government with the other...
Grendel –you took this topic
Grendel –you took this topic from freedom of religion to entitlements, not me, because you couldn’t answer my ‘pandora’s box’ scenario. So are we back to religious freedom now? Alrighty then.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument – that you are correct, and it’s a new federal mandate to which a religious group is morally opposed based on their religion.
Here is my direct question to you – I won’t confuse you with examples like the ones I’ve already given:
Grendel – If one religious organization is allowed to not contribute to a single item with profit or tax dollars that is within a service broadly provided and legally mandated by the federal government for all citizens based on a moral objection – then shouldn’t all organizations be allowed to do the same with federal mandates they are morally opposed to?
This should be yes or no. If not (just guessing) how would you frame the question, without naming the Catholic church or birth control directly.
SG- Yes
let me get back to the role of the fed govt -- bear with me: provide for the common defense. This manpower comes from able-bodied men that have registered with the Selective Service (and also, of course, able-bodied women but they dont have to register [sexist]). That's how we are all getting the blanket of security from our federal govt, even the conscientious objectors.
The fed govt says birth control and abortifacients, and even outright abortion, is legal. Fair enough. The feds say these options will be provided for every woman and the $$$ (like the manpower above example) is coming from the people. This is a NEW one - mandating health care -- and I happen to think the b-control parts are morally objectional. However comma I am not a non-profit organization and simple affiliation with my fellow moral-objectors is not enough to empower me to thumb my nose at the feds. But the church down the street can, since it happens to employ people and has to provide federally-mandated healthcare there is no reason why the church should not be allowed to follow the example of the conscientious objector.
BUT (some would argue) the C.O. is an individual! BUT the C.O. doesn't have to belong to any religion!...So what - non-profits are treated like individuals. And the tyranny herein is that the progressives treat the US govt like an individual who changes his mind every 4 yrs; his intellect is "evolving". BS -- that's why we have a Constitution. And that's why it took HHS to come out with this mandate on a weekend -- Sebelius tried to sneak it past the goalie.
Question framed: does the fed govt have the right to mandate morally objectionable "stuff" to conscientious non-profits?
Conscientious objection
Conscientious objection applies only to being drafted into military service, and thus your argument is completely invalid. No such thing exists in regards to domestic policies.
Conscientious objectors are also expected to perform civil service of some sort. They don't simply get to "opt out" of the war effort.
@PP: thus? you're thussing me?
we're still talking about the First Amendment. (thus) Under the Healthcare Reform Act, non-profits dont simply get to "opt out" of the entitlement bonanza.
That's right. They don't.
That's right. They don't. Regardless of their beliefs, even.
weight a minutt
"However comma I am not a non-profit organization and simple affiliation with my fellow moral-objectors is not enough to empower me to thumb my nose at the feds."
Sooo....we spellin out commas now? Funny comma i missed da memo