At the Alaska Federation of Natives annual convention last week, Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski told reporters that she is endorsing Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola for re-election.
It’s a repeat of her endorsement two years ago, but nationally, it’s unusual for a Republican senator to endorse a Democrat for office, and Murkowski’s colleague, Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, endorsed Republican candidate Nick Begich instead of Peltola.
During a conversation this week about drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Alaska Beacon also had an opportunity to ask Murkowski about her endorsement, which was first reported by Wesley Early of Alaska Public Media.
The following exchange has been lightly edited for clarity.
Q: Did Wesley Early get it right in his coverage of your endorsement?
A: He summed it up as I stated and pretty much as I had intended … I have been watching very carefully as Mary has navigated a very complicated and a challenging term in the House.
Not only were the issues politically dicey, but in the midst of it all, to have lost her anchor, her rock, in the death of her husband, and how she kept her commitment to her family and to her state, and did a hard job that had been made even harder.
I have just great respect and admiration for her. I think she has done a good job for all Alaskans. I admire her ability to stand up to the different political forces that are out there and just be guided by her own sense of what is right for Alaska, and I think that our state would be well served if she were allowed to continue in this very important position in the Congress.
Q: Does supporting Peltola get you into hot water with your Republican colleagues at all? The House is going to be pretty close, and this race is pretty close, and Sen. Sullivan is supporting Nick Begich.
A: I guess this is the divide between Alaska and Washington, D.C. It’s more than 4,000 miles. It’s also about how people view politics and those that serve them. I don’t think for many in Alaska that this comes as some big surprise that I would say strong and favorable things about Mary.
Q: Because you did two years ago, too?
A: As I did two years ago, I refer to her as a friend, and I don’t refer to her necessarily as a Democrat, just as I don’t necessarily refer to myself as a Republican.
I look at her as one who is committed to issues that are important to the people of Alaska, and I think it’s important that those interests are represented back in Washington, D.C.
If we just need another person to represent a party, then that’s entirely different. But I don’t think that most Alaskans want that.
They want to know that you’re going to represent them and their family and their community and our local economies. And so I think for Alaskans, this is not anything new. People in Washington, D.C., get so excited about who’s on what team and which team has won. And you know what? They don’t really care (about) the quality of the individual that is on the team as long as their team wins. I care about the quality. I care about the integrity of the candidate. I care about who is speaking up for the people who serve our state. And so it does matter. It does matter who is on the team.
And I know, yes, that there are those who will say that you’ve just got to line up and you’ve got to support whoever your party nominee is. But I will just introduce you to Lisa Murkowski, who is not my party’s nominee in 2010, and Alaskans said, ‘We’re not ready to accept that result.’
And this is where I’ll really go off in a segue here. This is where I think ranked choice has actually given us more of our true autonomy as voters to determine who we want, not necessarily purged by the respective parties. It’s Alaskans speaking up.
And so, I get that my support for a Democrat can cause a buzz.
I’ve donated money to Democrats in the Senate because I thought that they’re doing a good job, and I wanted to see them returned. I’m looking at the individual and how they are able to serve their state.
Q: It’s not an attitude that I hear or see very often anymore coming out of Congress. I mean, because —
A: Because people get run out of office when they dare to stand up against their party. And you know what? I think that that’s unfortunate.
I think that that’s part of the division that we are seeing in this country, is that people, whether they wanted to or not, whether it was thoughtful or purposeful or not, I think they’ve been driven into different teams instead of being able to play together collectively.
That team sport has become more ugly in its competitiveness, and I think that that has been hard on this country, and I regret that we are at this place.
And so once again, I’m going to dare to stand in the middle and try to encourage others to demonstrate that you can talk to people on both sides, that you can try to build consensus instead of just strong-arming those within your party to just go along so that we can, quote, win again.
You and I have had some conversations over the years where you can hear me get amped up on these things, and I think you can kind of sense my frustration, because I’m worried about where we are right now as a country.
We’re divided politically. We’re dividing ourselves geographically, where people want to live in neighborhoods and communities where we all watch the same news and we all maybe look the same and talk the same. I don’t think that that’s healthy for this beautiful melting pot of a country, and I think Alaska is still very distinct in how we embrace one another for what we can contribute and what we can do, rather than what a party label has defined us as.
Q: For better or worse — and probably for the worse — it just seems like Alaska is becoming more like the rest of the country when it comes to political stuff. I do think ranked choice voting is starting — and the open primary specifically — is starting to change that, but it’s too early to tell.
A: I think so, and I think we’re seeing now to your point, where Alaska, I agree with you, is kind of following what we’re seeing in other parts of the country, and we’re seeing that play out with the support or opposition toward proposition No. 2. It’s a pretty close situation right now, as I understand it, and I think it’s driven because you do have those who feel threatened, that they are going to be in a situation where their party loses that level of control to direct certain outcomes. And so, you know, there’s a lot on the line.
My hope is that Alaskans are going to speak up as individuals, and what it means for them to have a voice that is respected outside of the party.
Q: We’ll see how it goes. I was looking at polling from Matt Larkin on it, and it seems like the number of ads urging people to vote no has changed the polling significantly from what it was earlier this summer. I think it depends on who shows up?
A: Isn’t that always the case, with who shows up?
• James Brooks is a longtime Alaska reporter, having previously worked at the Anchorage Daily News, Juneau Empire, Kodiak Mirror and Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. This article originally appeared online at alaskabeacon.com. Alaska Beacon, an affiliate of States Newsroom, is an independent, nonpartisan news organization focused on connecting Alaskans to their state government.
