You can't take my Senate seat, it is mine.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by cuebald

She's running as a write-in candidate. It's a time-honored tradition.

If the majority wants her, she will win. Are they going to come back and apologize if she does win? That will mean that the ones who ran the ad are not the ones who the public prefers.

So that one ad is going to determine the election? She is running as a write-in but only because she really believes that she can get enough votes from non-Republicans to win and keep HER seat. It is her right to do so but she is behaving like a baby and not one who understands the primary system and what it is for.

Oh well, maybe she will get some Democrat votes that she couldn't get in a party primary.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by Smash255

Ok. The main reason why I was asking, is it seems like those who are the most upset about these write-in or Independent runs such as Murkowski, Crist, or the speculation of Castle (who is not running as an Ind or write-in) also seem to be very enthusiastic O'Donnell supporters. Yet are quiet or don't care that she ran as a write-in in 2006 after losing the GOP Senate Primary. So tend to have a selective history in regards to who they get upset at for still running after a Primary loss.

Have you noticed that the only write-in whiners you people are supporting are those who lost in the Republcian primaries? I sure have and we both know why that is.

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

Have you noticed that the only write-in whiners you people are supporting are those who lost in the Republcian primaries? I sure have and we both know why that is.

I could care-less, in fact Murkowski is probably going to take more votes from McAddams than Miller so I wish she did not run.

Anyway back to my question, since you happen to have a problem with Murlowski running as a write-in after losing the GOP Primary, are you against it whenever a Republicans runs as a write-in or Independent after losing a Primary? Or do you make exceptions when its a candidate you like who runs as a write-in or an Independent after losing a Republican Primary?

[Moose Whisperer]

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

She has taken away the right of the people to nominate and held out the belief that they were supposed to nominate her since the seat was her daddy's before he became governor.

The worst thing about this one is that she is trying to take the election away from Miller to get even with the state's voters for not nominating her. She doesn't care who wins as long as it isn't Miller.

Have you been drinking? It is you that clearly do not understand the purpose of a primary election. A primary is simply the way for established parties to select their nominee for a slot in the General election. It is not some kind of pre-qualifier for the general election. Joe Miller won the Republican primary in the State of Alaska, and now he is in fact the Republican party nominee for US Senate. Scott McAdams is now the Democrat party nominee for US Senate.

The subsequent general election is now open to anybody wishing to run, including the nominees from the established parties. Lisa Murkowski is still running as a republican, just not the official party nominee. No one's rights have been taken away. In fact, if anything you are the one advocating that a citizen of the United States somehow needs your permission to exercize her Constitutionally protected right to run for public office.

Ironic (and quite pathetic) how all of these newly reborn, self-proclaimed Constitutional scholars are the most ignorant of, and quickest to suggest selective denial of the very rights they proclaim to advocate. Fortunately, it's begining to look like that, at least in Alaska, the clear thinking, rational conservatives, moderates, and independents can stem this insane tide of irrational fundamentalism.