Lisa Murkowski is a RINO. This letter, provided courtesy of Tracey Porreca explains why in great detail.
June 27, 2010
Dear Fellow Republicans:
Recently the Murkowski campaign circulated an email through the Alaska Republican Party asserting that “political operatives are mischaracterizing Lisa’s record [and] some of these claims are outright lies.” We wanted to assure Party members, and the Murkowski camp, that our campaign has not engaged in such behavior. We decided to look into the charges, and here is what we found. It turns out that they were responding to emails being circulated by concerned citizens acting of their own accord. They were not being directed to do anything by Joe Miller for US Senate. Some of the material being circulated may have originated with us, but we were unable to decipher what material may have come from us, and what did not, since the specifics of what the Murkowski campaign was responding to is still somewhat in doubt.
However, we would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight as to what it is that we are saying. It is clear to us that by any objective measure, Senator Murkowski is not a conservative and her record will bear that out. Her campaign has insisted that “Lisa is well known for her conservative voting record.” Rather than engage in a “he said – she said” moment, let's take a look at what the conservatives inside the beltway have concluded, based upon her voting record and their observation.
The American Conservative Union (Lifetime) – 70.19%
Freedom Works – 50%
Human Events – Top Five RINO's in the United States Senate
National Taxpayer's Union (Lifetime) – 63%
Citizens Against Government Waste (Lifetime) – 54%
Senate Conservatives Fund (2008) – 50%
Eagle Forum – 63%
American Family Association – 33%
Family Research Council – 55%
The aforementioned letter states, “She [Murkowski] recently led efforts to stop the massive power-grab by the EPA which President Obama threatened to Veto.” The Senator's EPA Amendment is well-rehearsed and we applaud her for her attempt to stop this naked power grab, but we should be clear about what the Amendment would, and would not, have done. Following is Senator Murkowski's own statement about her EPA Amendment delivered to The Council on Competitiveness' National Energy Summit and International Dialogue on September 23, 2009:
"Since my amendment has stirred a bit of controversy, I want to take a second to 'clear the air'. My amendment would not stop this process forever - it would simply give Congress a year to debate climate policies and determine the best approach for reducing emissions. Given that no climate bill would take effect before 2012, my amendment would not slow down or detract from the overall process. And given that almost everyone involved in the climate debate prefers legislation to regulation, I'm hopeful that it will draw enough votes to pass. I am equally hopeful that the climate debate, without the cloud of economically harmful EPA regulations hanging over it, can move forwards toward a bill that can pass the Senate. I want my colleagues and constituents to know that I'm serious about climate change . . .”Further, it has been asserted that “[Senator Murkowski] has an A+ rating from the NRA.” We would point out that the Senator has demonstrated marked improvement in this area, considering her D rating with the NRA while in the Alaska State House, but she is still labeled a “pro-gun compromiser” by Gun Owners of America.
As to the Senator's opposition to tax increases, we would not deny that she has opposed some tax increases, but has certainly not opposed them across the board. She voted against the 2008 Bush Tax Rebates, against multiple points of order requiring a super-majority to raise taxes, voted in favor of tobacco tax increases, and is currently entertaining the possibility of a new carbon tax on emissions.
It has also been asserted that the Senator has voted to fully repeal, and “unequivocally supports the repeal of Obama Care.” But it should be pointed out that the “repeal” vote took place before the reconciliation bill actually passed. Five days after the reconciliation bill passed, the Senator said “repealing [Obamacare] is not the answer in my opinion . . .” You can view, or read it, here: (Feds overreaching on health care, energy, Murkowski says). It should not be difficult to see why we are somewhat confused as to where she really stands on the issue.
As to the claim that “Senator Lisa Murkowski opposes Big Government, Government Spending, Government Bailouts, Government Takeover, and Deficit Spending,” we can only refer you to the record.
Voting for the largest new entitlement program in a generation (Medicare, Part D), in addition to unwarranted federal health care expansions (SCHIP/CHIPRA) that even the big-spending President George W. Bush vetoed on the grounds that it was “a move toward socialized medicine,” is hardly an effective way to prove your opposition to Big Government.
Voting against the majority of your Republican colleagues on six excessive Appropriations packages just in the last year is not a convincing argument against Government Spending.
Voting for TARP (Big Bank and Wall Street) bailouts, voting to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and voting to protect the Obama Administration's plan for a $108B slush fund for International bailouts does not make a persuasive case for opposition to Government Bailouts. It should also be also be pointed out that the Senator's campaign operatives would have us applaud her for attempting to clean up her own mess (TARP). One might say, 'she actually voted for it . . . before she voted against it.' Does she really get credit for a failed attempt to fix what she broke herself? Really?
Without even going further, which could be done at some length, the aforementioned votes prove conclusively that the Senator is not serious about curbing deficit spending.
On the illegal immigration front, it is an ineluctable fact that the Senator voted for Amnesty in 2006, and against a border security amendment taken in December of 2009 that would have required the southern border fence (physical barrier, not a virtual fence that is virtually porous) to be finished by December 2010. If the Senator is such an advocate for the conservative position on illegal immigration, why did she vote for the amnesty bill in 2006 and vote to take up the bill again in 2007? Why did she have to be strong-armed into voting no on cloture in 2007? Why has US Border Control only given her a 33% score for her stance on border issues?
And finally, “as Alaska’s US Senator, Lisa Murkowski opposes the use of federal funds for abortions.” While we accuse nobody of lying, this statement simply does not accord with her record. We need go no further than the Anchorage Daily News last week, where it was reported that 662 abortions were funded through Denali Kid Care: (KidCare funded 664 'medically necessary' abortions in '09). That is the Senator's CHIPRA vote at work.
She has voted no less than four times for repeal, or against reinstatement, of the “Mexico City Policy” put in place by President Reagan to bar Federal dollars from foreign non-governmental organizations that provide or promote abortions.
I would also point to Senator Murkowski's unequivocal statement in voting for a sense of the Senate Amendment that reads as follows:
“It is the sense of the Senate that--
the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade
was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right;
and such decision should not be overturned.”
The Senator has been named a Wish List Star. The Wish List is a pro-choice organization whose mission is stated as follows: “The WISH List raises funds to identify, support and elect pro-choice Republican women.” You can visit the website here: The WISH List.
While one can argue about votes, we would encourage inquiring minds to consult our website where there are links to many of Senator Murkowski's votes. Feel free to contact the campaign; we would be happy to assist you with information you might need to make an informed decision on this crucial race.
While we understand that tensions are high in an election cycle, it is incumbent upon us all to take a deep breath and look at the facts. This is not finally about personalities, it is about the future of the greatest nation on earth. We are committed to running a clean campaign. We invite the Senator to debate the issues, and we will do our part to keep it civil.
All the Best,
Joe Miller Campaign for US Senate
(907) 929-9563
Paid for by Joe Miller for US Senate • P.O. Box 72838, Fairbanks , AK 99707
Posts
