Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Ad of the Day: Tea Party Express tells Murkowski to let go of her 'gift'

The Tea Party Express launched a new ad attacking Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, claiming that she needs "to give up the gift her daddy gave her."

The ad is labeled "Arrogant Lisa Murkowski -- You Lost!" on YouTube, and is one of two new ads the group plans to air statewide. The second ad touts Republican candidate Joe Miller's military service and legal career.

The attack ad claims Murkowski was appointed to the Senate by her father, tried to "influence the absentee vote count," attempted to "manipulate the Libertarian Party into giving her their slot on the ballot," and that she is "trying to pretend she's running to serve" the state. The ad concludes: "You Lost, Lisa. And it's time you respect that this Senate seat doesn't belong to you."

The ad's claim that Murkowski was appointed by her father is misleading. She was appointed to the seat by her father after he left the Senate to become Governor. But she won election to a full term in 2004. Murkowski has also said that friends approached the Libertarian Party of their own accord, and, according to the Associated Press, Libertarian Party leaders deny the claim they were "manipulated."

Tea Party Express unveiled the ad Monday and the Murkowski campaign called foul later that night. The Associated Press reports that the Murkowski campaign is calling on Alaska television stations to refrain from airing the ad, claiming it is, "littered with lies and intentional mischaracterizations." Tea Party Express stands behind the ad.

(Via AP and Hotline On Call)

By Emi Kolawole  | October 5, 2010; 2:12 PM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency, Ad of the day  | Tags:  Ad of the day  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: White House goes solar
Next: Clark: Michele Bachmann hasn't done @#%! for her district

Comments

Why do the tea partiers, who claim to respect the Constitution, want to deny Murkowski her inalienable right to run for office? Nothing in the Constitution says she cannot run if she lost a primary. After Joe Liebrman lost the Conn Democratic primary a few years ago, repubs chided Dems for telling Liebrman not to run and they pushed Lieberman at the expense of their own candidate. Those same repubs now tell Murkowski to stop, further proving their hypocrisy. Why do conservatives only respect the Constitution when it suits them?

Posted by: mikel7 | October 5, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

I thought the tea partiers supposedly respected the Constitution. So why are they demanding Murkowski forgo her inalienable right to run for office? Funny how conservatives believed Democrats were out of line in saying Joe Lieberman shouldn't run after he lost the Conn primary. They even even pushed him at the expense of the gop candidate. Just shows the hypocrisy of the conservatives. They uphold the Constitution only when it serves them. Have some baloney with that tea.

Posted by: mikel7 | October 5, 2010 10:24 PM | Report abuse

"Murkowski’s attack ad against the tea party just last week. Remember that one, suggesting that longtime Alaska resident Joe Miller is some sort of Manchurian candidate for California? Where are the legal demands to have that pulled from the air on grounds of gross jackassery? And incidentally, if “tea party” is such a dirty word among Alaskans, isn’t Murky better off leaving them alone to run this new spot?"

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/05/its-come-to-this-murkowski-wants-alaska-tv-to-pull-tea-party-ads/

Posted by: fozenpink | October 5, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

I am in Alaska and am appalled at the childishness of this lying loser!

Now, using typical Alinsky
(all hail Lucifer)tactics, she has called in her lawyers to try and keep the ad off local channels.

Please help this go VIRAL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OqMJ3aQC0c
She lost and truly believes that this Senate seat is hers!
We will VOTE HER out again!

Posted by: fozenpink | October 5, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

Any enemy of the Tea Klan is a friend of mine

Posted by: rcc_2000 | October 5, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Any enemy of the Tea Klan is a friend of mine

Posted by: rcc_2000 | October 5, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

...Yes, I know that the snotty Washington Post/Democrat party axis would like to portray all Alaskans as idiots - that you view us a quaint and gauche. However, there is nothing in the ad which is mileading to anyone who is not an idiot.

Posted by: dante99654

Not Alaskans. Only idiots that double post. Really, how hard is it to click "Submit" once? You think it will get there faster if you click twice? Does it take a Nobel prize in physics to figure out you click once to submit?

Posted by: James10 | October 5, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

I'm surprised they haven't called Murkowski a closet Muslim-socialist-nazi-facist-undocumented candidate.

The Tea Party must be getting soft.

Posted by: James10 | October 5, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

GAD! That picture demands the question: Is Pelosi her sister?

Posted by: TexRancher | October 5, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Murkowski is proving herself to be a self-serving TRAITOR to the people she represents. She certainly has turned on them..

She has now lost so either support the winner or shut up and disappear!
Murkowski sounds more like a Socialist Democrat!


Posted by: TexRancher | October 5, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

You are quite wrong in characterizing a couple of those statements as misleading. First, of course Alaskans know Lisa Murkowski was elected once. They also know that re-election was in a situation where there was no real chance for the Republican party to generate a strong opponent in the primary. Of course, Alaskans know that her surrogates approached the Libertarian Party seeking to have her as that party's candidate on the November ballot. A previous governor, Wally Hickel, had used a similar ploy in the past (and had been elected under the Alaska Independence Party banner). If she had not agreed with the approach she would have unequivocally stated that she would not run as a Libertarian. Instead, she held that option open until the Libertarians gave her a definite "no" - which took a while.

About the only thing that is vague in the ad to a resident is how much effort she put into trying to manipulate the count on the absentees. There were stories in the paper at the time of her surrogates calling people who had voted absentee, etc. So, it is a legitimate question how much she tried to influence the count.

Yes, I know that the snotty Washington Post/Democrat party axis would like to portray all Alaskans as idiots - that you view us a quaint and gauche, risible bumpkins. However, there is nothing in the ad which is misleading to anyone who is not an idiot, and who is familar with Alaska and Alaska politics.

Posted by: dante99654 | October 5, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

You are quite wrong in characterizing a couple of those statements as misleading, unless, of course you think Alaskans are imbeciles. First, of course Alaskans know Lisa Murkowski was elected once. They also know that it was in a situation in which there was no real chance for the party to generate a strong opponent in the primary. Of course, Alaskan's know exactly the deal with her surrogates approaching the Libertarian Party. If she had not agreed with the approach she would ahve unequivocally stated that she would not run as a Libertarian. Instead, she held that option open until the Libertarians gave her a definite "no" - which took a while. About the only thing that is vague to a resident is how much effort she put into trying to manipulate the count on the absentees. There were stories at the time of her surrogates calling people who had voted absentee, etc. So, it is a legitimate question.

Yes, I know that the snotty Washington Post/Democrat party axis would like to portray all Alaskans as idiots - that you view us a quaint and gauche. However, there is nothing in the ad which is mileading to anyone who is not an idiot.

Posted by: dante99654 | October 5, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company