More Than You Can Handle: An Ode To Murkowski (and Others)

Observers are rightfully hammering Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski for admitting she didn't like Trump's catastrophic budget bill right after her decisive vote in favor of passing it.

Murkowski's actions, as has been noted by others, symbolize all that's wrong in American politics. But it did inspire me to write a little missive about people like her, in situations like this.

* * *

They say "God doesn't give you more than you can handle."

But we know that's not true.

Sometimes, the weave of fate thrusts people into situations where to do the right, necessary, and crucial thing demands great moral courage, or great physical courage -- a fortitude that some people simply do not have.

They're tragic figures, in a sense (not quite as tragic as the millions of lives they destroy, of course). For they might be perfectly adept in other domains: kind parents, skillful administrators, prudent negotiators, incisive analysts. And these are virtues too! Nobody is great at everything, and most of us should be so lucky to not have to demonstrate great moral or physical courage in order to fulfill our most basic civic duties.

Unfortunately, for some, fate demands of them this specific virtue, and they do not have it.

But the tragedy, to be clear, is not an apologia. To the contrary, the tragedy is that this will be their sole legacy, and rightly so. The same person who, in a different role or in a different time, might be memorialized as a kind parent, skillful administrator, prudent negotiator, or incisive analyst, will instead be remembered for their terrible failure to rise to the moment. They may deserve pity, but they don't deserve forgiveness; understanding, but not salvation.

(Feel free to apply this John Roberts as well).

OMG DID YOU SEE WHO LISA'S GOING WITH?!!?

While I understand the impetus for mixed-party seating at the State of the Union after Tuscon, and I even think it is, all told, sweet, I do think that the "statement" it makes regard a new era of bipartisan cooperation is, well, overstated. Hence, I was amused to read this statement by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) on the event:

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, asked reporters covering Tuesday's State of the Union address not to spend too much time focusing on prom-like questions about where Republicans and Democrats are sitting, but instead to concentrate on the content of President Obama's speech.

"It's like going to the prom and who's wearing what dress," Murkowski said. "And to a certain extent this has been a little bit of a dating show. You know, who are you going with? Reminds me a little of 8th grade."

That is, in fact, exactly what it reminds me of, and I thank Senator Murkowski for giving words to my inchoate senses on the subject.

Is It Still Moot Roundup?

The first round of the Moot Court is over, and I think it went well. Same moderate concerns about speaking too fast (though none about gesticulation), but this time, they were pretty explicitly couched in terms like "it distracted me from your brilliant substance" -- so, good sign. "The only reason I kept listening [after being exhausted by the speed] was because of how compelling you are" is kind of an odd comment to get, but I'll take it.

* * *

Interesting interview between Adi Schwartz and John Ging of the UNRWA. One legitimate point Ging makes is that the UNRWA doesn't set its mandate -- the UNGA does. And hence, it is the UNGA that is preventing the UNRWA from treating its refugees like all others, and thus perpetuating the conflict by refusing to countenance resettling the refugees. The UNRWA is simply the hand that implements a malignant policy set elsewhere.

Spanish liberals and Western Sahara.

The Ottawa Protocol on Combating Anti-Semitism.

Glenn Beck and Iran are two peas in a pod when it comes to George Soros.

The lame-duck session of Congress included the House Ethics Committee finding that veteran-Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) committed ethical violations. I applaud the Committee for taking these matters seriously, and hope that the incoming Republican majority shows as much diligence in policing the ethical foibles of its own members.

Sen. John McCain has been an embarrassment on DADT, so it's quite just that he be embarrassed over it.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who likely won her write-in bid for re-election to the Senate, has opened fire on Sarah Palin, and is indicating that she will not play any role in tea party-backed efforts to sink the Obama administration.

Three more Oxford academics have resigned from the UCU, alleging it to be infected by institutional anti-Semitism. The final nail in the coffin, it seems, was the UCU's rejection of an Oxford branch-backed motion to disassociate the UCU from the views of noted hate speaker Bongani Masuku, whom the union had invited as part of its boycott Israel agenda.

Have a Good Time Spelling That

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) will run as a write-in candidate for Senate after losing her primary bid to Joe Miller. How this will effect the race is unclear, although early indicators say that it will actually help Miller and hurt Democratic candidate Scott McAdams.

* * *

I do have news, but unfortunately, I can't publicly reveal it yet. This is not meant to be a tease -- I honestly wasn't expecting events to turn out quite the way they did, and while I think I'm in a very good state, things are delicate right now.

A Year of Fundamentals

I feel like this is going to be an interesting election year. On the one hand, all the fundamentals favor the GOP. The economy is down. The Presidential Party normally loses off-year elections. The Democratic Party won a ton of marginal seats in the 2006 and 2008 wave elections, and those seats would be difficult to hang onto under any circumstances. The terrain is very Republican-friendly.

Political scientists are generally rather sneering about the idea that the daily political play-by-play actually effects election results all that much. It's fundamental, macro issues (most notably the economy) which drive results.

Yet, this year, we might see a test of that hypothesis, given just how far to the right the Republican Party has decided to drift. It's not quite like the Republican Party decided to run a whole slate of Alvin Greenes, but it's close.

In state after state -- Kentucky, Nevada, Florida, and most recently Alaska -- GOP primary voters have spurned mainstream, electable candidates for folks on the furthest of the right-ward fringe. And it's turning states that should have been easy wins for the GOP into bona fide targets for the Democratic Party. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) should be dead in the water, but for the fact that 66% of Sharron Angle's own supporters regret having nominated her. Joe Miller's apparent knock-off of incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has possibly put that Senate seat into play. In the Florida gubernatorial race, former prohibitive favorite Bill McCollum couldn't get past Rick Scott in the primary, and Democratic nominee Alex Sink has to be smiling given that McCollum apparently won't endorse Scott. A similar story prevails in the Florida Senate race, as Charlie Crist's independent bid after getting forced out of the GOP primary by Marco Rubio has thrown the entire race into flux (for the record, I'm a Charlie Crist fan, and have been since well before he dropped the GOP label). And so on and so forth.

So this is an interesting year. It really tests the question -- are fundamentals everything? Are there candidates so extreme that they can -- not just on a case-by-case basis, but systemwide -- check against the natural political gravity which is pulling hard against the Democrats this year?

It'll be interesting to find out. (Although I can't say I'm excited. Call me risk-averse, but I'd prefer a strong chance of mainstream Republicans winning than even a 50-50 chance of some of the nuts we're talking about getting their hands on the levers of power. Sharron Angle may have given Harry Reid a breath of life, but it also means we have a non-negligible prospect of Senator Sharron Angle. Scary.).