Murky's Bluff?

That's what commenter "Carl" over at The Other McCain thinks is going on here.

The short of it for people who haven't been following: After losing the GOP primary for re-election to the US Senate from Alaska, and after being told "no" by the Alaska Libertarian Party once, Lisa Murkowski is talking to the ALP about their ballot line again, which of course has the rumor mill turning.

"Carl's" hypothesis runs something like this (read it yourself, though -- this is my gloss on it):

- If Murkowski runs on a third party ballot line (or possibly even as an independent write-in), the Democrats will likely pick up a Senate seat, current polling that shows her winning on the LP ballot line notwithstanding.

- What she's looking for is a lifeboat -- a nice, lucrative job as a corporate lobbyist, VP of a "defense" contractor firm, something like that that keeps her well-paid and down south.

- The bluff -- aimed at the Republican establishment higher-ups who can summon that kind of lifeboat for her with a few words in the right ears -- is "hook me up or I hand this seat to the Democrats."

I think Carl's hypothesis makes sense.

I also think that while the Alaska LP is willing to string the whole thing along for as much publicity as it can get, they'd probably stop short of actually giving her the ballot line. I may have missed it, but I don't remember ever hearing anyone call out Murkowski's name as an example of a "libertarian Republican," a "libertarian-leaning Republican," or even one of the weaker labels that sometimes appeal to libertarians ("fiscal conservative," "constitutionalist," etc.). Playing along for awhile is good publicity for the ALP, but actually going all in on the thing would probably damage their brand big-time, and they probably realize that.

memeorandum thread