Read a Venezuelan Guard's 'Chilling' Account About the Delta Force Raid That Nabbed...
Watch What Happens When This Leftist Protester Accosts a CNN Reporter in Minneapolis
Is This Why the Media Isn't Covering the Iran Protests?
Trump Is Minnesota's President, Too
Here's How Much Commie Mamdani's 'Affordable' Government Housing Will Cost You
Knoxville Orchestra Plays Sour Notes of Racial Preference over Talent
ICE Stories They Don’t Tell You
Kristi Noem Torches CNN’s Jake Tapper in Fiery Clash Over Minneapolis ICE Shooting
Miami Jury Convicts Two Executives in $34M Medicare Advantage Brace Fraud Scheme
Chinese National With Overstayed Visa Charged as Ringleader in Firearms Conspiracy
CNN Panel Sparks Firestorm After Abby Phillip Calls Somali Families 'Victims' of Minnesota...
Syrian Man Pleads Guilty to Stealing Nearly $191K in U.S. Social Security Benefits
Leftist Agitators Stalk and Threaten to Kill Journalist Covering Minneapolis Unrest
Minneapolis Radicals Begin Distributing Devices to Disable ICE Vehicles
Sons of Liberty, Sons of Legacy: Forming the Men Who Will Shape America’s...
Tipsheet

Murkowski Update: There Was A Vote

A short while ago, I spoke with a senior GOP aide who helped shed some light on what happened behind closed doors this afternoon:

(1) Sen. Barrasso's elevation to conference leadership was unanimous and did not require a vote.
Advertisement


(2) There *was* a vote on Murkowski's Energy Committee status, although her name didn't appear on the ballot, and the question was couched in procedural language.  The issue her colleagues were asked to consider was phrased as a referendum on whether or not Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina should assume the role of ranking member on the committee.  If the motion had carried, it would have served as the de facto demotion of Murkowski that many Republicans were expecting prior to the meeting.

(3) The vote did not pass, and the final tally was not announced.  Leadership reportedly did not argue in favor of Murkowski retaining her seniority, and left the question entirely up to the conference at large.

The source tells me that the prevailing--but not entirely unified--sense in the room was that: (a) Murkowski is widely expected to lose in November, (b) someone else (likely Burr) will fill this position when the new Congress convenes in January, and (c) it wasn't worth replacing Murkowski (and in the process both bucking tradition and unnecessarily antagonizing her) for what amounts to a little more than a week of Energy Committee business.
Advertisement


The aide said that the conference's ultimate and more meaningful disavowal of Murkowski is evidenced by its lock-step support for Joe Miller--both rhetorically and financially.  He said there was absolutely no indication whatsoever that the conference reached its decision based on any implicit or explicit threat that Murkowski could wreak havoc in a lame-duck Congressional session by siding with Democrats on key votes.  He said it was doubtful any members had even heard from Murkowski since the official announcement of her write-in candidacy.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement