Joe Miller instead of continuing to challenge this, why not call it a day and have a miller on us.

See how the teabaggers reckon their math. The votes he challenges in the courts (about 8000) are less than the amount by which he has lost (1bout 10,000). And these baggers want to run the country.

J. Richter-

Yours is the kind of blatantly partisan rhetoric that is hurting the Democratic Party, and helped to cost Democrats 63 House seats (along with majority control) plus 6 U.S.Senate seats in the midterm elections.

President Obama has decided to move on, and apparently, has taken Democrats...and heck really, the whole Senate with him.

Are you watching what's going on in the Senate at the moment?

Really...you should.

He might get 80 Senate votes for his compromise with Republicans...

When's the last time the Senate has given 80 votes to ANYTHING, J. Richter?

I already discussed the tax compromise in its appropriate forum, MixedBag. Here.

I agree it's a necessary compromise but a shame that instead of accomplishing the ideal (or what is best for the country) we take what is possible because of our politics and then we hail that as victory because 80 people voted for it each mostly believing an alternative policy is better but unattainable. Can that be the best thing for this country?

Meanwhile I believe our focus is also not the same. I do not seek to hurt or advance the Democratic party but the country and I call it as I see it without that shackle that you may have. I'm not an official of any party. I don't care who loses 63 or 36 seats. I believe that is the better focus. Sincerely.

J. Richter-

So...let's see.

We agree that extending the Bush tax cuts is a necessary compromise and (I'm pretty sure) that Joe Miller should just shut up and go home...and neither of us is an official of a political party.

I haven't seen this much bipartisanship since the proceedings today in the U.S. Senate.

You keep insisting on seeing yourself from a partisan perspective. That's your problem. But seeing me in the same light is just not true. I fall on any side of an issue as I see fit not according to any party dictates hence its not bipartisanship if we agree on something. I am not an official nor hitched to any party position. Please open your eyes and see how stuck you are in carrying water for parties. Think freely.

Lets get past the Nonsense here & call this what it IS:

This is Sarah Palin's vague attempt to Influence the Court in Alaska! Why you ask? It's simple, by loseing with Miller & her upcoming Primary Challenges, she is Toast in Alaska & that makes Alaska's electoral votes go to anyone But Sarah(even Red Alaska). So the Electoral College votes just get worse & worse for Poor Sarah.

O well, America can rejoice in That fact!

you betcha!

I'm not sure Miller can qualify as the Energizer Bunny...more like the March Hare.

David Robinson -

Ahhh... he is "kitty"whipped ? That would explain a lot...

more like "kitty clubbed"

IntheMiddle, TX

I thought Sarah owned Alaska, she is suppose to be the new rising star for the republicans right out of alaska, she is suppose to call the shots up there, and now your saying Murkowski has too much family clout. No IntheMiddle, Joe Miller would be a senator today, if he would have NOT listioned to sarah. he won the primary, right after he changed in to what sarah is, and the people up there were not buying it.

Maybe they can run together in 2012 - Palin/Miller - Moose and Squirrel - the new Bullwinkle faction of the republican party.

Jeff;

It's obvious that you have never lived in Alaska. The Murkowski name is all over the place and of course those people are going to stay with a familiar name.

Palin beat her daddy down so of course Murkowski was not going to bow out gracefully. She is a sore loser, plain and simple.

Miller didn't turn into anything. you just couldn't resist getting a shot in at Palin.

IntheMiddle, TX

come on man!!!! Sarah Palin backed Joe Miller because of the Murkowski family, she thought she had enough pull in alaska to pull it off, before he won the primary he gave interviews and was very accesable to the press, after he won he did a sarah, he shut the press out, he refused to give interviews, and the people in alaska saw that as a negitive, if i'm not mistaken the democratic candidate got almost as many votes as joe miller in the general election.

sarah though because she had the following of the tea party, she thought he would win because of her, It did not work.

what made her write in was that she toured the state and found out that alot of people did not know who they were voting for, once they found out, he was toast.

Yes your right, i did want to get a shot at palin, because Joe miller was her boy, and he lost, by a write in, the first time this has happened in a senate race.

I agree he need to give it up, be lost by 10k write in votes and he is questioning 8k, Murkowski is not the sore looser Joe Miller is.