220 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Alex P.'s avatar

Deeply offended? She should be deeply ashamed. What a coward, in every sense of the word.

Expand full comment
Mark P's avatar

I'm deeply offended by Murkowski, as Im sure are millions of others who thought she had some sort of principles left. She has finally proven that she doesn't, she's just another GOP gangster, loyal to party over country.

Expand full comment
Martha HB's avatar

Selfish bitch

Expand full comment
Ginny's avatar

Please don’t insult dogs. They are a lot more trustworthy than she is. :)

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Jul 1
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Saffy’s Mom's avatar

It’s just name calling. How about, she’s a jerk? There are lots more to choose from.

Expand full comment
David Court's avatar

After all, it is not the noun that matters, it's the adjectives, e.g., selfish, self-centered, boot-licking, obsequious ... feel free to add more that seem appropriate to you.

Expand full comment
Saffy’s Mom's avatar

I just read that Murkowski, speaking to NBC News, admitted she didn’t like the bill but was trying to take care of Alaska. Then she added, “But I know that in many parts of the country, there are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill.” Not advantaged? How about harmed? People are going to lose access to FOOD and MEDICAL CARE. I don’t care what noun you attach to her, but this is a heartless whitewashing of the bill’s harms. I will be contacting her today. I enjoyed Tim Miller juxtaposing her vote today with her weepy town hall where she said she’s scared. She’s not scared. She’s dizzy with power.

Expand full comment
E.K. Hornbeck's avatar

Wait, isn't it possible that a person can be a bitch separately from being a coward, selfish and untrustworthy?

Then gender doesn't factor in, it's just her nature. 😉

Expand full comment
David Court's avatar

And loyal to herself above all. She just secured her sinecure until she leaves like Feinstein did, high heels first.

Expand full comment
JennSH from NC's avatar

Republicans have no principles. Why would Murkowski be any different?

Expand full comment
Craig J's avatar

To be fair, her state is not very conducive to raising hogs. So she has to get the pork into the state one way or another.

I also found it interesting in her 2017 comment that it seems she realizes a successful parasite must not kill off the host.

Expand full comment
Jobu's avatar

Now that is one of the most insightful comments I’ve read in a while.

Expand full comment
Mary Giannini's avatar

She's pretty smart about that kind of stuff.

Expand full comment
Margaret Rinaldi's avatar

I'd say she's deeply "defensive".

Expand full comment
sharon f's avatar

I keep hoping she’ll break away from her isolationist Alaskan code in a more forceful way, but it did not happen. Her state is able to exist very separate from the rest, by choice, so the fate of people in the other 49 cannot be left in her hands- no matter how much she may seem to want to. Maybe she sees the rest going down, and had to at least get food for her state. We’ll see…….

Expand full comment
David Court's avatar

She should have enough knowledge of geography and history to realize that if she gets Alaska far enough, politically, from the rest of the country, as it already is geographically, the most likely "neighbor" to be willing to take it under its "wing" is to the west, not east.

Expand full comment
sharon f's avatar

Absolutely. Russia, as the “original owner” has a more legitimate claim than DT has over Canada. Her party seems to like such deals.

Expand full comment
mgnt's avatar

Translation of her comments afterward: I'm too craven to vote against this bill, but I hope my colleagues in the House will vote against it."

Expand full comment