This page is part of an undergraduate assignment at Davidson College
Murkowski vs. Knowles
Why Murkowski Won:
-
Most analysts attribute Knowles' defeat to the fact that nepotism failed to impact Alaska's conservative majority significantly ("Lisa..." 2004). Exit poll data supports this explanation: The 28% of Alaskan voters who rated "moral values" as the most important issue still overwhelmingly supported Murkowski ("U.S…" 2004).
-
Others have said that Murkowski's "strong name recognition" and "incumbency" allowed her to defeat Knowles (D'Oro 2004). But, this explanation ignores that Knowles was mayor of Anchorage from 1981-87 and governor from 1994-2002 ("Tony..." 2004). His name recognition was therefore equal or superior to Murkowski's. Knowles also enjoyed incumbent-like fundraising capabilities; he raised $4,920,866 to Murkoski's $4,924,737 ("Alaska.." 2004).
Issue Consistency
-
Shifts in issue positions raised allegations that both candidates compromised their principles in pursuit of victory. Pro-choice and pro-life advocates accused Murkowski of shifting right on abortion. While in the state House, Murkowski often sided with pro-choice advocates; for example, she voted against restricting state-funded abortions for poorer women. In her first terms as a U.S. senator, however, she sided with anti-abortion advocates more often than not ("Abortion..." 2004). Her senate campaign was the culmination of her rightward shift; she made unprecedented efforts to gain the endorsement of Alaska Right to Life ("Can..." 2004).
-
Knowles changed his position on nepotism. In March 2004, Knowles pledged that he would not raise Murkowski's "appointment as an issue in the campaign." But, beginning in October, Knowles began airing ads connecting Murkowski with nepotism. ("Come..." 2004).
-
Both sides accused the other of making these changes for political gain. Murkowski, Knowles supporters argued, needed to lose the label of "liberal Republican" to beat ultra-conservative Mike Miller in the primary (Spence 2004). Republicans saw Knowles' nepotism ads as a political ploy and a breach of honesty ("Come..." 2004).
- Of course, both candidates rejected these accusations. Knowles argued that Murkowski made nepotism an issue in October when she opposed Ballot Measure 4, a bill that would end the right of Alaska governors to fill vacancies in the Senate via appointment ("Come..." 2004).
- Murkowski tried to justify her shifting stance on abortion by contending that she had never fallen into the abortion rights or anti-abortion camps ("Abortion..." 2004).
- Both justifications are flawed. Knowles' ads did not criticize Murkowski for supporting Ballot Measure 4; they criticized Murkowski for being appointed. Murkowski's justification failed to explain why, if she was truly neither for or against abortion, she lobbied the support of Alaska Right to Life.
-
One could argue that Murkowski's shift was somewhat excusable because it made her more representative of her conservative constituency. Whatever the case, it is clear that, though Murkowski's violation may have been less egregious, both candidates violated their principles in pursuit of victory.
Mac Skelton (maskelton@davidson.edu), Box 6375, Davidson, NC 28035
Created 12/5/04, updated: 12/6/04