I applauded Sen. Lisa Murkowski during the Brett Kavanaugh selection process when the defense of her “present” vote was to offer a sense of healing and compromise in the absence of a colleague to give his daughter away at her wedding. In doing so, she put Mr. Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, a most unfortunate appointment. But I defended her motive to several friends as being an overall positive one. (For the record, Mr. Kavanaugh sealed his fate, in my book, with his histrionic meltdown, including threats, i.e. “what goes around comes around.” Everyone was so heavily involved in the “he-said, she-said” debacle, about which we will never know the truth, that they seemed to miss his rather stupendous lack of decorum. I digress.)
Given the chance to display some brainpower and overall ability to think during the impeachment “trial,” she failed. But she offered another explanation! I read and re-read that explanation many times trying to make sense of it, to possibly defend it again.
I failed. She cited the party line favorite of the House’s procedural errors (then voted for no witnesses in the Senate trial; another rather blatant procedural error), then continued all nice and wishful and gooey and compromise-y and heartfelt in what amounted to indefensible, confusing gibberish. Maybe she was hoping her constituents couldn’t read.
— Sherry Lewis
Kenai
Have something on your mind? Send to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Letters under 200 words have the best chance of being published. Writers should disclose any personal or professional connections with the subjects of their letters. Letters are edited for accuracy, clarity and length.