Murkowski Gets Candid On Prospects Of Leaving GOP And Bombing Iran

Summary

GD Politics Podcast Summary
Title: Murkowski Gets Candid On Prospects Of Leaving GOP And Bombing Iran
Host: Galen Dreep
Guest: U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski
Release Date: June 24, 2025

---

Introduction

In the June 24, 2025 episode of the GD Politics podcast, host Galen Dreep engages in an in-depth and candid conversation with Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska. The discussion spans a wide array of topics, including foreign policy, personal life, political violence, party alignment, legislative processes, and concerns about democracy. This summary encapsulates the key points, insights, and conclusions drawn from their extensive dialogue.

---

US Bombing Iran: A Complex Stance

Galen Dreep opens the conversation with a pressing question about the possibility of the United States bombing Iran, a topic reflecting current geopolitical tensions.

• Murkowski's Initial Response:

  • “Surprise, surprise. Yeah, I don't. No, no. I mean.” (02:47)
  • She expresses a reflexive no to the idea of bombing Iran but shows openness to discussing targeted strikes.

• Concerns About Escalation:

  • “I am really concerned about just the escalation that we're seeing...” (04:05)
  • Murkowski emphasizes the dangers of escalating into a full-scale war in the Middle East, highlighting the need for Congress to engage in informed debate rather than unilateral executive decisions.

• Role of Congress:

  • “We are in the midst of some really pivotal decisions that need to be guided by good information.” (04:23)
  • She advocates for a balanced conversation within Congress, ensuring that military actions are not solely dictated by the administration.

---

Life Outside Politics: Balance and Authenticity

Dreep shifts the focus to Murkowski's personal life, exploring how she maintains a semblance of normalcy amidst the rigors of political life.

• Enjoying Simple Pleasures:

  • “I like a person that drinks out of a mason jar.” (01:34)
  • Murkowski shares light-hearted moments, illustrating her down-to-earth nature.

• Group Chats with the Gigi's:

  • “We have a network and a bond that is so strong...” (07:25)
  • She describes her close-knit group of female friends, emphasizing the importance of camaraderie and mutual support.

• Apolitic Interactions:

  • “I can be funny. I can push it right back at you.” (07:20)
  • Murkowski highlights the unguarded and humorous side of her interactions outside the political sphere.

---

Navigating Political Violence and Personal Security

The conversation delves into the challenges of being a public figure in an era marked by political violence.

• Impact on Daily Life:

  • “I've got to have a level of awareness... I don't like that.” (11:00)
  • Murkowski discusses the constant vigilance required to ensure personal safety, contrasting it with her preference for anonymity.

• Experiencing Threats:

  • “I received a threat that basically said...” (14:00)
  • She recounts receiving threats during the Kavanaugh hearings, underscoring the personal toll of political disputes.

---

Kavanaugh Confirmation and Judicial Temperament

A significant portion of the discussion centers on Murkowski's decision to vote against Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation and her subsequent observations of his tenure on the Supreme Court.

• Voting Rationale:

  • “I voted not to confirm him... [due to] his lack of judicial temperament.” (16:14)
  • Murkowski explains that her vote was influenced by Kavanaugh's demeanor during hearings, rather than solely by the allegations against him.

• Assessment of Kavanaugh's Performance:

  • “I believe that he has been impartial.” (18:29)
  • Contrary to her initial concerns, she acknowledges that Justice Kavanaugh has demonstrated impartiality on the bench, admitting that he has proved her wrong in this regard.

• Communication with Kavanaugh:

  • “I sent him a note... I truly hope that you prove me wrong.” (19:13)
  • Murkowski shares a personal moment of reaching out to Kavanaugh, reflecting her hope that his judicial conduct would align with her expectations.

---

Party Alignment and the Prospect of Independence

The conversation explores the possibility of Murkowski distancing herself from the Republican Party, considering Alaska's unique political landscape.

• Historical Context:

  • “I was whatever anybody wanted...” (21:16)
  • She references her 2010 write-in campaign as a period when she was approached to run under various labels to maintain her Senate seat, highlighting her commitment to representing Alaskan interests over strict party allegiance.

• Hypothetical Caucusing Scenarios:

  • “If we're talking about some kind of coalition... yes.” (29:04)
  • Murkowski entertains the idea of caucusing with Democrats in a coalition to pass legislation beneficial to Alaskans, drawing parallels with Alaska's state legislature's coalition governance.

• Challenges of True Independence:

  • “The way our system is structured in the Senate doesn't allow for that real independence...” (23:35)
  • She explains the structural limitations within the Senate that make true independence challenging, as members are expected to align with one of the two major parties.

---

Alaska’s Voting System and Coalition Governance

Murkowski delves into Alaska's nonpartisan primary and ranked-choice voting system, discussing its impact on legislative collaboration.

• Effectiveness of Open Primaries:

  • “Opening up our primaries... lawmakers are not afraid to be as collaborative...” (33:34)
  • She credits the state's electoral reforms for fostering a more cooperative and less partisan legislative environment.

• Authenticity in Campaigning:

  • “I've learned that... I have to be who I am.” (35:27)
  • Murkowski emphasizes the importance of maintaining authenticity throughout the campaign process, reaching out to a broader electorate rather than shifting positions between primaries and general elections.

---

Arctic Strategy and Greenland Relations

Addressing national security and geopolitical strategy, Murkowski shares her views on the United States' relationship with Greenland.

• Against Greenland Annexation:

  • “No, I do not believe that... we need to own it.” (38:04)
  • She opposes the idea of integrating Greenland into the United States, advocating instead for a strong and cooperative partnership.

• Defense and Mineral Resources:

  • “We have 49 of the 50 critical minerals...” (40:37)
  • Murkowski highlights Alaska's strategic advantage in terms of mineral resources and national security, reaffirming Alaska's pivotal role in Arctic policy.

---

The One Big Beautiful Bill (ABBA): Medicaid Reforms

The discussion shifts to domestic policy, particularly the controversial "One Big Beautiful Bill" (ABBA), focusing on Medicaid reforms.

• State-Specific Concerns:

  • “In many of the communities in my state... you don't have more jobs...” (41:46)
  • Murkowski raises concerns about the applicability of federal Medicaid policies in Alaska's remote communities, where traditional work requirements are impractical.

• Need for Flexibility:

  • “I've got to have some flexibility... not all states are equal...” (43:58)
  • She advocates for waiver provisions that account for Alaska's unique socioeconomic landscape, emphasizing the need for tailored policy implementation.

• Uncertainty in Legislation:

  • “I don't often quote Elon Musk... it's a hard thing to put a package like this together.” (48:00)
  • Murkowski expresses uncertainty about the final form of ABBA, indicating that ongoing negotiations and adjustments will determine her vote.

---

Leadership and Public Opinion: Balancing Act

Murkowski discusses the intricate balance between responding to public opinion and exercising independent judgment as a leader.

• Melding Constituent Views with Policy:

  • “I have to really try to understand where my constituents are coming from...” (49:41)
  • She believes effective leadership requires both listening to constituents and integrating their concerns into viable policy solutions.

• Organic Constituent Interactions:

  • “It's just kind of this organic town square that I find really refreshing.” (50:00)
  • Murkowski values informal interactions, such as assisting at a farmer's market, as opportunities to engage with voters in a nonpartisan setting.

• Moments of Independent Decision-Making:

  • “The 2010 election... It was very much gut, gut, gut all the way.” (52:08)
  • She recounts instances where she prioritized constituent needs over polling data or party expectations, reinforcing her commitment to independent representation.

---

Concerns About Democracy: A Personal Reflection

In a poignant moment, Murkowski shares her apprehensions about the future of American democracy.

• Erosion of Democratic Values:

  • “I am most concerned that the democracy that we know and we value today will not look the same...” (53:36)
  • Reflecting on current political challenges, she expresses fear that democratic principles may be undermined, a sentiment that resonates deeply in contemporary political discourse.

• Hope for Future Generations:

  • “I hope that if my sons ever see this discussion... democracy is just fine.” (54:48)
  • Murkowski conveys her hope that future generations will witness a resilient democracy, free from the current tensions and divisions.

---

Conclusion

Galen Dreep concludes the episode by acknowledging the depth and breadth of Senator Murkowski's insights. The conversation offers listeners a comprehensive understanding of Murkowski's perspectives on pivotal issues, her role as a legislator navigating complex political landscapes, and her unwavering commitment to representing Alaskan interests with integrity and authenticity.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• “Reflexively, no.” – Lisa Murkowski on US bombing Iran (04:12)
• “I can be funny. I can push it right back at you.” – Murkowski describing her personality in apolitical settings (07:20)
• “I am most concerned that the democracy that we know and we value today will not look the same...” – Murkowski on concerns about the future of democracy (53:36)

---

Final Thoughts

Senator Lisa Murkowski's candid remarks provide a nuanced view of contemporary political challenges, personal resilience, and the complexities of legislative responsibilities. Her insights into Alaska's unique political environment, combined with her reflections on national and global issues, offer valuable lessons for listeners seeking to understand the interplay between personal values and public service.

Transcript

[Galen Dreep]

Hello and welcome to the GD Politics Podcast. I'm Galen Dreep. Last week I had the chance to speak with Republican Senator from Alaska, Lisa Murkowski. We had a lengthy and pretty candid interview. We talked about what it means to be a lawmaker in an era when political violence is on the rise. We talked about her at least openness to changing how she identifies politically and which party she caucuses with in the Senate. In fact, we got into some specific hypotheticals there that are likely to pique folks interest. We also talked about her likelihood of.

[Lisa Murkowski]

Voting for the One Big Beautiful Bill.

[Galen Dreep]

Act and why she says that although she didn't vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, he has since proved her wrong on the court. But I started with a blunt question. Should the US Bomb Iran? That question is now outdated. But the answer that she gave me, which you'll hear in just a second, is telling of the ways that President Trump's decision may be causing consternation within his own party. Senator Lisa Murkowski has represented Alaska in the U.S. senate since. Since 2002. Her new book is called Far From An Alaskan Senator Faces the Extreme climate of Washington D.C. this is our conversation.

[Lisa Murkowski]

I like a person that drinks out of a mason jar.

I mean, this is like a big. Yeah, this is a tomato sauce sized mason jar. It's like, I don't know if you can tell the story.

Well, I'm drinking out of my Alaskan brewing company liter jar.

Especially on a day like today. I don't know. I think you're in Washington at the moment. It's like the hottest day of the year so far. You gotta hydrate.

It's super miserable. Awful.

Yeah.

And in the meantime, my husband got on an airplane this morning to go to Alaska, where it's solstice weekend and about 70 degrees and perfect blue sky.

See, life is not fair.

It is not fair.

There is injustice everywhere.

Everywhere. Yeah. And it begins at home.

Yes, exactly. Exactly. Okay, so I wanna dive right in. I have so, so many questions for you.

All right, I'm ready.

I read your book cover to cover. I have it right here. I've also listened to plenty of interviews that you've done in Alaska and I even follow you on Instagram. So I promise that I will get into the deeper questions that your book brings up, but I have to ask you the most pressing question out of the gate, which is, should the US Bomb Iran?

Surprise, surprise. Yeah, I don't. No, no. I mean. Okay, your question is, should we bomb it? Could we do Targeted strikes that don't bring us into a full throated war. That's a subject of discussion. But I am, I am really concerned about just the escalation that we're seeing, I mean, literally hour by hour. Although I did see something now just about an hour ago where the President is saying he's going to give two weeks, but he may change his mind on that too. But I absolutely recognize the right for Israel to defend itself and appropriately so. But I think none of us want to, want to see, to see the Middle east embroiled in a massive all out war that would bring the United States into it.

But on the question of simply should the US Bomb Iran, you said no.

Reflexively, no.

Reflexively, no. Okay, all right. But it sounds like you'd be open to hearing arguments for targeted strikes.

I think yes, the answer to that is I would be open to listening to those arguments. I think we in Congress should be having just this kind of information brought to us. I'm told that next week we're supposed to have an all members meeting to discuss the situation in Iran. We are going to have discussion, debate on the floor with regards to war powers resolution. So we are in the midst of some really pivotal decisions that need to be guided by good information. And so I sure hope somebody from the administration doesn't come in and say we just have to, we gotta bomb Iran and we're gonna go forward with it. That's not how we need to be having this really, really weighty debate. And I was going to call it a conversation. I don't like the word conversation because how do you have a conversation about the potential for war? But I want to make sure that this is not a one sided thing, right? That this is not just the administration, it's not just President Trump in the middle of the night that says, all right, I'm going, I'm all in. And you know, everybody line up behind me. We have a role, Congress has a role in this and how we make sure that this is more of a discussion that goes on rather than we'll act now, tell you later. I think that that's important.

I have some more policy questions that I want to get to later on, but let's talk about your book. So reading your book, you get the sense that of course you work very hard and that you also have a rich life outside of politics. And D.C. you write about best life outside of politics. Biking, skiing, duck hunting, group chats with the GGs, family trips, dinner over wine. You know, the things that I Think for a lot of people provide meaning in life much more than politics can or often does. People probably know you as the senator being hounded by the press in Capitol hallways. What is Lisa Murkowski like in those apolitical moments?

Um, you mean like when I'm doing my fun things? Yeah, I am really fun.

When you're not being hounded by press in the Capitol.

Oh, yeah.

[Galen Dreep]

Or like, what are you, like in.

[Lisa Murkowski]

The chats, in the group chats with the Gigi's. You know, we get. You mentioned them, but we don't really, you know, we don't necessarily get exposed to that side of Lisa Murkowski.

No, no, no. I can be funny. I can push it right back at you.

Oh, okay.

Oh, yeah, I can. And you know, it's funny when you get into a group of eight women that are very, very close, I think there's not one of us that is afraid to speak up. So we talk a lot and sometimes we talk over one another, but we have a, We've got, we've got a network and a bond that is, is, Is so strong that oftentimes we don't even need to com. Complete the sentence or complete the thought because somebody else is picking it up. And you moved on to six different things. And I think my, my role in it is I'm not, I don't, I'm not the bossy one. Oh, I can tell you who the bossy one is, but I wouldn't throw her under the bus. But, but I, I do have, I do have stories to tell. And so my experiences are a little bit different than my sisters and my cousins. And so sometimes I feel like I'm talking too much and I just gotta stop, sit back and listen. And that's the best part of it, is just the listening part.

Do you have any hot takes or controversial opinions that only get shared with the Gigi's?

Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.

Do you want to. You want to, you want to. You. I. My name also starts with Gayly. Do you want to share any?

Well, like, for instance, I don't. My mom used to say, if you don't have something nice to say about somebody, don't say anything at all. Right. So that's kind of my, my public. If, if, if, if somebody has said something that. It was just like, that was the most ridiculous thing. I'm like, I'm not going to go out of the, I'm not going to go out of the lunch room where we've just had a policy meeting and tell Some reporter that, you know, Galen just said the most ridiculous thing. But sometimes I do share a little bit of, like, oh, you wouldn't believe. And, you know, it's not even necessary to name names because they're all in Alaska. They don't get into that kind of gossip.

But it's just like, you named some of.

Oh, I. Do. You name some of them in the book? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So, I mean, I'm. I ask in part about your apolitical life because they can't be totally separate. You talk about your staff not wanting you to walk to work solo after January 6th. You mentioned that there are people, or at least a person who served time for threatening you. I mean, we're also talking less than a week after a Minnesota lawmaker was assassinated and another was raised wounded in what's been described as targeted political violence.

[Galen Dreep]

And so I'm curious how this current climate changes the kind of person that.

[Lisa Murkowski]

You can be even outside of the political arena.

Yeah, it does change things, because I would be foolish. I would be naive to think that I'm just another person walking down the street. I'm a normal person. But I've got an extraordinary job, right? And that extraordinary job, as one of a hundred in the Senate, allows me to be of interest to those in the media who will put my name and put my face out there. And so I have to have a level of awareness. And in fairness, I don't like that. I mean, I'm having a good conversation with you, but I really don't like talking about myself when I am in these scrums in the halls of the Capitol. It's just like, back off, everybody. Give me some space. I really. Why do I have to answer you? And then I have to remember, okay, I'm a public servant, right? I do have to answer to my constituents. I don't have to answer to every reporter. But I do recognize that I am in that public space. And there are. There's. There's. There's a lot of unrest out there, and I've got to be aware. And I. It's not. It's not. It's not in my nature to be nervous or to. To. To. To feel like I'm in a big city. So I have to be careful. I've had to learn that. And it's just not easy. I'd much rather wander around in my anonymity, go take hikes with the only security being my son's Labrador retriever that's gonna make sure there's no bears around.

Yeah. You talk about this sort of having to become aware and more careful in public, in a space that's not the capital. Does this environment also change the kind of person or lawmaker that you can be in the political arena.

For fear of a physical or personal threat, do you think, or what. Where do you want to go with this?

Well, I guess I ask, does that fear change what you might say on the floor of the Senate, how you might vote, how you might talk to fellow colleagues?

I know that when I, when I separate myself, say, from my party or take a position or make a statement, that is, that would be viewed as counter to the president. I know that there are those don't like it. I hear from them, they call my office, they send me emails, they're weighing in. Every now and again we get protests. So I hear that. But I also understand that that is part of what it means to be that public servant represent, voice your views as you feel need to be voiced, and then others may disagree, and how they disagree is really what matters. Because I'm okay. If the fact that you want to send a letter saying, I think you're misinformed, I think you're wrong. I don't like it when they have to get nasty or to try to be harsh with the people that are on the receiving end of the phone when they call in, that's not right. But it is certainly their right and their ability to weigh in. It's when it goes beyond that in a threatening way that I think causes us to kind of step back and reconsider. I shared one of those examples in my book. During the Kavanaugh debate, I received a threat that basically said, you know, I'm going to make some foul accusation against one of your sons and see how you like it. And did I have that factored into the back of my head? As I was debating all of that, I couldn't separate myself from it. I wish that I could tell you, oh, that didn't weigh in, but it did. And that was hard. And so you can see why, why you would have voices that are saying, you know what, it's just not. It's not worth it to speak up. But then if you don't speak up, there's consequences to that, too, right?

Well, I guess for you personally, I mean, we know how you ended up voting in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. You voted not to confirm him. But for you personally, are there. Have there been moments where you've bit your tongue or maybe even changed a vote or something because of the climate we're in.

I don't think it's. No, I don't think that I've changed a vote. Has it factored into my process prior to going into a vote? I think that, again, you weigh a lot of things. And I think that is also one of the things that I tried to outline in the book was people think it's just easy. Yes or no, are you going to support him or not support him? And it would be really easy if all I did was decided to adopt the party position. Then I wouldn't have to deliberate any of this. I wouldn't have to think one way or another. But I don't do that. That's not how I operate. That's not how I represent. And so, yeah, there's a lot that goes into it. And, you know, sometimes it's like you take it back to the conversation earlier about things that I might say within my Gigi chat group. It's just kind of spontaneous, and you look at it and it's like, well, I would never say that out loud in public because it's unnecessary snark. It's not contributing in a positive way, and it's just. It's stupid. It's risky. Why would you do that?

Yeah, I have a couple more questions about the political environment, but you write a lot about your decision about Brett Kavanaugh and about the impartiality of the Supreme Court and how it's really important to you. And in fact, you say that your vote on Kavanaugh, I mean, of course you considered the accusations, but that a lot of it had to do with how he conducted himself in the hearing, that he spoke in a partisan fashion that you thought was unbecoming of the Court.

[Galen Dreep]

Has Kavanaugh been impartial during his time.

[Lisa Murkowski]

On the Court, as far as you're concerned?

I think he has tried. And believe me, I watch him, I watch all of the justices, but I.

Believe he has tried. It's not. Yes.

Well, tell me again exactly how you phrased your question, and I'll. I'll tell you if I still.

Has Justice Kavanaugh been impartial during his time on the Court?

I believe. I believe that he has been impartial. I haven't liked his decisions. I certainly didn't like where he came down on Roe. But the concern that I had was he had displayed what I felt was a lack of judicial temperament where his own emotion, his own. He could not contain his own personality. He could not sit back in an unbiased and In a calm demeanor and judge fairly.

He couldn't keep it confined to the Gore girls chat.

Yeah, yeah, maybe. And so in watching him, there is. I don't think anybody would suggest that Justice Kavanaugh has been one of those who kind of flies off the handle or demonstrates anything that you would describe as judicial intemperament. And so I do think that in that way, in that way, he has proved me wrong. And I had hoped. I actually sent him a note after the hearing or, excuse me, after the confirmation, and I said, I truly hope that you prove me wrong.

Have you talked about that before to him? No. It wasn't in your book. At least I didn't read it.

No, it wasn't in the book. I think I actually kept a copy of it. And now that I'm talking with you about it, I'm going to have to see if I can find it because it would be kind of an interesting. An interesting part of just my own political background. But, yeah, you know, look at it this way. It's not just Justice Kavanaugh who I voted against. It's Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense. My gosh, do I want him to prove me wrong? I voted against him for different reasons, but do I need him? Do we need to have a good secretary of Defense? Yes. And so I am happy to be proven wrong if people demonstrate that they really have that leadership ability.

You're talking about ways in which you've bucked your party on high profile votes. And I'm curious, the majority of Alaskans, about 60%, aren't associated with either political party. You get much of your support from those unaligned voters. Is there a world in which you would ever become unaligned yourself?

You know, I was. I've been asked this so many times because quite honestly. Right.

Gotta get the basic questions in there, too.

Yeah, yeah.

And then I got some spicy follow ups.

But this is a good one because I think helps answer a lot of questions that people have because many people think that I'm no longer a Republican because after the write in, I ran as an independent. Right. No, I didn't. I ran as Lisa. I wasn't the Republican nominee. Joe Miller was the nominee. He won that primary, so he was the nominee. I was still Lisa Murkowski. I hadn't changed my party. Everybody thinks I changed my party in order to run in the write in. I was whatever you wanted to be. Galen, if you wanted to write in Lisa Murkowski, you could say she's a good Republican or you could have said she's a great Democrat or she's an amazing Libertarian or a Green Party. I was whatever anybody wanted, who wanted me to continue serving. And that was kind of a cool thing. So that was my, you know, my, my, my party liberation, if you will, at. Back in, in, in 2010. And so it's, I think it's, it was that, it was that freedom from Alaskans, not only that 60% that doesn't align themselves with one party or another, but I got a lot of support from Democrats. I got a lot of support from, from the Republicans as well. And so it was just kind of this big mishmash of constituency. So you're asked a question though, about would I, would I do like a Kirsten Cinema or a Joe Manchin? Is that kind of the question? See, I'm making your job so easy for you.

I'm just, Yeah, I don't even have to ask the follow up.

See, this is what happens in the Gigi chat. I kind of take over that.

But would you ever become unaligned yourself?

Well, I've thought about it. That's no great secret. But here's the challenge that you have in the United States Senate. There are two sides of the aisle. You sit on the left side of the aisle with the Democrats or you sit on the right side of the aisle with the Republicans. And so when Joe and Kirsten moved from being Democrats to being independents, they still sat in the same spot. They still sat in the same spot on their committees. So the way our system is structured in the Senate doesn't allow for that real independence, if you will. It's more of a, okay, now I don't have to have that label. I guess in my head I've moved forward beyond the label. My party has not embraced me. I don't think that that's a big news story there. But I'm my republic. The values that I hold are gonna be the same values regardless of whether there's R behind it or an I behind it or a NP behind it.

Well, let me, let me, let me put some concrete, you know, hypotheticals here.

All right?

Say Democrats win three seats in the next midterm election in the Senate. And they say we're going to let you pass bills that benefit Alaskans. If you caucus with us, you don't have to become a Democrat. You can be an Independent. But if you caucus with us and provide the sort of fourth vote that we need to get from where we are now and you can pass legislation that helps Alaskans, would You do it.

It's an interesting hypothetical you've started off with. The right hook here is if this would help Alaskans, because at the end of the day, I know you do.

I've done my reading.

Yeah. See, this is why this book is kind of scary, because now people know what motivates me and it's this love for Alaska and what I can do. So that's my primary goal. I have to figure out how I can be most effective for the people that I serve. That's why I'm going to continue to do a really hard job, because I want to try to help people. My problem with your, with your hypothetical is that as. As challenged as I think we may be on the Republican side, I don't see the Democrats being. Being much better. And, and they've got not only their share of problems, but quite honestly, there's. They've got some policies that I just inherently disagree with. One of the things that I thought was interesting in the book when we're writing it was this whole effort prior to me deciding that I was going to launch the write in. People were looking at what happened after the primary, and they said, the only way, the only way that you are going to retain this seat is if you basically have your name on the ballot. And the only way to do that is to basically carry the flag of the Libertarian Party, because that was the only party outside of the Republicans and Democrats. And so they said, basically, can you be. Basically can you be a Libertarian for a day to get elected? And they dangled that in front of me. And all of the people that I was talking to said, this is, of course, what you have to do. And I said, I can't do that. I can't be somebody that I'm not. I can't now say I want this job so much that I'm going to pretend to be somebody that I'm not. That's not who I am.

But I guess the question is, you know, you wouldn't become a Democrat, right. In this situation, you would be independent. And the next time Republicans are close to a majority, you could caucus with them. But I guess I more ask, is there a world in which by becoming unaligned or an independent, you could help Alaskans that you consider it?

There, there. There may be that possibility. And let me, let me put it into context. From where I'm from in Alaska right now, our legislature is governed by coalition. In the Senate, I think it's 146 and 2119 in the house and in the Senate, we got a small legislature, but coalitions in both bodies. And this is one of the things that I think is good and healthy for us, and I think actually is one of the reasons why people are. Are not surprised that I am. I don't neatly toe the line with just party initiatives because we've kind of embraced a governing style that says if you've got good ideas and you can work with her over there, it doesn't make any difference if you're a Republican or Democrat. We can govern together for the good of the state. And so it's. It is a coalition government. It's not a Republican. It's not a Republican majority or a Democrat majority. It is a coalition government.

So.

So could we do that three seats.

In the next election and offered you ways to pass bills that benefit Alaskans if you caucused with them, you'd consider it?

If. If we're talking about some kind of a coalition, that's something that, again, is not foreign to Alaskans. Is it foreign to our operations in the Senate? Yeah, it's not foreign in other governing bodies. You look at the makeup in so many other countries. So I'm evading your answer, of course, because it is so supremely hypothetical. But you can tell that the construct that we're working with right now, I don't think is the best construction.

Mm. But it sounds like you're saying yes.

Is it something that is worthy of exploration? See, you're looking to make news today. Murkowski's gonna head a coalition government.

I'm the little guy here, you know, help me. You know, don't give it to cbs. Don't give it to abc. Give it to me.

Well, and this is one of the things where when we talk about, like, election reform and ways that we can actually break down some of these really partisan divides that come up. I think it's some of the things that we're seeing in a place like Alaska, where we're talking about coalitions that come together, where you have ranked choice voting that encourages people. You have a greater likelihood of being elected if you are not viewed as just the holy partisan. But you. You're liked by a. You're supported by a group over here. Plus, there's a lot of folks that really like you as your number two. And so this idea of kind of melding different political thoughts, I don't know if that's the way I want to phrase it. If I saw that in writing, I probably would disagree, but. But it is a different way of looking at how we are addressing our problems rather than just saying it's red and it's blue.

I do want to ask specifically about Alaska's system. I'm, you know, pretty nerdy. I done whole docu series about gerrymandering and different types of voting and the like. But. And I'm going to move on to that.

[Galen Dreep]

But was that a yes?

[Lisa Murkowski]

That yes. There's like, there's some openness to it.

There is some openness to exploring something different than the status quo. How's that?

Okay. All right. All right, I'll take it.

[Galen Dreep]

Today's podcast is brought to you by you, the listener. This podcast is made possible because of paid [e-mail] paid subscribers get access to about twice the number of episodes. They can join our private chat and send in questions. They can also get access to the videos. And most importantly, they ensure that we continue to be guided by our principles of trying to understand the world and politics with curiosity, rigor, and a sense of humor. When you become a paid subscriber, you can also connect your account wherever you listen to podcasts and never miss an episode. Join the GD Politics podcast community today at gdpolitics. Com. In fact, do it right now. We will still be here when you get back. That's GDPolitics.com and thank you.

[Lisa Murkowski]

You say in your book that you don't have a grand plan to fix what ails America. You offer your path as one example. That path is unique. I think folks are familiar with your write in campaign in 2010 after you lost the Republican primary. You mentioned it already gave you some freedom. Alaska's also now unique in its electoral structure. So the way that it works is you have a nonpartisan primary, everyone runs together. The top four vote getters move on to the general election where ranked choice voting is then used to elect a candidate in the general. Has that changed the kind of law? You know, the argument that you hear from folks who, who put forward these kinds of reforms is lawmakers can feel free to be more cooperative, collaborative, maybe more moderate. But that's a kind of a difficult word to exactly put meaning to because it means different things to different people. But has this system changed the kind of lawmaker you can be?

I tell you, one thing that really has made a difference is opening up our primaries because in addition to the ranked choice you mentioned, we just have an open primary. And so one of the things that we have seen play out in the legislature is you would have this, I guess fear or threat that, oh, if I say something, do Something vote a certain way. I'm gonna attract a more conservative primary opponent or perhaps a more liberal primary opponent, if you're a Democrat. And so by opening up the. The primaries, you're just in a different space there. So I think we're seeing a difference there. I think lawmakers are not afraid to be as collaborative, working with the other side, that that's being viewed as a positive instead of a negative. I think that that helps. And I think when it comes to campaigning and how you present yourself, one of the things that I really appreciate is since 2010, I've learned that in my approach to campaign, it's, I am not going to. Not going to change who I am, who I'm directing my attention to, you know, one group of voters for the primary. And then in the general, I've got to open it up to a much broader audience. It's the same campaign throughout because I'm start. I'm trying to reach the same people from day one. And so I think that that allows for greater authenticity as a candidate. I can't be more conservative during the primaries and then be a more moderated Lisa in the general, you gotta be who you are.

So you're saying that it hasn't necessarily changed the kind of lawmaker that you can be because you already had that experience in 2010, but that you think it could for other people.

I think it could for other people. And again, I think I've seen this play out in our state legisl, and I think it has been to the benefit of the governance that comes out of our legislature and the cooperation, their effectiveness. I think we've seen that benefit. And, you know, it's interesting. People are like, oh, well, this is really a plot by the Democrats because they want to keep you in office. Yeah, they want to get rid of all the. Yeah, they want to keep me in office, or they want to get rid of all the conservatives. And the thing that was so fascinating with the whole 2022 election was you returned me a moderate Republican Democrat Mary Peltola came in to fill what had been a Republican seat for 44 years. And then very conservative governor, Republican Mike Dunleavy, is returned for a second term. So it confuses people because it's like, wait a minute, I thought that this was a big Democrat plot. And it's like, well, you know, if it was a big Democrat plot, how'd you get conservative Mike Dunleavy back in there? And so it just speaks to. Look, the people are going to select who the people want to select and give them the opportunity. Give them the choice. Don't force them through this very narrow sieve of a primary where there's only a select few that are participating and voting, and then the rest of us have to have to deal with that in the general election.

I don't know if folks are listening to this before or after they know the results of the New York City mayoral primary on June 24, but there's ranked choice voting in that primary, but it's not open, it's not nonpartisan. So me, as somebody who's not registered with either party, I cannot vote in that election.

See, that's disqualifying, isn't it? Don't you think so?

Yeah. I mean, come on.

So let's get rid of those. Let's get rid of the closed primary.

All right. You heard it from Senator Murkowski herself.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So another. I want to go back to policy for a second. As an Alaskan senator, you understand the strategic and resource importance of the Arctic as well as anyone, maybe better than anyone else. Is the president right that America would be better served if Greenland were part of the United States?

No, I do not believe that in order to have a strong and beneficial relationship with Greenland, that it has to be part of the United States, that we need to occupy it, that we need to own it. No, Greenland has been a strong partner with us from a defense perspective for decades. We have an amazing Air Force base there at used to be called Thule. Now it's Pittafika. But it is a cooperative relationship that we have had for decades. The Greenlanders have welcomed us as participants. And I think they have said quite clearly they would welcome greater participation, not only from a defense and security perspective, but also from a commercial perspective. And so whether it is because of geostrategic reasons we need Greenland, or because we want to access more minerals from Greenland, I'm saying, all right, that's the east coast of North America. But look at what we have on the west coast of North America. We have 49 of the 50 critical minerals that this country is seeking in a state like Alaska. We have the ability through our national security and defense posture up there to really not only take care of the Russians and the Chinese when they're poking around in our area, but we have proven our strategic advantage in so many different ways. So if you want to have a place in the Arctic, know that you already have one. It's the 49th state. I think they got us for a steal of a deal. But I Think if we want to make sure that from a national security perspective that we've got greater coverage on the east side of North America, it is to enhance our cooperative relationship with the people there.

I think that was maybe an easier one for you, but, you know, very, very policy heavy. And now I got a harder one.

Okay. I love talking about the Arctic all the time.

Well, I know that's, you know, you can tell that I've framed every question around Alaska, Alaska, Alaska, Alaska. Are you gonna. Do you think you're gonna vote for the one big beautiful bill act. Abba, as I've taken to calling it?

Abba. Yeah.

Do you have a favorite ABBA song?

Oh, no. Don't let me go looping through abba.

Okay.

That will drive me crazy. Oh, my God. Oh, gosh. Dancing queen. No, I was just thinking stupid dancing queen. Now I'm not gonna be able to forget it. Okay, so back to the big beautiful bill. Um, I have been not hesitant to share the concerns that I have about the impact that the Medicaid reforms, provisions, cuts, whatever you want to call them. I have to make sure that things work in a state like, like Alaska.

Does that mean a sort of like, carve out for Alaska or changing the whole bill to reflect different priorities?

When it comes to Medicaid, it is recognizing that you can't, oftentimes you just can't take kind of a broad brush approach and say all things apply evenly. And I'll use a very specific example, work requirements for SNAP or Medicaid. Okay. Not unreasonable to expect that able bodied adults would have to meet work requirements. Okay, you can talk to me all you want about that. And I think it's good policy. Now I have a problem though, because in many of the communities in my state, 80%, remember, 80% of the communities in Alaska, they're not part of a road system here. So you're isolated. You may not have more jobs in the village of Tantatuliak than working for the school, working for the health clinic. Two people are at the village store. You may have the water operator. But in terms of jobs that you and I would describe as jobs, you don't have them. So what has happened previously is the work requirements for snap, Right. That are already in existence. Alaska has had a waiver in those areas where you basically don't have a jobs economy. Well, now there's no waiver provision to account for that. So what am I supposed to do? Tell these people that the way that you will be able to keep your Medicaid is You have to go get a job in Anchorage. You have to leave your village. That doesn't make sense. That's not a policy that works.

The question would be, so is this something where you could get to yes for this if there was a waiver for Alaska on those Medicaid provisions, or do you think there are other places in America like the situation you've described in Alaska?

Well, I think, I think that there are other pockets where again, you have. You have limited economic opportunity. Right. In some of our really rural areas. And so again, that's one example is work requirements. And I'm trying to be specific because I think it helps people. I'm not saying Alaska needs to be carved out of everything. What I'm saying is I've got to have some flexibility. I have to have some appreciation that not all states are equal in terms of how you're able to implement. I'll share another challenge with you. In order to determine eligibility for Medicaid, one of the provisions that's in the bill now is it would require that twice a year you have to prove your eligibility. All right, If I am in a village that maybe doesn't have Internet still, fair number of those. I mean, you are literally having people waiting for a fax machine so that they can fax some paperwork to somebody so that they can enter it into our system in Juneau, Alaska, our system, they tell me that we're going to be close, approaching our 50 year. Our system is not able to keep up with the demand that we have right now. I've been talking to folks in the administration and saying you can have this requirement that we have to reduce our error rate by X date. And if I tell you that our system can't get built within that time period, are you going to fine me when I can't move any quicker? So it's been good conversations because we've really. They've really learned a lot about Alaska's situation. I think we're making some headway in.

Understanding are you closer to yes or no?

Well, keep in mind, you. You and I are just talking about Medicaid. What else is in there?

Oh, yeah. I mean, there's a lot. There's a lot going on. But like, I guess I would say, do you feel like you're being listened to to the extent that you are likely to get your priorities in this bill is kind of what I. Cause, like, you don't know what's. You don't know what it's gonna look like. So it's hard to say, yeah, I'll vote for it or I won't. It's kind of an unfair question. I guess the question is more is your caucus, is leadership, is this administration sort of taking your concerns, as a moderate Alaskan, serious enough that you think they're gonna be in this bill?

I absolutely believe that they are taking my concerns and really the concerns of my colleague. Cause, you know, Senator Sullivan and I are working this together. Um, we're trying to. To just reinforce again that you've got some. You've got some challenges. It's not that we're saying your policy is. Is bad. We're, we're. We're saying there are limitations on our ability to perform one way or another. So talk to us about how we might be able to work this if they had just shut us down and said, you're on your own. You have a 60% error rate with SNAP, you know, gone. You guys. You guys can't figure it out. They're not, they're not. They're not doing that. And they, you know, they can't. They can't afford to do that because.

They need your vote.

They need our votes. I mean, it's. It's. It's pretty much as simple as. As that. Now, having said that, do I think that. That there's going to be a bill built that I think everything in it is just grand? No way. I've got to weigh this on balance. And right now, as you and I are speaking, it is still being built. There's still things that are being put in and things that are being taken out and adjusted and modified. So we're going to see what this is, what this looks like. I don't often quote Elon Musk, but he did say it can be big or it can be beautiful, but I don't know that it can be big and beautiful. And I'm kind of thinking that maybe Elon pegged it on that, but it is, it is. It's a hard thing to put a package like this together, and we have limitations within our own rules that there's some things that, quite honestly, we've been advocating for that I'm not certain are going to survive through the BRD rule process because they may be viewed more as policy and less as revenue and spending side. So that's the next step. So there's a lot more to go before we're done.

I know we're running out of time, so I want to make sure I get to one of my favorite questions. I spend a lot of time in the public opinion space. We talk a lot about public opinion on this podcast, and I know you know from your book that you're very focused on thinking about and representing Alaska's interests in Washington. So my question is, which way does leadership run? Do leaders look at what the public wants and try to get it done on their behalf, or do leaders form their own views about what is right and bring the public along with them?

I think it has to be a meld of both, because I can't come in as a. As a leader, as a policymaker, and just in isolation. Say, I'm Lisa Murkowski and I've got all the answers here, and. And my job is to make sure that you all realize how brilliant this is. That doesn't work. I have to really try to understand where my constituents are coming from, where what really matters to them. Take kind of that core and then figure out, all right, well, how can we build this into something that could be implemented into policy that's going to make that difference for you on the ground here? So I spend a lot of time just kind of listening to what people are talking about. My son has a business that puts him at a farmer's market every Saturday. And when I'm in town, one of the things that I like to do is go help out at the market, because I'm in a space that is very apolitical. Right. It's a farmer's market. And people, it's not like you're going to a rally to go talk to a politician or to go to an event, and you're thinking, okay, if I have a chance to talk to Lisa, I'm going to unload on her. This is just super organic. This is, oh, hey, it's Lisa. Thank you for this. Or I wish you'd done that, or, hey, here's a really great idea. And it's just kind of this. This. This organic town square that I find really refreshing. Now that, of course, everybody knows about it. I'm, you know, I don't know.

Now they're all showing up. It's like a constituent office at the farmers market.

I know my son doesn't like it when my line is longer than his, so.

No. Well, I mean, is there ever a moment where you said, polling, public opinion be damned? Yes, I think this is right and I'm going to go forward with it.

Yes. The 2010 election, everybody knew that there was no way that once you lost a primary that you were gonna be able to win an election, and that I Didn't do any polling because once I'd made the commitment to go to respond to Alaskans, it was kind of like, we're not gonna waste a penny on polling because we know what it's gonna say. It's gonna say it's not possible. And it was very much gut, gut, gut all the way. Um, and so that was a time when you just kind of say, polls be damned, we're going to let Alaskans decide on this. And they. They did.

I'm going to try to sneak in one more question, because it is something that I've been mulling, and you did bring up your son. I'm about the same age as your sons, and you're actually the exact same age as my dad. And this past weekend was Father's Day. And so I asked him, you know, okay, when I'm your age, what's your biggest concern about? What's your. You know, in politics is always the crisis of the moment that gets talked about. I said, you know, what are you most worried about? When I'm your age, I'm not going to say what age that is. You can share it if you want to. It's also public, publicly available. But anyway, it sparked a really interesting conversation for us that took us out of that exact moment. When you think about the world that your kids will inhabit when they're your age, what are you most concerned about?

I am most concerned that the democracy that we know and we value today will not look the same, because I'm seeing some challenges. I'm seeing some pushes in some direction that I certainly didn't expect or anticipate when I came into this position over two decades ago, that when I was my son's age, I was never worried about democracy. I don't think I ever asked my father when he was in office. Are you worried about the state of democracy in America today? And so that's what I worry about. And I hope that if my sons ever see this discussion between us 30 years from now, they say, well, that was a silly question. Of course, democracy is just fine. I don't know what she was worried about. That's what I'm hoping for.

All right, well, I think that's a good place to leave things. Thank you so much for speaking with me today, Senator Lisa Murkowski.

Thank you. It was enjoyable.

[Galen Dreep]

My name is Galen Druch. I'm in the early days of getting this podcast off the ground, and I appreciate your support in any way possible. First and foremost, go to GDPolitics.com and become a subscriber. Even consider becoming a paid subscriber so you'll get about twice as many episodes and you can see all of the videos and choose chat in the paid subscriber chat room of course. Also subscribe to GD Politics wherever you get your podcast so you'll know when a new episode is in the feed. You could even rate and review us and maybe even tell a friend about the podcast. Thanks so much for listening and we.

[Lisa Murkowski]

Will see you soon.