Quotes of the Day

Senator Lisa Murkowski is working the Kaladi Brothers coffee shop in downtown Anchorage, Alaska, like any glad-handing candidate. She stops at most tables, introduces herself — "Hi! I'm Lisa" — and poses for photos with young supporters. And in the span of 30 minutes, six people go up to her to express their support.

"You certainly have an uphill battle, but I'm rooting for you," says Jess Parks, 33, an environmental scientist from Juneau, in Anchorage for the day for work.

"I think we can pull this thing off," Murkowski replies. "But I need your help."

"You have it," pledges Parks, who takes a sticker from a Murkowski aide and promises to take friends to the opening of Murkowski's new campaign office the next day in Juneau.

This is the kind of outpouring of support, Murkowski says, that prompted her to launch a write-in bid to retain her Senate seat after losing the Republican primary last month to Tea Party darling Joe Miller. For a GOP outcast, she has built an impressive machine in a matter of a few days: she has retained the endorsements of the firefighters and police unions and the National Education Association, the largest union in the state; and she has the full support of the tribal leaders, an important constituency in Alaska that helped former Senator Ted Stevens win most of his campaigns.

But not everyone Murkowski encounters is on her side. Mike Doner, 50, a commercial fisherman from Palmer, is a little icy when Murkowski approaches his table. Doner voted for Murkowski in 2004 but is now a Miller supporter. "I'm not concerned that she beats Joe Miller and takes the seat, my bigger concern is that she'll help a Democrat take that seat," he says. "I think she could be a spoiler and that possibility makes me disappointed."

Observers, though, say Murkowski is likely to take just as many voters from Sitka Mayor Scott McAdams, the Democrat in the race, as she would from Miller. In fact, Murkowski's betting on it. In an interview with TIME, she talked about the accusations of being a spoiler, her Senate colleagues' decision not to strip her of her ranking membership of the Natural Resources Committee, why McAdams should be afraid and how she'll stay a Republican if elected.

Were you surprised that your colleagues didn't remove your ranking membership from the Natural Resources Committee?
I'm not surprised. This was an affirmation of the relationship that I've built over the past eight years with the people that I work with. As difficult as the politics are, as awkward as the situation is, I had really believed that my friends would recognize that what I'm doing is for my state. I think they appreciate that and that they also recognize, "You know what? Lisa might be a risk taker, but she's got a real shot at coming back here, and it only makes good sense that we would not want to be so punitive that she would be discouraged by the actions of her colleagues."

Randy Ruedrich, the chairman of the Alaska Republican Party, has said you could be more of a danger to McAdams than Miller. True?
I happen to agree with Randy. If this is not a Republican state, it's certainly more of a conservative one. Though we have [Democratic] Senator Mark Begich, it's certainly not a Democratic state. Scott McAdams is a nice guy, but I don't know that most Alaskans believe that he's electable. And so if you're given a choice between a Democrat that you consider not electable in a relatively conservative state, you look at what the other two options are. I think Alaskans are looking at me as one who has clearly demonstrated that I can represent all Alaskans and I think the real question is whether Miller and the views that he represents could really represent all Alaskans.

If you win, would you consider caucusing with the Democrats?
No. I'm a Republican. I'm running as a write-in Republican candidate. So, I'm not my party's nominee. Does that give me a little more flexibility and independence? Perhaps, yes. Keep in mind, our demographics of our state, how it breaks down in terms of political affiliation: over half the people in this state chose not to align themselves with any party at all. So, in order for me to represent them, I think I have to have that approach that I have demonstrated over the years: that you're not going to find me 100% in alignment with the party position but I'm 100% aligned with Alaska's position.

Have you been approached by any Democrats about switching parties?
No.

Some people have said that you're doing this because you're bitter at Sarah Palin for endorsing Joe Miller and that you're trying to be a spoiler. How do you respond?
If I were in this to spoil the race or to push back Sarah Palin, would I put all my marbles on the table and be prepared to just push everything over the edge to make a point? What I have done in agreeing to offer this choice to the Alaska voters, it's all or nothing. If I am successful I can continue on representing Alaskans, doing the best job that I know how. If I fail, that's all she wrote in terms of the political history books. I knew there was going to be accusations and things that were going to be very, very hurtful. This was an extraordinarily difficult decision. The easiest thing I could've done for me and for my family would've been to step back, go and do something that would allow me an opportunity to make some money, have a political future in a couple of years, run for governor, run for the Senate again, do whatever I want. But I'm just not going to quit on my state, it's just not who I am.

You say Miller is extreme. How so?
Keep in mind this isn't just Lisa Murkowski; this is what I hear from other people. There is a concern, fear, from Alaska's most vulnerable populations that Joe doesn't represent the values that they share. Our seniors are worried about the statements he's made about dismantling Social Security and Medicare. Alaska natives, particularly out in our villages, are concerned with his approach to federal spending, concerned that the help that they are seeking, whether it is water and sewers, basic infrastructure needs, whether it is dealing with high energy costs, that they will be abandoned. When you think about the children, one of the things that I'm quite concerned about — and I've heard it expressed by others — is trying to find how we can build better accountability, work to provide a level of education that prepares our children for the future. His response — it's really the Tea Party platform response — is get rid of the Department of Education. That, to me, is a simplistic answer to a very complicated issue. The other vulnerable population that doesn't really have much representation is the poor. When you think about his statements about unemployment compensation being unconstitutional, we're a state where in so many of our villages we have 25% unemployment, 50% unemployment. We're a state that has seasonal workers. Right now construction season is still going on, tourist season is still going on, fishing has just ended. But what happens when that work is ended? There is no work in the canneries, there's limited work in the fisheries, so we're a state where there's a lot of big boom and then it goes pretty quiet for a while. This is not an approach — these are not approaches — I think that Alaskans might be comfortable with.

What are the polls telling you?
There was a Rasmussen poll out a couple of days ago. They just polled on Miller and McAdams. Miller got 42% of the vote, McAdams had 25%. I came in at 27%. What's interesting, though, is my name wasn't polled. I wasn't a choice. And people said, 'Wait, you're asking me about him and him but what about Lisa Murkowski?' And I got 27% of the vote without even having my name read in the poll, so I'm optimistic.

Is there a threat that the Tea Party could shrink the GOP, make it too purist?
It's your words, but there is a purity test that is clearly being applied and I didn't meet that. I don't think Mike Castle met that. Incredibly, Bob Bennett didn't meet that. And I think that's unfortunate because what it says is, If you don't look and sound like me, you shouldn't be part of the body that is building policy. Think about how our country was built. The greatness came from our diversity; the greatness came from individuals with different perspectives coming together. I can tell you that people still talk about the statesmen from 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago and they would fight all afternoon on the floor of the House and Senate and at night they'd go have a beer together and their wives would put together potluck dinners. We built things because there were relationships and we weren't so divided by our politics that we couldn't come together. So this push toward purity, I believe, is destructive when it comes to good governance. When we align ourselves so far to the right and so far to the left that we cannot come together and build consensus — and consensus is not a dirty word, it does not mean you abandoned your principles, it means that you work together for the good of the whole — we lose that wondrous diversity that makes us such an incredible state.

• Jay Newton-Small / Anchorage
• The Alaska Senator and write-in candidate talks to TIME about why she thinks Tea Party darling Joe Miller isn't right for her home state -- or good for her party