I can't say this comes as a total surprise.
Naturally, conservatives are not amused. Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online asks, "How is she anything more than Arlen Specter in a dress?"
Or for that matter Charlie Crist?
But I think the thoughts of Quin Hillyer, my colleague at The American Spectator, are closer to the sore spot:
For Lisa Murkowski to run a write-in campaign with virtually no chance of winning, but with every chance of throwing the election to the Democrat, continues a trend that shows that too many Beltway "moderates" of the Republican persuasion have no class, no sense of public service, but merely a sense of selfish entitlement.
Now I'm not sure that Murkowski doesn't have a chance of winning. (Nate Silver of The New York Times makes the case that she can win.) I think conservatives would object even more vigorously if it was thought Murkowski could win. But what Quin hits upon is that Murkowski's mere presence in the race (even if her name doesn't appear on the ballot) could deny Joe Miller a seat in the United States Senate.
But if Murkowski and moderate Republicans are all about retaining power for power's sake then it should not come as a surprise to conservatives when Murkowski and moderate Republicans take measures to hold on to that power. Besides isn't it a part of human nature to keep power one has acquired?
Even if you don't like Murkowski's tactics at the end of the day if Alaskans are prepared to write her name in on the ballot then that is their prerogative. Now it is up to Joe Miller to convince Alaskans to do otherwise.