Fox Says its Palin for McCain VP

Photo at induction of Rabbi Michael Oblath October 2007.









"ARE ANY OF THE ALASKANS UP? McCAIN PICKED PALIN" is what woke me up this morning, 15 minutes ago.


My mind is spinning. Sure, we've heard her name was in the ring for VP, but it all seemed so far fetched.

The first time I saw her was a small group of people at the University of Alaska Anchorage when she was just starting to run for governor. Her hair was piled up on her head, she was in scuffed snow boots. She spoke openly and directly. A real person, not a politician. I liked her, but thought she was in way over her head. She said she didn't know to a number of things and even asked if the audience had suggestions. I knew at the time that she'd stood up the Randy Ruedrich, the Republican Party Chair of Alaska, and resigned from the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission very publicly saying it was because Ruedrich had a conflict of interest and she couldn't continue to serve. That was pretty gutsy.

Then, to many people's surprise, she actually beat sitting Republican Governor Murkowski in the primary. Well, by the time of the election, I think we'd all seen the polls so we weren't that surprised. But when she started to run it was a real long shot. The party stalwarts were all against her. She certainly was helped out when it came out the FBI had searched the offices of several prominent Republican officials.

As governor, as I've said in previous posts, she was the right person at the right time. She stood up to the oil companies on the Petroleum Profits Tax (also known as Petroleum Production Tax) and got it raised. Then she stood up to the big oil companies over AGIA (Alaska Gasline Inducement Act). After the previous governor had negotiated privately with Conoco-Phillips and BP to build a natural gas pipeline to the Lower 48. She had reinstated the commissioner of Natural Resources who'd resigned because of how Murkowski was negotiating. They set up conditions the State insisted on and put out a Request for Proposal requiring them. The big oil companies didn't turn in any proposals. But an pipeline company from Canada did. Then the oil companies put in a proposal after the deadline, which didn't meet the state requirements. Palin was able to get the legislature, in special sessions over the summer, to approve Trans Canada's bid to get a license.

Meanwhile she's been on the cover of Vogue magazine and did other such national publicity work. Her biography came out and the book was simply a PR job on the sweet but strong willed girl who grew up in Wasilla. I found it hard to stomach. This was not a serious book.

And now we're seeing some of the inexperience coming to the surface in the way she handled the firing of the head of the State Troopers. It has come out that her staff and family have been pressuring him to fire one of the troopers - who just happens to be her ex-brother-in-law.

This is a woman with a lot of internal strength. She also has very limited experience outside of Alaska and in public office. She was mayor of a town of about 74,000. She's been governor almost two years. She's floated on a bubble of strong moves against the oil companies, supported by the FBI's investigation into oil related corruption in Alaska and three ex-legislators convicted and a number of other people indicted and/or pleading guilty. Her physical beauty has certainly been a major attention getter - she's been called the hottest governor in the USA. She has a son serving in the Middle East and a newborn child with Down's Syndrome. When he was born in April, she said she had her family to take care of and was not a candidate for Vice President.

I think this is a woman with a lot of smarts and strengths. But she also has had probably the least experience of any Vice Presidential candidate in my lifetime. If, in ten years, she proved her mettle, I'd say she'd be a long shot candidate. She'd have been through the rough and tumble. Right now, she's only had amazing successes. The Monehan firing has been the only bump. She isn't used to failure.

But the US and Republican image machines can make a lot of this woman and they will. I'd like to say she could surprise us. But I have to say she also has a huge amount to learn. She hasn't been tested in the rough and tumble of national politics or even the primaries.

No one can say American presidential politics is dull.

Dems Viewed from Portland

Various Alaska bloggers are covering the convention from Denver. Celtic Diva, Alaska Raven, Dennis Zaki are blogging. Delegate Kimberly Pace has been sending reports to Bent Alaska.

I'm getting to watch bits and pieces here at Marty's condo in Portland, Oregon.



This whole convention extravaganza is starting to look unseemly to me. Part of it is the media highlighting any hint of controversy over and over again. But all the flash and partying seems so wrong when the Dem message is that the economy is hurting so bad. And all those corporate sponsors. What happened to campaign finance reform?

Were the ADL Ballots Legal?

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:

1. The Alaska Primary elections had ballots that combined candidates for the Democratic Party, Alaska Independent Party, and the Libertarian Party of Alaska. The Republicans had separate ballots.
2. By combining two or more parties onto one ballot, the primary is no longer a contest between the two party candidates for the nomination of their party. The percentages of vote for candidates that are not running against each other makes no sense at all.
   
3. The state law says "The director shall prepare and provide a primary election ballot for each political party." To me, that sounds like a separate ballot for each party.
4. The Division of Elections Media Guide says that "In Alaska, the political parties determine which candidates will have access to their ballot and which voters are eligible to vote their ballot."
1. Both the Libertarian Party and Alaska Independent Party by-laws call for what is known as a 'blanket" ballot which lists all candidates for all offices. That makes sense since they don't have more than one candidate for any office. Between the two parties, I could only find a total of three candidates in only the US House and Senate races. They have provisions for other options if the other parties do not allow blanket ballots.
2. I couldn't find the Democratic by-laws, but their Plan of Organization says, " The Alaska Democratic Party’s primary election is open to all registered voters." That doesn't say open to all other parties.

It all seems to hinge on whether the Democratic Party by-laws call for an open primary or a blanket primary.


The Post

Alaska Statutes on Primary Elections say:

Chapter 15.25. NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES

Article 01. PRIMARY ELECTIONS

Sec. 15.25.010. Provision for primary election.

Candidates for the elective state executive and state and national legislative offices shall be nominated in a primary election by direct vote of the people in the manner prescribed by this chapter. The director shall prepare and provide a primary election ballot for each political party. A voter registered as affiliated with a political party may vote that party's ballot. A voter registered as nonpartisan or undeclared rather than as affiliated with a particular political party may vote the political party ballot of the voter's choice unless prohibited from doing so under AS 15.25.014 . A voter registered as affiliated with a political party may not vote the ballot of a different political party unless permitted to do so under AS 15.25.014 .

However, the State did NOT provide a ballot for each party. The Republicans had a separate ballot. But the other parties had all their candidates combined on a single ballot called ADL.



So, for the US Representative, Democrats and Alaska Independent Party were combined. This means, that people voting here did not choose between Diane Benson and Ethan Berkowitz, which is what is supposed to happen in a primary, but they chose between Benson, Berkowitz, AND Don Wright, the Alaskan Independence Party candidate. So, the election results percentages are also skewed. While the two Democrats were in competition with each other and Wright was NOT in competition with anyone, Sean Parnell's Division of Election put them all in competition with each other.



So, Berkowitz and Benson's votes add up to 59,487. The race between Benson and Berkowitz really should be
Benson 40.9%
Berkowitz 59.09%

Wright should have 100% of his party vote.

The same problem exists for the US Senate race. All the parties except the Republicans are combined. But they weren't all running against each other. The statewide elections have winners with significant enough votes that it probably doesn't matter. But suppose the Democratic house race were as close as the Republican. From what it looks like to me, the ballot would be very challengeable.


I did a quick scroll through the election results for the State House and Senate races and there do not seem to be any candidates other than Republicans and Democrats in those races. But my initial reading of the Alaska Statute suggests that there should have been ballots for

Democrats
Republicans
Alaskan Independents
Libertarians

The first two ballots would have had slates for all the offices and propositions.
The Alaska Independent ballot would have had one candidate for the US Senate and one for the US House and the propositions.
The Libertarian Party ballot would have had one candidate for US Senate and the propositions.

The Republicans closed their primary several years ago to only include people, if I recall correctly, who were not members of another party and Republicans. According to the Division of Elections Media Packet (p. 14):

In Alaska, the political parties determine which candidates will have access to their ballot and which voters are eligible to vote their ballot. Based on the political party by-laws, the below table outlines the 2008 Primary election ballot choices.

People with no party affiliation could have chosen any ballot.

Democrats, Alaska Independents, and Libertarians could all have chosen a Libertarian, Alaska Independent, or Democratic ballot.


OK, I've been doing more searching and have come up with interesting results. I can't find the Democratic Party By-Laws on line. However, they do have a Democratic Party Plan of Organization. I could find this statement about primary elections:

ALASKA DEMOCRATIC PARTY ELECTION RULE

Section 10) The Alaska Democratic Party’s primary election is open to all registered voters.

This isn't explicit, but implies that there should be a Democratic primary election, which is open to all voters. That is different from open to all parties.

HOWEVER, the Libertarians and the Alaska Independents both want their candidates to be in primaries with all the candidates.


Alaska Independent:

Article IX. PRIMARY ELECTIONS

The Alaskan Independence Party believing in the principle of voting for the individual, does establish an open primary election which lists all parties' candidates for office.
9.01 Primary Election Electors

Any registered voter who has not voted another primary ballot may vote in the Alaskan Independence Party primary.

9.02 Non-Disqualification of Electors

The fact that a voter has voted in the Alaskan Independence Party Primary Election shall not disqualify that voter from voting in the primary election of any other political party or parties, where that voter's participation in the primary election of the Alaskan Independence Party is authorized or permitted by the rules of the other party, or by the statutes of the United States.

The Libertarian Party of Alaska doesn't believe in Primaries:

ARTICLE XI: PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION OF CANDIDATES FOR POLITICAL OFFICE.

a. The Alaska Libertarian Party maintains that primary elections are a waste of taxpayers’ money, and serve only as free advertising for candidates in a process wherein, for all practical purposes, the winners have already been decided, or, as is often the case, only one candidate per political party is in a primary election for a given post. We have also seen examples of candidates undesirable to a given party winning the primary election. But, until that happy day when government-sponsored primaries are abolished, and we may nominate all our candidates at our own convention, we recognize the hard realities and expediencies of politics, and consent to have Libertarian candidates for elective public office appear on a primary ballot which has the following two characteristics:

(1) The primary ballot also lists the candidates of all (or some) other political parties which are willing to have their candidates appear on a combined primary ballot; and

(2) The primary ballot is available to any voter, regardless of party affiliation, who wishes to select that combined primary ballot, as long as that voter has not also selected a different primary ballot.

b. When it is not possible for Libertarian candidates to appear on a primary ballot which complies with the requirements set out above, the Alaska Libertarian Party will, whenever possible, have its candidates for elective public office appear on a primary ballot which has the following two characteristics:

(1) The primary ballot also lists the candidates of all (or some) other political parties which are willing to have their candidates appear on a combined primary ballot; and

(2) The primary ballot is available to any voter who wishes to select that combined primary ballot, as long as that voter has not also selected a different primary ballot, and is not registered as being affiliated with a political party which does not appear on the combined primary ballot.

c. When it is not possible for Libertarian candidates to appear on a primary ballot which complies with either of the alternatives set out above, the Alaska Libertarian Party executive committee shall choose between any primary ballots which may be available for Libertarian candidates.

It makes sense for parties that only have one candidate in each race to want to be combined with other parties. It gains more visibility for their candidates.


I also checked Wikipedia on the various types of primary elections. The Republicans clearly had a closed primary, which they chose to do a number of years ago. But I thought the Democrats wanted an open primary (see below), but what they got was a blanket primary according to Wikipedia:

• Closed. Voters may vote in a party's primary only if they are registered members of that party. Independents cannot participate. Note that due to the use of the word "independent" in the names of some political parties, the term "non-partisan" is often used to refer to those who are not affiliated with a political party.

• Semi-closed. As in closed primaries, registered party members can vote only in their own party's primary. Semi-closed systems, however, allow unaffiliated voters to participate as well. Depending on the state, independents either make their choice of party primary privately, inside the voting booth, or publicly, by registering with any party on Election Day.

• Open. A registered voter may vote in any party primary regardless of his own party affiliation. When voters do not register with a party before the primary, it is called a pick-a-party primary because the voter can select which party's primary he or she wishes to vote in on election day. Because of the open nature of this system, a practice known as "raiding" may occur. "Raiding" consists of voters of one party crossing over and voting in the primary of another party, effectively allowing a party to help choose its opposition's candidate. The theory is that opposing party members vote for the weakest candidate of the opposite party in order to give their own party the advantage in the general election. An example of this can be seen in the 1998 Vermont senatorial primary with the election of Fred Tuttle for the Republican candidate.

• Semi-open. Each voter may vote in any single primary, but must publicly declare which primary she will vote in before entering the voting booth. Typically this declaration is accomplished by requesting a ballot. In many states with semi-open primaries, election officials record each voter's choice of party and provide the parties access to this information.

• Blanket. This system allows voters to vote for one candidate per office, regardless of party affiliation.

• Run-off. A primary in which the ballot is not restricted to one party and the top two candidates advance to the general election regardless of party affiliation. (A runoff differs from a primary in that a second round is only needed if no candidate attains a majority in the first round.)

Since I didn't find the Democratic by-laws, I'm not sure what they say. Their Action Plan says their primary should be open to all voters, but doesn't say open to all candidates. That would seem to leave the question unanswered until someone can find the specific language in the Democratic by-laws that says whether they intended to have an open or blanket primary.

Biden

Be careful when you vote on Prop. 2

[NOTE:  This post was about PROP 2 2008.  I will do [have done] one on the 2010 PROP 2 before too long.]

[UPDATE 2012:  Here's the post on the 2012 Prop 2 to reestablish an Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program.]

I voted today because we're headed out of town on Sunday night. Before you go to vote, be sure you know how you want to vote on Prop. 2 - aerial hunting of wolves. I found the wording confusing.

This bill amends current law banning same-day airborne shooting to include grizzly bears. The bill permits the Board of Game to allow a predator program for wolves and grizzly bears if the Commissioner of Fish and Game finds an emergency, where wolves or grizzly bears in an area are causing a decline in prey. Only employees of the Department of Fish and Game could take part in the program. Only the minimum number of wolves or grizzly bears needed to stop the emergency could be removed.

I guess I thought that since the proponents of Prop 2 have been talking about how airborne hunting of wolves was such a terrible thing that they were proposing a law to ban that. I didn't realize we had a law that already bans it. That's what threw me off. We do. But there are exceptions for situations when the predators need to be culled so that the moose and caribou populations will be higher so that humans can hunt them, and, if there is disease. .

What this amendment appears to do is to more stringently define when the State could authorize airborne hunting and then when it does authorized it, only State Fish and Game employees can do the hunting. Also wolverines are also mentioned in the statutes.

You can go to the election page to get the wording of the ballots and to another page to read the voter pamphlet.

The ballot information, I'm afraid, is not particularly helpful. You'd think it would tell you the number of the current statute that will be replaced or amended by the proposition. And you'd be wrong. Or at least I couldn't find it. I had to go to the Alaska Statues and find it myself.

Here's the existing language that would be replaced - at least that's how I understand it.

Sec. 16.05.783. Same day airborne hunting.

(a) A person may not shoot or assist in shooting a free-ranging wolf or wolverine the same day that a person has been airborne. However, the Board of Game may authorize a predator control program as part of a game management plan that involves airborne or same day airborne shooting if the board has determined based on information provided by the department

(1) in regard to an identified big game prey population under AS 16.05.255(g) that objectives set by the board for the population have not been achieved and that predation is an important cause for the failure to achieve the objectives set by the board, and that a reduction of predation can reasonably be expected to aid in the achievement of the objectives; or

(2) that a disease or parasite of a predator population

(A) is threatening the normal biological condition of the predator population; or

(B) if left untreated, would spread to other populations.

(b) This section does not apply to

(1) a person who was airborne the same day if that person was airborne only on a regularly scheduled commercial flight; or

(2) an employee of the department who, as part of a game management program, is authorized to shoot or to assist in shooting wolf, wolverine, fox, or lynx on the same day that the employee has been airborne.

(c) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction is punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both. In addition, the court may order the aircraft and equipment used in or in aid of a violation of this section to be forfeited to the state.

(d) When the Board of Game authorizes a predator control program that includes airborne or same day airborne shooting, the board shall have the prerogative to establish predator reduction objectives and limits, methods and means to be employed, who is authorized to participate in the program, and the conditions for participation of individuals in the program.

(e) The use of state employees or state owned or chartered equipment, including helicopters, in a predator control program is prohibited without the approval of the commissioner.

(f) In this section,

(1) "free-ranging" means that the animal is wild and not caught in a trap or snare; and

(2) "game management program" means a program authorized by the Board of Game or the commissioner to achieve identified game management objectives in a designated geographic area.

Here's the language of the initiative:

FULL TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW
An Act Prohibiting the Shooting of Wolves & Grizzly Bears with the Use of Aircraft Be it enacted by the People of the State of Alaska that Section 1. A.S. 16.05.783 is amended to read: Section 16.05.783. (a) A person may not shoot or assist in shooting a free-ranging wolf, wolverine or grizzly bear the same day that the person has been airborne. However, the Board of Game may authorize a predator program involving the shooting of wolves or grizzly bears
Ballot Measure 2
Bill Amending Same Day Airborne Shooting from the air or on the same day that a person has been airborne if
(1) the Commissioner of Fish and Game makes written findings based on adequate data demonstrating that a biological emer- gency exists and that there is no feasible solution other than airborne control to eliminate the bioogical emergency;
(2) any shooting is conducted by Department of Fish and Game personnel only, and not by any permittee or agent;
(3) the program is limited to the specific geographical area where the biological emergency exists; and
(4) the program removes only the minimum number of wolves or grizzly bears necessary to eliminate the biological emergency.
(b) This section does not apply to a person who was airborne the same day if that person was airborne only on a regularly scheduled commercial flight.
(c) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction is punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both. In addition, the court may order the aircraft
and equipment used in or in aid of a violation of this section to be forfeited to the State.
(d) In this section,
(1) “free-ranging” means that the animal is wild and not caught in a trap or snare; and
(2) “biological emergency” means a condition where a wolf or grizzly bear population in a specific geographic area is depleting a prey population to a point that if not corrected will cause an irreversible decline in the prey population such that it is not likely to recover without implementing wolf or grizzly bear control.

By the way, while I was in the Statues, I came across this law of elephant permits. Just in case you were thinking of bringing back an elephant from your next trip:

Sec. 16.40.060. Elephant permit.

The commissioner may issue a permit, subject to reasonable conditions established by the commissioner, to possess, import, or export an elephant. A permit may be issued only to a person who proves to the satisfaction of the commissioner that the person

(1) intends to exhibit the animal commercially;

(2) possesses facilities to maintain the animal under positive control and humane conditions; and

(3) maintains personal injury and property damage insurance in an amount established by the commissioner.

Stevens' Conflicting Statements Raise Doubts about his Mental Acuity

Yesterday, I suggested that Ted Stevens' best strategy for this election would have been to gracefully retire and protect Alaska's power in the Senate by sharing the knowledge he's accumulated in his long years of experience by mentoring his successor.

I also reported that he mumbled now and then. Today I got a link to this story from the Begich* campaign:

Sen. Ted Stevens is creating a legal defense fund to fight federal charges that he concealed more than $250,000 worth of gifts.

The Alaska Republican has asked the Senate Ethics Committee to approve the fund, which would be administered by a trustee who could solicit donations to help the senator with his court fees, according to Stevens’s spokesman.

Stevens said Tuesday during an Alaska Public Radio interview that the fund was already established, but his spokesman indicated Wednesday that Stevens misspoke and that he was "now seeking approval ... to establish such a fund.”

Senate rules require legal defense funds to be approved by the Select Committee on Ethics before any money can be raised. So far, no paperwork is on file with the Senate’s Office of Public Records. Once it is approved and the appropriate paperwork is submitted, Stevens can use the fund to pay his legal bills.

The old [younger] Ted Stevens wouldn't have made this mistake. It's not the fact that the the fund didn't exist yesterday that is important to me. It's the fact that Stevens didn't know it.


*I get emails from the Begich campaign and others now and then. It's raised questions for me about my role here. Clearly I lean toward what people call 'left.' but I don't see this as a partisan blog that simply pushes the party line. But I do try to put the pieces together and Stevens' error here is news. Calculating the value of his experience has to be balanced by calculating liability of his declining mental alertness over the next six years.

I'm also trying to figure out how to address questions about Begich's friend John Rubini. I haven't been on Ray Metcalfe's Anchorage tour of "Anchorage Political Corruption." But I have heard from other sources that Rubini looks very questionable. My basic response has been that Begich has known forever that he would eventually run for higher office, he has a good sense of the ethics rules, and that he's smart enough to avoid doing something stupid enough to jeopardize those ambitions. I was told, "All that may be true, but everyone has blindspots."

Of course, this all helps me understand why Republicans are sticking by Stevens. Those who like to spout black and white ethics simply haven't looked a little below the surface. If not Begich, who should I vote for? I don't think that Begich has done anything wrong. But supposing he has? Would that eliminate him from consideration? How bad would it have to be? This is a smart politician who in many ways has a vision that mirrors mine, though certainly not completely. Reps from the Begich campaign, people I respect, assure me that there is nothing there. Damn, life is so complicated.

So, I guess I'll have to check out Ray's tour and then bring my specific questions to Mark Begich. Why am I writing this if this is only rumor now? Well, the general story has been well covered by Ray Metcalfe. And I expect this is going nowhere. I'm also mindful that it isn't my job to find fault with candidates I support any more than the Republicans find fault with their candidates. Let the Republicans do the work. But I also want to have a blog that deals with the long-term truths of human beings more than the short term outcomes of specific political campaigns.

We are headed out of town next week, so this will be on hold for a bit.

Ted Stevens' Trial Stays in DC - Now What?

NPR also just announced on the air that the Stevens trial won't move to Alaska.
[11am update: ABC News has a report, but not much detail. So does Alaskan Abroad.]
Based on no hard evidence whatsoever, here are some thoughts on what might happen with the Stevens trial.

The idea that the defense wanted a speedy trial so Senator Stevens could be acquitted before the November election makes sense. This has also allowed them to ask for the trial to be moved to Alaska - where they probably assume, quite reasonably, he might get a friendlier jury - and to drop some things. Now that option has been closed off.


The ADN has also said that they've requested the Prosecutors do a better labeling job of all the audio and video tapes they have to listen to.

I'm guessing, that given the piles of things they have to read and listen to, there is no way they can be ready by September 24. (I could be wrong. They could hire a whole slew of young, smart attorneys to listen to those tapes 24/7 - but they have to all be up-to-speed and clever enough to catch important tidbits on the tapes.)

So now since the trial is not being moved to Anchorage, there will not have to be an automatic delay to send out notices for jurors, etc. Finding 12 Alaskan jurors who haven't heard about this case would have taken a while. Maybe someone back from a year in Antarctica or someone living in a cabin outside of Chicken. It took 2 1/2 days to select a jury in Anchorage for Pete Kott.

With the trial staying in DC, we'll find out how much he really wants a speedy trial, or whether this was all dependent on moving back to Alaska.

Saying they want a speedy trial to prove Sen. Stevens' innocence before the election is a good political move. It's been well reported. But being convicted before the election won't be a good move.

So they can now argue that they wanted a speedy trial, but, damn, the prosecutors dumped so many boxes of materials on them that to ensure Sen Stevens gets justice, they'll need more time before they can be ready for the trial. It's not our fault, it's the Prosecutor's fault for collecting so much irrelevant material, but we still have to go through all of it to protect our client

So what happens if Stevens gets convicted before the election? A couple of lawyer friends say he would be forced out of the Senate if he's conviceted. If that happens, the Governor can appoint his replacement as Senator.

BUT, I believe the Republican party chooses who his replacement as candidate would be. Not totally sure on this, but I think this is the case.

Since Governor Palin and Republican party head Ruedrich don't get along too well, it is conceivable if all this played out just right, that they could appoint different people.

Ted Stevens on Talk of Alaska - My Question

Steve Heimel hosted Senator Stevens on Talk of Alaska today. (The audio isn't up yet, but should be by this evening I think.) Since I'm a writer more than a talker, I emailed my question in. But apparently the guys who read the emails were still recovering from a late night of Running.


The Senator was explaining that his wealth of experience and knowledge made it important for him to be retained in the Senate to protect the interest of Alaska. Here's my question to the Senator that didn't get asked:

Senator, you have said that your many years of experience and knowledge of issues is critical to represent Alaska and protect our interests.

Isn't that always going to be the case? How do you propose that your eventual successor be prepared to take office? Right now, you are still healthy enough to act as a mentor for a new Senator, that may not be the case in six more years.

If you should lose to Mark Begich, what role do you see for yourself in helping get him up to speed to fight for Alaska?

If you get to hear the show, see if you agree with my assessment that he was pretty belligerent to anyone who pushed for more than a superficial answer to questions he didn't want to answer. I understand that he'd said he wasn't going to talk about the impending trial, but it's just as easy (well, maybe not for him) to politely deflect the question as it is to sputter in anger at the callers.

I do think that age and succession are important issues for Alaskans to think about in this election. I note this from Time Magazine's 1962 Senate Scorecard:

Alaska. Senator Ernest Gruening, territorial Governor back in pre-statehood days, is challenged by Republican Ted Stevens, a former U.S. attorney only half Gruening's age (38 to 75). But Stevens will probably have to wait a while.

Today's challenger is 46 to Stevens' 84 years, more than half Stevens' even greater age.

My mother's a couple years older than the Senator and she only retired last year. She has good days days and not so good days, and my experience with others in their mid-80s suggests that while their brains can still be sharp, their bodies simply aren't as reliable as they once were.

Stevens did a fair amount of mumbling on today's radio show as he tried to get his words out. Hey, I do that too sometimes. But if you set yourself up as a candidate for office, you invite people to candidly assess your abilities.

There is a reluctance - I feel it myself - to challenge elders. I know that his knowledge of Alaska and particularly of the US Senate and Alaska is unrivaled. But one day, he will leave the Senate. It would be better when he's still alive and well enough to help his successor. And respect for elders apparently didn't stop Ted Stevens when he first ran for Senate. Michael Carey writes:

As a much younger candidate for the Senate, Stevens repeatedly hammered incumbent Ernest Gruening as too old. His attacks in 1968 were blunt, personal and quite jarring -- especially as the "aged" Ernest Gruening was younger then than Stevens is now.

Some Stevens' supporters say we should vote for him because of all he has done for us. But we should also remember that the young Ted Stevens didn't have that attitude toward the 78 year old Ernest Gruening. The Senator would have us believe it is not about him, but about what is good for the State of Alaska. Then we shouldn't simply vote for Stevens out of respect for what he has done in the past, but we should consider which candidate is poised to do the most good for us in the future.

Rich M. Wanda's Low Profile Campaign

On Telephone Ave. near Denali.


It's low budget too.



You can go to the Federal Election Commission to see the rest of this chart and how much other candidates have raised and spent.

Begich Fund Raiser - Long Time No See

We rode over to a Begich Fund Raiser tonight downtown. On the way, something flew up from under a car it seemed. The car stopped as I was passing what turned out to be an envelope, a check, and a checkbook, all of which I gathered and took to the man who I knew slightly. When we got to the fund raiser, there he was. And while he was in a car and we were on bikes, we arrived just a little after he did at the fund raiser about two miles away. We also picked up Ron ZZ on the bike trail and he was going to the same place.

The young woman in the picture surprised me by asking what my daughter's name was. Well it turned out to be the daughter of my daughter's physics teacher who took students on outdoor adventures in the summer.

I'd gone along for one - a ten day kayak trip in Prince William Sound - with this young woman, who was seven years old at the time. I found an old picture of the trip. She's the young one in the middle. But this sort of things happens a lot in Anchorage. She's finishing up college next year, headed for four months in Africa if things work out.





And this man walked into the crowded living room. He said to me, "Everyone's having a good time, I don't think you need me." I agreed. "You're right, just put your check in the basket and you can go." But, he stayed and talked a bit. Nothing earth shattering.








Then we were off to the Alaska Apple User Group meeting at the museum.

On the way home, we caught some late sun. It's setting earlier and earlier - this was taken about 9:30pm.

Patronizing Businesses With Political Posters

So, what do you think? If you see a business that has a poster for a candidate that you are opposed to, does it cause you to go to another store or do you just go in and shop anyway? What if it is a candidate you favor? Do you buy more? Would you go to a new store because they support your candidate?


Ideally, we should be able to treat our fellow citizens the same no matter which candidate they favor. But when the political divide gets wider and wider, and rhetoric gets hotter and hotter, I can't help but wonder whether the money I would spend in the store might not end up supporting candidates I oppose.

Would it be better if they left the sign off? Then they still might use my payments to support candidates I oppose, but I wouldn't know. (Well I could look at the APOC reports.) Does posting a sign on your business constitute an in-kind donation? What if Conoco-Phillips put a huge banner down the side of their building?

I remember once asking the owner of an ethnic restaurant about the large poster of a candidate in the window. "The candidate eats here often and asked to put it up. We couldn't say no." Notice how skillfully the owner did not tell me if they supported the candidate or not.

Do such posters help a candidate? Do yard signs help a candidate? I would gess they do help persuade the undecideds. If you see lots of signs, especially if you know and respect the people whose yards they are in, you get a feeling that this person has widespread support. Especially if you want to fit in, be like everyone else. But some people may be turned off by the signs, especially if they are put up illegally.* (See below) I tried finding some articles on this, but didn't come up with anything recent. I guess people just assume it works.

For people who feel strongly against a candidate, seeing that candidate's poster in the window of a store they are about to enter, surely has to cause them to pause. Do you tell the owner why or just leave quietly?

The owner has the right to express his or her opinion. Is not shopping at a store that posts a sign for the candidate you dislike a political boycott? I think that going seeking the information about which candidates which business owners support and then telling people to avoid those businesses moves more into the boycott territory. Customers have a right to shop there or not. Business owners can support candidates many ways. If they want to post signs at their business, they have to consider the possible impact on their business.

But I do think the restaurant owner I mentioned above could have declined, saying that they didn't want to offend potential customers by having any political signs. They could then offer to have a sign at their house if they did support the candidate. Or, conversely, they could also allow the opponent to post a sign, though the opponent would probably assume they support the other candidate and wouldn't ask.


*While trying to get some information for this post I did find this about putting signs on roadways from the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities:

1. Campaign signs placed within the State’s road and highway rights-of-way are deemed unauthorized encroachments under AS 19.25.200 – 19.25.250 and will be removed by DOT crews without notification. Vehicles parked in rights-of-way that are used to display political advertisements are also prohibited and subject to removal. Political campaign signs are considered outdoor advertising.

2. AS 19.25.105(a) states, “Outdoor advertising may not be erected or maintained within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way…” This section deals with advertising outside the corridor, but also addresses advertising that maybe placed within the corridor on bus benches or trash receptacles. If the sign is on private property, DOT must provide a 30-day written notice of removal to the sign owner and property owner.

Green Party Convention and Other Third Party Presidential Candidates We Missed

While the Alaska blogosphere has been talking about Alaska bloggers going to the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, I haven't seen any mention of the Green Party National Convention that took place this past weekend in Chicago. Here was their schedule.

According to CBS

(CBS/AP) Green Party delegates have selected former Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of Georgia as the party's presidential nominee..
.
McKinney tapped Rosa Clemente, a hip-hop artist, journalist and activist, as her running mate.

McKinney, 53, entered politics by following her father, an Atlanta policeman who later served in the Georgia State House. She won her first seat in 1988, and later ran for and won a House race in 1992, becoming the first African American woman to represent Georgia in Congress. . .

Clamente, 36, born in the Bronx and of Puerto Rican descent, was raised in one of the nation's poorest communities, and became an activist and journalist angered by the Bush administration's response in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

"I choose to do this, not for me, but for my generation, my community and my daughter," she said of the nomination. "I don't see the Green Party as an alternative; I see it as an imperative."

I also didn't see any coverage of the Libertarian Convention that was held May 22-26 in Denver, where they also nominated a former congress person, Bob Barr. But I can't imagine that there weren't a couple of Alaska blogs that covered this. I just couldn't find any. Barr's campaign site biography begins this way:

Bob Barr is the 2008 Libertarian nominee for President of the United States. Previously, he represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003, serving as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, as Vice-Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, and as a member of the Committee on Financial Services. He now practices law with the Law Offices of Edwin Marger, and runs a consulting firm, Liberty Strategies LLC, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia and with offices in the Washington, D.C. area. Barr works tirelessly to help preserve our fundamental right to privacy and our other civil liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

For more go to the Barr website.

The Libertarian vice president candidate is Wayne Allyn Root

Wayne Allyn Root is the 2008 Libertarian Party Vice Presidential nominee. Founder and Chairman of a successful small business, Wayne is a self-made businessman as well as an author and television producer. Wayne's professional life has focused in the realm of business, though he maintains a deep interest in the political sphere in addition to his commercial pursuits. This dynamic has created a political perspective similar to that of the average American, and the air of a true "citizen-politician."

The rest is at another page on the Barr site. It includes a short video too.

Who else are we missing?

MapsofWorld.com offers these other third party candidates (how many third party candidates can you have? Seems like we need to start thinking about 4th, 5th, 6th party candidates, or just other party candidates): Constitution Party, Prohibition Party, Socialist Party.

The Constitution Party had its convention at the end of April, but their last online news update is from early May:

Constitution Party Chooses Baldwin - 5/18/2008
At its April 24-27 national convention in Kansas City, the Constitution Party nominated Florida pastor/political activist Charles O. Chuck Baldwin as its candidate for president of the United States. Baldwin received 383.8 votes to 125.7 garnered by Marylands Alan Keyes and a few given to minor candidates. During the...
After having been named the party’s nominee, he asked the convention to nominate Tennessee attorney Darrell Castle as his running mate, and his request was honored.

The Prohibition Party's website doesn't say a lot. They are against the sale of alcohol. The blog Third Party Watch says their presidential candidate Gene Amondson told a Florida reporter he would probably vote for McCain. One of the commenters noted,

I guess we can rule out that he was drunk when he said it.

From VoteSocialist2008.org, the nominees of the Socialist Party:

For President and Vice President of the United States: Brian Moore of Florida and Stewart Alexander of California.

Brock emailed me a link to this - I didn't know!

What can I say? Go camping for a few days and you get behind on breaking news.

Outside Blogger Acknowledges Diane Benson is Running for Congress

Congratulations to whomever notified Reid Wilson of Real Clear Politics that Diane Benson is running for Congress. After first writing that

In November, the Republican nominee will face former State Rep. Ethan Berkowitz,

He later makes a correction. Well, he calls it a 'clarification.'

Clarification: Young, or Parnell, will not necessarily face Berkowitz in November. Berkowitz has his own primary, in which he will face Diane Benson, who ran against Young in 2006 and ran for governor in 2002. Benson held Young to 57% in 2006, his lowest win percentage since 1994. National Democrats will privately admit they favor Berkowitz, but Benson has run before and could benefit from better name recognition.

Press Reports: Obama Coming to Alaska

The Anchorage Press reports online:

Tuesday night, in a conference room in the Loussac library, Barack Obama State Director Kat Pustay told about 50 Alaskans that Obama would be coming to campaign here sometime before November.

Once he does, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee will be the first major party nominee to campaign here since Richard Nixon did in 1960.

MSNBC article on Alaska Congressional Race

MSNBC has an online article by L.D. Kirshenbaum on Berkowitz' campaign against incumbent Don Young for Congress.

The Alaska race is the one of the most dramatic examples of a national trend in which incumbent Republicans are fighting to keep formerly safe seats in Congress, particularly because Alaska has only one congressman. On Wednesday, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee placed Berkowitz on its list of “Red to Blue” candidates who will receive strategic and financial support leading up to the November election.

Although the article mentions that Don Young has a primary challenge

Before squaring off with Berkowitz in November, Young is facing a challenge from within his own party. Sean Parnell, the lieutenant governor, has entered the state’s Aug. 26 primary and has the popular governor’s support. Parnell also has been endorsed by the Club for Growth, which works to promote anti-tax candidates and to defeat what it sees as free-spending incumbents.

A search of the article using "Benson" turned up nothing. "Primary" got the above quote. Nothing about LeDoux either. Another example of outside writers ignoring a serious candidate in the Democratic primary. Wouldn't they all be surprised if this person they don't even know exists became the Democratic candidate in August?

I don't think there is anything Alaskans don't already know. All I can find (I'm being called to go for dinner) about the author is:

L.D. Kirshenbaum ’84 is a freelance writer in Seattle.
B.A., Reed College. M.A., N.Y.U.

I know about this article because people are coming to my site from it. There's a link to the audio of Berkowitz on the House floor May 2006 that I have posted when the three politicians were indicted last May.

[Later: For a much more thorough and informed overview of the Alaska races see this post by Phil Munger at Progressive Alaska.]

Guidelines for Dealing with Promo Emails - Begich Online Interview today at 3pm

The good news, I suppose, is that somebody thinks my blog is worth paying attention to. But now I have to figure out how to deal with emails that want me to publicize something for them. Here are my first draft guidelines:

If you pass something on:

1. let the readers know how you got the story (this really goes for any post)
2. there should be something that might be of interest to your readers (both of them) that they might not know about otherwise
3. there should be something unique about the opportunity

I'll have to come up with some more, but this will do for now.

Let's try them out:
1.
I got an email from a website that describes itself as "a progressive blog started by former edwards supporters and dedicated to promoting a progressive agenda and "more and BETTER" downticket candidates." Is 'downticket' like coach?
They say they got my email from Begich's online guy Matt Browner-Hamlin.

2.
They want me to let my readers know about an onliine interview with Mark Begich, Alaska's downticket candidate for Senator. (No they didn't say it like that.) It's happening this afternoon at 3pm Alaska time at www.EENRblog.com. You have to register if you want to ask questions, and they want you to keep them respectful. It's pretty short notice and I suspect 'my readers' aren't likely to see this anywhere else, except maybe one of the other Alaska blogs that got a similar email.

3.
Is it unique? Well, I've never participated in an online candidate interview. There's curiosity factor. Maybe I'll want to do a live interview here one day. My readers can be on the blog frontier. Mom - you can impress your grandson's friends with your hipness.

Of course this site may think they are offering Alaskan's a great opportunity to talk with one of our Senate candidates. They probably don't realize how accessible they are here where we have so few people. But for people outside of Anchorage, bumping into Mark Begich at the Thai Kitchen isn't so easy. What might be more interesting to Alaskans, though, is the chance to find out about candidates from other states.



And I did find this video on "Why I'm Voting Republican" on their site.

Political Reporting Issues: The Press Does Ray Metcalfe

Bloggers overlap with various other more traditional categories - diarist, gossip, and journalist seem to be among the more common. When we morph into a journalist form enough, people start sending us press releases. I don't get too many. APU's Engaging Muslims series started sending them after I posted on the first evening of the series. The Alaska Report has sent out links to some stories. And I've been getting Wednesday sneak previews of the Anchorage Press. I've always wondered how, say, NPR gets their stories. How many come from their reporters actually going out and finding a story and how many are based on press releases? Of course, the email I mentioned yesterday offering to exchange links falls in a related category of self promotion.

I write all this because as someone new to much of this, I don't take these things for granted, and I want to comment on them before I do. Most of us probably don't know why certain stories become news and others don't. And part of me wants to work on stories that others aren't working on, and not be a promotion site. Or work the stories in ways others aren't working them.

So this story from the tomorrow's Press (well, by the time I'm done it will be today's Press) is about something I've been thinking about. And I have mentioned that Brendan Joel Kelley, who wrote the story and emailed it out to various reporters (the list isn't visible) and I had lunch a couple of weeks ago. He ended up paying for mine because mine was only $5 and I had a $20 and a $1. I contributed the $1. I mention this because I think politicians who have their lunches paid for by people lobbying them on various issues should tell us who they talked to and if they got a free lunch out of it. And I'm willing to disclose that even though I don't have to.

Anyway, I'm not ready to do this story, but I think there are a couple of angles here to be explored that Brendan doesn't explore.

The story is basically about whether Ray Metcalfe is a serious candidate for the Senate. According to the story, Metcalfe says he is.

The issues this story stirred up for me - still unresolved but I can raise them here and say that I may actually follow up on them or not - are about:

1. How journalists cover politicians
2. Ray Metcalfe's political personas

The media issue is ultimately the more important long term issue and Metcalfe is more a case study to help us think about the first.

Brendan Joel Kelley writes:

Metcalfe points out that Palin exposed the Republican Party chair, Randy Ruedrich, for ethical violations, and says that he’s exposed a hundred times as much corruption as that. “Look what the public did for her. It’s not the good ol’ boys that are going to put you in office, and it’s not the guys with the thousand dollar campaign checks. It’s the guys with the five dollar campaign checks and the yard signs and the elbow grease.”

Here, Brendan has interviewed Metcalfe and is reporting what Metcalfe says. This is an important part of journalism, as reporters on behalf of the rest of us, talk to the candidates. We need to know two things about candidates:

• Content - where do they stand on the issues?; and
• Credibility - do we feel comfortable with them and can we trust them?

Television has the advantage of showing us the interview so we can judge for ourselves (though we don't know what they cut out or how different camera angles subliminally affect how we perceive the candidates.) We get the feel and intonation of the candidate that help us judge credility, but this can distract us from the content.

The written report has the advantage that it can be more in depth than most television news stories - Charlie Rose's interviews being an exception - and they can focus on the content and analyze in more depth as Richard Mauer's infrequent, long, and informative investigative reports do.

This Press piece is more like a tv interview, telling us what the candidate said and and not doing much research to find out whether it's true or not.

In the above quote, Metcalfe is trying to grab some of Sarah Palin's glow as a stalwart who refused to go along with corruption. But Palin's just isn't going to stick for Metcalfe. While Metcalfe has standing up against corruption in common with Sarah Palin, how they stood up aginst corruption and their whole demeanor are totally different.

Palin was put in a position where she had to go along with corruption or stand up and say, publicly, these guys are cheating and I can't work with them. But that's just one part of what makes her attractive to Alaskan voters and national Republican strategists. She's also a good looking woman with a warm personality who makes people (except Republican party leaders) feel comfortable.

Metcalfe, in his own words says he’s "exposed a hundred times as much corruption." Metcalfe probably thinks that makes him a hundred times more deserving of the public's gratitude. The Greeks talked about doing all things in moderation. And for many people, I suspect, it raises questions about why he seems so obsessed with exposing other people's wrong doings. And he doesn't have Palin's smiling personality which goes a long way in the trust department. And becoming a hero by turning on your former friends (Metcalfe is a former Republican) was never a sure path.

Whistle blower is the most positive word we have for such people, and some even use whistle blower pejoratively. Other words for what Metcalfe has done include tattletale, snitch, and turncoat. Don't get me wrong. I think that Metcalfe has performed an invaluable service and we need more people to follow his example, but our society is ambivalent about this kind of work. I suspect because it seems to conflict with our value of loyalty.

Spousal immunity is a principle that reflects this conflict between loyalty and turning in a criminal. In court it helps protect the necessary bond between a husband and wife that

... was thought to require a testimonial privilege, one that would both reflect and foster the loyalty that married people should feel toward each other.

For Palin, calling out Ruedrich and Murkowski was an important act, but it was one of many things she did and stood for. For Metcalfe, in most people's minds (those who even think about these things at all), it is his purpose to go after corrupt politicians. In the public's view, this isn't balanced out by other aspects of his life. It's not balanced. Brendan writes:

It’s worth asking what Ray Metcalfe is running for, as opposed to whom he’s running against.

(The article does also then give a list of things he's for.)

Brendan also raises the question whether the US Senate is the right job for someone who appears to excel in criminal investigations, asking

. . .if he wouldn’t be better suited for a job other than Senator from Alaska. Like working for the Department of Justice. Or becoming a private investigator.

Another identity issue for Metcalfe is whether he is becoming the Hillary Clinton of the Alaskan US Senate race.

His allegations against Begich are complex and involve real estate deals with local developer Jon Rubini, of JL Properties, who’s also connected to Ted Stevens through property deals. Metcalfe’s compiled his paper trails and accusations in documents that are on his website, www.metcalfe4senate.com

While he says he is serious about this campaign, the money and polls suggest that Begich is the likely Democratic candidate, with a far more significant lead over Metcalfe than Obama ever had over Clinton. If he has no chance of winning, does he have a good chance of causing the Democrats to lose?

As one rebel union member who also has issues with Begich said to me, "Yes, I have problems with Begich, but I'm going to vote for him over Stevens. But I won't be out campaigning for him." Primary elections are all about politicians from the same party showing why they are the best candidate and sometimes that involves showing the weaknesses of their, same party, opponents. But while I don't think the McCain campaign will need any help from Hillary when they attack Obama, I suspect that Stevens' campaign will use Metcalfe's material against Begich, and it wouldn't have had that material without Metcalfe.

Comparing Metcalfe to Clinton works only in one aspect - being the potential spoiler who won't let go to the point where many think he/she will enable their shared opponent to win in the general election.

And this raises another journalistic issue. Brendan raises Metcalfe's allegations and then he offers a response from the Begich campaign:

For its part, the Begich campaign has a thick stack of papers rebutting one of Metcalfe’s claims—that Begich assisted Rubini by pushing to rezone of a parcel of land, boosting its value significantly. The federal government subsequently purchased it from Rubini’s company, at what Metcalfe says was an inflated price, for the National Archives building. Begich disputes all of Metcalfe’s accusations, calling the situation a shame.

“He throws these allegations around because they make good political hay and he never has to back it up,” Begich says. “Honestly, I run my campaign focused on the issues that I want to talk about; Ray would rather throw grenades and he doesn’t really care where they land."

This is the same sort of 'he said, she said" journalism we get every day, which clouds the issues in voters' minds, but doesn't dig deeper into the validity of the claims. We need some people to read through all of Metcalfe's allegations and take his tour and then go to the Begich people and sort through their responses. And then map them out. Are the allegations merely correlation without evidence of cause and effect? Are the responses credible and do they effectiely refute Metcalfe's claims? I know Metcalfe believes he's right, so do Pete Kott and Vic Kohring. I don't mean to lump Metcalfe with those folks, but merely to point out that believing you are right is not the same as being right.

One person who has a better perspective on these things than I do, says that Begich has some blindspots like everyone else. A member of his campaign just as vigorously defends Begich's actions on the waste issues. But good journalism should do some of this work for the public. And I say some people instead of someone should do this so we have various people reviewing and then interpreting the evidence.

One other thing wasn't quite clear to me. Did Brendan actually take the Metcalfe tour of Anchorage? He writes:

There’s a tour of Anchorage that Ray Metcalfe likes to give to journalists, politicians, FBI agents, and other interested parties. He calls it his “three-hour tour,” although it could probably go on longer. The tour hits everywhere from base housing at Elmendorf to parking lots in downtown Anchorage to a lot in Midtown near Loussac Library to a road in a sprawling development in South Anchorage.

This second quote (below) indirectly hints that he did, and I suspect he did, and he just didn't realize anyone would even question it, but it would be helpful if he just came out and told us directly that he took the tour.

One wonders, when you take the three-hour tour and listen to Metcalfe pontificate on his passion for independently investigating political corruption, if he wouldn’t be better suited for a job other than Senator from Alaska. Like working for the Department of Justice. Or becoming a private investigator. Or charging money to tourists for the three-hour tours.

I noticed at the trials that the Main Stream Media (MSM) and us bloggers didn't really do the work. The FBI and the prosecutors did all the work. We just had to be in court and listen and take notes.

The same thing is true about the Republican and Democratic conventions (I was out of town for the Republican convention, but the other bloggers were there) and the AGIA workshop last week. The Governor's team at the Department of Natural Resoures did all the work, we just listened to what they reported.

Metcalfe did the real work of the journalists of doggedly tracking down information and making sense out of it. And whether that makes him a good candidate for the Senate, I can't determine, but we owe him a great debt for the hours and hours of work he did so well. But I also wonder about people who spend so much time exposing other people's failings. In some cases such people appear to have some complex pyschological issues - such as evangelist Ted Haggard or New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. Others appear to simply have a strong sense of justice such as Ralph Nader whose life has been thoroughly investigated with no evidence found to impugn him.

The facts allow for lots of different interpretations. Getting enough information is a long and difficult job. Right now I think too many people claim to know the answers when at best, all they can really do is guess at possible ways to interpret the data. And reporters have a real role in helping the public in this process - and bloggers can fit in that role of reporter.

Alaska Democratic Conference Post 4 - counting Obama delegates

I tried to video directly to youtube from the camera. It worked, but you can see that the video quality is low. This was the counting of the Obama delegates.

Alaska Democratic Conference Post 2

Figuring out how to do this is going to take a bit. I'm going to save the videos at a low quality so it all goes faster. Right now people are dividing up into precincts. Here's the video of Ethan Berkowitz, US House Candidate. Unfortunately I got here too late to capture Diane Benson's speech. Maybe I can get her to say something directly to the blog later. [Both speeches are now posted here thanks to David Shurtleff at APRN.}





[viddler seems not to be working so I'm reposting from youtube.]