Some Suggestions For Improving Don Young's Online Poll And Anchorage Impeach Rally

I got an email poll from Don Young today.

It would appear that he is looking for confirmation of his priorities.  If he really wanted to know what his constituents wanted, then when we marked other, it would ask for specifics.  Here's the poll:

priorities opt in

Heading into 2020, which legislative priority would you like to see Congress work on? Which legislative priority would you like to see Congress work on? Protecting the Tax Cuts Strengthening the Middle Class Energy and Resource Development Lowering the Cost of Prescription Drugs Rebuilding our Infrastructure Other Email Address*

I took it to the next step just to be sure it didn't ask for comments.  It didn't.  But it gave me the results so far.

If you want to participate you can here.

My interpretation is that Democratic priorities are on top, and Republican priorities are at the bottom. Does Don Young really want to know what we want?  Or is this just something to test whether his email list is up to date or to get his name before his constituents as we had for the 2020 election?

But just to clarify - Climate Change legislation - specifically a carbon fee and dividend bill  like the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act would be my top priority.  Impeachment is high on my list too.  Income equality through revision of the tax structure and strengthening environmental regulations and enforcement.  Immigration reform and, in the meantime, humane treatment of asylum seekers and others along the border - including letting doctors to give flu shots to inmates of ICE as well as other health care.


I also got this email today.

Nobody is Above the Law Impeachment Rally
WHEN:Tuesday, December 17 at NOON
HOST(S):Izzy F. Joni B.
WHEREU.S. District Court building
7th Ave and C Street (south east corner)
Anchorage, AK 99513

Unfortunately, I won't be able to go because I'm at the airport on my way to LA where we'll be joined in a few days by kids and grandkids.  (Unfortunately because I'll miss the rally - definitely want to be with the kids.)

Thanks To Kathy and Her Friends

At least one of my readers is a Kentucky voter, so thanks Kathy.

Last night Trump told a crowd in Kentucky "If you lose, it sends a really bad message … you can’t let that happen to me.”

Well, @realDonaldTrump is hearing your message loud and clear tonight. 📢

— Andrew Gillum (@AndrewGillum) November 6, 2019

I went to a fundraiser for Alyse Galvin tonight.  She's going to replace our head hunting member of Congress after the elections two days less than a year from now.   (At first I wrote 'head butting' but Liz Ruskin said it was more like a nudge, but if you go in his office, the walls are lined with the heads of dead animals.

Picture from FB via Open Secrets

Researchers Offer Four Common Characteristics of Mass Shooters

Scholars Jillian Peterson and James Densley  list four common traits of the mass shooters they studied.  This is a very abbreviated form from the LA Times.

"First, the vast majority of mass shooters in our study experienced trauma and exposure to violence at a young age. The nature of their exposure included parental suicide, physical or sexual abuse, neglect, domestic violence and/or severe bullying. . .
Second, practically every mass shooter we studied had reached an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting.  . .
Third, most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters and sought validation for their motives. . .
Fourth, the shooters all had the means to carry out their plans.     . . "

They go on to list ways to prevent such shootings.  Basically:

• remove access to good locations by adding more security
• remove access to guns
• remove the notoriety they seek and get from the media
• remove barriers to reporting people for people who see signs of potential violence*
• much more education about mental health and how to cope and get help in all schools

*This is in contrast to the article that friends of the Ohio shooter broke off from him when he DID show signs, but apparently they didn't tell police until after the shootings.  

But let's remember that the NRA not only leans hard on its Republican (and a very few Democratic) members of Congress to prevent  banning any weapons or adding any restrictions to getting weapons, BUT just as pernicious is their successful ban on government agencies doing research on gun violence.  If you can't do research, you can't show the impact of guns on society.  Fortunately, there are some non-governmental research who continue to study gun violence.

In the 2016 election cycle, Open Secrets tells us the NRA spent  $839,574 on Congressional candidates.
In 2018 (not a presidential election year), they spent  $711,654.

Here's what they spent on Alaskan members of Congress in 2016.  

Name	Office	Total Contributions
Young, Don (R-AK)	House	$6,950
Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK)	Senate	$4,500
Sullivan, Dan (R-AK)	Senate	$2,000

And let's remember the NRA, which used to be an organization of hunters and gun collectors that taught gun safety, is now an organization funded significantly by the gun industry.

How many shootings will it take until half the voting population personally knows someone who died in a mass shooting?  Will we change the laws then?

Comparing Congressional Tweets - AOC Shines

What is it that I like so much about AOC Tweets?
I think it's that she tweets the way I would if I were in Congress, and the way I blogged the Alaska Legislature back in 2010.  Showing us what new eyes notice about the place.  Not worried about 'what you're supposed to do or not do.'  Showing people what goes on behind the scenes that others either take for granted or think shouldn't be talked about.  She also does a great job of giving credit to others.

So here's a great one from today.  [If you click on the > at the bottom right of the Tweet, it will take you to the Twitter page of each of these Members of Congress.]

Let’s talk abt how Gov works behind the scenes: Remember that Big Pharma hearing last week?

Here’s how it happened.

A 23 y/o staffer in my office met w/ local HIV advocates. They argued the CDC held the patent for PrEP & Gilead was price gouging.

She picked it up + dug in. /1

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 24, 2019

My senior US Senator Lisa Murkowski:

As medicine and technology evolve, we must ensure that our healthcare professionals, even in the most rural areas, have access to the continued education that will allow them to provide the best care possible.

— Sen. Lisa Murkowski (@lisamurkowski) May 24, 2019

My Junior Senator Dan Sullivan:

I’d like to commend @IvankaTrump for strongly advocating for #paidfamilyleave. There are a number of proposals—some bipartisan—in the Senate that I will be taking a serious look at in the coming weeks and months. pic.twitter.com/k1EVMSsuPe

— SenDanSullivan (@SenDanSullivan) May 24, 2019

And my member of congress, Don Young:

#OTD in 1919, the House passed the #19thAmendment, finally granting women the right to vote. 100 years on, we honor the women who fought to make history, and celebrate those who continue to do so. Learn more about the 19th Amendment: https://t.co/dQ1tQBmi3G via @librarycongress pic.twitter.com/Kuq0VAecMR

— Rep. Don Young (@repdonyoung) May 21, 2019

My assessment apparently isn't isolated.  Here's how many people follow each of the members of Congress on Twitter:

Ocasio-Cortez has 4.3M Followers
Murkowski has 260K Followers
Sullivan has 36.4K Followers
Young has 19K Followers

OK, AOC is part of the internet age, but it's more than that.  She's got

• 16 times what Murkowski has
• 118 times what Sullivan has
• 226 times what Young has

in just four months in Congress.  Other people must also appreciate her insights into how things work and her candor.

Obviously, this is just one measure of a member of congress, so take these numbers and put them into your mental notebook to compare to other measures you're tracking.

House Republicans Pass Bill Just To Say They Passed Bill To Kill Obamacare

That was my impression.  That they would say anything to anyone to get them to change their vote to yes.  What's in the bill was irrelevant.  Whether it was good policy or not was irrelevant.  Whether it made the people of the US better off or not was irrelevant.  Trump and Ryan said Obamacare repeal and replacement was their top priority.  They missed the 100 day mark, but now they got it.  Passed the House anyway.  It was just a symbol.

And as I read today's ADN on why our Rep. Don Young changed his vote to yes, it seems he believes that it was just symbolic.

From Rep. Don Young:

“'This bill we passed today will not become law. It’ll be changed as time goes by. But unless we move it, or move a vehicle, nothing’s going to happen, and that’s not good,' Young said Thursday in an interview after the vote."

He was 'promised' there would be changes to protect Alaska which reports say comes out worst of all states under this legislation.

“I got a commitment from the speaker to take care of the disproportionate cost — we and Illinois are really hurt the worst but we think we can take care of that,” Young said. 

“And I know we have the money, about $19 billion that can be dispersed” to offset costs, he said. “I’ve talked to the Secretary (of Health and Human Services) — Dr. (Tom) Price — and he assures me that (Alaska) will be made whole, if it was to become law.”

I'm not a big Don Young fan, but he is a wily politician and he either knows that this bill won't make it through the Senate as is, or even at all.  Or he believes he'll get what he was promised.  Given this administration, I suspect the former.

And Alaska's US Senator Lisa Murkowski confirms my impression:

"Murkowski said she fears the House “is basically trying to just build the votes rather than build good policy,” and get the “monkey off its back” to pass the bill along to the Senate."

November 2018 is going to be the most interesting and probably the  nastiest mid-term election in a long time.

For $65 You Can Have Dinner With Sens Murkowski And Sullivan Friday in Soldotna

Celebrate Trump's First 100 Days!

Or you could have brunch with Don Young on Saturday.  For only $25.  (Senators cost more than Representatives, besides you get two of them for dinner.)

Images from the Kenai Peninsula Republican Women of Alaska Facebook page.

GCI More Important Than The Rest Of Us

ADN explains why Alaska members of congress voted to end internet privacy protection:

"The rule would have required internet service providers (ISPs) to get consent from users before collecting information from their web browsing history for any purpose, including advertising.
Other internet companies like Google and Facebook don't have to do the same; though they have more limited access to browsing history, they do use the information they gather to make money advertising to users.
Murkowski, Sullivan and Young for the most part said that their concerns about piecemeal regulations outweighed their desire to protect individuals' data.
'So we looked at this one very carefully. Where I came down on it at the end was: What this rule did was it set up basically two standards depending on what the platform was. And that made no sense," Murkowski said after voting in favor of repealing the FCC rule. "It would have created confusion.'"

Their explanation means two things to me:

1. They value fairness for corporations over fairness for US citizens
2. GCI has more clout in Alaska than the people of Alaska.  Remember - Ted Stevens died in a plane crash going to a GCI retreat on a GCI plane with GCI execs, as he had done over the years

Of course, this was also the Republican party line anyway.

Snow Jobs - Literal and Figurative (Or How Much Did Murkowski, Sullivan, And Young Get To Give Away Internet Privacy?)

The Literal Snow Job

There were about 10 inches of fresh snow yesterday in Anchorage.  Here's our backyard.

And here's our mountain ash tree in front after a gust of wind.

The Figurative Snow Job

The Verge compiled a table of contributions from telecom companies to US senators and representatives who voted 'yes' yesterday to grant them the right to sell people's internet browsing information without permission and without anonymizing it.    The got the data from Follow the Money.

You can see the whole list at the Verge link.  I'm just looking at our Alaskan senators and member of congress.


Senators
Murkowski, Lisa Republican AK $66,250

Sullivan, Daniel Republican AK $10,550

Member of Congress
Young, Don Republican AK 1st $28,650

The Joint Resolution 34 passed in the senate 50 (all Republicans) to 48 (all Democrats) with two Republicans absent.  Going through the contributions, Sen. Murkowski was the 21st highest recipient among the Republicans.  (They didn't list how much Democrats got from these companies.)  Sen. Sullivan received the 3rd lowest amount, which could indicate his lack of influence or that they know his vote is locked anyway.  I'd note that one senator received $0 - the newly appointed Sen. Strange from Alabama taking Sen. Sessions seat after his appointment to Attorney General.

Rep. Young got the 65th highest amount among the Republicans who voted for the bill, which puts him in the top 30%.   There were 215 Republicans who voted for the bill, 15 Republicans who voted against it, and 205 Democrats who voted against it.  Six Republicans and three Democrats did not vote.  

The 15 Republicans who voted against the bill are the interesting group.  Here's the list (From GovTrack):

Vote	Party	Representative	District
Nay	R	Brooks, Mo	AL 5th
Nay	R	McClintock, Tom	CA 4th
Nay	R	Coffman, Mike	CO 6th
Nay	R	Yoder, Kevin	KS 3rd
Nay	R	Graves, Garret	LA 6th

Vote	Party	Representative	District
Nay	R	Amash, Justin	MI 3rd
Nay	R	Zeldin, Lee	NY 1st
Nay	R	Faso, John	NY 19th
Nay	R	Stefanik, Elise	NY 21st
Nay	R	Jones, Walter	NC 3rd

Vote	Party	Representative	District
Nay	R	Davidson, Warren	OH 8th
Nay	R	Sanford, Mark	SC 1st
Nay	R	Duncan, John	TN 2nd
Nay	R	Herrera Beutler, Jaime	WA 3rd
Nay	R	Reichert, David	WA 8th

Note:  I did NOT go back and double check the amounts each candidate received.  I did spend a little time on the Follow The Money website, but I wasn't sure how to duplicate the search they did.  There are a number of variables that could probably change the amounts.  Thus, I also couldn't check to see how much the Republicans and Democrats who voted against the resolution received from the same groups.

Additional more:  Several people have started lucrative crowdsourcing pages to get and publish the private browsing of all the members of the US Congress.  But Techcruncher and others say this isn't likely to happen.  They say that non-anonymized data is NOT available, plus private purchaser can't just come in and buy the data unless the ISP agrees.  The Freedom of Information Act only covers the federal government, not private companies.  And after giving millions to members of congress to get this done, they aren't likely to turn around and stab them in the back.

Hope Springs Eternal - Can Steve Lindbeck Beat Rep. Don Young?

Usually there are more post ideas than I have time or energy for.  And I have a lot of draft posts that are either in queue for when I'm ready to finish them.  And there are a lot more that probably are past their use by date.

Here's one I started the day that Steve Lindbeck officially announced his campaign to unseat Representative Don Young.  I gathered the election numbers back to Young's first race for the house in 1972 when he lost to Nick Begich.  Since then, the closest race was 1990 when he won by less than 8,000 votes.

The factors that matter seem to be:

Does the opponent have name recognition and a good reputation?
Lindbeck has never run for political office before, but he's had a number of jobs where his name got out to Alaskans and he had opportunities to get around the state.  He was a journalist with the Anchorage Daily News.  He was head of the Alaska Humanities Forum, and head of the Alaska Public Broadasting.

Presidential year or not?
Opponents seem to have done better during presidential years when more people voted.

Other factors.
More candidates in the race seems to help Young.  This year the turmoil in the Republican Party may or may not have a spillover effect into this House race.  Lindbeck has raised a relatively large amount for Young opponents.  There were a number of incumbents house legislators who lost in the primaries this year.  Young's tainted by some scandals including a road in Florida and his clout in Congress is much weakened.  Will that be enough?  I haven't seen any poll data, so we'll just have to wait and see.

Here's the post I began last April.


The official announcement was today, that Steve Lindbeck will run as a Democrat against Alaska's Republican Congressman for life (as some call him) Don Young.


2014
Republican Don Young Incumbent    51% 142,572
Democratic Forrest Dunbar                41% 114,602
Libertarian Jim McDermott                 7.6% 21,290
Write-in 0.5%                                                  1,277
Total Votes                                                  279,741


2012
Republican Don Young 63.9% 185,296
Democratic Sharon M. Cissna 28.6% 82,927
Libertarian Jim C. McDermott 5.2% 15,028
NA Ted Gianoutsos 1.9% 5,589
NA Write-in 0.3% 964
Total Votes 289,804


2014 and 2012 from Ballotopedia


2008
Berkowitz, Ethan A. DEM 142560 44.97%
Wright, Don R. AI 14274 4.50%
Young, Don E. REP 158939 50.14%
Write-in Votes 1205 0.38%
State Election results -


2006

BENSON, DIANE E. DEM           93879  40.01%
CRAWFORD, ALEXANDER LIB  4029    1.72%
INCE, EVA L. GRN                         1819    0.78%
RATIGAN, WILLIAM IMP             1615   0.69%
YOUNG, DON E. REP                 132743 56.57%
Write-in Votes                                     560    0.24%
Total Votes 234645
State of Alaska


2004
ANDERS, ALVIN A. LIB 7157 2.39%
HIGGINS, THOMAS M. DEM 67074 22.36%
YOUNG, DON E. REP 213216 71.07%
FELLER, TIMOTHY A. GRN 11434 3.81%
Write-in Votes 1115 0.37%
Total Votes 299996
State of Alaska


2002
YOUNG, DON REP 169685 74.51%
deFOREST, RUSSELL GRN 14435 6.34%
CLIFT, ROB LIB 3797 1.67%
GREENE, CLIFFORD DEM 39357 17.28%
Write-in Votes 451 0.20%
Total Votes 227725

State of Alaska

2000

GREENE, CLIFFORD DEM 45372 16.54%
DORE, JIM AI 10085 3.68%
KARPINSKI, LEONARD LIB 4802 1.75%
YOUNG, ANNA C. GRN 22440 8.18%
YOUNG, DON E. REP 190862 69.56%
Write-in Votes 832 0.30%
Total Votes 274393
State of Alaska


1998
YOUNG, DON REP 139676 62.55%
DUNCAN, JIM DEM 77232 34.59%
GRAMES, JOHN GRN 5923 2.65%
Write-in Votes 469 0.21%

Total Votes 223300

State of Alaska



1996
GRAMES, JOHN J. G. G 4513 1.9|
LINCOLN, GEORGIANNA D 85114 36.4|
NEMEC, WILLIAM J., II AI 5017 2.1|
YOUNG, DON R 138834 59.4|
Writein Votes 222 0.1
State of Alaska

1994
CANDIDATE PARTY VOTES PERCENTAGE
Tony Smith (D) 68,172 32.7%
Jonni Whitmore (G) 21,277 10.2%
Don Young (R) 118,537 56.9%
Write-Ins -- 254 0.1%
State of Alaska

1992
Devens, John D 102,378 42.8%
Milligan, Mike G 9,529 3.9
States, Michael A 15,049 6.2
Young, Don R 111,849 46.7
Writein votes 311 0.1
State of Alaska

1990
Devens, John S D 91,677 47.8%
Young, Don R 99,003 51.6%
State of Alaska 1990

1988
Gruenstein, Peter D 71,881 37.2%
Young, Don R 120,595 62.4%
State of Alaska 1988


1986

Begich, Pegge D                       74,053    41%
Breck, Betty  (Belle Blue)L        4,182 2.       3%
Young, Don R                         101,799     56.4%
State of Alaska 1986



1984
Begich, Pegge D 86,052
Breck, Betty N 6,508
Young, Don R 113,582
State of Alaska 1984


1982
Dave Carlson D 52,011
Young Don R 128,274
State of Alaska 1982


1980
Parnell, Kevin D 39,922
Young, Don R 114,089
State of Alaska 1980


1978
Rodey, Patrick D 55,176
Young, Don R 61,811
State of Alaska 1978


1976
Hobson, Eben D 34,194
Young, Don R 83,722
State of Alaska 1976


1974
Hensley Willie 44,280 46.2%
Young 51,641 53.8%
State of Alaska

1972
Begich D 53,651
Young R 41,750
State of Alaska

Don Young And The Non-Apology Apology

When I blogged the Alaska legislature in 2010, a staffer was treated very rudely by a committee chair.  Later, the staffer's boss told the chair to apologize.  What the staffer got was:  "I'm sorry you were offended."  The staffer was irate.  That wasn't an apology he told me, essentially that means, "I did nothing wrong, but if you were offended, I'm sorry."

I realized that he was right.  I hadn't really paid close attention to that phrase before.  But now I do. 

From today's Alaska Dispatch News:

A week ago, in a speech to the Alaska Federation of Natives, [Don Young] was “profoundly sorry for those that took offense at what I tried to say because they did not and will not take time to understand we have to stop” suicides.

Not only does he not own up to doing anything wrong, but he blames the people who were offended for not taking the time to understand.


He's got this routine down pat. 

From his press release on October 24, 2014:

“Because of my comments, I am profoundly and genuinely sorry for the pain it has caused the Alaskan people. I am genuinely sorry for the pain I have caused the individual, as I have experienced it, and hope that you won’t have to experience that.

Here again, he did nothing wrong, but he's sorry "my comments" caused pain.  The hidden message, "Get over it, you're overly sensitive."  He doesn't even apologize for the bad grammar which is excusable when talking, but not in press release.

I realize that Young is running for reelection next week and most people in such a situation would attempt to phrase the apology in the best light.  But sometimes the best light is to actually apologize.  People are starting to see through the fake apology.

In a Washington Post article in August 2014 titled GOP Rep. Don Young apologizes for strong-arming staffer we get another non-apology apology.

“While returning to the GOP conference meeting to discuss the ongoing situation on our southern border, I was caught off guard by an unidentified individual who was physically blocking me from re-entering the room,” Mr. Young, 81, said in a statement, Politico reported. “Regardless, my reaction was wrong, and I should have never placed my hands on the young man.”

 I was caught off guard - unidentified individual - physically blocking me.  Even though the Post calls it an apology, I don't see an apology.  I do see an acknowledgement that he did something wrong, but only after being severely provoked.  And no apology.  Maybe there was more that was edited out. 

Washington Post  March 29, 2013

“During a sit-down interview with Ketchikan Public Radio this week, I used a term that was commonly used during my days growing up on a farm in Central California,” he said, as reported by the Alaska Dispatch. “I know that this term is not used in the same way nowadays, and I meant no disrespect.”

This sort of non-apology apology actually has an entry in Wikipedia. 

A non-apology apology is a statement that has the form of an apology but does not express the expected contrition. It is common in both politics and public relations. It most commonly entails the speaker saying that he or she is sorry not for a behavior, statement or misdeed, but rather is sorry only because a person who has been aggrieved is requesting the apology, expressing a grievance, or is threatening some form of retribution or retaliation.

Contrition.  A good word. 
 

Incumbency Is Not Forever: The Difference Between A 'Nobody' And A Congressman Young Is Just Votes

The way labels affect how people treat each other has always fascinated me.  When I was a doctoral student and teaching my first graduate classes, I tried an experiment that was very revealing, though not completely successful at first.

The Experiment 

I was young and I looked younger.  I came to the first class and sat down just like all the other students.  I had arranged for someone to come in and say the instructor asked that the students divide into groups of four and talk about what they expected from a graduate class.  I went off with one of the groups as though I were an MPA student like everyone else.  Which I had been until just a year earlier.

When we got back into the class, there was a discussion led by the students.  My voice was not given any more deference than anyone else's and a few people vigorously disagreed with what I said.  When I tried to transition from the exercise to getting the class to move on, students resisted.  Finally, I went to the front of the class and declared I was the instructor.  Some people laughed.  Others told me to sit down. Slowly, my identification and status in people's heads changed.  I apologized for the deception, but said I couldn't think of a better way to make an important point.   How we treat people is based on all sorts of labels and social instructions we get.  I pointed out I had been a masters degree student not long ago and that I wasn't much different from any of them and that's how they treated me at the beginning of class.  But now that they learned I was the class instructor, they treated me differently and thought about me differently.  In reality, I was the same person.  But in their heads I was a different person. 

Most of the students got the point and took it in the spirit I intended: it was a learning experience about how we know things and treat people.  But one student, who refused to even give her name when I asked everyone to introduce themselves, went to the dean to complain.  She was sure that I would retaliate against her for things she said when she thought I was a student.  Fortunately, the dean knew me and he convinced her my intent was good and to stick with it.  At the end of the semester she invited the whole class to a party at her house.


I tell you this story because we think of people in special positions - teachers, police officers, doctors, elected officials - as somehow specially anointed.   And in their roles, they do have some special authority in certain areas and we are expected to give them deference consistent with those roles.  And they are expected to fill those roles with an appropriate level of dignity and respect. But the special stuff applies only when they are acting in those roles.  The rest of the time, they are just human beings like the rest of us.

Alaska's Congressional Race Between Don Young and Forrest Dunbar

I say all this because Alaska has a Congress Member who has been in that role since 1974.  He's been the Congressman from Alaska for the lifetime of both my kids.  But, he's just a human being, though it appears that he no longer sees a difference between his official role and his private self.  And he doesn't particularly stick to the level of decorum expected of a Congress Member.  In fact, he's a pretty fallible human being as he most recently demonstrated at Wasilla High School.

Yet despite his bizarre behavior over the years, Alaskans have continued to reelect him.

Partly, because he is a pretty smart guy, who has been able to pull himself together when it counted.  When he debated Ethan Berkowitz in the US House race in 2008, for example, he had facts at his finger tips, he was charming and funny, and he handily took the debate, much to many people's surprise.  He wasn't the bumbling clown some expected.

But I also think that voters are dazzled by the pixie dust that transforms incumbents into a special, superior species.  But they are just normal humans, with more power.

This year Young's opponent, Forrest Dunbar, is an extraordinary, ordinary human being.  But a lot of people looking at him might think, well, ok, but he's nobody. How can he transform into "Congressman?"  That just means they haven't done their homework and found out who he is.  After all, there was a time when Don Young was just as 'nobody.'

In fact, all of the next ten presidents of the United States are now alive and many, if not most, are living their lives as relative 'nobodies.'  You could probably set up lunch dates with most of them.  They are just people.  But at some point they will morph from just people into "The President."

 The 'nobody' who is challenging Don Young this year is just like you and me - some guy from Alaska.  And if he were elected, he'd stay a genuine guy, I'm sure.  He's like me in class as a student, before I became, in their eyes, the instructor.

Here's what the Alaska Public Media said about Dunbar:

He spent his pre-school years in the Yukon River town of Eagle, cutting his teeth on caribou while his father worked as a Fish and Game biologist.  After the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the family moved to Cordova, where Dunbar says they had running water for the first time. . . 

Dunbar spent summers working on a commercial fishing boat and was an exchange student in Japan. A high school teacher, Tim Walters, remembers him as determined.
“Forrest was intense. And he was serious,” Walters says.
He says it was obvious, even then, that Dunbar was going places.

“In a teacher’s career, there’s usually a handful of students that really kind of stand out, that ‘Some day,’ you say to yourself, ‘they’re going to be on the cover of Time magazine.’ And Forrest was one of those kids,” Walters says.

Dunbar went on to an East Coast education:  Undergrad at American University in Washington. Harvard for a Master’s in public policy, Yale for law school. He fought wildfires out of Fairbanks for a summer and served in the Peace Corps in Kazakhstan. He was an intern for then-Sen. Frank Murkowski in Washington. He worked for Guam’s delegate to Congress. He worked in the Alaska Office of Public Advocacy. Last year, he joined the Alaska National Guard, as an officer and an attorney — a JAG.

He's a pretty special 'nobody.'

People vote for Young for all their own special reasons.  But if anyone is thinking, "yeah but the other guy's nobody" well I'm writing this to say

1. Everyone is nobody until they suddenly become somebody - as I was just another student in my class until I became 'the instructor'
2. Don Young was nobody until he got elected
3. One day, a nobody will replace Don Young
4. Forrest Dunbar is one perfect candidate for Alaska's sole US House seat - he was raised in rural and small town Alaska, he was educated in some of the best universities in the US, he's got experience in Washington DC, and he's got international experience.
5. Dunbar is far, far better prepared to be a Congress member than Young was in 1973

Young has criticized Dunbar as immature.  I think he was referring to his being only being 29.  But I'd point out that Alexander the Great was 32 when he died and Jesus was 33.

Don Young's recent arrogance at Wasilla High School should convince people that he really needs to retire.  'But what's the alternative?" 

I'm here to assure folks that we have a very viable replacement who would change our lone Congress Member's office from an embarrassment to the state to one that will bring honor to Alaska.

It's all a matter of people getting their head around the idea of what makes a nobody a somebody.

Incumbency Is Not Forever

And that change can happen.  Here's an example from the LA Weekly Voter Guide:

A year ago, Lee Baca was considered a favorite to win re-election to a fifth term as sheriff. Historically, incumbent sheriffs have needed only to be able to fog up a mirror in order to win. And though Baca was beset by scandals in the county jails, it was an open question whether voters would care. How times change. After 18 sheriff’s officials were indicted last December, Baca was forced to resign.

Can Astrology Explain The Strange Events The Last Few Days?

 Thursday, there were several stories in the paper that were so unexpected that I finally checked an astrology page for Wednesday (July 25) to see if there was some sort of strange star alignment.  From Cosmic Life Coach:

Intellectual Mercury in creative Leo is forming a 120-degree trine to Uranus in self-expressive Aries (9:27 am EDT). Uranus is considered the higher octave of Mercury and is linked with our more brilliant or genius impulses and also our intuition. Mercury-Uranus tends to quicken our mental activity, in addition to helping to showcase our original perceptions. It can also suddenly ignite our intuition, or the voice of our spirit. Accordingly, today may be an excellent day for brainstorming, trying new approaches to old problems, making discoveries, and for tuning into that “still, small voice within” for wisdom and guidance. [emphasis added]

Trying new approaches to old problems?  Is that what explains why Sandy Weill, the man everyone is crediting with shattering the Glass-Steagall Act, was now saying he was wrong and that the wall between banks and investment companies should be rebuilt?

Then there are the Republicans, led by Senator John McCain and Rep. John Boehner, who have publicly disawowed Rep. Bachmann for her unsupported anti-Muslim slurs against Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff.

Don Young's campaign ad endorsing Representative Mazie Hirono in the Hawaii Democratic primary isn't quite as shocking.  After being repeatedly elected to Congress since 1973, he seems to feel he can say or do whatever he wants without worrying about  reelection.  Plus, Alaskan and Hawaiian members of Congress have a history of reaching out across the aisle to protect their common interests.  But prominent national Republicans don't normally endorse Democrats these days, particularly not in television ads.


And while I was checking the star alignments, I thought I might see whether Mitt Romney's horoscope (he was born March 12) for July 26 might have warned him to be nice in London yesterday.   Possibly, except there was no agreement. And most it was  ambiguous.

Here are some examples:

Pisces

February 19-March 20

Remain stable, strong and straightforward in the duties you must perform today. However, remain receptive to the advice an experienced and knowledgeable female friend will offer you regarding a particular money matter.    Lucky Number:  401   Financial Outlook:   very good   Compatible Sign:   Scorpio  (Star Telegram)

I imagine Romney's financial outloook is always 'very good.'  Strong and straightforward probably wasn't good advice.  And whatever female friend warned him, financial matters weren't the problem. 

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/07/26/4126940/horoscopes-for-thursday-july-26.html#storylink=cpy

PISCES (Feb. 19-March 20). You’ll be in the position to choose your focus. Look at the moral implications, and let them weigh heavily on your decision-making process. Enjoying what you do is not a sufficient reason for doing it. (Philstar) [emphasis added]

His problem (the ones we know about anyway) was more in the realm of etiquette than morality.  Perhaps the last line is the one he should have paid attention to.  

PISCES (Feb. 19-March 20) • • • • Reach out for more information. You might be more perplexed than you realize and could be thinking on a different level from many other people.  (The Spokesman)

Looks like Mitt should have read this Spokane newspaper - get more info. . .perplexed . . . thinking on a different level from other people.  He should cut this one out and read it every day.

PISCES. (Feb. 18 - March 18): This is an auspicious time for dusting off an old project or aspiration. See where it stands. You may find it's more doable than ever.  (SF Chronicle)

Well, he is revisiting the Olympics, isn't he?  Maybe the folks in London are going to show him how doable it is.  What did the Prime Minister say?  "it's easy to run an Olympics in 'the middle of nowhere.'"  Ouch.  Not exactly the good host either.  (The mayor of Salt Lake City has since invited Cameron to 'the middle of nowhere.')

Pisces (Feb. 19-March 20)
If you’re travelling, just go with the flow today and tomorrow. If you’re not travelling, the next two days are a poor time to book a reservation somewhere. There’s a goofy element at loose in the world. It is what it is.  (National Post)

This Canadian newspaper seems to have been telling him to chill the first couple of days and it did warn him about a 'goofy element.'  It just didn't say he was the goofy element.

PISCES (Feb. 20 - Mar. 20):
The pressure has been cranking up for quite some time and over the next few days it may even become intolerable. But you are tougher than you look and will rise to the challenge. Give as good as you get. (Globe and Mail)

Is this one suggesting a turnaround for Mitt in the next couple of days?  Will Mitt seem smarter and the Brits look dumb if something goes really wrong during the Olympics?   Does being right override being a polite guest?  Except that Mitt has since said he "expects a highly successful Olympics."


The Independent (Ireland) didn't gave me their July 26 horoscope.  I got July 27 instead and I couldn't help but feel they wrote this especially for Mitt, with the knowledge of his first day in London:

Pisces: Be disciplined and careful not to alienate people with your powerful feelings. This will make life less intense and you will find it easier to cope. Watch out for your need to control events and circumstances just now. You will feel much more relaxed if you do not try so hard. Love will find a way.

CREW Synopsis of DOJ Documents on Don Young

This posts builds from Cliff Groh's post at Alaska Political Corruption that cites Charlie Savage's New York Times' May 31 article about the Public Integrity Section's (PIN) checkered record of late. PIN's the Justice Department branch that prosecuted the Alaska corruption cases, including the Stevens case, and the John Edward's case, but dropped their case against Don Young. It also includes links to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington's (CREW) report on the documents it got through Freedom of Information Act requests from DOJ regarding Don Young.

First, here are the excerpts from the Charlie Savage article that mention Young:

The two failed cases were the most nationally visible efforts in recent years by the public integrity section, which was criticized in 2010 after closing out, without bringing charges, a series of long-running investigations into current or former members of Congress including Senator John Ensign of Nevada and Representatives Tom DeLay of Texas, Jerry Lewis of California, Allan B. Mollohan of West Virginia and Don Young of Alaska. . .

“The cases that they are deciding to prosecute, and not prosecute, reflect an incoherent strategy,” she said. “At some points they are willing to be incredibly aggressive, like with John Edwards, and on the other hand they are overly cautious in refusing to prosecute people like John Ensign and Don Young.” 

. . . Mr. Smith, seeking a fresh start for the unit, urged prosecutors to file charges or close cases in which investigations had lingered. The wave of closed cases — including the decision in August 2010 not to charge Mr. Young, another Alaska Republican — led critics to accuse the section of being gun-shy. . . 

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington later sued the Justice Department to obtain documents related to the Young investigation. This spring, it obtained a draft indictment showing that investigators considered charging him with so-called honest services fraud for accepting and expecting a stream of trips, meals, golf outings and other items of value from lobbyists in exchange for official actions like meetings, letters and legislation. 

Savage goes on to say that  "honest services fraud" had been greatly limited by the Supreme Court in Enron's Jeff Skilling case and that Congress hadn't taken action to  restore its scope. 


Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has a synopsis (which Alaska Political Corruption links) of what the PIN investigation of Young produced.   Here are some excerpts of their findings. [I've left in the footnotes]

Over the course of three years, the FBI, with assistance from U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, interviewed dozens of witnesses and amassed a wealth of evidence concerning not only Rep. Young’s role in the Coconut Road earmark, but his misuse of campaign funds to finance personal expenses of both himself and his wife Lu Young. The two used Rep. Young’s campaign account as a personal piggy bank they reached into to cover such things as personal travel home to Alaska,2 restaurants unrelated to campaign activities, and laundry and dry cleaning.3    According to at least one witness, Rep. Young treated any travel to Alaska as campaign related, regardless of its purpose.4    Both he and his wife routinely obtained $300 cash advances for their trips to Anchorage to cover tips and incidental expenses, a practice eventually stopped on the advice of counsel.5    One witness described cash left for Rep. Young either in his hotel room or his condominium.6    Lu Young also sought reimbursement from campaign funds
[1 Young Document 2 (references are to the bates numbers on the documents produced by the FBI).  2 See, e.g., Young Document 192. 3 Young Document 193. 4 Young Document 194. 5 Young Document 195.   6 Id. ]

for additional expenses incurred during trips to Alaska, such as lunches with friends.7    In addition, Rep. Young kept a sports utility vehicle parked in the congressional garage for which he sought monthly reimbursement from campaign funds for mileage, even though the vehicle apparently never left the garage.8
Witnesses interviewed by the FBI paint a fairly negative picture of Rep. Young’s wife Lu, who perceived herself to be “the elected official,” but also acted as a kind of office manager, screening people who came into Rep. Young’s office.9    Described as having “a sense of entitlement about most things,” she submitted many of her personal expenses for reimbursement from campaign funds, including meals with friends and family.10    This practice apparently stopped at some point after years of abuse on the advice of counsel.11    Another witness told the FBI Lu Young received “countless bracelets and ivory while in the DC office,” as well as diamond earrings during a Las Vegas trip,12 while another described Rep. Young and his wife as the recipients of lavish gifts.13

Travel to the Youngs’ two houses in Fort Yukon, Alaska, was covered in large part by campaign funds. The campaign typically paid half of the cost of a charter flight to Fort Yukon, with the congressional office picking up the rest of the cost, which it attributed to Lu Young.14    In some instances, however, the campaign paid for the entire cost of the chartered flight.15    The Youngs also used these flights to transport building supplies.16    Even though these trips were paid for with campaign funds, no campaign events ever took place in Fort Yukon.17
On multiple occasions, Rep. Young went on hunting trips to various hunting resorts in New
[7 Id. 8 See id. 9 Young Document 193. 10 Young Document 194. 11 Young Document 193. 12 Young Document 198. 13 Young Document 250. 14 Young Document 196. 15 Id. 16 Id. 17 Id.]

York, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and Montana paid for with campaign funds.18    In some instances, these trips coincided with campaign trips, but the hunting trips themselves were not campaign events.19    In at least one instance, a planned fund raising event was never held, but the hunting trip still went forward.20
Rep. Young failed to disclose these hunting trips on his annual financial disclosure forms. On August 17, 2010, DOJ’s Public Integrity Section referred this matter to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct on August 17, 2010, for possible violations of the Ethics in Government Act.21    Apparently the House Ethics Committee already had commenced its own investigation, as the referral memo references the fact Rep. Young, through counsel, had previously provided the documentation regarding these trips to the committee.22

 The whole document is here.  

This four page synopsis appears to be based on the documents CREW received through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.  You can see the requests and Department of Justice (DOJ) responses here.  First are the requests.  The responses are at the bottom of page one and top of page two.

OK, You Hate Congress, But Are You Still Voting For Your Own Congress Member?

In a recent show, Morning Edition reporter Andrea Seabrook talked to Cincinnati voters about Congress.

None had anything good to say.  Here's how it begins:

ANDREA SEABROOK, BYLINE: These days, when I stop people in the street, there's this thing that happens all the time.
I'm a reporter with NPR in Washington. Anyone interested in talking about Congress?
BILL BELLMAN: Congress - there's nothing good to say.
SEABROOK: People's instant reaction to the mention of Congress is: Ugh, what a mess; there's nothing good to say.

Here's the audio.





She asked all these people how they felt about Congress, but SHE DIDN'T ASK:


 "Are you going to reelect your own Congress Member?"



That seems to be the key problem.  All the other guys are bad, but we like our own Congress Member.

Let's remember that the people in Congress got more votes than the other candidates, so the people to blame for Congress are those who voted for the winning candidates and those who didn't vote at all.  

I've been voting against my Congress Member for 30 years, so, while you might say I've been ineffective, at least I'm not part of the group that's responsible for re-electing Don Young.  But people like me need to work harder to retire the problem Congress Members.

Of course, you can pull all the dandelions you want, but more still pop up.  Getting rid of bad Congress Members and reelecting new bad ones isn't the answer. We need to plant Congress with representatives who promise NOT to take pledges that restrict their votes and promise to work constructively with ALL the other Congress Members for the public, regardless of threatened political consequences.  Better yet, there should be negative political consequences for being a hack and good ones for being a mensch. 

Not all incumbents are problems.  When they campaign, make them demonstrate how they worked with others, how they bucked the party when its dictates weren't for the good of the public, how they advanced, rather than blocked, needed legislation and confirmation of appointed officials, and how they did NOT play brinksmanship with the US budget and our country's credit rating.  

Hold all candidates to reasoned cooperation. (Ask them how many members of the other party they had over to their home for dinner this session.) Hold them to voting for the long term benefit of the United States (and the world) and not to voting based on how they think it might affect the next election cycle. (Did they vote against needed legislation or to add toxic amendments so the other side had to vote no?)   Their only pledge should be to vote for the needs of the public, not of their party, not of the lobbyists and their clients. 

Do your homework.  Check out your representative and senators.  Here are some websites that give you information.  Check different perpsectives:


Vote Smart
The Washington Post's The US Congress Votes Database
Don't know who your congress person is?  Who's My Rep?     My Senator?
Big Marine Fish's Friend or Enemy of Fish?
C-Span's Researching Your Members of Congress
Congress Link's How Influential Is Your Member of Congress?
The American Conservative Union's Congressional Ratings
National Journal's Vote Rating 2010
ACLU's Congressional Scorecard
The Hill has Lists of Ratings from Different Groups for Each Lawmaker

Then ask your representative to explain his votes.

When you find a good candidate, you need to give her some money and some time.  

Or, if there are no good candidates, run yourself.