The Dan J Sullivan Removal From Ballot Hearing

The Alaska House Judicial and State Affairs Committees held a joint meeting today to discuss the removal of US Senate candidate Daniel J. Sullivan from the primary ballot.  

The proceedings were polite, even cordial, though the Democrats and Republicans had very strong opposing views of what has happened.  I think the easiest way for the reader, is for me to break this down into several big questions:

1. Was it legal for the Division of Elections to remove Daniel J. Sullivan from the ballot?
2. What's in it for the Democrats?
3. What's in it for the Republicans?
4. If Daniel J. were on the ballot, would it hurt Daniel S?
5. Are there bigger implications?

Let's look at these one at a time.  

1.  Was it legal for the Division of Elections to remove Daniel J. Sullivan from the ballot?

I think the answer is pretty clear:  No it was not legal to remove him from the ballot.

The Democrats and the three witnesses all repeatedly pointed out that there are only three qualifications to be  a  US Senate candidate.  They are listed in the US Constitution.  

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 3]

Basically 

1. at least 30 years old
2. a US citizen for at least nine years
3. an inhabitant of the state when elected

That's it.  Nothing else matters because the US Constitution trumps all other laws or regulations.  NOTE: this applies to US Senate and US House races, not to state offices.

The Republicans made the case that Daniel J. Sullivan was not a serious candidate, that his intent was to mislead and confuse the voters.  They implied, but I didn't hear them say directly, that this was an attempt to steal votes from US Senator Dan Sullivan.  

They cited the state administrative code AAC 25.212 - Appearance of candidate's name on the ballot

Specifically they cited the part of the code that says:

(b) A candidate's name may not appear on a ballot . . . (2) in a manner that is confusing or misleading to voters or compromises the fairness or neutrality of the ballot.

Thus, they argue,  the Division Director had no choice but to remove his name, because it was confusing and misleading.  

All three witnesses and the Democratic members pointed out that thte Administrative Code did not supersede the US Constitution.  

They pointed out cases where other candidates were not removed from ballot.  They particularly focused on Eric Hafner, who ran for US House in Alaska in 2024, even though he had never been in Alaska, and was serving a 20 year sentence in a New York prison.  

The Democrats challenged his name being on the ballot (he was listed as a Democrat).  They argued that he was not and would not be an Alaskan inhabitant when elected.  The Supreme Court ruled that there was a possibility he would be paroled if he won and he was left on the ballot.  

Intent was not an issue, but rather whether he met the Constitutioal requirements.  In that case, the Republicans wanted him on the ballot in hopes that he would syphon off votes from the Democratic US Rep. Mary Peltola.  

2.  What's in it for the Democrats?

The Democrats argued that it was against the law to remove him.  Is there a chance having a second Republican Dan Sullivan on the ballot would help the Democratic candidate?  One would like to think they are doing this because they believe in the rule of law, and believe the law is being thwarted.  But there is also the possibility that if Daniel J. is on the ballot, he could pull votes away from Daniel S.   Let me address that in Question 4.  

3.  What's in it for the Republicans?

I heard frustration and anger from Republicans on the committee that a candidate that they did not vet or approve of  got on the ballot with a Republican label.  It was deceptive.  It was intended to confuse the voters.  It was particularly sneaky because his name was so similar to their front runner candidate.  

Republican Rep. McCabe, I believe, took the opportunity at the hearing to point out that this confusion wouldn't have happened when we had closed primaries and the parties could designate who could use the party's label.  Since, Republicans have gotten a referendum on the November ballot to repeal the Ranked Choice Voting, Open Primaries, and campaign funding limits that were originally established by referendum,  I'm guessing they'll use this case as a reason to vote for the current proposition to end all three (RCV, open primaries, and campaign financing limits and disclosure).

Given that the head of their party, President Trump is the greatest liar, dirty trickster, election denier in US history, one has to take their anger and righteousness with a grain of salt.  They support President Trump's every lie and nasty attack on Democrats, women, immigrants, LGBTQ+, journalists.  While I might accept that they believe that the Administrative Code was a legitimate basis for kicking Daniel J. off the ballot, the law is pretty clear.  

Again, looking at the actions of Trump administration, I can't take too seriously that the Republicans are supporters of the rule of law.  It seems more like they are supporters of rule of winning.  And it appears, at this point, they probably will win.  They claim that the ballots will be printed on June 28.  That's about five days away.  I haven't heard about any attorneys about to file a lawsuit to restore Daniel J.'s name to the ballot. *** Anything is possible, but it looks like a win for the Republicans.  (The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) made a complaint about Daniel J.'s candidacy and the Alaska Republican Party made two more complaints  to the Division of Elections, which is under the purview of Republican Lt. Governor Dahlstrom and Republican Director of the Division of Elections Beecher.

***I wrote this post last night and this morning I learned from  Alaska Public Media's Wesley Early that there is indeed a lawsuit that has been filed in Superior Court.  (Links to what they filed) I've only read it quickly, but right off the bat they ask the court, because of the June 28 ballot printing deadline, to either

1. have his name put back on the ballot, or
2. delay printing ballots until this is resolved ***

[And I've learned since, that the hearing will be in Superior Court at 10am Thursday June 25.]

And given the Trump administration's war of Democratic voters - the many moves to redistrict to eliminate Democratic districts, to suppress the Black vote, and otherwise bend the election results through manipulation, I can't help but wonder if this is a test to be used in other states.  Don't like a candidate?  Knock him off the ballot. But time it so there isn't time to appeal before you have to print the ballots.

4.  If Daniel J. were on the ballot, would it hurt Daniel S?

I started this section thinking:  probably not.  That Daniel J. just won't get to the general election.  But read on. I find it hard to believe that Mary Peltola and Dan Sullivan will not be among the four top candidates in the primary election who would move on to the general election in November.  There are 15 candidates on the ballot as of today.  One more has withdrawn and another, Daniel J,. has a denied marked on his name.  

There's one main Democrat and one main Republican - Peltola and Sen. Sullivan.  The only other name that I recognize is Libertarian Party candidate Scott Kohlhaas.  No, there are two more I recognize - perennial candidate for office Dustin Darden and Carol Hafner, the mother of Eric Hafner, the New York prisoner running, again, for the US House seat.  Yes, his mother is running for the Alaska US Senate seat though she has never been to Alaska and lives in South Dakota.  

In the 2024 US House primary race there were three 'known' candidates:  Mary Peltola, Nick Begich, and Nancy Dahlstrom.  Those three captured 97% of the vote.  In the Alaska open primary, the top four candidates go on to the general election.  The fourth candidate got 0.6% of the votes.  The fifth place candidate was also at 0.6%.  The sixth place candidate, the guy in the New York prison, got 0.4% of the votes.  The third place candidate, Nancy Dahlstrom - now the Lt. Governor and overseer of the elections in 2026 - dropped out.  Purportedly so as to not split the Republican vote in the general.  Though because of ranked choice voting, that shouldn't have been an issue.  So maybe there was another reason.  Then the fourth place candidate dropped out.  So the fifth and sixth place candidates moved onto the general ballot.  

So would Daniel J. on the ballot hurt Daniel S. if he were on the ballot?  The GOP members of the committee were right that there would be confusion.  But as one of the witnesses who testified today, Hollis French, argued - it was up to the Division of Elections to find a way to make distinctions between the two candidates so voters could know which one was the 'real' Daniel Sullivan.  And the 'real' Dan Sullivan's campaign would have to find effective ways to help voters know which Daniel Sullivan was their current US Senator.  

We all recall how Lisa Murkowski, after losing the Republican primary, went on to conduct a successful write-in campaign, which required voters to spell her name right..  Not an easy task.  But she pulled it off.  

At this point, I''d guess that Peltola, Sen. Sullivan, and Kohlhaas would be the top three, scooping up most of the votes.  As I look at the 2024 House race, the others won't get many votes.  Though I suspect Dustin Darden has run often enough that people will vote for him because they recognize his name.  And Daniel J. probably has a good chance to get votes too, for the very reasons the Sen. Sullivan campaign and the Republican Party of Alaska and the National Party want him off the ticket.  It would be between him and Darden for fourth place.  

Given that early polls show Peltola ahead of Sen. Sullivan, having Daniel J. on the November ballot would be a threat to Sen. Sullivan's reelection.  If Daniel J. made it to the general election, and there he pulled 5% of the vote from the Senator, it could easily be enough to give Peltola the victory.  Some might say that Peltola's ahead now, so she'd win either way.  I think that's counting your chicks before the eggs are laid.  

None of this was said out loud at the hearing - at least not where the mics caught it.  

5.  Are there bigger implications?

A.  Precedent to knock candidates off the ballot in Alaska

If this succeeds, and it appears to have an excellent chance [now that the lawsuit has reached the court, I find it likely not to succeed], it would empower the Division of Elections to remove candidates from the ballot they don't like.  As long as they time it so the candidate doesn't have time to get a court ruling before the deadline for printing the ballots, they could get away with it.  

We know the National Republican Party is looking carefully at this race.  It's one that has been labeled as flippable.  We don't know how much communication there has been between the Alaska Republican Party and the National Republican Party.  Or with the Dunleavy administration and the Trump administration.  We do know the governor was in the White House recently and didn't protest when the President insulted Lisa Murkowski.  There are short rumors about Dunleavy running against Murkowski in 2028 on websites such as this one..  

I don't know what goes on behind closed doors, but we should assume that something is happening until we find out for sure.  

Meanwhile, I found one US attempt to get opponents off the ballot.  And we know that Trump admires authoritarian governments, the type that keeps opponents off the ballot.  

How the Head of a Super PAC Tried — and Failed — to Remove Every Opponent From the 

Surprising but True: 5 Countries Where Political Opposition Is Banned

Twenty years of ruthlessness: how Russia has silenced Putin’s opponents

B.  This could be a trial run for the Trump administration to get states to just knock candidates he doesn't like off the ballot.

C.  Candidates running against each other with similar names isn't that unusual.

First, it's not that unusual for competing candidates to have similar names.  

"In 215 contests across 15 states, 438 candidates running for office this year share the same last name. Every single one of these contests is for a local election. Of these contests, all but one are nonpartisan elections. One contest, District 20 of the New York City Council, was a partisan contest where Allen Wang (Conservative Party) and Steven Wang (Patriot Party) shared a last name." (From Ballotpedia)

And in Washington State, we have a story of a Republican recruiting two Bob Fergusons to run against the Democratic candidate for Governor, Bob Ferguson.  But this was a state office, not a federal office, and the state had rules against candidates running to intentionally confuse voters. 

I think this captures the most important ideas that came out of the hearing - spoken, unspoken, and beyond.  The next focus will be on the Superior Court.  

Below is a link to the video of the meeting.  I think my approach here is more useful to readers than trying to outline what all happened in the meeting.  You can watch/listen to the meeting below.

 

And while I was trying to finish this up, I found a Wesley Early Alaska Public Media  article "Petersburg’s Dan Sullivan sues Alaska Division of Elections after being removed from U.S. Senate ballot"  Other than the first sentence which says he filed suit, the article gives no more details on when or where he filed suit.  It is a brief synopsis of today's hearing and I found nothing about Daniel G. suing other than the headline.  

The hearing is scheduled for Thursday morning in Superior Court.  There will be a zoom link.  I'll get the time and courtroom and zoom number tomorrow I hope.  

Senator Dan Sullivan Does Not Want To Run Against Dan Sullivan [UPDATE]

 [UPDATE:  Live Legislative Hearing on now (June 22, 2026 noon)  

https://www.ktoo.org/video/gavel/joint-house-judiciary-state-affairs-committee-2026061045/?eventID=2026061045

Daniel S. Sullivan is the junior US Senator for Alaska.  (Lisa Murkowski is the senior Senator).

Petersburg, Alaska resident Daniel J. Sullivan filed to run for the US Senate near the end of the filing period.  

Senator Daniel S Sullivan was not happy.  

"Sen. Sullivan has complained that Sullivan from Petersburg is a “sham candidate” and says his challenger is intentionally misleading voters to benefit a ranked-choice vote for Democratic candidate and former Alaska U.S. House Representative, Mary Peltola." (From the Alaska Beacon)

I'd note that the primary election is an open primary - all candidates for the same office are on one ballot.  It is NOT a ranked choice vote.  Voters get one vote only.  The top four candidates go on to the general election ballot, which is a ranked choice election.  

The qualifications to run for the US Senate in Alaska (from 2005 document on the State of Alaska Division of Elections webpage on qualifications): 

STATE OF ALASKA

DIVISION OF ELECTIONS

QUALIFICATIONS FOR HOLDING OFFICE

STATEWIDE CANDIDATES are those seeing the office of United States Senator, United States Representative, Governor or Lieutenant Governor.  The qualifications for these offices are as follows:

        United States Senator

• 30 years of age;
• citizen of the United States for 9 years; and 
• an inhabitant of the state from which elected.

[Blogspot was being fussy and not letting me post the screenshot of the document, so I copied it here.]

The US Senate lists the qualifications this way:

About the Senate & the U.S. Constitution | Qualifications

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 3]"

If you look carefully, you will note that the language of the State and of the US Constitution are slightly different.  The US Constitution sets the criteria, not the State of Alaska.  

1. The State language is pretty straightforward and writes the qualifications in a positive way while the Constitution frames the qualifications negatively:  "No Person shall be ..."
2. The State says 30 years of age while the Constitution  makes it clear that that is the minimum age.
3. The State says "an inhabitant of the state from which elected"  while the Constitution "[No person shall be a Senator who shall not,] when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."

Keep number 3 in mind.  It becomes relevant later in the post when I write about Carol Hafner.

I'd also note that the Governor of Alaska and his Lt Governor are Trumpy Republicans and that the Lt. Governor's office is in charge of elections.  The head of the Division of Elections is appointed by the Governor or the Lt. Governor - I'm not sure which and I don't think it matters in this situation.  

On June 8, 2026, the Republican Lt. Governor, whose office is responsible for elections in Alaska, wrote a letter to candidate Daniel J. Sullivan: 

"RE:  Evaluation of Your Declaration of Candidacy for US Senate"

The letter has a long list of questions they have about his intent as a candidate, which they believe is to confuse voters.   

On June 15, there was a second letter  from the Alaska Division of Elections Website (You can read the whole letter at the link, I'm just going to give you the reasons why the Director decided to take his name off the ballot:

"On review of the complaints and other information in the Division’s possession, I conclude that your declaration of candidacy was not properly filed with the Division because it was not filed in order to declare an actual good-faith candidacy for the office of United States Senator, but was instead filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead and to thereby compromise the ballot’s fairness or neutrality. I highlight several facts that taken together bring me to this conclusion.

(1) You requested to access the ballot under the name “Dan Sullivan” even though it appears from Division records that you have never registered to vote or sought ballot access under this name. 

Our records indicate that you are registered to vote under the name “Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr.” That you chose the occasion of your declaration of candidacy for U.S. Senate to seek ballot access under a name you have not used in your interactions with the Division suggests—and in combination with the additional facts I outline in this letter leads me to conclude—that you are seeking to confuse yourself with another candidate in the race, the incumbent Senator Dan Sullivan, rather than distinguish yourself from him. Indeed, you yourself appeared to be confused when you initially emailed the Division asking to be listed on the ballot as “Dan S. Sullivan.”“S” is Senator Sullivan’s middle initial, not yours.

(2) You requested to be designated on the ballot as affiliated with the Republican Party. Until two days before you filed your declaration of candidacy, you had never—according to the Division’s records—been affiliated with the Republican Party in Alaska. Of course, under Alaska law, you are free to change your party affiliation. This said, that you chose to change your affiliationtom the same political party—one you’d never affiliated with before—as the incumbent Senator immediately before filing a declaration of candidacy in which you asked to access the ballot under the same name – in a shortened form you’d never used before - as the incumbent Senator strongly suggests an intent to confuse yourself with the incumbent Senator rather than to distinguish yourself from him.

(3) Your public campaign website (https://www.sullivanforsenate.com/) uses a format, color scheme and overall theme similar to the public website for Senator Sullivan’s campaign (https://dansullivanforalaska.com/). While the Division takes no position on whether you have appropriated the intellectual property of Senator Sullivan’s campaign, the similarity— particularly in light of the other facts I outline in this letter—appears to be deliberate. This again suggests an intention not to distinguish yourself from the incumbent Senator as any candidate genuinely seeking office would do, but to confuse Alaskans as to which “Dan Sullivan” is which.

(4) A political consultant you have admitted is working with your campaign is a known longtime supporter of Democratic candidates including the primary Democratic challenger to Senator Sullivan. This consultant’s work on your behalf is, in isolation, innocuous. Alongside the other facts I have catalogued in this letter, however, it suggests a determined effort and a deliberate attempt to use the similarity of your name to confuse Alaska voters in the upcoming primary election.

In light of these unique, and to my knowledge utterly unprecedented facts (circumstances unlike any previously presented to the Division), I am forced to conclude that your declaration of candidacy, in which you stated under oath that you “declare myself to be a candidate for the office of United States Senator” was not filed in good faith for the purpose of genuinely pursuing election as Alaska’s U.S. Senator. Rather, these facts force the conclusion that your declaration of candidacy was filed with the purpose of confusing or misleading the electorate and compromising the fairness of the ballot by attempting to access the ballot under a version you have never used (“Dan Sullivan”) and with a party affiliation (Republican) that you have never before professed. Indeed, I conclude that the preponderance of the evidence is that you chose this new nickname and party affiliation because that name and party affiliation happen to be the name and party affiliation of another candidate in the race. A declaration of candidacy filed for the purpose of confusing or misleading voters and compromising the fairness of the ballot is not properly filed as required by Alaska Statute 15.25.060. As such, I am unable to maintain your declaration of candidacy and I am de-certifying your candidacy for United States Senator. This decision is made pursuant to 15.25.042 and 6 AAC 25.260 along with other relevant provisions of law. Pursuant to 6 AAC 25.260(i), my determination in this matter is final. Although you have 30 days to appeal this decision, if you intend to challenge the decision and seek judicial relief in Alaska Superior Court to be placed on the ballot, be aware ballots are printed on June 28."

So, they did not find that he had lied in any of the material he submitted to the State Division of Elections.  

What they object to is that his "intent" is to mislead voters.  

They say he has never registered to vote as a "Republican" but they do not say how he registered.  Under Alaska law, you can register as "Undeclared" or "Non-partisan" as well as various parties.  "Undeclared" simply means you choose not to state your party preference.  Many people who vote Republican do that.  

They also say he is not registered as "Dan Sullivan" but as Daniel J. Sullivan.  They also don't share whether Sen. Dan Sullivan is registered that way or as Daniel S. Sullivan or something else.

The Anchorage Daily News editorial board on Sunday June 21, 2026 wrote a long and strong editorial stating that Dan may have had deceptive intentions but that the State qualifications (see above) do not include policing a candidate's intentions.  [The link maybe password protected.]

"Let’s not insult anyone’s intelligence here.

Dan J. Sullivan’s U.S. Senate campaign looks like a dirty trick, and most probably it is one. . .

Fine. But in the United States of America, people are allowed to run for office for bad reasons. They are allowed to run vanity campaigns, protest campaigns, spoiler campaigns, joke-adjacent campaigns and campaigns that make party leadership sweat through their Brooks Brothers vests.

That does not mean the Alaska Division of Elections gets to throw them off the ballot.

That is the line Director Carol Beecher, Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom and the Division of Elections crossed when Beecher issued her determination removing Dan J. Sullivan from the Aug. 18 primary ballot."

I would note that also on the list of candidates is a woman from South Dakota:

“I’ve flown over [Alaska],” said Carol Hafner, the South Dakota resident and Alaska Senate candidate. “As far as boots on the ground, that’s in my future.”

If we go by the Alaska Division of Elections website, she should be disqualified because she is not "an inhabitant of the state from which elected."  But that is why I also included the US Senate's definition which includes "when elected."  So you can run for the US House and the US Senate having never been in Alaska (or any other state you might want to run in) without having ever been to that state as long as you become an inhabitant "when elected."  

Hafner's son is also running for the Alaska US House seat while sentenced to 20 years in a New York prison.  He was already in prison when hee ran for the Alaska US House seat in 2024.  He came in sixth.  Only the top four candidates go on to the ranked choice general election in November.  But the third and fourth place candidates dropped out and the fifth and sixth place candidates moved into the top four.   At that time the Democrats complained (Hafner was listed as a Democrat) that since he was in prison who could not be an Alaska resident if elected.  The Alaska Supreme Court ruled if I recall correctly, there was always a chance he could be paroled if elected and kept him on the ballot. I'd also note that the 3rd place candidate who dropped out was Republican Nancy Dahlstrom, the current Lt. Governor who wrote the initial letter about the investigation to Daniel J.  Here's the saga of that election.

But clearly Carol Hafner's 'intent' is just as deceptive if not more so than Daniel J. Sullivan's.  She lives in South Dakota.  Is she really going to move to Alaska if she wins?  There are 14 candidates on the ballot for the US Senate seat.  Daniel J. is now listed as deleted.  There is no way that Carol Hafner will end up in the top four, so she'll never move to Alaska. Sullivan and the Alaska Republican Party are not concerned about her.  

But if Daniel J. Sullivan can be removed because his intent was  not  

"to declare an actual good-faith candidacy for the office of United States Senator, but was instead filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead and to thereby compromise the ballot’s fairness or neutrality" 

then the state can start questioning the intent of any candidate.  

Why not ask the State to remove Mary Peltola, the Democrat who has served a term as our  representative in the US House?.  After all, her intent to is unseat Sen. Daniel S Sullivan which, underlying all the Division of Election's language, is why they are bumping Daniel J off the ballot.

I'm sure that Daniel S Sullivan knows this is illegal.  Intent is not one of the qualifications listed in the US Constitution or the Alaska Division of Elections criteria to run for US Senate.  

But note that as I write this, it is June 22, 2026.  The Director of the Division of Elections says in her letter that Daniel J. has 30 days to file an appeal, but that the primary ballot will be printed on June 28. In six days!  

They are know they will lose in court, but that the ballot will have already been printed for the August 18, 2026 primary  election.  

I have no doubt that the judge who gets this case will also know that is their strategy and may well rule against the Division of Elections AND demand that a new ballot be printed.  

If that happens, the taxpayers of Alaska, not the head of the Division of Elections or the Alaska Republican Party, will pay.  

It also opens up the likelihood that the Division of Elections will blame the court for any problems due to having reprinted the ballots, after their scheduled deadline.  

I would say that no matter Daniel J's intent, it's clear he qualifies for the ballot.  The real problematic intent is with Daniel S. Sullivan, the Alaska Republican Party, and the Division of Elections who know that "honorable intent" is not a qualification for the office of US Senator.  And are pretty familiar with dishonorable intent.  

John Martin Shot To Death

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/crime-courts/2023/06/19/shooting-of-man-sleeping-in-south-anchorage-parking-lot-was-unprovoked-attack-prosecutor-says/

Back in 2012 I posted about John Martin's city hall protest 

over homelessness

.   The post included a 

video that is no longer working (it was on Viddler and they cut my account long ago.  Though they did send me the files for my videos.  I redid some on YouTube, but not all of them.  Not sure where that file is anymore.  I mention this simply because this is a danger in an age when people store the photos, videos, and data outside of their control.)  In the video I talked to John and then Mayor Sullivan comes across the street and gives John a cup of coffee and they chat a bit.  

A previous post shows him at the Assembly and I did a brief video at the break. (It too was on Viddler and doesn't seem to be working, though it flashed an image of John just before turning black.  Somewhere I probably have these on a sound card.  When Mac upgraded they switched out of the old iMovie and so those original files are available either.  Beware how you backup your stuff.)

I'd been walking from the bus station to the Redistricting Board meeting and showed up at just the right time.  

I don't know much about John.  He did later attempt to cross the Bering Sea to Russia.  He was a committed advocate for the poor and homeless.  He saw the world from a slightly different angle than most people.  

I don't know why he was shot.  I don't know if he was the target or he was just randomly shot.  I just know we've lost a unique and sensitive member of our community to gun violence.  

Oil, Ukraine, Flopping, And A Cameo Part For Sen.Dan Sullivan

 When you get a chance, tie up one of your oil fanatic Republican family members and/or friends and make them watch this.  It covers most of the relevant issues.  Trust me.  It's worth watching.

Thanks, George.

Dan Sullivan, Who Called For Bi-Partisanship Last Week, Claims There's A "Biden War On Alaska"

Here's what I started yesterday:

I didn't hear Senator Sullivan's speech to the Alaska legislature.  I only heard Alaska Public Radio's report on it.  I looked for it on line, but couldn't find it, even on Sullivan's own web site.  But there are a couple of quotes that I think can be looked at without hearing the whole speech.    

A little later I wrote:

(Of course, when I get to see the whole speech, maybe I'll find out I'm wrong here.) 

So, I tracked down the speech with help from the Legislative Website.  They have a chat box and someone answered my question immediately and gave me a link to the speech.  I'd ask for a transcript but they said they didn't have one.  

So I typed up my own rough transcript as I listened.  It was pretty rough.  I called Sen. Sullivan's office and someone there said she'd have someone email me a copy.  If I didn't get it within a week, call back.  

Then I got an email from the legislative chat guy with a link to a transcript.

My basic reaction based on the original quotes I'd heard, hadn't changed.  Let's see if I can summarize my thoughts about the speech so that others don't have to take the time to read/listen to it and take the time to think it through.  

But unfortunately, it's difficult to 'simply' critique the speech because it's built on layers and layers of false assumptions and myths.

[I'm putting this up tonight.  But I reserve the right to review it again in the morning and make cosmetic changes.]

I'll start with the original quotes and my responses to them.  Then I'll add a few notes of other issues he's raised.  

There's lots of bluster in these quotes from Alaska Public Media

Here are the quotes I originally got from Alaska Public Media.  They certainly highlighted the bluster.  

PART I:  Biden's War on Alaska

"U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan told Alaska’s legislators on Monday that President Biden’s administration is at war with Alaska over developing resources." 

“This is not surprising,” Sullivan said. “We knew this anti-Alaska agenda was coming if the national Democratic Party took control of the White House, the Senate and the House. Alaska is always the gift that national Democratic administrations give their extreme, radical environmental supporters.”

First,  the issues with his language, style, rhetoric.

1.  Sullivan takes a disagreement on prioritizing values - balancing climate change concerns and economic concerns, in this case development of natural resources, particularly oil - and makes this into a war on Alaska.  

Rather than acknowledging that Biden's administration has legitimate concerns about climate change and debating the facts of climate change and how much oil development and then consumption contributes to climate change - a battle Sullivan can't win - Sullivan accuses the Biden administration of targeting Alaska, declaring war on Alaska.  Good populist rhetoric to rile up Alaskans.  

He also talks about 'extreme, radical environmental supporters.'  Who exactly are these people and what are their extreme radical policies?  He doesn't tell us.  Facts get in the way of his 'war on Alaska' narrative.  When we're at war, there's no debate, no discussion of the issues.  

This is, basically, a red meat speech to rile up Alaskans about how they're being screwed by the Biden administration.  

2.  You can't work out issues if you declare the other side the enemy - which is what you do, in effect, when you say you are at war.  Sullivan has also recently called on the Biden Administration to use bi-partisanship 

"Bipartisan efforts are the key to successful voting rights reform, Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, said Sunday on ABC's "This Week," as hopes for reaching across the aisle in Congress falter and calls for removing the filibuster grow louder." [From ABC News]

But how can you call on your perceived opponent to work cooperatively with you if you say he's declared war on you?  

Second, issues with the facts, which the war metaphor skips over.

1.  Climate change versus oil and gas development.

A.  First, let's be clear.  Dan Sullivan is a Koch brothers product.  He's a spokesman for oil and gas. They, through their various 'think tanks' and institutes, spread climate change denial as widely as they could.  

B.  Oil and gas are significant contributors to climate change - a human caused change to our atmosphere that is warming the planet, including the oceans, and causing widespread extreme weather related disasters - from droughts that kill farming and help set up huge wild fires, to more and stronger hurricane and other storm conditions that flood out farmlands and cities.  The list goes on and on.  Climate change is the biggest threat to civilized human life on earth.  

But it's inconvenient for oil and gas producers who want to squeeze out the last dime of their projects around the world. Oil companies have been subsidized by the US forever and they fought subsidies for companies pursuing alternative energy options. 

C.  Oil has been a bonanza for Alaska.  We saved about $70 billion of that bonanza in the Alaska Permanent Fund. (Though Norway, whose fund began much later than ours, has a fund of over $1 trillion.  Norway didn't abolish its income tax when it set up its fund the way Alaska did.)  Oil money has helped pay Alaska's bills for over 40 years now, as well as a number of boondoggles.   

D.  But oil's day, while not over for a long time, is on the wane.  Currently, we make more money from Permanent Fund earnings than we do from oil.  And the oil tax credit laws Alaska's Republican legislatures have passed have Alaskans paying billions to oil companies, not the other way around. Republican lawmakers continue to block new sources of revenue, especially an income tax.  (Though some see this as inevitable.)   Not only has the Prudhoe Bay production declined, oil's role in climate change is making oil itself a problem.  Electric cars are beginning to replace gas powered vehicles. Major banks have refused to loan money to oil companies for Arctic projects.  Our governor has talked about forcing banks to make those loans, but says mask wearing is voluntary.  The banks aren't 'caving to environmentalists'.  Rather, they see the trends and are making calculated business decisions that these are no longer good investments.  

While it's going to be 20-40 years before most oil is phased out, and Alaska will continue to produce oil and gas during those years, the writing is on the wall.  We need to wean ourselves off oil.  We won the lottery and made a lot of money.  But now we have to learn how to sustain ourselves like most states.  We have to diversify.  But we do have $70 billion saved up which could grow and pay for part of our budget forever.  

Senator Sullivan is still hanging out with the oil guys who haven't accepted that the world is changing.  It's Sullivan who is getting further and further into the extreme, while the 'extreme, radical, environmental supporters' are becoming the mainstream.  

Part II - Socialism, Work and Dignity

Another quote from Sullivan's speech:

“They’re tempting America with cradle-to-grave, European-style socialism,” he said. “They’re cutting the ties between work and income, and in so doing, undermining the notion of earned success and the dignity and importance of work.”

In Sullivan's mind, socialism, unlike capitalism, is an evil system.  But capitalism is based on the benefits of greed, everyone for themselves.  Whereas socialism recognizes that people need to look after each other as well as themselves.  But it's not either/or.  We already have a mixture of both.  No one is for abolishing capitalism, just for correcting for the flaws inherent in capitalism that pro-market economists themselves tell us about.  Most notably in this discussion are externalities - the by-products of the industry that society, not the corporations, bear.  All that escaped carbon warming the planet.

But another result of unfettered capitalism is extreme wealth inequality.

"According to the latest Fed data, the top 1% of Americans have a combined net worth of $34.2 trillion (or 30.4% of all household wealth in the U.S.), while the bottom 50% of the population holds just $2.1 trillion combined (or 1.9% of all wealth)." (From Forbes)

Once the distribution of money is so lopsided all kinds of terrible things happen.  All that concentrated money give the rich undue influence on politicians and the public.  Oil companies  spread misinformation about climate change and prevented the US from taking action much earlier.  It also allows for the wealthy to 'buy' politicians - something Senator Sullivan knows about, but never talks about publicly.  

Cradle-to-grave is a Republican slur.  I just read in the ADN today about how states and private contractors that they hire, steal social security benefits from foster kids.  How low can people go?  

Is Senator Sullivan really against supporting orphans?  Against helping babies that are abused or abandoned by their parents?   Is he really against affordable health care?  (We know the answer to that - in theory no, but in practice, yes.)  Is he against Social Security for those injured who cannot work and for those who are elderly?  That's what cradle-to-grave really means.  

But let's also look at the part about 'cutting the ties between work and income.'  Sullivan's grandfather started a business - RPM - that made the family wealthy.  Wealthy enough to help fund his campaign for Senator.  I'm not arguing that Sullivan doesn't work hard - his resume suggests otherwise.  But growing up wealthy makes it much harder to see what growing up poor (in that bottom 50%) is like.    

But beyond that, the connection between work and income has been obliterated by the wealthy who own big businesses.  They've jacked up their own incomes to a point where there is absolutely no relationship between the work they put in and the income they receive.  Why?  Because they can.    They did this, in part by paying their employees minimum wage, cutting out employee pensions, and giving them poor to no health insurance, and by moving to lower wage countries, and automation.  People working minimum wage simply don't earn enough to save any money at all.  

The" dignity of work" and the" tie between work and income" are myths that the rich invented to justify why they were rich and the poor were poor. There was no dignity in work, no tie between work and income for slaves, or for blacks in the South after emancipation.  Or, for that matter, blacks in the North and the West.   The 1950s and 60s were a golden age for white (and even for some blacks) where income distribution was far more equal than today. The ratio of CEO pay to worker pay was 21-to-1 in 1965.  It went up to 61-to-1 in 1989, and is up to 320 to 1 in 2019. (from The Economic Policy Institute.  

Issues from the rest of the speech

Sullivan's reverence for the military

Sullivan was in the Marines.  He's still in the reserves if I understand that correctly.  We're all affected by our backgrounds and experience, for better and for worse.  It helps when one recognizes one's biases.  I mention this because Sullivan starts with an anecdote from Korean War (he says he's a Korean War buff.)

"As a U.S. Marine and Korean War history buff, I found some inspiration from the past. One of the most epic battles of the Korean War was the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir where 20,000 United States Marines were surrounded by 120,000 Communist Chinese soldiers. And, oh by the way, it was 30 degrees below zero in the mountains. I have a painting, in my office in Anchorage, of the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir reminding me that no matter what kind of day you might be having, it could be a lot worse. The surrounded and heavily outnumbered marines had to retreat back to the sea. When thedismayed marines asked their commanding officer how he would explain the retreat, the first in marine corps history, he remarked, "Retreat? Hell, we're just attacking in another direction." Colonel Chesty Puller, the Corps' most decorated officer, remarked similarly, "The enemy is in front of us and behind us, they are on both of our flanks, those bastards can't get away from us now." Through grit and determination, attacking and counterpunching, and sticking together, the United States Marine Corps won the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir against great odds."

Maybe this helps to explain the "war on Alaska" metaphor mentioned earlier.  He uses this anecdote to say even though Republicans have lost the House, Senate, and Presidency, we need to be like Col. Puller.  

He talks about defeats and wins as though he's still on the battlefield - and I'm sure he'd say politics IS a battlefield.  And that is one metaphor that's often used.  But it's not healthy to say that the President is at war with Alaska.  That's nonsense.  That sort of warlike behavior may have been true during the Trump administration when he withheld benefits from states whose governors didn't kiss his ring, but that simply isn't Biden's style.  Oil production in Alaska may be a casualty of the Biden climate policy, but it's not because Biden hates Alaska and is intentionally attacking the state.

But most egregiously, and the number one issue I've talked to her [the new Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland] about, is through this misguided decision, it will dramatically limit the lands available to those thousands of Alaska Native Vietnam-era veterans who were unable to select their land allotment because they were serving their country in a war that many people were avoiding service in. For decades, all Alaskans, Native, non-Native, Democrat and Republican came together to try to right this wrong.

In last year's Congress, or two Congresses ago, I was able with our delegation to shepherd legislation addressing this injustice that we got signed into law and the PLOs, Public Land Orders, were the way in which we were going to implement this law. I called Secretary Haaland immediately when I heard the news of a two-year delay. I told her that as a result of her decision, Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans who served their country admirably, when so many avoided service, and who have waited decades for the land allotments, might not be able to live long enough to get these.

There's a lot to unravel here. First, I'd note that he mentions twice "when so many avoided service."  This is both ironic and also rather biased.  It's ironic because in the last 20 years their have been two Republican presidents who "avoided service".  Bush did it [got elected] in part by smearing a decorated war hero (John Kerry).  Trump has famously called people who go to war 'suckers.'  Yet, the discipline drilled into Marines to obey their superiors seems to have permeated the Senator who has so loyally supported Trump, even though a Senator's job is not to slavishly obey the President, but to be a check to his power. 

Second, I'd note that history has clearly shown that the Vietnam War was a mistake.  It was bad policy.  While many who avoided the draft back then did so because they didn't want to risk anything, others did it because they had figured out it was a bad war, a war we shouldn't have been in.  

I obviously can't point out every little point like this, but I need to offer some to make the point that there are many more.  Now, back to Vietnam-era veteran allotments.

 It's not an issue I know well, but let's look at what this BLM announcement says:

Applications will be accepted between Dec. 28, 2020 and Dec. 29, 2025 for the Alaska Native Vietnam-era Veterans Land Allotment Program of 2019. The program provides the opportunity for eligible Vietnam-era veterans or their heirs to select 2.5 to 160 acres of Federal land in Alaska under the 2019 Dingell Act. The program is open to all eligible Alaska Natives who served between Aug. 5, 1964, and Dec. 31, 1971, and it removes the requirement for personal use or occupancy mandated under previous laws. Those receiving allotments under previous programs are ineligible. 

 Let's see now.  

• " a two-year delay" - A two year delay gets us to 2023.  There will still be two years to apply.
• "might not be able to live long enough to get these"  It's true there probably will be vets who die before 2025.  And they won't see their land.  But, this is open to their heirs as well, who will.  

More from the BLM announcement:

"The selection period is active until December 29, 2025, for the estimated 2,200 eligible veterans and heirs. Nearly 30 allotment applications are already being processed, and the BLM is poised to receive more." 

•  " to those thousands of Alaska Native Vietnam-era veterans" - well, if the BLM announcement is correct, there are 2,200 total which is heirs as well as vets.  This is probably a picky point, but I value accuracy.  If just 1000 vets had two kids each, there would be 2000 heirs.  So I'm guessing more than 200 of the 2,200 are heirs and there aren't 'thousands of Alaska Native Vietnam-era veterans' waiting to enroll.  
• I would agree though, that 30 applications since December 28, 2020 doesn't sound like a lot.  

I'd note that despite the fact that Sullivan says Biden is at war with Alaska, Sullivan has acknowledged in this speech that the administration has responded to a number of Alaska issues

• "I told them to hold off and frantically worked the phones with the brand-new Biden team, saying to them, "It can't really be your intention, in your first month in office, to lay off and give pink slips to hundreds of Alaskan workers on the North Slope. Is that true?" It took some time, but they said "No," and they let the work proceed."  I'd note that 30-40% of oil workers in Alaska are not Alaskans.  The report also says that 77% of fish processors are non-resident. Another industry Sullivan says he's fight hard for is cruise lines.  He also gets more money from the cruise industry than any other US Senator.  And that industry has more non-resident employees than Alaskans.  
• I must admit I was very pleased when Secretary Raimondo called me just a few weeks after she was confirmed by the Senate to tell me she'd be announcing close to a twenty million dollar investment for the construction of a dock, a pier, and an office facility complex for the Fairweather, and that that ship, with a crew of 51 members, would finally be home-ported in Ketchikan by the end of 2021 after a two- decade absence. That is an important victory for Alaska.
• Another victory was the recent announcement by the U.S. Air Force for four more KC-135 tankers to be home-based in Alaska with an additional 220 airmen and their families. You combine this increase with the hundred fifth-generation fighters that are coming to our state by the end of next year; that's F-35's and F-22's. No place on the planet has that kind of fire power for the Air Force, and our state is truly becoming one of the most important centers for air combat power anywhere in the world. This is great for America's national security, but also really great for Alaska's economy.

OK.  Just one more note.  At the end of the speech to he talked about how zoom and the pandemic have changed things and that this is a great opportunity for Alaska.

Finally, one of the benefits of my job when you’re talking about other opportunities is to get a sense of what's going on throughout America and what’s going on in America right now is that the pandemic accelerated, with telework and the reality of things like Zoom, a new way of working, and that dysfunctional and mismanaged cities across the nation are hollowing out.

People have had enough and they're leaving. If you look around at what's happening in the United States, more and more of our smart young dynamic people are leaving places to build businesses in other places that are well-managed and where they can have a lifestyle that they crave like in our great state.

This is pretty much the pitch that Forrest Dunbar made in a debate last week with Dave Bronson in the Anchorage mayoral runoff.  Dunbar was explaining why cutting every agency except the police, as Bronson was advocating, was a bad idea.  

Yet Sullivan has supported Bronson for mayor.  Bronson is in the same mold as Trump (no government experience, talks off the top of his head, doesn't believe in COVID as a serious threat) and comes with the same fervor for cutting government as Dunleavy.  

If you call for bi-partisanship one week and then accuse the administration of a War On Alaska, it's hard to see where there's room for compromise.  But this speech was full of bluster for the Alaska audience, and I suspect the Biden administration allows for Senators to vent for the home crowd.

Sorry to go on so long.  Political speeches are meant to persuade with emotion, not with facts.  And critiquing such speeches requires one to get into the details.  

Dear Senator Dan Sullivan (Again? This is getting old)

Dear Senator Sullivan,  

It appears that you have already made up your mind to vote to acquit ex-President Trump.  I don't understand that decision, which most of the Republican Senators seem determined to make.  But this is critically important so I will give you the view of one of your constituents on why you should vote too convict.

As a young man, I listened to most of the Watergate Hearings on the radio.  Let me begin with this quote from Howard Baker, Republican Vice Chair of the Watergate Investigation:

“There's only one way that my party, the Republican Party could be mortally wounded with certainty and that would be for the public to think that we Republicans don’t have the courage, the stamina, the determination to clean our own house."

I've watched four days of impeachment hearings now.  It's clear that the House team made a tight, detailed, well organized, factual case against the ex-president.  They clearly showed how his actions, since well before the election even, set up the mob that ransacked the Capitol.  They showed how he created the big lie - "if I lose, the election was a fraud."  After the election he kept up that refrain - and presented no credible evidence in 61 courts.  All the judges rejected his cases out of hand. Not just Republican judges, but judges Trump himself appointed!

Then he tried to intimidate Republican election officials in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia into decertifying the elections.  He told the Georgia head of elections to just find enough votes to let him win!

Then he started telling his supporters to "Stop The Steal."  He encouraged them many times to prevent Biden from becoming president.  

Not only was the evidence they presented overwhelming, but for anyone paying attention to legitimate news the last six months, it was all stuff we knew already.  You yourself related how you and Sen. Murkowski sprinted out of the Chamber because the insurgents were knocking out the windows and banging on the doors where the House and Senate were certifying the election.  

Trump's defense attorneys made feeble attempts to reiterate their claim that "impeaching a private citizen was unconstitutional."  But we know he was impeached while he was a sitting president.  We also know that judges and other officers have been convicted after they resigned.  

They argued that his First Amendment rights were violated.  They dismissed the letter from over 100 top Constitutional lawyers, including key people from the Federalist Society, as "partisan."  It wasn't.  I'm guessing by your question today, that you will choose  "You can't impeach a private citizen" as your fig leaf to cover your vote.  It's transparent.  It won't cover what you're trying to hide.

They played five minutes of video tape of every time any Democrat had ever said "Fight" arguing that the ex-president saying it numerous times in his pre-rampage speech was equivalent.  The House team put the ex-president's words into context.  Trump's team did not.  Instead they tried to make it seem that telling people to fight for equal justice for African-Americans who are regularly being harassed and  killed by police is the same as telling an armed mob to take the Capitol and stop the certification of the election by violence.  

Some have argued that the Senate Republicans are suffering from the political version of Battered Woman Syndrome.  I assume that you know about this syndrome since you have championed the ending of abuse against women.  But let me remind you of some of the symptoms:

• learned helplessness
• refusing to leave the relationship
• believing that the abuser is powerful or knows everything
• idealizing the abuser following a cycle of abuse
• believing they deserve the abuse

Here's what some key Republicans said of Trump in 2016:

"On the campaign trail, Rand called Trump a “delusional narcissist” and a “fake conservative,” and Trump mocked his height. Rubio mocked Trump’s small hand size and called Trump a “con artist,” and Trump eviscerated  “Lil Marco.” Graham said Trump was a “kook,” “crazy,” and “unfit for office,” and Trump gave out Graham’s personal cellphone number on national television. Cruz said Trump was a “pathological liar,” a “narcissist,” and a “serial philanderer,” and Trump and basically called Cruz’s wife ugly—while accusing Cruz’s dad of being involved in the Kennedy assassination." (from The Daily Beast.) 

You yourself said you were ready to support Pence as the candidate and you publicly said you didn't vote for Trump in 2016.  

Yet all these Republican Senators, including yourself, have lined up to staunchly back Trump for four years, and the now the ex-president.  

The battered woman syndrome does seem to fit well in two particular ways.  

• Often women are afraid to get out of relationships because they fear how their men will retaliate.  
• Or they are afraid they can't afford, for economic reasons, to leave the relationship.  

That sounds pretty close to the situation of Senate Republicans.  You're afraid of retaliation by Trump and by his supporters and you are afraid of losing the economic support of Republicans in your next election.  

You've taken an oath to support the Constitution both as a Marine and as a US Senator.  You're allowing your personal interests and the peer pressure of your Republican colleagues to close your eyes to what that oath requires of you now.  The case against the ex-president is more than clear.  Trump's defense team was all smoke and mirrors.  

There is more to life than being a US Senator if that is the price for honoring your oath to office.  But you aren't up for reelection until 2026.  By then, voting to convict Trump will be respected by conservatives as well as progressives.  Or Trump will be using his acquittal to continue to claim he was robbed of the election and will still be stoking the fires of white supremacy and creating more havoc than you can imagine now.  Just as you didn't imagine the storming of the Capitol when you voted to acquit last time.

The American people know Trump should be publicly sanctioned and banned from office.  The world knows that.  And even if Republicans prevent conviction, the House's case is well preserved on video tape for future generations of Americans to see it for themselves in history classes.  And they will.  Your children and grandchildren will see it.  And they will know you didn't have the courage to honor your oaths to protect the Constitution.  They will realize that you grabbed some of the irrelevant sound bytes that Trump's lawyers offered Republicans to use to excuse their votes.  

I urge you to stop hiding and stand up front and proudly and deliberately cast your vote (mine too since you represent me in the  Senate) to convict Donald Trump.

Thank you

Blogging During A Pandemic And Insurrection

1.  John Brown and Harper's Ferry

From History:

"Abolitionist John Brown leads a small group on a raid against a federal armory in Harpers Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia), in an attempt to start an armed revolt of enslaved people and destroy the institution of slavery."

 This incident is in every American history textbook.  STOP  My students knew that if they wrote a sentence like that, I would underline it and write something like:  "Have you looked at every American history textbook?  

So, of course I had to see what I could find to answer that question.  I suspect one would have to sample as many US history books as one could gather and read through them.  (I did something like that in an article about the lack of Native American Law in public administration textbooks.)  In answer to that question I did find some related sites.  One is by a history teacher writing about how to use Harper's Ferry as a lesson. He writes:

"What the Textbooks Say

Brown’s raid often appears in the narrative of the Civil War as the point of no return—the moment in which the country’s deep divide between free and slave interests polarized with the injection of violence. Textbooks tend to describe the responses to Brown’s raid and trial in binary terms, with Northerners and Southerners displaying unified, and starkly opposite, reactions."

That doesn't answer the question, but does let us know it's a topic in many history textbooks both in the North and the South.  

Magazine of History looks at John Brown as an chance to teach history, not through the memorization of names and dates, but as an opportunity to explore difficult and ever present moral tensions.  

Although the institution of slavery was purged in the crucible of the American Civil War, John Brown's determination to expose and end chattel slavery still resonates. The multiple legacies of slavery and questions about the efficacy of violence as a tool for change in a democratic society continually bring historians and teachers back to the complicated life of John Brown. When students consider Brown's contributions to the American narrative, lines between advocacy and criminality, contrasts between intensity and obsession, and differences between democratic ideals and harsh reality are brought to the surface. To this day, artists, authors, historians, political activists, and creators of popular culture maintain a fascination with the antebellum rights-warrior and his death.

Wow.  I was planning an array of short comments in this post, and already I've gotten carried away on this first one.  But as I think about those who plundered the Capitol Wednesday, I have to think about Harper's Ferry and the fact that this nation is still divided over the same questions that led to Harper's Ferry.  While slavery has been abolished (but not completely eliminated if we consider things like sex trafficking and even prison labor, and some might suggest people who have no choice but to take minimum wage jobs), the belief that some people are inherently superior to other people based on skin color or ethnicity or religion is still capable of stirring people to violent attempts to overthrow the rule of law.  Just as the belief that everyone deserves to be treated by police with the same respect and the same level of force based on the real inherent danger to the police and the public got people out into the streets all summer.  

When John Brown took up arms, slavery was still legal in the United States.  His cause was to overturn those laws.  As much as I want to believe that slavery is inherently evil and that racism is evil, there are tens of millions of people who either disagree or think these issues are subordinate to other values they hold.  

2.  Both Energized And Drained by Zoom

Thursday I was in front of my screen from 3-3:30 watching Bridgman/Packer's presentation to APAP.  

"The Association of Performing Arts Professionals is the national service, advocacy and membership organization for the live performing arts field. APAP is dedicated to developing and supporting a robust performing arts presenting, booking and touring industry and the professionals who work within it."

My understanding is that every year they have artists - in this case dancers - perform for people who book acts to various venues around the country.  This year it was done virtually and Bridgman/Packer invited us to sit in.  Bridgman/Packer is a dance duo that totally dazzled me when I first saw them perform in Anchorage.  We've sent a modest check each year to support their work - it's criminal how geniuses in the arts have to scrape by.  Here's the blog post I wrote when we first saw them.  I was trying not to give anything away.  But the magic of what they do is combining live dancing with prerecorded dancing, use of screens and shadows.  It sounds odd, but it's amazing. In the showcase they talked about and showed video of their work.  They've been using abandoned factories in upstate New York as filmed backdrops.  They also do dances inside a large truck.  And they had one set that was filmed by a drone.  

Then I had back to back political fundraisers - we have a mayoral race in Anchorage in April - to attend.  And finally I tried to watch the Humanity Forum's annual awards to see Rachel Epstein get her award.  She ran the UAA bookstore speaker program for years and years - a real treat for many of us.  

3.  Turkish and Spanish

I've been doing 20-30 minutes a day of Spanish on Duolingo for over a year now.  It helps my vocabulary and grammar, and my listening, but not my speaking.  But I figure it keeps my brain active.  A couple of months ago I decided to add Turkish.  A month or two in Istanbul is something I've been wanting to do.  I skipped Istanbul in 1965 when I was hitching from Germany to Greece and back - promising to get there one day.  So we've watched a few Turkish movies on Netflix, and the one at the Anchorage International Film Festival.  Turkish definitely offers insights in grammar that I'd never considered.  Lots of things - like plurals and possessives - are done with suffixes.  Well, we add an 's' to make plurals, or 'ies' so I'm sure we're as bizarre to speakers of other languages.  Also, adjusting my brain and fingers to a Turkish keyboard is tricky too.  

4.   Prodding Dan

I sent my junior Senator another email.  I figure his original Koch backers have their own agenda for him in the US Senate so he's more loyal to that than to protecting Democracy.  But I figure I can keep reminding him I'm here and I want him to prove he's really a Marine.  And maybe the staffers who read the emails are more susceptible to reason.  

5.  Keeping My Photoshop Skills Alive

6.  And There's The Daily Alaska COVID Count Update

Dear Senator Dan Sullivan:

First, let me thank you working with Senators from both parties to get the Oceans Act passed.  This is a big achievement.  But it would mean nothing if President Trump were to succeed in overturning our democratic election.  As you know the courts have resoundingly rejected about 60 challenges made by Trump because there was no evidence presented to back up his claims.  And yesterday we learned that Trump called the Republican Secretary of State of Georgia and told him to find some 11,000 votes to overturn Biden's win in Georgia, with a threat of legal action if he didn't.  

Today I urge you to strongly endorse the certification of Biden's election and to denounce those senators who are threatening to challenge the election.  There is no doubt that Biden has legitimately been elected president of the United States.  Not denouncing those challenging this election merely feeds the white nationalists and others who want to reestablish 'the good old days' when White men were never challenged by women or people of color.  We need to resoundingly denounce these actions.  

I try to imagine what calculations you are making that prevent you from taking bold action on this issue.  I watched you take the oath yesterday to defend the Constitution.  This certification of the vote is one of the most important opportunities you have to do that.  To end the alarming talk of a number of people in your party, including sitting US Senators.  

I'm not willing yet to believe that you support this seditious action and would welcome an armed resurrection and coup to keep Trump in power.  

The only concern of yours that makes any sense at all to me is that you fear Trump supporters finding a candidate more amenable to their anti-democratic, racist views to run against you in 2026.  But you have nearly six years until you are up for reelection.  The world will be significantly different by then.  And probably most important on this point, Alaska will be using Ranked Choice voting.  There will be no Republican primary where you can be defeated by far right extremists in your party.  

As part of your campaign you told Alaskans that you are a Marine.  We expect you to show the courage of a Marine.  We expect you not to hide in the back of the crowd, but to stand up front to resoundingly defeat this challenge to our democracy.  

Readers can send their own email to Senator Sullivan here.  

My Email To Senator Sullivan And His Response And Links For You To Contact Your Senators

Out of great frustration with Republicans in the Senate I sent an email to my junior Senator Dan Sullivan:

 

" Here's a Tweet from a Republican former head of the House Intelligence Committee: 

Mike Rogers 

@RepMikeRogers 

· 8h 

Our adversaries aren't waiting for the transition to take place. @JoeBiden should receive the President's Daily Brief (PDB) starting today. He needs to know what the latest threats are & begin to plan accordingly. This isn't about politics; this is about national security. 

Senator Sullivan - do your damn job and protect our Democracy from the internal threats caused by Trump's refusal to acknowledge reality and his spreading of conspiracy theories and fomenting his supporters to believe the election was stolen. And protect our nation from foreign threats by making sure the presidential transition proceeds immediately. 

I don't know what threats and enticements have kept the Republicans in the Senate so meek when it comes to confronting the very worst and most dangerous president of the United States ever, but you're a Marine. Do your duty, sir!"

Here's the response I got today:

"Thank you for contacting my office. Your opinions and concerns are important to me. My staff and I are hard at work to ensure Alaskan voices are represented in Washington and you will soon be hearing back from us with a more detailed response to your inquiry. In the meantime, please make sure to visit my website for additional information on recent legislation. 

I appreciate and am honored to have the opportunity to represent you in the U.S. Senate. 

Sincerely, 

Dan Sullivan 

U.S. Senator "

OK, I'm willing to accept that this is simply a courtesy response so that people know the email was received.  And he's promising a more detailed response.  

But we know that at least 109,000 people voted for Al Gross (Sullivan's Senate opponent).  If 5% of those people called up Sullivan's office each day for the next week on this topic, that would be 35,000 calls.  (Well not really because it would jam up his system, so you could send emails if you can't get through on the phone)  That kind of response might get his attention.  Though just coming off an election win, maybe not.  

Here's the website with all the contact information for Dan Sullivan. 

Here's the page for Lisa Murkowski.  (The Office Location link gives you phone numbers.)

And for non-Alaskans, here's the page to find your Senators.

 

LA Times Article Looks At Republican Candidates Reversing Their Anti-ACA Stances - Including Dan Sullivan

Alaskans have all recently watched as Senator Dan Sullivan was forced by a leaked video to take a strong Twitter stand against Pebble Mine.  In the video, Pebble executives say that Sullivan is in their corner, but keeping quiet before the election. 

An LA Times article today says Sullivan, along with other Republicans like Iowa's Joni Ernst, are backing off their earlier anti-ACA stands.  

"WASHINGTON — Contempt for the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — was so central to Sen. Joni Ernst’s 2014 election campaign that the Iowa Republican, in a TV ad promising she’d “unload” on the law, pulled out a handgun and fired repeatedly. “Give me a shot,” she asked voters.

Six years later, the first-term senator is battling for reelection, and she’s holstered her gun.

Ernst is not alone. Earlier this month, she joined fellow Republican Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado and Dan Sullivan of Alaska — two other would-be assassins of the 10-year-old healthcare law who are now fighting for their political survival — in breaking with their party to support Obamacare on the Senate floor. They voted with Democrats on a measure opposing a Republican-backed case against the law that’s now before the Supreme Court.

As that vote showed, endangered Republicans are frantically trying to pivot away from the “repeal Obamacare” slogans that served them well for much of the last decade. Those are now a liability amid a jump in public support for the healthcare law.

Candidates also are playing down the long-standing legal challenge initiated by a coalition of Republican-led states that’s reached the Supreme Court. And from President Trump on down, they claim to be guardians of Obamacare’s most popular provision — a guarantee of insurance coverage for people with preexisting conditions — though that mandate would fall with the rest of the law if the court’s conservative majority sides with Republicans."

As you can see from the chart below, Alaska is one of only four states not involved in the case, either for or against the ACA.  

The chart comes from a Kaiser Family Foundation webpage that explains the court case and who all is involved.  Click on the chart to enlarge and focus it.

But I'm more troubled by unflagging loyalty to Trump as one of the bots on the Republican side of the US Senate.  He acts like a kid who doesn't want the teacher to call on him.  Sort of like the Pebble guy who said he's trying to lie low until the election is over.  And while he said he didn't vote for Trump in 2016, he now says he will.  

One has to wonder who is holding all those Republican Senators in line and voting to confirm Amy Barrett's appointment to the Supreme Court.  Senator Whitehouse gave the most insightful presentation on that in the Hearings and I'm hoping to get up a post about that soon.  I'll link to it here when I do.  

[UPDATE October 17, 2020:  Here's another article from Salon:  Alaska GOP senator routinely voted for policies that benefited family's chemical company]

Sen Dan Sullivan Responds Quickly To My Email Concerning Impeachment [UPDATED With Murkowski's Impeachment Response And Views Flying Out Of Anchorage)

The options one has when picking a topic at Dan Sullivan's 'contact' site does include Impeachment.  Not could I find "other.'   So I marked something like "Crime and Law Enforcement."

If you want to contact Sen. Sullivan you can at this link.
Senator Lisa Murkowski can be contacted here.

For non-Alaskans, you can get to your Senators here.

His response does not address the specific issues I raised, but it suggests that he's getting at least a few letters.  It stays neutral except for a part that takes a jab at the fairness of the House process.  Here's the response:

"Dear Mr. A,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the impeachment of President Trump. I appreciate your thoughts on this issue and welcome the opportunity to respond.
Article II, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution reads, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United Sates, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The House and Senate have essential, but different roles in carrying out the constitutional responsibilities required for the impeachment inquiry and trial. An impeachment proceeding must originate in the House of Representatives.
Following allegations that President Trump potentially engaged Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, the House of Representatives initiated an impeachment inquiry on September 24, 2019.
Articles of impeachment are a set of charges, and act similar to an indictment in court. Following the House’s decision to impeach, the Senate conducts a trial. When the trial concludes, the Senate meets as a whole to deliberate. A conviction requires the support of two-thirds of the Senators present.
On December 18, 2019, the House approved two articles of impeachment: Article I by a vote of 230 to 197, and Article II by a vote of 229 to 198. This matter has now moved to the Senate, where a trial is being conducted. On January 22, 2020, the Senate agreed to rules for the procedures of the impeachment trial. These rules, very similar to those used during the impeachment of former President Clinton, allow the House managers and the President’s legal team 24 hours each to present their arguments. Importantly, these rules allow the Senate to call additional witnesses and request documents if determined necessary after the first phase of the trial where both sides are able to fully present their side of the case and answer questions from Senators. The fair and reasonable rules agreed to for the trial in the Senate stand in sharp contrast to the process in the House.
Now that articles of impeachment have come before the Senate for consideration, I have sworn an oath as a juror to do “impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws,” and I will reserve final judgement on this matter until all facts are known. I encourage you to read the impeachment proceedings from both the House managers and the President’s legal team, and determine for yourself the fairness of the proceedings and whether the actions of the President constitute an impeachable offense. The impeachment briefings can be found on my website at the following link:
https://www.sullivan.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/information-on-the-senates-impeachment-proceedings
Thank you again for contacting me on this issue. If you have any more questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me or my staff. My office can be reached at 202-224-3004, or online at www.sullivan.senate.gov."

Sincerely,

Dan Sullivan
United States Senator 

[UPDATE January 27, 2020m 9:57pm Seattle time:  This email from Senator Murkowski, in response to an email I sent a week ago, came shortly after I posted Sen. Sullivan's response.  But I

was on an airplane and I only just saw it after spending time with my granddaughter here and daughter here on Bainbridge.

"Dear Steven:

          Thank you for contacting me to share your views.  I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to explain my position on the Articles of Impeachment against the President and the trial being held in the Senate.
          As you know, the Articles of Impeachment have been sent over from the House and are now before us.  Our responsibilities as a Senate are outlined in the U.S. Constitution—the Senate will act as the court of impeachment.  Our duty is to oversee a fair trial.
          While I encouraged the Majority Leader and Minority Leader to come ­to an agreement on setting the parameters for the Senate trial, after several weeks that did not happen.  I supported the organizing resolution offered by Majority Leader McConnell, which follows the framework set in the 1999 trial of President Clinton.  This effectively provides President Trump the same treatment every senator thought was fair for President Clinton during his impeachment trial.  This process allows the House and the President to present their case, following which Senators are allowed time to submit questions to the case managers.  After those questions, the Senate will then be allowed to vote on whether it is in order to ask for witness testimony or additional documents.
          The removal of a duly elected President by impeachment is a significant and serious matter and should not be approached lightly.  I have taken an oath to deliver impartial justice according to the Constitution and the law.  I will not rush to judgment, making all decisions based on the facts of the case presented.
          Again, thank you for contacting me.
United States Senator
Lisa Murkowski
http://murkowski.senate.gov*"