Senator Dan Sullivan On The Checks That Exist On Trump's Possible Firing of Mueller

Just seven days ago I wrote here that people should contact their Congress members and Senators to let them know they should NOT let Trump get away with firing Mueller.  I also sent emails to my representative and senators.

Only four days later I got a reply from Senator Dan Sullivan.  While he doesn't make any commitments, it looks like his staff was prepared on this one.  So I think it's only fair to post his response.

"Thank you for contacting me regarding S.1741, the Special Counsel Integrity Act. I appreciate your thoughts on this issue and welcome the opportunity to respond."

I know this is a form letter from the first line, because I didn't mention S.1741.  I just urged him to make sure  1) Trump knows that Sen. Sullivan supports the Mueller investigation and  2) should Mueller get fired that Sullivan would work to stop Trump.  I didn't offer how, I figured he knew those details better than I did, and he did.

On August 3, 2017, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) introduced S.1741 to formally establish a process by which the special counsel can challenge their removal. This legislation would allow a special counsel to challenge their removal before a panel of three federal court judges whose decision could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Since President Donald Trump assumed office on January 20, 2017, several news outlets have published allegations that staffers for President Trump had contact with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign. Following these allegations, on May 17, 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert S. Mueller as special counsel. The special counsel is authorized to investigate any possible coordination between the Russian government and the campaign of President Donald Trump, as well as any other matters that arose from this investigation.  

The President does not have the authority to remove Robert Mueller as special counsel; his removal would require the approval of Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. The special counsel can only be fired for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of DOJ policies. Additionally, the special counsel must be notified in writing as to the reason for their dismissal.  [emphasis added]

We need to continue the comprehensive investigations being conducted by both the DOJ, FBI and the Senate Intelligence Committee into Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election. As a firm advocate for maintaining proper checks and balances in our government, I will continue to work with and at the same time provide necessary oversight regarding the President’s nominees to ensure that all appointees follow the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law, and that foreign governments do not succeed in their efforts to undermine trust in the U.S. Government—a model of freedom that stands in stark contrast to Russia’s authoritarian regime. [emphasis added, and I'd note that 'both' usually refers to two things not three.]

S.1741 has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, where it awaits action. While I am not a member of this Committee, I will be sure to keep your comments in mind as it is discussed in the Senate. 

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 

So here is the official summary of S.1741:

Special Counsel Integrity Act
This bill sets forth requirements and limitations with respect to the discipline or removal from office of a special counsel appointed under Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations.
Specifically, a special counsel may be disciplined or removed only by the personal action of an Attorney General who has been confirmed by the Senate. If the Attorney General is recused from the matter, then a special counsel may be disciplined or removed by the most senior DOJ official who has been confirmed by the Senate and is not recused from the matter.
A special counsel: (1) may only be removed for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or other good cause, including violation of DOJ policies; (2) must be informed in writing of the specific reason for the removal; and (3) may file an action for judicial review of the removal.

It was introduced, as the letter says, on August 3, 2017 by Senator Them Tillis (R-NC) and referred to the Judiciary Committee.  You have to dig around a bit to find out that Sen. Christopher Coons (D - Del) is the co-sponsor.   It sat there until September 26, where a hearing was held.

That's all that Congress.com tells us.  Presumably it's been sleeping in that committee ever since, so my Senator says it's out of his hands.

I appreciate that Sen. Sullivan got back to me quickly and gave me some substantive information, but I don't seem much enthusiasm on his part for doing anything.  Though he did vote No on the budget just about the same time. And he does want the Mueller investigation to continue.  What exactly will he do to make sure that happens?



Here's what Vox said about this bill and another similar one back in October and it seems to apply to Sullivan's response:

"Senate Republicans have been coy about whether they would move to insulate Mueller if Trump follows the conservative calls to dismiss the special counsel’s investigation.
But if they’re interested in taking action, they have options already on the table."

If you poke around long enough you start to get stuff.  Here's part of what CT Mirror said on March 19, 2018:

"After Mueller was appointed nearly a year ago to head the investigation into possible ties between the Trump administration and Russia, senators, including Richard Blumenthal, introduced two bipartisan bills last year aimed at protecting a special counsel from political pressure from the White House
The “Special Counsel Integrity Act,” introduced by Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, would allow a special counsel to be fired only for “misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or other good cause, including violation of Justice Department policies.
The “Special Counsel Independence Protection Act,” introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Cory Booker, D-N.J.; and Blumenthal would require a federal judge to first sign off on any action to discipline or fire a special counsel.
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing in September on the two bills, but the legislation has not moved since then. Similar legislation introduced in the U.S. House is also stalled.
When the Senate returns on Tuesday, a push to move the bills out of committee onto the Senate floor is expected."

Let's see if  either of these bills get any new co-sponsors, especially now that Bolton is officially in the administration.

Sen Dan Sullivan Game For Town Hall, But Long On Platitudes, Short On Specifics

I went to Saturday afternoon's town hall with Senator Dan Sullivan.  He's the only one of our three

congressional delegates who was willing to meet with the public like this in Anchorage during this recess period.  And I want to thank him.

I ended up recording most of the town hall.  But my computer rebelled when i tried to load all the video to iMovie.  I negotiated with my laptop and it allowed me this 9 minute bit of video from Sullivan's report that preceded the Q & A.

I think this video does a reasonable job of portraying how Sullivan and the audience interacted.  The majority were clearly opposed to what Sullivan stands for.  Most of the questions were about health care  - the first person asking if Sullivan knew how much it cost to have a baby in Anchorage and that pregnancy was defined as a pre-existing condition by the new House ACA replacement bill.  The green and red pieces of paper people held up to show their approval or disapproval of what was being said, were predominantly not with Sullivan.

These were people who were very concerned about health care and strongly opposed to how the Republicans want to deal with ACA.  They were boisterous, but for the most part respectful.  The shouting and occasional chanting (particularly 'single payer, single payer') did not feel like disrespect as much as people wanting to be heard.  They wanted him to listen to them as much, if not more, than they wanted to listen to him.   The only person I thought sounded clearly disrespectful was someone near me who several times shouted out for people to 'shut up.'

I thought Sullivan came across as sincere and likable as a person, and he didn't have to hold this town hall, he also came across as someone with firm beliefs and people weren't going to change his mind on key things.  In some cases it seems key terms meant one thing to the audience and something else to Sullivan.  More exchange might have cleared that up.  And the audience's use of their red and green cards did seem to get his attention.  Several times he said things like, "I know I'm going to see lots of red cards when I say this. . ."  Like many in today's polarized political map, liberals as well as conservatives, I just don't think he gets to hear in depth from people who don't agree with him.  He mostly hangs out with people who do, or whose differences are even further to the right.  It might be easier to have eight of these people from the town hall get to spend several hours talking to Sullivan over dinner rather than in this giant room.

This was in the Bartlett High School auditorium which Leslie at the Anchorage School District told me has a capacity of 628 people.  (East High is 693 and West is 1918)  I'd guess it was 70-80% full, maybe more.  I took this picture (well, it's two pictures merged) about ten minutes before it started.


You can judge the audience's respectfulness yourself on the video.  You can also check my impression that Sullivan tended toward generalities and platitudes and when he does use numbers they sound like they come from talking points to prove his position.

For instance, his answer to people calling for 'single payer' was 'no, because one size doesn't fit all."  And thus, the states should run their own programs, not the feds.  These answers don't inspire confidence of his understanding of all sides of the issue.

Or he argues that "we've had a flat economy, literally, for nearly 15 years."

Screen shot from Statista

Well, here's a chart of GDP growth (click on it to enlarge and focus).  Flat?  Maybe if you average all the years, but it sure looks like there are a lot of ups and downs.  We can see things hovered around 4% when Clinton was president, then dropped precipitously when Bush came in.  And Bush left Obama with a huge hole to fill.  There's a nearly 5% increase from 2009 to 2010.  He also doesn't mention how Obama was never given a chance to prove his policies because Congress stonewalled him after 2010.

That chart and others on GDP growth don't support his claim that the GDP didn't hit 3% in the last 15 years.  The only sources that suggest  that ("Barack Obama Will Be The Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Growth") came from sites like Zerohedge  about which Wikipedia says:

"Zero Hedge's content has been classified as conspiratorial, anti-establishment, and economically pessimistic,^[3] and has been criticized for presenting extreme and sometimes pro-Russian views.^[1][4][5]"

The Wikipedia entry goes on to say it was founded by a Bulgarian-born hedge-fund trader who was barred for insider trading and that the site is registered in Bulgaria.

And then he talks about the US's $20 trillion debt as if it were the approaching apocalypse.  Yet this Business Insider article suggests it's not such a big deal.  I'd need to do more homework on this, but I'm inclined to be skeptical about the ominous importance Sullivan puts on this.  Is this a reason to cut the government or and excuse to cut it?  And if the debt is so horrendous, why aren't Republicans considering ways to increase our revenues other than cutting taxes ('to stimulate the economy").  And why does Sullivan then tout the highway bill that spends $500 million + $50 million more each year for five years?   That will just add to the deficit.

To Sullivan's credit, when people challenged his claim that the US had the highest corporate taxes in the developed world, he backed off and admitted that because of various deductions and loopholes, corporations don't actually pay that rate.  But if he knew that, why did he make the misleading statement in the first place?   This article confirms that the effective corporate tax rate is much lower..

I don't have time to fact check the whole town hall - I'm having way too much trouble even getting the video of the whole thing on my computer - but these few items that jumped out at me as squishy and proved to be so suggest other facts he cited are likely either questionable or misleading also.




You can listen to this part of the town hall.  The questions - which I don't have on here - got more boisterous and many people seemed to be much more up on the facts than was Sullivan.




Here's my attempted transcript of the audio.  I just cannot figure out what exactly he said in some parts.  If you can, let me know in the comments.

Transcript

"I wanted to update on what’s going on. As you know it’s a chaotic time right now.  The three areas that I want to talk about, that I focused on a lot, and I think most Alaskans want us to focus on

• Economy
• National security and defense
• And assisting people who need help [This part is not on the video - he talks mainly about sexual assault and rape victims..]

CROWD:  Health Care!
First, growing the economy.  Right now, we’re in recession in Alaska.  For me that’s the number one thing we can be focused on.    Right now, in the US, we’ve had a flat economy literally for almost 15 years.  That’s not good.
Crowd rumbling and red cards up.
So what I’ve been trying to do is focus on growing the US economy. Critical.  Your ??? has not hit 3% GDP growth in almost 15 years.  That’s a problem.  Everyone in here, I’d hope, believes we need strong growth and that’s a important.  If we’re growing, some of our bigger challenges we have in the state, we have in the country, we can tackle.  If we’re growing at 1%, 1.5% we’ll have hard times with almost everything.  Let me give you one example that I know nobody is going to ask me, but it’s a huge issue I’m focused on.  Right now we have a $20 trillion debt. 20 trillion.  ??? I have kids, ??all of you have kids,  grandkids, if we don’t start growing the economy, on that issue we’re going to be the first generation that have left our kids and grandkids in much worse shape.  $20 trillion we’ve got to focus on.
Crowd noise
C’mon guys, listen.  Let’s try to keep, let me make my statement ????? and if you want to ask questions ?????
Let me tell you what we’re trying to do to grow the economy.
First, we just past, last year, a five year long term highway bill.  That’s going to bring hundreds of millions, $500 million, each year it goes up about $50 million, $500, $550, $600, $650 over the next five years.  That’s really important for the state,  ??? bi-partisan  President Obama signed it
The other thing we’ve been on is rolling back what I think are onerous regulations on the economy.
Crowd noisy.
Hey, come on.  Don’t be the first group that doesn’t show respect.
In the Congress we’ve used the Congressional Review Act to roll back previously issued regulations.
Lots of crowd noise
And in my  ???? focus on that.  And I think this goes to growing the economy - very important
Another area we’re focused on is fisheries.  Right now I chair the Subcommittee [on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard Coast Guard] fisheries for the US.  We’ve just passed out of committee a Coast Guard bill that has a lot of important stuff in it for Alaska.  We also passed out of committee,, these are all very bi-partisan,  Save our Seas Act  with Sen. Whitehouse on ocean debris, ocean plastics to make sure we’ll be able to clean up our oceans.    We had really good success getting federal land to Alaska, very important issue, not huge amounts, even this town Anchorage10 acres to Anchorage just been sitting there, for years, Senators for Alaska have been trying to get it for decades,
these are things I think all grow the economy.  It’s very important we should diversify the economy.  No doubt??   telecom, tourism, ??? economy, aviation.  But I will say this. I’m sure I will get some red cards on this I flatly believe it is bad for the state and bad for the country this movement you see in Washington, in the country, some parts of Alaska, to “keep it in the ground.”  I’m sure most Alaskans agree with me on that.
Crowd noises
I’m sure some of you won’t agree with me on that.
Let me go to the next two  - strong military, strong national defense.
When you pick up the paper there’s a lot of national security challenges - North Korea, Iran, Russia, ‘
Crowd noises
You guys crack me up.
Laughter
I’d like to say right now…. one of the things for our state I think is important is that it is being recognized more and more in Washington that Alaska constitutes what I’d say are three pillars of America’s military power.  We’re the cornerstone of missile defense and that’s really important right now, given North Korean threat, the increasing Iran threat, if one of these rogue nations  [?shoots a missile ???]….. anywhere in America, it could be Alaska, it could be New York, LA, it’s our men and women in uniform in Alaska that are charged with the capability to track that, shoot it down.  You should all be proud of that.
I’ve got a bill that I plan to introduce next week that would actually make our missile defense even more robust. Very bi-partisan, most Democrats and Republicans recognize that we have to do more on missile defense.  Kim Jong-un is gonna have a missile in the next couple of years, an intercontinental ballistic, nuclear missile, that could hit, ???a city in the ?? range to the United States.  That’s a serious thing.  We need to do more to protect the homeland.  That’s all based here and is something you should be very proud of.
The second pillar is we’re the hub of air combat power. With the F-22s here at JBER, F-35’s coming to Eilson with a whole ‘nother amount of aircraft that we have throughout the state and the training we have here.  We have more aircraft and assets to protect our nation’s interest in the Pacific and the Arctic than any place in the world and that’s gonna increase and that’s important.
And finally, we’re platform for expeditionary forces because of our strategic location to be able to deploy anywhere on a moment’s notice.  In Fairbanks, that’s the first Stryker Brigade, it’s the many men and women in the reserves, and Army National Guard, and it’s called the 425 here, based at JBER and I’ll tell you one of the things I worked harder on than anything in my first year in the Senate.  When I got into office, the previous administration said they were going to get rid of those 5000 men and women who constitute the only airborne brigade team in the entire Asia Pacific and the entire Arctic. And we fought that.  Tooth and nail.  And they’re here and they’re great men and women and we should all be proud of them.  A final note on our military authority story?   …..  there’s no where in the world, and I’m not saying this because I’m your senator, that has a stronger support for their military, than the communities in Alaska."

As for questions, well, if you wanted to ask one you wrote your name on a piece of white paper, maybe 2 inches by 1/2 inch.  These all went into a huge jar.  You can see from the picture that the odds of being called were pretty low.

And most of the questions were about health care.

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.

If You Can't Impugn A Nominee, What's The Point Of The Hearing Process?

Senator Elizabeth Warren was silenced in the Senate debate over the attorney general debate  for reading a letter written by Coretta Scott King that said, in part,

 "Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly black voters.  For this reprehensible conduct, he should not be rewarded with a federal judgeship."

Impugn

The Senate GOP invoked a rule against impugning a colleague.  Here's a copy of the rule from a Tweet by Senator Hatch:

And to clarify a bit more, here are some dictionary definitions of 'impugn.'

• to challenge as false (another's statements, motives, etc.); cast doubt upon. (Dictionary.com)
• to assail by words or arguments :  oppose or attack as false or lacking integrity (Merriam-Webster)
• to cause people to doubt or not trust someone’s character, honesty, or ability (Cambridge dictionary)
• To attack as false or questionable; challenge in argument: impugn a political opponent's record. (Free Dictionary)

It's admirable that the Senate has rules that forbid Senators from insulting one another.  But what happens when a Senator actually conducts him or herself in a way that is "unworthy or unbecoming of a Senator"?  Everyone is supposed to pretend it didn't happen?  

I can wholeheartedly support the idea of 'falsely impugning' being banned, but if one is simply calling out an actual behavior unworthy of a Senator, shouldn't that be allowable?

Senate Confirmation Hearings

But let's also recognize that in this session (no pun intended) Mr. Jeff Sessions (rather than Senator Jeff Sessions) is being considered for the position of Attorney General. Sessions has two distinct roles here.   It is not in his role as a fellow Senator that he is being impugned,  but in his role as a candidate for Attorney General whose qualifications are being debated. (I'm assuming here that Sessions doesn't get to vote on his own nomination, but maybe I'm wrong. It appears I am wrong.)

If a Senator cannot raise questions about a presidential nominee in confirmation hearings, what is the point of the the hearing?  The fact that the nominee also happens to be a US Senator should be irrelevant.   To say it is ok to impugn nominees as long as they are not Senators is a joke.

Why Is Warren's Speech Relevant

The words that were so offensive were the words of Coretta Scott King speaking from personal observation.  This is the wife of civil rights leader Martin Luther King.  She was intimately involved in the event she writes about.

The event she alluded to was the prosecution, by then Alabama Attorney General Jeff Sessions, of a black voting rights worker, Albert Turner, who was helping elderly black voters to register to vote and to actually vote.  The jury acquitted Turner.  

Abuse Of Power

I'm trying to write this as objectively as possible, but it's hard. Up to this point I've done ok.  But to write dispassionately about outrageous abuses of power is to support the abuse. I should say abuses.

First, there is the silencing of Senator Warren and the words of Coretta Scott King.  The silencing of the voices of black and white women by white men isn't new.  That doesn't make it right.

Second is the idea of Sessions as the attorney general.   The attorney general is supposed to uphold the law and to protect the civil rights of Americans and this nominee's record is so poor as to be laughable, yet he's close to confirmation.  (Not everyone agrees.) This is the perfect Stephen Bannon appointee.

The damage being done to American democracy by Donald Trump and his henchmen will take so much time to undo, and the suffering and injustices that come from it will never be totally undone.  

And both Alaskan US Senators voted along with the other Republicans to silence Sen. Warren.  I don't expect anything else from Sullivan, but Murkowski knows better.  She's already voted against DeVos, does she think this vote will buy her forgiveness from Trump's vengeance? 

Seven Living Mayors of Anchorage Gather For Berkowitz Inauguration

Click to make bigger and much clearer

I think there are six former Anchorage mayors in this picture.  Tony Knowles on the far right in blue, Rick Mystrom, George Wuerch,  Matt Claman (behind Weurch),  Dan Sullivan in the brown jacket. And I think it's Mark Begich barely visible between Mystrom and Wuerch.  Here's another of Begich later.  





And they're watching Anchorage's oldest living mayor (well, actually mayor of the former Borough of Anchorage) Jack Roderick swearing in Anchorage's newest mayor Ethan Berkowitz.

Click to make bigger and  clearer

Of the living mayors, I didn't see Tom Fink, and the ADN says he was absent.    Fortunately, the predicted rain was also absent with the sun attending instead. 


From Wikipedia:

Mayors of Greater Anchorage Area Borough (1964–1975)

Name	Term
John Asplund	1964–1972
√John Roderick	1972–1975

Mayors of Municipality of Anchorage (1975–)

Name	Term
George M. Sullivan	1975–1981
√Tony Knowles	1981–1987
Tom Fink	1987–1994
√Rick Mystrom	1994–2000
√George Wuerch	July 1, 2000–July 1, 2003
√Mark Begich	July 1, 2003–January 3, 2009
√Matt Claman	January 3, 2009–July 1, 2009
√Daniel A. Sullivan	July 1, 2009–July 1, 2015
√Ethan Berkowitz	July 1, 2015–

Alaska Election Through Spanish Eyes

"Alaska es tres veces más grande que España, pero tiene menos población que la ciudad de Zaragoza. Para salir elegido senador en ese estado bastan 151.767 votos, que es los que sacó Mark Begich en 2008. Por comparar, Diane Feinstein necesitó 7,7 millones de papeletas en 2012 para renovar su escaño por California. Paradojas de los sistemas electorales.

Pero hacer campaña en Alaska es mucho más difícil que en California. En el caso de Begich, mucho más. En 2008 ganó por los pelos: menos de 4.000 votos de diferencia frente a su rival, el senador Ted Stevens, que estaba procesado por corrupción. Solo ese escándalo permitió a Begich derrotar a la formidable maquinaria política que Stevens había construido en sus 40 años de senador. El demócrata le derroto, además, con una innovadora estrategia: se fue a buscar votantes al Polo Norte."

My high school Spanish gets me more than I would expect - the first sentence is clearly "Alaska is three times bigger than Spain, but has a smaller population than the city of Zaragoza."  But  Bing translator fills in the blanks I can't quite make out, and does it with a distinct computer accent.

Alaska is three times larger than Spain, but has less population than the city of Zaragoza. To exit elected Senator in that State are sufficient 151.767 votes, which is what Mark Begich released in 2008. By comparison, Diane Feinstein needed 7.7 million ballots in 2012 to renew his seat to California. Paradoxes of electoral systems.

But campaigning in Alaska is much more difficult than in California. In the case of Begich, much more. In 2008, won by a whisker: less than 4,000 votes against his rival, Senator Ted Stevens, who was prosecuted for corruption. Only that scandal enabled Begich to defeat the formidable political machinery that Stevens had built in their 40 years of Senator. Democrat defeated him, also with an innovative strategy: went to find voters to the North Pole.

Here's a little more:

. . . Ahora, en 2012 [sic], la historia se está volviendo a repetir. Solo que más intensa. El republicano Dan Sullivan ha decidido disputar a Begich el voto rural. O, más bien, remoto. Y se ha ido, por ejemplo, a Barrow, un pueblo a 2.100 kilómetros del Polo Norte geográfico en el que el 56% de la población es esquimal. Solo hay 10 núcleos urbanos situados más al Norte en el mundo. Canadá, Noruega y Rusia tienen cada uno tres, y Dinamarca oros dos, en Groenlandia. Por su parte, Begich ha reforzado su campaña entre los pescadores, una comunidad extremadamente importante en Alaska.
Así es como los candidatos al Senado se dedican a celebrar reuniones con los patriarcas de las tribus y a aceptar banquetes tradicionales de carne de ballena en pueblos en cuyos basureros no merodean ratas, sino osos polares. Lo que está en juego, sin embargo, es mucho más. Lo más obvio es el control del Senado. Con las elecciones legislativas más inciertas en décadas, todo puede acabar dependiendo de quién gane en Alaska, y eso, a su vez, puede acabar siendo determinado por cualquier pueblo como Barrow.

And a little more humor from Bing translate:

Now, in 2012 [sic], the story is becoming to repeat. Only that more intense. The Republican Dan Sullivan has decided to contest the rural vote to Begich. Or, rather, remote. And a town 2,100 kilometers from the geographic North Pole in which 56% of the population is Eskimo has been, for example, Barrow. There are only 10 cities located more to the North in the world. Canada, Norway and Russia have each three, and Denmark two gold medals, in Greenland. For his part, Begich has strengthened his campaign among fishermen, an extremely important community in Alaska.

So as candidates to the Senate are devoted to meetings with the Patriarchs of the tribes and to accept traditional banquets of whale meat in peoples in whose garbage dumps do not roam rats, but polar bears. What is at stake, however, is much more. The most obvious is the control of the Senate. With legislative elections more uncertain in decades, everything can be finished depending on who wins in Alaska, and that, in turn, can end up being determined by any people as a Barrow.

El Mundo (The World) is Spain's second biggest print newspaper and biggest online paper according to Wikipedia.

The whole article is here.

Dantzing With Pollsters - Follow Up

Yesterday I did a  post about ways to respond to political pollsters that raises questions like what do you owe telephone survey folks?  The only things I said you owe them are some respect and friendliness, because it's not an easy job.  I just got a call from a local Anchorage number - 268 2121.  It's a bit late for calls, but I answered it.

Caller:  May I speak to Steve?
Me:  Whose calling?
Caller:  Tanya.  I'm from MRS.
Me:  [She sounded tired, and remembering my advice, I answered in a very friendly]     Hi Tanya, how are you doing tonight?  What is MRS and where are you?
Tanya:  McQuire Research Service, in Nevada.

Well she was clearly pleased to get a friendly response and, in her words, "not to be yelled at."  But I did tell her about yesterday's blog post and she asked if I wanted to do the survey.  Since she'd identified her company, which I'd said yesterday legit pollsters should do,  I said, 'Sure."

Tanya:  How likely are you to vote next month?
Steve:   Barring getting hit by a bus . . . you know Tanya, actually, I plan to vote next Monday when early voting starts.  So I'm definitely voting in October, not next month.
Tanya:   . . . .
Steve:  If I say I'm not voting next month, that ends the survey, doesn't it?
Tanya:  Yes . . .
Steve:  I guess they didn't write the question very well, because I'm sure they don't care when I vote, do they?  But since I'm not going to vote next month, and I answered honestly 'no,' you have to end this right?
Tanya:  Yes,

I thought I heard an unspoken, "but . ."

I hope she still gets paid, even though we only did the first question.  But she shouldn't be penalized if people don't plan to vote.  That's information too.  I should have asked her. 

[OK, this post is sort of a stall.  I'm working on several longer posts that aren't quite right yet, and this seemed like an easy filler.  But if you didn't see the original post Dantzing With Pollsters, that has a little more meat.

I don't generally watch television or listen to much AM radio, so I'm relatively spared a lot of the political advertising.  The mailed advertising doesn't make noises and is easy to put into the recycle bin.

But I noticed tonight, getting a Youtube clip for a post I'm working on, that I got a Dan Sullivan ad linking Mark Begich to Obama before the video.  But I had to play the video several times and then I got Begich ads with a women talking about how Sullivan would interfere between her and her doctor at her clinic. 

Murkowski (The Elder) Throws Kitchen Sink Into Editorial Against Marijuana Initiative

I've been hoping to get time to tease out the arguments for and against the Marijuana Initiative and go through what each side has to say.  But Frank Murkowski's commentary in today's paper was so lame, I couldn't help jumping in.

I'll just go through it as I would with a student's paper - line by line to test what it says.  I'm fairly critical, but that doesn't mean I support or oppose the proposal.  Here I'm just evaluating the argument, which seems like a kitchen sink approach.  That is, throwing in everything he can think off why people should vote no.   I'm putting Murkowski's words in blue so it's clear what he's written and what I or others I quote have written.

Alaskans should just say no to ‘Big Marijuana’
By FRANK MURKOWSKI
   Everyone has something to say on the marijuana issue, it’s just that not everyone has said it yet.

What exactly is that supposed to mean?  The opening sentence should tell us what the argument is about.  This sentence could be said about anything.  Just cross out marijuana and put in any word you want.  It would work just as well opening an essay for the marijuana initiative.  It doesn't affect the argument one way or the other.

For the life of me I can’t understand the rush to legalize marijuana in our state, as Ballot Measure 2 would do.

"For the life of me I can't understand" - Yes, that was always a problem for Murkowski - understanding people whose view of the world was different from his.  This may sound snarky, but I mean it seriously.  As governor, he didn't engage with those who opposed his agenda.  He had a majority in both houses.  What's to discuss?  We're right, you're wrong.  He alienated enough people in his own party that Sarah Palin beat him in the primary. 

"the rush to legalize" - I don't know what rush he's talking about.  Marijuana was legal in Alaska when I arrived in 1977.  It's been almost 40 years for us to go from individuals being able to grow a few plants and smoke them at home to making it so someone besides gardeners can legally get marijuana.  That doesn't seem like a rush to legalize.

It reminds me of the herd mentality of the lemmings stampeding off the cliff with little thought to the consequences.

About the lemmings.  The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has a whole webpage on how the story of lemmings committing suicide is a myth.  Murkowski should know better.  Lemmings are arctic animals after all.   And Murkowski was governor of Alaska, so the Alaska Department of Fish and Game reported to him.  If he's so uninformed on this one, how many other myths does this editorial have?  Here's part of the ADFG debunking:

"It's a complete urban legend," said state wildlife biologist Thomas McDonough. "I think it blew out of proportion based on a Disney documentary in the '50s, and that brought it to the mainstream."

. . .   According to a 1983 investigation by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation producer Brian Vallee, the lemming scenes were faked. The lemmings supposedly committing mass suicide by leaping into the ocean were actually thrown off a cliff by the Disney filmmakers. The epic "lemming migration" was staged using careful editing, tight camera angles and a few dozen lemmings running on snow covered lazy-Susan style turntable.

Oh dear.  Debunking the lemming myth and the Disney myth in one paragraph.   I'm sure that Governor Parnell will have them remove this page because the science doesn't support his policy.  [Coincidentally, while I watched a bit of Jeopardy with my mom tonight after I wrote this, but before posting, one of the questions was about the faking of the Disney movie about what arctic animal committing suicide.]

   The fact that Colorado and Washington state have recently legalized marijuana should give us pause to consider the impacts. We should wait and see how those efforts unfold. There is no incentive to be among the first.

It's not unreasonable to wait and see how their models work.  But the sky hasn't fallen in those states.  How long should we let them test it before we jump in?  Five years?  Ten?  Twenty?   I suspect there may actually be some incentives to getting there first.  We get the experience and a head start, and we get extra tourists probably.  We'd be ahead of the pack.

But he's right that if we wait, we might be able to avoid their problems.  But then, Alaskans don't usually care how they do it Outside anyway.  We Alaskans don't let the ugliness and traffic of Los Angeles, for example, keep us from repeating the strip malls, environmental degradation, and general paving of paradise.

   Should the proposal become law, would it be beneficial to our citizenry, our youths and the quality of life? What will be the impact on rural Alaskans? These are just a few of the many unanswered questions before Alaskans as we prepare to vote.

He's throwing out the questions with the implication that the outcomes will be bad, but not with any factual answers.  Rural Alaskans have the right to make their villages dry and they'll be able to do the same with marijuana.  But even though bringing in marijuana is illegal now, my understanding is that you can get it in most every village.  How will legalizing and regulating it make it worse? 

Why is the effort being initiated in Alaska? It is simply because Alaska is a cheap place to run an initiative campaign. It also has a very young population. Children and teens are especially vulnerable to potential harm from long-term pot use, and this experiment is not worth risking their futures. 

I'm sure the cost of doing an initiative in Alaska is one of the reasons.  And the young population is also a good reason - young folks are more likely to vote for it than older folks.  As are our many libertarians. And Alaska has a long tradition of marijuana being legal, so it seems like there are a lot of reasons.  If it were just the small population they could have done it in Wyoming which is closer to Washington and Colorado and not as expensive as Alaska. By the way, did you notice he said 'pot' this time?  It looks like he was being careful to say marijuana throughout, but pot slipped in here.  He says marijuana eight times.

The part about children and teens does follow from the sentence about Alaska being a young state.  But it doesn't follow the logic of it being cheaper to do an initiative here.

He raises the theme of Reefer Madness and the impact on the kids.  Will it be different from the impact of alcohol on kids?    The National Institute on Drug abuse says (as of January 2014) that kids in the lower middle/high school grades use marijuana more than they get drunk, but in 12th grade that changes.  Specifically:

Marijuana use by adolescents declined from the late 1990s until the mid-to-late 2000s, but has been on the increase since then. In 2013, 7.0 percent of 8th graders, 18.0 percent of 10th graders, and 22.7 percent of 12th graders used marijuana in the past month, up from 5.8 percent, 13.8 percent, and 19.4 percent in 2008. Daily use has also increased; 6.5 percent of 12th graders now use marijuana every day, compared to 5 percent in the mid-2000s. .  .

In 2013, 3.5 percent of 8th graders, 12.8 percent of 10th graders, and 26 percent of 12th graders reported getting drunk in the past month, continuing a downward trend from previous years.

It seems the standard for alcohol (getting drunk) was higher than the standard for marijuana (used marijuana) so maybe a higher number used alcohol, but didn't get drunk.  What's interesting is that they say use of the illegal drug was increasing while use of the legal drug was decreasing.   Murkowski only raises the specter of something terrible without supporting it with facts.

    Where is the Outside money coming from in support of this ballot initiative? The Marijuana Policy Project of Washington, D.C., and the Drug Policy Alliance of New York have supplied the bulk of the funding. Don’t be fooled this is big business.

Evil Outside money.  It's good to see Murkowski and Begich agreeing on an issue.   Outside money shouldn't buy Alaska elections.  Unless, of course, the Outside money is supporting my candidates and my issues.

When did Murkowski become opposed to big business?  Before Parnell, he was the oil companies' best friend.  This is a real turn around in his values.  By the way, illegal marijuana distribution is also big business.  He seems to prefer illegal big business to legal big business.

 I believe the ballot process is flawed. If enough money can be raised outside the state to hire people to gather signatures, any issue can get on the ballot. The process circumvents the responsibility of legislators. Had the issue originated in our state Legislature, it would have failed overwhelmingly because every legislator would have to vote on the issue. The ballot initiative process allows any elected official to simply take a walk and avoid being held accountable. This is simply wrong. Alaskans need to know from each of their elected representatives, from the Legislature to the governor and the federal delegation, whether they support or oppose this important ballot measure. They need to respond with a simple yes or no answer.

Now he's arguing against referendums and initiatives.  "This is simply wrong."  Well, I recently pointed out that initiatives and referendums are part of the state constitution.  So now he's saying the Alaska constitution is wrong.  

Now he switches to the dual system argument, that if we pass this, we'll be out of sync with the feds:

If Ballot Measure 2 passes, it would establish a dual system. It would be unlawful to buy or sell marijuana under federal law but permissible under state law. Such an inconsistency has the federal government telling us one thing and the state government telling us another. Further, the enforcement of contradictory marijuana regulations would be very difficult for those in law enforcement. I would urge all Alaskans to read the statement from the Alaska Peace Officers Association, which details the difficulties associated with maintaining law and order.

Wow, is Murkowski still a Republican?  After all, "federal overreach" is the most common phrase among Alaska Republicans these days.  Sort of like "uh" among most people.  I thought Parnell's policy was to just ignore or sue the feds if their rules were different from ours.  But Murkowski thinks the state should not contradict the feds.  Interesting.

   It would also make hiring Alaskans for jobs that require drug screening more difficult, and may complicate insurance payouts if an accident happens. Jim Jansen of Lynden Transport and Alaska Marine Lines indicated to me that his businesses require zero tolerance, and he sees legalization as a major headache.

Most businesses also don't allow people to come to work drunk and we manage to make that work.  Testing might be more complicated than testing for alcohol though.  Healthblogger lists time marijuana can be detected in the blood, hair, urine, and saliva.  They also discuss the accuracy of current tests.  I also found a National Drug Court Institute report that says their numbers (ie 30 days detectable in the urine) are commonly accepted, but not necessarily accurate and that there are different factors that would make the length of time to get a negative reading vary from person to person.  I didn't find a publication date, but the most recent date cited in the footnotes was 2004.

So yes, Murkowski is probably correct in saying it will make some things a little more difficult for some businesses.  Every bit of legislation has that impact.  So does alcohol,  driving,  concealed carry, and sex.  For those individual choice items, we've decided the benefits outweigh the risks.  Murkowski doesn't explain how this is different from those issues. 

   Our opponents believe that with access to Outside funds they can buy our votes on Ballot Meaure 2. Let’s tell them that Alaska’s quality of life is not for sale. We have defeated this issue once and we can do it again. Big Marijuana, Big Mistake for Alaska.

Again, Outside money and buying the election.  I'm waiting for his piece on why we shouldn't vote for Dan Sullivan.  Quality of life means many things to many people.  A key aspect of quality of life for many, I think, would be the freedom to make personal choices.  For those who don't like alcohol or can't use it for health reasons, the option to become high on marijuana might give them a better quality of life.  For others, just having the state tell them what they can and can't ingest, lowers their quality of life.  For others, elimination of trees and natural spaces to accommodate the profits of developers lowers the quality of life.  Murkowski hasn't explained what specifically he means by quality of life and how legalizing marijuana lowers it. 


Assuming that Murkowski wrote this himself, I'd say it reflects his statement near the beginning - "For the life of me I can’t understand."  I suspect the reasons for opposing legalizing marijuana are so obvious to Murkowski, that he can't understand why anyone would be for it.  And so he can't articulate arguments that might be meaningful to people who are planning to vote yes.  He can't fill in the details that would support his opinion, because it seems so obvious.  When you only know that you believe, but can't articulate why with convincing arguments, you're in trouble.  It's faith, not science  You don't need facts.    The only factual statement I see in this essay is that someone gave his opinion -

"Jim Jansen of Lynden Transport and Alaska Marine Lines indicated to me that his businesses require zero tolerance, and he sees legalization as a major headache."   

It may be a fact that Jansen said this, but what he said was opinion.  

I realize that this post might make folks think that I'm for legalizing marijuana, but what I've tried to do here is simply look at how Murkowski made his argument.  On those grounds alone, I see no real facts, just lots of opinion.  Now I do realize that facts take up words and the ADN gives writers a limited number of words.  In that case, instead of throwing in every argument, including the kitchen sink, he should have focused on a couple and given us some facts to support his position.   

Here's a pretty good outline for how to write a persuasive essay from  Waterford Union High School.  It might be helpful to folks who need to convince others of something. 

Who Skips Fisheries Debate? [UPDATED]

[UPDATED 1:45pm:  Apparently, not Dan Sullivan any longer.  According to Lanie Welch's column in today's ADN:

"The lure of reaching a statewide audience was too much to pass up for U.S. Senate hopeful Dan Sullivan, who will be at the Oct. 1 fisheries debate at Kodiak after all.    Sullivan was able to reshuffle a packed travel schedule to fit in the fisheries event, said Ben Sparks, campaign manager. Sullivan initially was going to be in Bethel on a multi-day swing through Southwest Alaska during the time of the Kodiak event. “Dan recognizes the importance of Alaska’s fisheries, and our campaign has rescheduled our southwest swing to ensure that Dan could make the debate. He looks forward to a healthy exchange of ideas with Mark Begich on the future of Alaska’s fisheries, and is excited to attend the debate in Kodiak,” his campaign said in a prepared statement."

The original post below should be read with the above in mind.]

This letter to the editor was in the ADN Sunday. [I couldn't get the link to the ADN, but it was also in the Kenai Peninsual Clarion]:

"Who skips fisheries debate?    I had to ask myself this week does Dan Sullivan actually want to get elected in November? I’m not sure he does, since he chose to skip the fisheries debate in Kodiak. Or he is a complete fool and had no idea the giant mistake he made by turning down this debate.    Either way, Sullivan just proved what Sen. Begich and Democrats have been saying all along he doesn’t know or care about Alaska.    Bill Starnes"

Why couldn't he make it?  According to debate organizers, via Lanie Welch, ADN's fishing reporter:

"Sullivan campaign manager Ben Sparks told debate organizers that Sullivan does not have a prior commitment keeping him from the fisheries debate, but that “he is just too busy with all the traveling he is doing.” The two-hour debate is broadcast live to over 330 Alaska communities."

I think at least three more credible possibilities beyond the two Starnes gives:

1. He knows that Begich, after six years in the Senate and as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard knows his fisheries much better than Sullivan and that Sullivan would look bad in comparison.
2. He knows his policies as Attorney General and Natural Resources Commissioner - helping get rid of local input in development, on Pebble Mine, and other issues wouldn't sit well with the fishers anyway.
3. He's simply biding by the old saying, attributed, incorrectly it seems, to Abraham Lincoln, 

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Maybe a combination of all three.  He knew this was a fight he couldn't possibly win. 


[Note on dubiously attributed quotes:  The link goes to a website called Quote Investigator:  Exploring the Origins of Quotes.  It looks like a much better sources than all the spurious 'quote' sites that just copy things incorrectly from other places.   The discussion on this quote makes it highly unlikely that it came from Lincoln and also looks at similar sentiments from the bible.]