Alaska Election Gets Yet Stranger As Oil Consultant Brad Keithley Pledges $200K To Change Election

Brad Keithley is apparently taking advantage of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision and will, according to APRN, spend $200,000 of his own money in order to pursue his concern that the state is spending too much money.

From his blog at Alaskans For Sustainable Budgets:

Today I am taking the next step in the effort by announcing the legislative races in which I intend to participate.  They are House Districts 15, 19, 21 and 25.  I also am going closely to watch Senate Districts K and N, and, after studying the dynamics at play, House District 9 over the next two to three weeks with the possibility of participating in them as well.  A brief description of the reasoning follows:  [You can read the rest here] [And you can check on the Alaska election districts here.]

He identifies spenders and savers.  He's targeted two incumbent Republicans and will support their Democratic opponents;  one Democratic incumbent and will support her Libertarian opponent; and another Republican over a Democrat in a seat with no incumbent.

His basic criterion is whether the candidate will vote for a sustainable budget.

There are a couple more races he's considering campaigning in.

 Is this a good thing?  If you are a challenger struggling to raise money to unseat an incumbent, this probably looks good.  Keithley isn't going to give money directly to candidates, because there are limits to how much you can give as an individual.  Instead he will essentially have a PAC that will independently support candidates. 

To what extent will this affect what the chosen candidates say and do?  The blog acknowledges that some of his choices are just based on questionnaires returned to him by candidates and that they might not follow through.  But he's not worried,

 "If Moore fails to live up to his words I will work to defeat him also in two years"

 For $200,000 you can be an Alaskan Koch it seems. Keithley isn't taking on the governor's race, but given Bill Walker's rhetoric on the budget deficits at the announcement of the Walker/Mallot ticket, it would seem Keithley would be supporting him, especially since the incumbent Sean Parnell was one of the architects of the current deficit budget that Keithley opposes. 

One of the incumbents he opposed came out fighting,  accusing Keithley of being a bully who takes advantage of women.  

This is not politics as usual.  It will be interesting.  November 4 is only seven weeks away. 

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.]

So Predictable

August 20, 2014  (after Prop. 1 which would have repealed the big oil company tax break lost):

"Gov. Sean Parnell says it’s now time for the oil industry to increase its investment in oil field projects that create jobs for Alaskans."

September 8, 2014

"ExxonMobil told state regulators again last week not to expect an increase in oil production on the North Slope, arguing it is a “reasonable approach” to conclude that a long-term decline is continuing."*

That this was going to happen was so obvious that 89,608 Alaskans voted "Yes" on Prop. 1 on August 18.  That's only 10,147 fewer than those who voted "No" despite the stars being lined up for the "No" campaign:

• There were no real contests on the Democratic ballot to get Yes votes out.
• There were a number of interesting contests - particularly the Senate race - on the Republican ballot

Thus many more Republicans were likely to vote

• The "No" campaign spent 30 or 40 times more money than the "Yes" campaign

So Gov, a question.  What are you planning on doing when the other oil companies do not increase their investments in oil fields?   You going to say you need more proof like you did with the National Guard?  Even if you have proof, what will you do?  Being loyal to your friends is a virtue, Gov, but only if you have better quality friends. 

*To be fair, the article also said that Tesoro challenged Exxon's prediction. 

Alaska Dems Join Alaska First Unity Party - Daring or Desperation?

What Just Happened?

Alaska's Democratic candidate for governor Byron Mallot on Wednesday became the running mate for a lifelong Republican Bill Walker who is running as an Independent.  There will be no Democratic candidate for governor and Mallot has taken the number two spot on the Alaska First Unity Party ticket.

Mallot's Lt. Gov running mate, Hollis French, and Walker's running mate, Craig Fleenor, both agreed to withdraw.

The ADN has a page looking at how things got to this point.

So Who Is Bill Walker?

Bill Walker is a Republican running as an independent against the sitting Republican governor Sean Parnell.  From Walker's "Why I'm Running" statement:

 “It is time to pull together in order to move the state forward and seek not what is in the best interests of the Republicans or the Democrats, but aggressively pursue what is in the best interests of Alaskans,”. . .  

“I am not running for governor to advance a political career. I am running to assure that Alaska regains control of our resources and our future without bowing to party or special interests.”

People I've talked to say he's a straight-up guy and that this is genuine, not posturing



So, Daring or Desperation?

First, never accept simplistic binary options like this.  Either/or statements, especially about human relationships, are almost always gross simplifications.  There are lots of options between the two poles of the continuum. And there are other continua you could lay over this situation.

Second, I'd say it was both.  Let's start with the desperation part and then go to the daring.

The Desperation Part
 
Mallot has an incredible resume of service to Alaska:

• life-long Alaskan who's held high level positions 
• in most administrations since Statehood, including Executive Director of the one sacred agency in Alaska, the Permanent Fund, 
• in banking, heading several banks and serving on the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
• in Alaska Native leadership positions including CEO of Sealaska Native Corporation and President of the Alaska Federation of Native
• in local politics as Mayor of Juneau

But as a campaigner, he's failed to light up audiences. Republicans will claim this abandonment of a Democratic candidate on the ballot just shows how weak the Mallot's campaign is and they wouldn't be wrong.   Polls showed Republican governor Sean Parnell way ahead in a three way race against, it's closer in a two way race.  


The Daring Part

Daring:  : "willing to do dangerous or difficult things"

The Democrats are making a number of unprecedented moves and putting their fate in the hands of a Republican who lost in the Republican primary in 2010. There are a number of open questions:

• What will be the long term effect of not having a Democratic candidate - the first time since statehood in 1959?
• What influence will the Democrats have from the second spot on a team headed by a Republican. [Actually Walker changed his affiliation to Undeclared just before this went down.  But that doesn't change his long held conservative values.]
• Will a Walker/Mallot coalition in Juneau be better than Parnell/Sullivan?  [It's hard to ask that question with a straight face, but it's true the election will be between two Republicans.] 
• Will Democrats field a candidate against Walker in 2018, if the Independents win in 2014?
• Will Walker stick by his non-partisan rhetoric after the election?  After four years?
• How will this affect the next redistricting in 2020 if Walker is reelected?  Will he let his Lt. Gov pick one of the two governor picked members of the board?

While the agreement includes Walker promising not to push for more abortion restrictions, there's no guarantee of what will actually happen if he gets elected.

What I see as significant about this move is the willingness of the Democrats to marry outside their religion - so to speak - in order to defeat Parnell.  Third party candidates have impacted Alaska gubernatorial elections in the past, and with Walker and Mallot likely to split their voters if they compete, people expected that Parnell would cruise to reelection.

So, What Are The Answers?

Were they desperate?  I don't know that that's the right word, but unless something quite remarkable happened, they weren't going to win the election.  The odds for the Walker/Mallot team are much better.  I would say that Mallot has the experience and knowledge and integrity that would be great in a governor, but not the skills that are great in a candidate.  Some of this may be cultural.  Modesty, not trying to bring attention to oneself, speaking slowly and deliberately have all been mentioned as characteristics of traditional Alaska Native cultures.  But modern American electioneering - the self-promotion, the need for snappy sound bytes - don't favor that style. 


Were they daring?   To the extent that they broke with politics as usual?  Absolutely.  They weren't hung up about not having a Democratic candidate running for governor.  They accepted Mallot running for Lt. Gov with a conservative Republican.  (Who changed his affiliation to Nonpartisan just before this happened.)  I was surprised by the reporters at the press conference who harped on Walker's changing to Nonpartisan and on Mallot's 'abandoning' the people who voted for him as the Democratic governor candidate.  Yes, there might be a few people who aren't into daring, but there will always be people who can't handle change. 

I think that the 89-2 vote by the Democratic central committee suggests that they felt it would take them from a certain Parnell victory to a good chance of a Parnell defeat.  And I'm sure they would say that was more important than some hypothetical obligation to primary voters in this instance. 

And it's daring in the risky sense, because if Walker is elected, there's no telling what he will actually do as governor.  Lt. Govs have been left out in the cold before.  I wonder to what extent Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell's speedy approval of this plan was partly in reaction to how he's been treated by Parnell.  And Walker promised that Mallot would be in the governor's office, not 300 feet away. 

People have had time to watch Walker.  Mallot said that on the election trail the last year, he's grown to know and respect Walker, and Walker said the same of Mallot.  My sense is that Walker's zeal is for energy issues and a gas pipeline and he can live without pushing conservative social issues.  But that does remain to be seen. 

I think the most attractive part of this ticket will be the bold action they've taken to break from traditional partisanship.   They aren't just talking nonpartisan - they've done it.   If the people who complain about how bad partisan politics has become are serious, then voting for Walker/Mallot is a way of showing it. 

And while Republicans have a large edge over Democrats in voter registration, more people are registered as Nonpartisan and Undeclared than as Democrats and Republicans combined.  (If you register as Independent in Alaska, that's really the Alaska Independence Party that's at times advocated for Alaska to secede from the US.  Nonpartisan means you aren't connected to any party, and Undeclared means you don't want to say.)


So, I'd say this was a daring act spurred by the belief that there was not way the Democrats or Walker, both running separately, could defeat Parnell.  It will stir up an election already packed with initiatives (legalizing marijuana, raising the minimum wage, and  protecting Bristol Bay salmon ostensibly from Pebble Mine) and one of the most expensive US Senate races in the country between Sen. Mark Begich and Dan Sullivan.  There's also an Anchorage Municipal referendum to repeal a controversial labor ordinance.    



Below is video from the Tuesday (September 2, 2014) announcement at the Captain Cook Hotel.  First, Mallot, and then Walker.  So you can get a sense of these two candidates yourselves.




Here's Walker.






More photos of the press conference are at this previous post.

Walker and Mallot First Public Appearance As Running Mates

Mallot and Walker

Time doesn't wait for lazy bloggers and my post about the unprecedented abandonment of a Democratic candidacy for governor wasn't finished when it was time to get to the Captain Cook to see the new election team.

So I'll put up some pictures here and give a few highlights.  Then I'll go back to the original post and finish it. [UPDATE Sept 4:  Here it is with video.]





Craig Fleenor, Walker's original running mate, opened things up with what would be one of the themes of the day - this is not about me, it's about what's best for Alaska.  Hollis French was not there, but Walker said he was part of the discussions leading to this decision and he had been invited. 

The audience

Judging from the number of media in the audience at the Captain Cook's Quarterdeck, you'll be seeing and hearing plenty of video and getting lots of accounts of what happened.


Mallot spoke first, surrounded by his wife and son. He spoke of how this came about - the polls strongly said he couldn't win if both he and Walker ran.  He said that the two had become friends at debates where Gov. Parnell did not show up. 

It was a hard decision and if the Party hadn't approved, he would have kept on as a Democrat. 

Mallot did allow that while the two were sitting in the back of a four-wheeler in Gamble, he did wonder what would happen if Walker fell out. 


Walker, surrounded by his wife, some of his kids, and Mallot,  said that Wally Hickel had introduced him in this very room when he ran for Governor last time.  He noted that Hickel told him he should run as an independent, not as a Republican.  "He was right."

He called himself a conservative, and in response to questions, said they were running on fiscal and energy issues, not social issues.  He would leave abortion laws as they are and he had no interest in vouchers.  He's not running on social issues.



The major theme seemed to be:  end to politics as usual, end to partisanship, his government would be peopled with qualified candidates regardless of political affiliation.

He also said that the Lt. governor's office would be in with the governor's office, not 300 feet away.  They would work as a team.

Another theme was integrity and honesty - at one point Mallot said people would have to trust him, that they should look at what he's said in the past and what he's done.  This skeptic, based on what I've heard about these two candidates in the past and saw today, these are two, as Mallot said, "very principled men."

When asked what this administration would be known for in after their first term, Walker listed:

• Lowering the cost of energy in Alaska
• Education improvements
• An administration that went where other were uncomfortable to go
• Infrastructure improvements
• The gas pipeline
• Action, not so much talking and studying

When asked about the difference between Walker/Mallot and Parnell, Walker said:

• Leadership - there isn't any now
• Putting Alaska first
• Listening, reaching out
• No party lines - if it's good for Alaska, we'll do it

He also made the state deficit a key focus.  The governor's budget office foresees deficit spending for the next ten years.  We have to acknowledge it, do something about it, stop studying.  There were no vetoes of the capital budget by the governor.  We can't keep doing that.  No more no-bid contracts for work like the LIO remodeling.

"We need an owner of the ranch, not a ranch hand, as governor."


There was a sense of excitement in the room.  This decision - a Republican and a Democrat joining together - certainly is a dramatic action rather than just words. 

Political Sign Battles

Seward Highway, between Northern Lights and Benson, was one of the battlegrounds in the fight over Proposition 1.  On the Benson corner, were the No folks.

On the Northern Lights corner were the Yes folks.








I couldn't help thinking this was like going to a college football game.  There were the good guys (your team) and the bad guys (the other team.)  You sat on different sides of the stadium and yelled for your team and against the other team.

The political sign version includes cars driving by the sign holders and honking if they like the political message, sometimes even waving.  Sometimes showing a thumbs down.

What strange ritual is this?  I thought about it while I was there.  First, Alaska has no billboards, so yard signs and corner demonstrations take the place of billboards.  But the level of discourse between the two sides and between the sign holders and the drivers was the same level as the Bruins and the Trojans.  Or Palestinians and Israelis.

Signs don't expand the rational debate.  But I suspect they impact the emotional debate.  Clearly seeing a group of people holding signs for what you believe must give a sense of solidarity.  And if your position is an underdog position, it's probably encouraging to see your side represented - the more signs, the more encouraging.  I suspect people weigh how the election is going by the number of sign wavers for each side.  And, the ability to get folks out onto the streets is an indicator of how much support each side has. It's about winning and losing, about power, not really about the impact of the different tax schemes on the state. 

Any Proof Signs Matter?

Not a lot.  One professor, Costas Panagoloulos,  did some experiments in New York that say they do, but I'd like to see his findings replicated in other places before I whole-heartedly accept his findings.  Here's an excerpt of a 2012 NPR interview:

SIMON: How did you measure the effectiveness of yard signs?
PANAGOPOULOS: What I designed was a randomized field experiment that randomly assigned to different voting locations in Manhattan during the 2005 mayoral election - to be treated with street signs that said, Vote Tomorrow, that encouraged people to vote. These were nonpartisan signs held up by groups of volunteers at strategically selected precincts. And then after the election, we measured voter turnout, and compared those places where we had volunteers with street signs to those places where we did not have volunteers with street signs. And we found that turnout was significantly higher in those voting locations and precincts where we did expose voters to street signs.
SIMON: But isn't getting someone to vote different and, in a sense, easier than getting them to vote the way you want to because of a street sign or yard sign?
PANAGOPOULOS: Well, I think what we wanted to demonstrate was that this particular technique - holding up some type of sign - can be effective. Now, we had a nonpartisan message. We assume that a partisan message could have been as effective - perhaps it would have been more effective, if anything. But our first cut at this was to see if they could be effective. And given that we found that they are effective, we now presume that they can be effective as partisan messages to promote a particular candidacy.

Instead of waving signs at corners, I'd like to see the active campaign volunteers of both sides sit down for dinner together - six per table - and let voters see videos of their dinner discussions.  That would give a lot more information than signs with slogans.  And the volunteers would find out that 'the enemy' was more rounded and human than they expected.

For instance, I suspect the assumption held by some that oil company employees are all going to Vote No isn't all that accurate.  It's probably true that the most vocal opponents of Prop 1 work for oil companies or subcontractors.  When I went to the public testimony for HB 110, an early version of SB 21, all the people speaking in favor, identified themselves as connected through work or family to the oil industry.

But no employer is universally loved by their employees, who see all the warts of their bosses.  And even though the oil companies, as reported in the ADN, have been sending out emails telling their employees to vote No - I imagine a lot of the employees might disagree or just resent their employer telling them how to vote.  (In today's paper, it says,

"Companies supporting the tax cut were shuttling workers to the polls in vans . . . but officials said they had not told the employees how to vote."

While I was looking for evidence of the effectiveness of sign waving, I found this anti-sign waving blog post that included this tidbit:

I actually have been a sign waver in the past, but only when strongly encouraged to do so by an employer with substantial financial interest in a certain candidate. I did so begrudgingly and hated every minute of it as I tried to fake a smile at drivers who mostly just wanted to get to home as soon as possible without having to send a half-hearted greeting my way.

People with the Yes signs wondered how many of the No sign holders were there as part of their job.  And when someone waved an Alaska flag among the Yes signs, it was suggested the No folks should have a British flag.  See, what I mean?  It's like football fans finding ways to out do the fans of their opponents.


I did see a man near the Yes signs who looked familiar.  Then it hit me - he looked like Vic Kohring.  I don't think I've talked to Vic since the trial.  We had a brief but cordial conversation.  I realized later that I didn't ask why he was standing with signs in mid-town Anchorage if he's running for a Senate seat in the Valley. I checked, now.  He's running for US Senate, not state senate, for the Alaska Independence Party slot.





And I met one of Don Young's Republican primary opponents - John Cox.  Forrest Dunbar, the Democratic house candidate who's unopposed in the primary, came up to say hi and I got this picture of the two of them.

I asked Cox about the gun he's wearing.  He told me he's a strong open-carry advocate.


I should be done now, but after my afternoon in the sign battles I couldn't resist posting this picture I ran across when I got home by Polish artist Pawel Kuczynski published (with other pictures) at The Mind Unleashed.

While there are a lot of informed voters, this picture depicts some of the uninformed.  Not to mention those who have dropped out of voting because they don't see the point.  We'd have a lot different country if they voted.

Art by Pawel Kuczynski; image from The Mind Unleashed

 The election equivalent of the grass these days is "JOBS."



NOTE:  For those wondering - especially after the previous post - I was holding a Yes sign.  I'd been called and asked to help out and I don't believe that blogging should cause me to give up participating in the political process.  Pretending I don't have a position on issues doesn't make my blog more objective.  It's better to be upfront about about my beliefs and activities, write as objectively as I can, and let the reader sort things out. 

Prop 1 Boils Down To: Who Do You Trust?

This truck was parked outside the Bear Tooth when I came out of the  Alaska Dispatch News and UAA sponsored debate on Prop. 1. 

It seemed to sum up the question that voters have to answer to vote on this.  Do they trust the oil companies that worked hard to pass SB 21 (that Prop. 1  would overturn)?  Or do they trust those who are saying SB 21 is a giveaway to the oil companies?

Wielechoski and Croft

Speaking for Prop 1 (to repeal SB 21 and return to ACES) were Senator Bill Wielechowski and former Senator and University Regent (when the Board hired Mark Hamilton) Chancey Croft. 

Smith and Hamilton

Opposed were Mark Hamilton,  President Emeritus of the University of Alaska and Doug Smith, CEO of Little Red Services.

It cost $15 a head to get in, but the theater was full.










The debate was moderated by Steve Johnson, speech professor and director of the amazing UAA debate program.  And much of the proceeds were to support the UAA debate program.

Even though this was probably the debate with the most well prepared presenters I walked out still scratching my head over the facts.  Wielechowki went through a history of broken oil company promises and asked why we should trust them now.  Hamilton said it wasn't about trusting the oil companies, but about trusting facts.

But what are the facts?  Both sides cite facts that support their position and both sides say no one can predict the numbers when the facts don't support them.

• Did state oil revenue go up under ACES?  Both sides agree it did.  
• Will SB 21 raise our oil production to 1 million barrels a day as the governor predicted?  Both sides agree that isn't going to happen, but the No side says SB 21 will produce more oil than ACES.
• Would a return to ACES destroy incentives to develop more oil in Alaska?  The two sides disagree strongly here.  The No folks say the high taxes when prices are high scare away oil companies and at low oil prices SB 21 brings in much more.  The Yes folks say the high taxes in ACES are paired with high tax write-offs that spur new production.  
• Did ACES cause oil companies to leave Alaska for North Dakota and other states?  The No folks make this argument strongly.  The Yes side say it wasn't the taxes but the lower costs of extracting shale oil in locations closer to markets. [I heard that in other places, they didn't actually say that tonight.
• Will ACES or SB 21 give Alaska more revenue in the future?  That's where both sides differ greatly.  It depends on whether oil prices stay above a certain level and how much production there is.  And no one can predict that.  

Doug Smith said SB 21 should be given a chance and if, in a few years, the predicted new development doesn't happen, then he will be right in front of the line to get the legislature to change the law.  But with oil companies helping to elect legislators, is that really going to happen?  However, if Prop 1 passes, I guarantee that ACES will be amended in the next session to deal with some of the tax issues when oil is at a very high price.

Other issues that came up:

The Yes side raised the ethical issue of two legislators who are highish level Conoco-Philips employees who recused themselves, but were then told they had to vote and ended up voting in favor of SB 21. Without their votes it wouldn't have passed. The No side said these were honest and honorable men and wouldn't have voted against the state's interests and that not voting disenfranchises their constituents.
The Yes side countered with:  Can you see an oil company employee going back to his Conoco-Philips bosses and saying, "I thought it through and decided against saving you $600 million a year"?
Now, I suspect that an oil company employee probably thinks that changing to SB 21 is a good idea anyway and that their constituents knew they were oil company employees when they elected them.  On the other hand, if legislators who had this kind obvious sort of conflict-of-interest were not allowed to vote on issues they had a direct vested interest in, then voters would know that if there were a lot of oil bills, then a particular candidate would not be able to vote.

Both sides agreed that ACES earned more revenue for the state than SB 21 would have in the last few years - though they didn't agree on how much more.  And they completely disagreed on what would happen in the future.  And since that depends on the price of oil and the amount of oil, we can only guess on that.


It was pointed out that the oil companies very legitimately work to maximize their profits and that bargaining with them requires state negotiators to be doing the same thing for Alaskans.  The Yes folks didn't think having a former Conoco-Phillips attorney/lobbyist act as the state's negotiator was a good sign. 

Wielechowski said that the Norwegian Fund which began in the late 1990s now has $900 billion while our Permanent Fund, begun well before, only has about $51 billion.  Smith countered that Norway continues to tax its citizens at a high rate and uses only a tiny percentage of the fund each year.  He personally didn't want to pay that kind of tax.

But I thought about that.  Since Norway is a country.  Leaving it means changing one's nationality.  Alaska is but one state in the United States and a large percentage of oil company employees either moved to Alaska from other states or commute from their home states to work in Alaska.  Having a state tax and a large fund for the future would weed out people coming to Alaska to make a quick fortune and leave from those who plan to stay.  It would also weed out people who come to Alaska to get the Permanent Fund dividend.  Personally, I'd rather have people here who plan to stay and who are interested in investing in Alaska's future.

There was more, but you get the gist.  I agree with Mark Hamilton that we should focus on facts, to the extent that we can.  The historic facts seem to say that ACES was a better deal for the state than SB 21 would have been - even if people disagree on how much better.  Looking to the future, the facts are more slippery.  It depends on a number of things:

• the future price of oil
• the amount of oil produced
• the cost of recovering Alaska oil compared to the cost of recovering oil elsewhere
• the impacts on large and small producers
• the impacts on old and new fields

In my mind, it really does boil down to Who Do You Trust?  The 'facts' are too complex for most voters to determine, and too dependent on assumptions about the factors listed above for anyone to know with certainty. 

Should the public trust the oil companies who had behind-closed-doors meetings with Gov. Murkowski to come up with PPT which crashed when the FBI found Bill Allen paying legislators to vote for the oil bill?  Who send huge profits out of the state each year?  Who were unwilling to make any promises in exchange for the huge tax cuts they got  in SB 21?  Who are spending millions to defeat SB 21?

Or should they trust those Alaskans who are working on their own time with their own money and who stand to gain no more than any other Alaskan?

There are well known and respected people on both sides.  Some of the difference in opinion can be traced to different world views - Republicans tending to trust business more than government and Democrats leaning the other way.  But the key players on the No side are oil companies, oil industry related companies, and their employees.  Their payoff from the tax cuts are immediate.  


Doug Smith said we should give it a chance (which reflects the latest oil company ads and is far different from the governor's certainty when he was pushing this in the legislature) and come back in three years if it isn't working.  I think the odds of that happening are pretty slim.  After the last round of redistricting we're likely to have strong Republican majorities at least until the next census data in 2020 and redistricting, and they're not going to repeal SB 21.  But, if Prop 1 passes, there's no doubt in my mind that ACES will be on the table for changes in Juneau next session. 


What I think everyone should agree on, is looking at what Alaska will do when the oil runs out.  We've been kicking that barrel down the road since the oil began to flow.  Both sides pointed out that our (Republican-controlled) administration and legislature have spent wildly the last couple of years.  And since we don't have $900 billion, or even $100 billion, in our Permanent Fund, we need to start thinking seriously about the future.

How to Shake Hands and Other Pictures and Notes From The Republican Senate Debate

The Wendy Williamson auditorium stage was converted to a television studio.  The media panel is seated waiting for the candidates to take their spots.  I sat at this angle because there were tv cameras on stage blocking  closer views of the candidates.

It was a pretty empty auditorium. People were scattered all around.   This photo was just before the debate began.












Joe Miller supporters were the most visible and vocal part of the audience.

I'd brought my notebook, but I took a smaller backpack that didn't have any pens or pencils.  So my notes are all in my head, and unaided memory is tricky.  So double check what I write.  I did look to see if KTVA or ADN has the whole debate up [If either does, I couldn't find it] and I checked on what others wrote to confirm my memory. And make corrections.
[Wrong again - I found it linked at the #akdebate Twitter feed - you can see it all here.  I don't have 90 minutes right now.  But I may do updates or a follow up post later if I have time.  Updates done after I post - unless they're minor typos or style cleaning without changing the meaning - are identified with "UPDATE" and the date.]

NOTE:  I strive to be as objective as I can.  Usually that means describing what I see.    This post will also describe how I felt, which gets a little squishier, but I'm still trying to give description rather than judgment.  Others (Mudflats and ADN for example)  have written about what was said last night.  I'm going to try to add to that my sense of the non-verbal communication.  And my collective gut reactions that seemed to come together at the debate.


Sullivan's Handshakes - Not Much Eye Contact

Looking at the photos afterward, I was struck by the initial handshaking among the candidates.  These are just photos, not video, so it may be a fluke of the moments I shot the pictures, but look at Dan Sullivan's eyes as he's shaking hands with his opponents. [I did check the video on this before posting.  It cuts to the audience when Miller and Sullivan shake, and in the brief part they got of Sullivan and Treadwell shaking hands Sullivan does look at him.]

Miller and Sullivan shaking hands

Sullivan and Treadwell shaking hands

What I learned about shaking hands long ago is consistent with this advice from About.com:

Make eye contact and offer a sincere smile to show that you are happy to be where you are.
Be still and face the other person to prevent giving the impression that you are in a hurry to get away. If you are walking, try to stop, turn, and face the other person, unless it creates an awkward situation.

As I proof this post, it's clear that it was body language like this and how he talked  that shaped my impressions of Sullivan.  He didn't show he was 'happy to be where [he was].'  He didn't prevent 'giving the impression that [he was] in a hurry to get away.'   These photos are the only tangible evidence I have of this, but I kept getting the message throughout the debate.

Treadwell and Miller seem to have learned the proper handshake protocol.  

Miller and Treadwell shaking hands

Miller - Had the Most Fun


Miller seemed to be having the most fun.  He got easy questions from his opponents, he had his crowd in the audience, and when you have a black and white view of the world, it's easy to give firm, definitive answers.  He wanted,  for example,  a total freeze on all new regulation and absolutely no amnesty.  But life isn't black and white.  He said something like, "I believe in family and the children on the border should be sent back home to their families."  What if their  parents are living legally in the US?  Or one is?   [KTVA's coverage has this:

“The most humanitarian thing, in my view, is to reunite them with their families in their countries,” Sullivan said.

So I probably have Miller and Sullivan mixed up on this one.  Or maybe both said something similar.] 

Photo from Histor-C

Watching Miller, I couldn't help thinking of Richard Nixon.  I think it was the hair, the bags under his eyes, the five o'clock shadow and the finger pointing.  He also conveys the same belief in his possession of the truth. 




Miller:  Some of My Best Relatives are . . .

Those weren't his exact words, when challenged by panelist Dermot Cole about the tattooed hoodlums on his mailer that said "Begich wants them to vote . . . and if 20 million illegals vote you can kiss the Second Amendment goodbye."  At least he's being honest about his opposition to amnesty - he doesn't want these folks to become US voters.
He followed this up by telling the audience he has a Mexican son-in-law and an Indonesian brother-in-law.  There was another brother-in-law but I forgot where he was from. [Joeforliberty says the other one is from India.]  Is that supposed to make his racist* mailer ok? The other two took somewhat more nuanced positions, though all three were against federal regulations and Obama's handling of immigration.



Sullivan:  The Perfect Resume in the Wrong State?

Sullivan seemed the most out of place.   There's something about the way he talks.  While he spoke articulately and without hesitation (most of the time) I felt he was a bit defensive and he sounded like he was trying to figure out what the best answer would be for this audience.  When asked in the lightening round if he had written in Lisa Murkowski in the last election, there was a long pause.  His team hadn't prepared him for this one.  Finally he said 'no.'

So, did he vote for his current opponent Joe Miller?  Jeanne Devon, at the Mudflats, raises the possibility that he was still technically a resident of Maryland and so didn't vote here at all.  But he was the Alaska Attorney General.

He also hesitated when asked if he'd ever been arrested. He said no.  Was he weighing whether it had been expunged from the record or not?    I think his comments on tribal governance and the lawsuits he worked on for the state bear some scrutiny.

His body language was like the handshake - it all said he didn't want to be here, he'd rather be somewhere else.

When I first encountered Sullivan at his confirmation hearing for Attorney General in 2010, I felt he had the perfect resume and wrote at that time:

"And I wouldnʻt be surprised to see Mr. Sullivan running for Governor or Senator sometime.  How about a Republican primary with Mayor Dan Sullivan running against AG Dan Sullivan?"

Now both Dan Sullivans are running for statewide office, just not the same one.

In the military, there is almost a checklist for the things you have to do if you want to keep getting promoted.  Sullivan's resume looks like he was following a checklist for higher office.  It's really impressive.  And then he lucked out by marrying a woman from a state with a very low population where the odds were better than in his home state of Ohio.  This is the United States and people can travel from state to state and become residents of other states.  Ted Stevens grew up in California and became "Mr. Alaska."  But Sullivan's opponents have been hitting hard on this point - he's not really an Alaskan yet.  Usually people run for lower level offices before tackling US Senator, so that rubs people the wrong way too.


Watching Sullivan last night I got the feeling that he isn't quite comfortable here - he has crashed the party so to speak.  Were my gut reactions after sleeping on this just based on what I brought to the debate last night or does what I already knew merely help explain what I saw?  I can't tell.

Treadwell - The Real Alaskan Who's Peeved These Others Are Blocking His Rightful Place?

That's the sense I got from Treadwell last night.  He suggested several times that he'd been

working on projects others raised - sustainable energy in rural Alaska, Alaska's role as an arctic state - and with people they mentioned - Wally Hickle mainly - before they were even in Alaska.  I got the sense from what he said, that he was thinking, "Look, I'm the sensible one in the room, the real Alaskan.  I don't simplify complex issues like immigration or global warming. You guys shouldn't even be on this stage with me."

If I had had a pen and taken notes, I could flesh this out better.  When Sullivan talked about natural gas as the salvation for rural Alaska energy costs, Treadwell said he'd been doing alternative, sustainable energy projects in rural Alaska since the 1990s.  In response to a question from one of the panelists - I think Cole again - on whether they would keep coverage for pre-existing conditions now in Obamacare, he rebuffed Miller's "I don't think the government should tell people what they have to do.  They should choose what they want." (Huh?  Did he mean the insurance companies?  Or did he mean people with pre-existing conditions should be able to choose coverage that no one is offering?)  Treadwell referenced his wife's cancer and how pre-existing conditions shouldn't prevent one from getting health care.  [Is this just one more example of how people only 'get it' when they have personal experience with an issue?]  He also was more nuanced about regulation - though he said he's changed his mind about approving the Law of the Sea treaty.  I believe he conditioned it on the US not being controlled by outside interests. 




This Was A TV News/Entertainment Show

We had a bit of dramatic music leading in to each segment with the appropriately serious deep voice telling us what was about to happen.

Candidates and panelists got make-up touch-ups during breaks.  Now, that's a manly Alaskan image.  But since Nixon's poor performance in his debate with Kennedy, everyone gets makeup now.

ADN's Nathaniel Herz - Dermot Cole fuzzy on right

The media panelists stood their ground in attempts to get the candidates to answer the questions and not change the subject.  ADN's Nathaniel Herz jumped in several times to interrupt a candidate who'd veered off track.  And you could hear both voices playing chicken before one or the other gave up.  Nat won most of those rounds.  Sometimes with the help of the moderator.

Moderator Joe Vigil - KTVA 11 News - was ruthless when it came to time limits.  I realize that one has to do that to be fair to all the candidates, and that television news is often more about advertising, and thus entertainment, than news.  So time is of the essence. But letting the candidates talk longer when things get heated either leads to them explaining better or saying what they really think instead of their prepared scripts.

KTVA's Rhonda McBride during break

Rhonda McBride asked hard questions about conflicts between what candidates said (say about not bringing home earmarks) and Alaska needs (like the severe infrastructure problems in rural Alaska.)  Miller seemed to dismiss the lack of running water and toilets as a choice, citing his use of an outhouse when he was a magistrate in Tok.  

This gets to my problem with not giving the candidates more time.  With Vigil cutting them off, they could say something glib and not having to really address the issue.

When it was all over, I didn't think anything had really been resolved.   Should you take my gut reactions as worth anything?  Probably not.  But, my gut did tell me the first time I saw Sullivan live, that he would be running for higher office.  And I saw a lot of other folks being confirmed that legislative session and didn't make that prediction of anyone else. 


Joe Miller's website quotes a twitter comment he made at #akdebate:  

Joe Miller wins the KTVA/Alaska Dispatch Debate http://t.co/siDUFvpFKJ #akdebate
— Joe Miller (@JoeWMiller) August 11, 2014

I'm not sure anyone won or lost, but Joe definitely had the audience - small as it was in the auditorium - on his side.

Debates are trickier for candidates these days.  It used to be that you could say one thing to one interest group and another to a different interest group.  But with everyone carrying at video camera in their phones and with Youtube available to post the video, candidates have to be more careful.  While the live audience at this debate appeared to be mostly Republicans - and Miller Republicans at that - this was also being carried live on television and on the web.  So candidates had to have answers that worked for all audiences.  Only Joe Miller didn't seem to care about sanitizing his message for the tv viewers.  Maybe that's why it seemed he was having the most fun.

*racist - applying characteristics of a few to a whole group of racial group.  In this case Miller is using the same sort of fear mongering the Republicans used to get Southern Democrats to move to the Republican party.  Another similarity to Nixon.

"Love is Serious Shit!" - Girl w/ blue cooler

I noticed this sign next to me while waiting for the light, on the way to vote early, so I whipped out my camera.  There are stories everywhere you look, but this one is spelled out a lot more than most.

Did he find her?  I looked for a contact number.  It says to check Craigslist, so I checked Craigslist:

"Fish Creek Man of My Dreams - w4m (Anchorage) It was a beautiful, sunny afternoon at Fish Creek on July 31, 2014. Walking along the bank with a blue cooler, I was looking for my friend who had abandoned my son and I. You passed me by asking if that thing was full and I said no and that I hated mud. I was a little scared of getting stuck so I went to the other side. The last day of the opening, yesterday. It only happens once a year-sometimes years apart. You said you had seen me on the other side of the river before you left like you'd been looking for me to talk to me while I meanwhile stole your fishing spot. I pointed out my son to you and you walked away but you came back. I should have said something but I didn't know what to say. I probably would have jumped in your arms if I wasn't an encrusted mud ball. I know your friend's name is Jack but I don't know yours. You live in Anchorage; I live in Wasilla. I've been looking for you my entire life and I was sad to see you leave the river and walk out of my life forever so now you'll have to find me all over again but I'm trying to help you do just that. Trust me I look better without muddy hip boots and that ugly, brown sweater!

If anyone knows these two who were at Fish Creek on July 31, please let them know the ad is on here so Jack's friend can find me. Please do not contact me if you are not the person I am seeking as I will not respond."

 Anyone know Jack and his friend?  Oh, yeah, the Craigslist link has a picture of the blue cooler too.  

Nate Silver Has Alaska's US Senate Race 50-50

"Meanwhile, in Alaska – which has a track record of inaccurate polling — some models now perceive a slight advantage for the incumbent, Democratic Sen. Mark Begich. We think the polling is too thin and too inconsistent to warrant that prediction, particularly given that the GOP has not yet held its Aug. 19 primary."

This quote comes at the end of a FiveThirtyEight blog overview of US Senate races for November.  Overall, Silver says

". . . we continue to see Republicans as slightly more likely than not to win a net of six seats this November and control of the Senate. A lot of it is simply reversion to the mean.² This may not be a “wave” election as 2010 was, but Republicans don’t need a wave to take over the Senate.

 But, he's hedging his bets:

However, I also want to advance a cautionary note. It’s still early, and we should not rule out the possibility that one party could win most or all of the competitive races."

Why should we listen to Nate Silver?

For those who can't place the name, Nate Silver was the geeky statistician,  portrayed by Jonah Hill in the movie Moneyball, who helped the money-strapped Oakland A's pick winning ball players.   (The movie was based on Michael Lewis' book Moneyball.)

He took his statistical savvy into politics.  Wikipedia summarizes:

"The accuracy of his November 2008 presidential election predictions—he correctly predicted the winner of 49 of the 50 states—won Silver further attention and commendation. The only state he missed was Indiana, which went for Barack Obama by one percentage point. He correctly predicted the winner of all 35 U.S. Senate races that year. . .

In the 2012 United States presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, he correctly predicted the winner of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.^[11] That same year, Silver's predictions of U.S. Senate races were correct in 31 of 33 states; he predicted Republican victory in North Dakota and Montana, where Democrats won.

Silver's model includes polling data and a linear regression analysis of other factual data about candidates and voters.  From a FiveThirtyEight post in the New York Times (where Silver worked before moving to ESPN) on the methodology:

• A state’s Partisan Voting Index
• The composition of party identification in the state’s electorate (as determined through Gallup polling)
• The sum of individual contributions received by each candidate as of the last F.E.C. reporting period (this variable is omitted if one or both candidates are new to the race and have yet to complete an FEC filing period)
• Incumbency status
• For incumbent Senators, an average of recent approval and favorability ratings
• A variable representing stature, based on the highest elected office that the candidate has held. It takes on the value of 3 for candidates who have been Senators or Governors in the past; 2 for U.S. Representatives, statewide officeholders like Attorneys General, and mayors of cities of at least 300,000 persons; 1 for state senators, state representatives, and other material elected officeholders (like county commissioners or mayors of small cities), and 0 for candidates who have not held a material elected office before.

Silver's election track record has been damn accurate.  But there are also the intangibles that aren't reflected in measurable factors. 

This prediction on the Alaska race comes before the Republican primary (in two weeks) and so we don't even know who Begich's opponent will be. 

But Sen. Begich is a formidable candidate - details of legislation and people slide effortlessly from his memory banks to his lips; he knows how to put the right spin on things; he grew up in Alaska politics and has strong, long-term relationships with people all over the state; and he's a pragmatic politician who makes decisions based on his sense of the what Alaskans want and what will work.  He's also got a very aggressive campaign going - countering every negative ad as soon as it comes out and he's got an army of volunteers around the state going door-to-door.   

Of his potential opponents, Sullivan has the money, but not the Alaska cred.  Treadwell has the Alaska cred, but not the money.   And Joe Miller?  While this video of him literally blasting bullet holes through the Affordable Care Act will win him votes from the fanatical anti-Obama and pro-gun folks, it will sink his campaign among all other voters. 

If Silver has Begich at 50-50 based on the tangibles, I'd bet the intangibles will tip the scales in his favor.

Why I Live Here - Salmon, Politics, and Food

It's another beautiful sunny Anchorage day.  Mid 70s, blue skies, like yesterday when I went for a bike ride to stretch my muscles a bit.  There were salmon coming up Campbell Creek. I didn't get a good picture with fish, but here's the creek, looking toward Lake Otis Blvd from one of the bridges. People are in the water in the background.

Then, not too far away, a group of folks were holding signs for Russ Millette who's running for governor as a Tea Party Republican.  I'd talked to Russ on the phone when I posted about his signs being defaced and this was the first time I got to meet him.  It was very cordial.  I'm convinced that if you meet the right way - and that includes being respectful - you can have decent relationships with people even if you disagree with them politically.  A lot of the acrimony today, I'm sure, is from people feeling unrespected as a human being.  And that leads to returning disrepect.  Until things are much harder to repair. 

I even suggested to Russ that his name was too small on those signs for drivers to catch as they go by.  He agreed and said Governor needed to be bigger too.  Russ in in the red and white plaid shirt.

And then, just a minute or two down the block, I stopped at Namaste, which has changed hands, to get some take out 'Himalyan' food.  

The prices might look a bit steep, but the food was delicious and the portions enough for another meal - for us anyway. 

If it looks like I'm giving Millette a lot of attention here, it's not intentional.  A lot of times I simply post what I happen to see along my path. 

Sign Wars - Who's Messing With Russ Millette's Signs?

Photo Taken Sunday July 13

I passed this sign Sunday, as I went by it, I noticed that the candidate information had been painted out.  So I took this picture. 










A week ago, I posted this picture of Russ Millette's campaign sign. 

Photo taken Sunday July6

I decided I should call Millette and ask what was going on. 

He suggested I call the Alaska Republican Party.  (He was elected to be chair of the party in 2012 by a large influx of Tea Party attendees, but Party regulars had more meetings and recaptured control of the Alaska Republican Party.)
He said he had another sign just like it on Knik - Goose Bay (he said KGB ] Road in the Valley and that sign is wasn't just defaced, it was stolen.  When I asked if he had any ideas about who did that, he told me to call Cathy Tilton, since she had a new sign up about 12 feet from where his sign had been.  Did he know anything about whether she did it, or just the link between her sign going up when his went down?  No he didn't.

I called the Republican Party and talked to Christy who said, after I explained who I was and what I was calling about:

"I don’t know why we would know.  Signs get destroyed and stolen all the time, it’s not uncommon.  We don’t know all the candidates' sign’s locations."

I also called Cathy Tilton (a Republican candidate for state house in Matsu District 12) who sounded much more concerned.  (From my notes, slightly paraphrased)

No one in my camp would even consider anything like that.  I know how much that costs.  A friend of mine owns that land - Mike Foster - and there were three other signs up when I ut up mine - Ron Arvin (her opponent in the Republican primary, Millette's, and Stoltz (candidate for state senate, who's redistricted House seat Arvin and Tilton are running for. 

Millette said that he'd put a banner up on the sign on Lake Otis Monday morning.  When I told him I was in Seattle at the moment, he said he'd email me a picture of the newest sign.  And here it is below.

Photo taken July 14 - supplied by Russ Millette

He also said these signs cost about $250 each.   

Millette is running for governor against the incumbent in the Republican primary.  He and the Tea Party group made a successful bid to take over the Republican Party a couple of years ago, only to have the Party establishment find ways to invalidate his election.  I don't think one can blame him for thinking the sign damage goes back to the Republican Party, but getting proof is another issue. 

"One of us for all of us!" - Russ Millette Is Running For Governor

This sign caught my attention the other day:

What exactly did it mean?  What party is Russ Millette?   It says Tea Party supporter, but  that's not an official party in Alaska. 

His website says (in an undated press release there):

He will be running under the auspices of the Alaska Republican Assembly.  Millette has entered under the Republican Assembly banner because of the corruption in the Alaska Republican Party and the ARP’s leadership’s refusal to be financially accountable to the rank and file membership. Millette sees this election in Alaska as the fight for the soul of the Alaska GOP.

I didn't know what the Alaska Republican Assembly was - as opposed to the Alaska Republican Party.  (The link wasn't as obvious on the website.)

So I checked to see if it is an actual party in Alaska.  Here's the list of gubernatorial candidates from the State Division of Elections page:

Governor

• Carolyn F. "Care" Clift (Libertarian)
  6402 Hampton Dr.
  Anchorage, AK 99504
  Phone: (907) 337-9679
  email: info@carecliftcampaign.com
  Candidate's web site: http://www.carecliftcampaign.com
  

• Hollis S. French (Democrat) - Withdrew
  2640 Telequana Drive
  Anchorage, AK 99517
  Phone: (907) 243-0569
  

• Gerald L. "Tap" Heikes (Republican)
  16170 E. Smith Rd.
  Palmer, AK 99645
  Phone: (907) 745-1139
  

• Byron I. Mallott (Democrat)
  P.O. Box 22387
  Juneau, AK 99801
  Phone: (907) 586-6937
  

• Russ Millette (Republican)
  3705 Arctic Blvd #798
  Anchorage, AK 99503
  Phone: (907) 330-9070
  

• Sean R. Parnell (Republican)
  P.O. Box 100719
  Anchorage, AK 99510
  Phone: (907) 929-2014
  

• Brad Snowden (Republican)
  P.O. Box 670
  Seward, AK 99664
  Phone: (907) 491-0427

• Phil G. Stoddard (Democrat)
  3307 Boniface #153
  Anchorage, AK 99504
  Phone: (907) 338-1776

So, he's actually running as a Republican.  No Alaska Republican Assembly. But when I copied the quote above, the link was obvious so I went there.  The link takes us to the NFRA website.  It says:

The National Federation of Republican Assemblies is a grassroots movement to take back the Republican Party for the vast and disenfranchised majority of its members:  Reagan conservatives, who believe in small government, lower taxes, free market capitalism, a strong defense, the right to life, and a decent America.
In short, we are the Republican Wing of the Republican Party.

It turns out Millette is the guy who got elected chair of the Republican Party when all the Ron Paul supporters came out and outsmarted the Republican regulars.  Only to have the regulars lock up the bank and eventually get them turned out.  

So, who is Russ Millette?  Here's what the website tells us:

About Russ

• Russ is married to Tish Millette and they live in Anchorage, AK.

• 28 year resident of Alaska.

• The father of 8 children and 14 grandchildren.

• A small business owner and entrepreneur (who has had to meet weekly payrolls.)  [Not too specific, but there's more on this below.]

• Former History teacher and school principal. [Where?  For how long?]

• College administrator and football coach.  [More below]

• Youth minister

• Retired corporate manager.  [Is this different from business owner and entrepreneur?]

• Public speaker and trainer.

• General Telephone Directories Hall of Fame.  [Tried to find something about this online.  Couldn't find anything.]

• Dually elected Chairman of the Alaska Republican Party per April 2012 State Convention.  [Dually elected?  To two different positions?  Or did he mean 'duly'?  I don't mean to quibble, but this is on his website and he was a teacher and college administrator after all.  'Per' used this way always grates on me, but that's my own personal issue.]

For 28 years I have been privileged to live and work in Alaska. I arrived in Alaska in September of 1975. Over the years I have lived in Sitka, Ketchikan. Eagle River, Hatcher Pass and Anchorage.  [Let's see, I got to Alaska in 1978 and I figure I've been here for 37 years.  So if he got here three years before I did, how come he's only been here 28 years?  It's possible he left the state and came back and he's being scrupulously accurate, but the way he's written it looks like he has trouble with math as well as spelling.  And, remember, he was a history teacher who should be able to figure out dates and time lines.]

[UPDATE July 14, 2014 - talked to Russ today about the defacing of his signs and so I asked him about the time he was in Alaska.  It turns out my first possibility - that he came, then left, then came back - was the correct one and so his math is correct.]

During my tenure with Sheldon Jackson College in Sitka I had the privileged of visiting every high school in Alaska as Director of Admissions. [Getting to every high school shows he was able to access a very healthy travel budget out of Sitka.  But I want to know what those trips accomplished.  Did he get enough students enrolled at the college to at least cover the travel budget?  Did those students stay and graduate?  I'd note that lots of people besides Millette might write something like that and think it's important.  What's important to me though is what he accomplished with all those trips.] After 25 years in the Telephone Book publishing business I retired in 2008 and live with my wife Tish in Anchorage. [These are the people that leave all those unwanted tomes on your doorstep and then you have to take them to the recycling center.]  Together we have 8 children and 14 grandchildren.

[UPDATE July 14, 2014  - since I had him on the phone, I also asked about this.  He said when he got to Sheldon Jackson in the 1970s they had 200 students and when he left (maybe a year or two later, I don't recall exactly) they had 230 - a 15% increase.  That's quite a big increase.]

I was born in Long Beach, California and have lived in California, Hawaii, Texas, Georgia, Virginia and traveled to England, Germany, Italy, Yugoslavia, Japan, Mexico and Canada. Of all those wonderful places I would rather
live in Alaska than anywhere I've been.

I googled a bit and found another bio in the May 11, 2012 Seward City News:

Russ Millette, the Alaska Republican Party Chairman Elect, will be in Seward this coming Saturday.

Mr. Millette, 67, is a retired Advertising Executive for GTE Directories and The Berry Company. He has a broad background in advertising and direct mail and was twice inducted into the GTE Hall of Fame.

[I couldn't find anything on the GTE Hall of Fame.  I'm guessing it's a company award.  I don't know how many people get in or why they get in.  The Berry Company seems to be related and is involved in helping businesses do their marketing.  I did find a Yelp review but Millette says he retired in 2008, five years before the review.  So I won't include it.  Just want you to know I looked.] 

A former Private School Teacher and Administrator, Public Speaker, and Historian, Russ holds a BA in History from Masters College in Newhall, California. His passion is engaging young people in dialogue about the issues. His vision is to ensure that the common man has a voice in American politics and restore the Republican Party to its legacy. Mr. Millette and his wife, Tish, reside in Anchorage.

Masters College?  Here's its mission:

The mission of The Master's College is to empower students for a life of enduring commitment to Christ, biblical fidelity, moral integrity, intellectual growth and lasting contribution to the Kingdom of God.
Commitment to Christ, as evidenced by:

• Acceptance and acknowledgment of Christ as Lord and Savior
• Unreserved worship of God
• Pursuit of Christlikeness in word, deed and attitude

Biblical Fidelity, as evidenced by:

• Devotion to the study and application of the Scriptures
• Willingness to defend the inerrancy, authority and sufficiency of the Scriptures . . .

"Christlikeness" could be a very positive thing if one copied Christ's warmth and tolerance of all people and one recognized Christ's distinction between Caesar's realm and God's. But there are also Christians who think 'inerrancy, authority and sufficiency of the Scriptures' means things like the earth is 6,000 years old.  I don't know how Millette interprets 'Christlikeness.' 

So I think it would be reasonable to assume his private school was a Christian school. 

So, what exactly does he stand for?  I think you (and he) would agree that he's even more conservative than our current governor, against whom Millette is running in the Republican primary.  From the Millette website:  (This is also the page that says, "One of us for all of us!" whatever that means.)

Platform of Russ Millette

• Balance the Alaska State Budget within first year through line item veto.
• Protect 2nd Amendment rights so they will never be infringed in Alaska.

• Take an advisory vote from Alaska’s voters to distribute ½ of the Alaska Permanent Fund.
• Get the 1,000,000 acres of land that the state of Alaska holds (for the people) distributed to the citizens of Alaska.
• Get mineral and land rights to all land owners.

• Vigorously resist (including veto) any attempt to implement a state income tax or sales tax. The state has shown it can live within its revenue stream.
• Nullify Obama Care and Common Core within Alaska.
• Nullify the EPA and BLM.

• Drill in ANWAR NOW!!! Drill baby, Drill. Just do it!
• Deregulate the oil patch so small oil drilling companies can compete and get more oil in the pipeline which results in more revenue for the Alaska.
• Get mineral and land rights to property owners.

• Establish Sheriff’s in each Alaska Borough. The highest elected law enforcement officer in the Borough protecting the Boroughs citizens from State and Federal tyranny and responsible to only the residents of the Borough.

• Local School Board control and supervision over its respective school districts. 

So if you want to nullify Obama Care and the EPA and BLM, I was going to say, vote for Millette.  But I suspect that's not too far different from Parnell.