Dear Senator Murkowski:

[I got an email saying to write my Senators about the Supreme Court nomination, so I wrote Senator Murkowski, even though she already said she would vote to confirm.  I know that as a Republican she's under great pressure to vote yes.  It's easy for all of us without that pressure to fault her.  And I do believe she's wrong.  But I also have taught ethics to graduate students and public officials.  It's MUCH easier to decide another person's ethical decision than it is to make our own.  When everything one has worked for is threatened, it's often hard to do 'the right thing.'  I advised my students to save up, as fast as they could, a year's salary so that when they are asked to do something illegal and/or unethical, they could refuse, knowing that they had a year to find another job.  

What I wanted to emphasize in this letter is that the Republicans have totally messed up the process of nominating Supreme Court justices.  The Federalist Society and others have spent 40 years or so focused on developing a theory of law that would favor the interests of corporations and people with lots of money.  The Democrats missed what was happening for way too long - that was there mistake.  But McConnell's holding up of Obama judges and the Merrick Garland, messed with fair play.  He could do that not because it was right, but because he had the votes.  

So this is what I ended up sending Senator Murkowski yesterday]:

I realize your decision to vote for Amy Coney Barrett was not an easy one and that my voice will have no impact on that decision.

But this is so important I feel compelled to write anyway.  

In the past, most Supreme Court justices were confirmed with comfortable majorities, with many if not most members from both parties voting for them.  It was only when Republicans started voting Federalist Society influenced candidates, who were far to the right and did not represent the views of the American public, that  bi-partisan votes ended.  And it has only been a few times.  (not sure the chart below will show up properly. If not, it's from the US Senate website here:  https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm)

Nominee		To Replace		Nominated*		Vote**		Result & Date***
President Trump, Donald
Barrett, Amy Coney		Ginsburg		Sep 29, 2020
Kavanaugh, Brett		Kennedy		Jul 10, 2018		50-48  No.  223		C		Oct 6, 2018
Gorsuch, Neil M.		Scalia		Feb 1, 2017		54-45  No.  111		C		Apr 7, 2017
President Obama, Barack
Garland, Merrick B.		Scalia		Mar 16, 2016				N
Kagan, Elena		Stevens		May 10, 2010		63-37  No.  229		C		Aug 5, 2010
Sotomayor, Sonia		Souter		Jun 1, 2009		68-31  No.  262		C		Aug 6, 2009
President Bush, George W.
Alito, Samuel A., Jr.		O'Connor		Nov 10, 2005		58-42  No.  2		C		Jan 31, 2006
Miers, Harriet		O'Connor		Oct 7, 2005				W		Oct 28, 2005
Roberts, John G., Jr.1		Rehnquist		Sep 6, 2005		78-22  No.  245		C		Sep 29, 2005
Roberts, John G., Jr.		O'Connor		Jul 29, 2005				W		Sep 6, 2005
President Clinton, Bill
Breyer, Stephen G.		Blackmun		May 17, 1994		87-9  No.  242		C		Jul 29, 1994
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader		White		Jun 22, 1993		96-3  No.  232		C		Aug 3, 1993
President Bush, George H.W.
Thomas, Clarence		Marshall		Jul 8, 1991		52-48  No.  220		C		Oct 15, 1991
Souter, David H.		Brennan		Jul 25, 1990		90-9  No.  259		C		Oct 2, 1990
President Reagan, Ronald
Kennedy, Anthony M.		Powell		Nov 30, 1987		97-0  No.  16		C		Feb 3, 1988
Bork, Robert H.		Powell		Jul 7, 1987		42-58  No.  348		R		Oct 23, 1987
Scalia, Antonin		Rehnquist		Jun 24, 1986		98-0  No.  267		C		Sep 17, 1986
Rehnquist, William H. 2		Burger		Jun 20, 1986		65-33  No.  266		C		Sep 17, 1986
O'Connor, Sandra Day		Stewart		Aug 19, 1981		99-0  No.  274		C		Sep 21, 1981
President Ford, Gerald
Stevens, John Paul		Douglas		Nov 28, 1975		98-0  No.  603		C		Dec 17, 1975
President Nixon, Richard
Rehnquist, William H.		Harlan		Oct 22, 1971		68-26  No.  450		C		Dec 10, 1971
Powell, Lewis F., Jr.		Black		Oct 22, 1971		89-1  No.  439		C		Dec 6, 1971
Blackmun, Harry		Fortas		Apr 15, 1970		94-0  No.  143		C		May 12, 1970
Carswell, G. Harrold		Fortas		Jan 19, 1970		45-51  No.  122		R		Apr 8, 1970
Haynsworth, Clement, Jr.		Fortas		Aug 21, 1969		45-55  No.  154		R		Nov 21, 1969
Burger, Warren 3		Warren		May 23, 1969		74-3  No.  35		C		Jun 9, 1969

When Supreme Court justices are confirmed on strict party lines, it projects a clear 

problem for the credibility of the court.  I know you said that now you are voting on the qualifications of the candidate, but clearly the process is still a serious problem when you will have a justice who was opposed by all the Democratic Senators who represent far more US citizens than do the Republican Senators.  From a 2018 article (https://archive.thinkprogress.org/the-senate-is-so-rigged-that-democrats-may-never-control-it-ever-again-14ede9ac5f01/):

 "In the outgoing Senate — the Senate that placed Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court — the 49 senators in the Democratic “minority” represent almost 40 million more people than the Republican “majority.” In the incoming Senate, the Democratic “minority” will still represent millions more people — despite the fact that Republicans grew their “majority” last night."

The removal of the cloture rule in court cases in general and Supreme Court cases in particular has meant that judges who are acceptable by at least some members of the minority party is no longer necessary.  

I would argue that these are procedural issues that are destroying the credibility of the US Supreme Court, just as the Congress' credibility has been seriously harmed in recent years.  

Voting Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court with only Republican votes moves the US government to further dysfunction.  The tactics of Majority Leader McConnell to not allow Obama court vacancies to be filled - including the outrageous maneuvering over Merrick Garland and then the even more outrageous change of "principle" to approve Barrett in the middle of voting.  This reveals McConnell as simply ignoring democracy and using the power he's accumulated - including changing the cloture rule - to force one more far right Republican justice onto the court.  And it will force Democrats to use similar kinds of actions to reestablish a US Supreme Court that is more in line with the values of the US population and interpretations of the Constitution that value individual human rights over the rights of multinational corporations.  And Republicans will loudly cry foul, as Democrats are doing now.

I've voiced my approval of actions you've take as Senator when they represented my values and I've voiced my disappointment with other actions you've taken.  

I know you walk a thin line, and I don't know that if you voted against Barrett it would even be enough to block her appointment.  But I'm extremely disappointed now at your decision and ask you to reconsider it, given that her appointment will mean all out warfare between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate for years to come.

[This won't (perhaps hasn't by now) changed Murkowski's vote, but it does mean to me that Alaskan Democrats will need to find a strong candidate to run in 2022.  I suspect that fact that she showed doubts at all, made her persona non grata among the Republicans and they will find an alternative candidate in the Republican primary.  Though we are voting on a proposition this election that would change our voting to Ranked Choice.  If it passes the control of the parties will be weakened.  So everything is up in the air.  Even the removal of a demented president is being left to the public because the Senate Republicans didn't have the integrity to do the job themselves.  Any private corporation would have removed a CEO like Trump - either by gently by taking away his powers, or by firing him.  The Republican  Senators couldn't do that.  They have no credibility.   

And, by the way, it didn't seem worth the effort to even copy this and email it to my other Senator Dan Sullivan.]

I Found Trump's Health Care Plan - It's Called "Go Fund Me"

Trump campaigned in 2016 saying he would get rid of Obama Care and replace it with something much, much better.  So far the closest we've gotten is the regular teaser, "A few more weeks and we'll have it."  Biden challenged Trump on his missing health care plan again at Thursday night's debate and Trump claimed to have a great health care plan coming up.  

Well, I think I've found his plan.  It's called Go Fund Me.  

The Go Fund Me website has a whole category called "Health Insurance Fundraisers".  12 appeals show up, but at the bottom of the page you can ask for more and get 12 more, then 12 more.  I stopped at 36, but it kept going.  

This is the defacto Trump Health Care plan.  

And I'm pretty sure the main thing many conservatives, and certainly Trump, oppose about the ACA is that it was Obama's program.  It's Obama that they want to erase even more than "socialized" medicine.

Best Political Ad, And Some Shabby Ones

 Since all my 'viewing' is online, I don't see the political ads on television, unless someone puts them online.  So my sample is small.  But the Jaimie Harrison ad below really impressed me.  It's not an attack ad and it goes beyond platitudes about helping the poor or lowering taxes (though it's still a feel good ad, not a policy ad.)  AND it's visually really cool.  His campaign against sitting Judiciary Committee chair Lindsay Graham has attracted a lot of money from outside of South Carolina, so he's got the cash to produce better than average commercials.  

Check it out.  Then we'll look at some local campaign mail I got that isn't so good.

Whether you need access to affordable healthcare, high-speed broadband to learn and work from home, or someone to pave your dirt road, I'm going to fight for you in the U.S. Senate. pic.twitter.com/UgoQOtVCnT

— Jaime Harrison (@harrisonjaime) October 16, 2020

Now for the local stuff.  I'd note, that in both cases, these are races outside of my own local district so I'm not sure why I'm getting them.  

A.   "Chris tuck is attacking your right to choose"

Chris has been in the State House at least ten years.  He's a Democrat and has had party leadership positions.  

This ad comes from Republican Katherine Henslee who is challenging him in the election.  I scratched my head when I read this.  A Republican is attacking a Democrat for being anti-abortion.  I called the candidate it was from.  

Steve:  Why are you sending out attack ads about Chris Tuck on abortion?

Katherine:  I'm surprised you think it's an attack ad.

Steve:  Well you attack his position on abortion. 

Katherine:  It's the truth. 

Steve:  So, are you pro-choice?

Katherine:  No, I'm pro-life.

Steve:  Then why are you attacking him on his pro-life stance?

Katherine:  Well, he doesn't support pro-life legislation as strongly as I would.  

Steve;  But I suspect he probably aligns a lot better on most of the other issues with pro-choice voters than you do, don't you think?

Basically, she's trying to sow seeds of doubt among pro-choice voters.  I couldn't get hold of Chris, but another person involved in Democratic politics told me that he is, personally, against abortion, but he's a Democrat and doesn't push against abortion in his political role.  

I'm not sure what sort of effect this has on voters.  Probably not much, but it may be like the attacks on Hillary Clinton and now Biden, to try to make some Democratic voters just leave their ballots blank rather than vote for Chris Tuck.  

My Opponent's left-wing Antifa Supporters

The most effective part of this letter is the photos of defaced signs.  But we don't know who did this. And there's nothing to suggest that Revak knows either.  There's even the possibility that he did this himself, though I wouldn't make that claim without more evidence.  

But the rhetoric looks like it's straight out of national Republican campaign book:

• "Left wing Antifa supporters"
• "Organizations that work hard to defund the police and bail out violent rioters"
• "We will beat him and Antifa"
• "will stop at nothing to steal this district from Republicans.  Their thugs have come out in force."

And from the back page:

• "My opponent has support from outside money and influence. While our opponents want to suppress our resource development, limit our economic growth, and waste our savings, I'm fighting for what is best for the future of Alaska and for you"

1.  Antifa.   Wow!!  You'd think Antifa folks are running all over Alaska, rioting, and destroying property.  This is pure Republican  propaganda.  

Basically, the most 'real' thing about Antifa is how the Republicans the word to create a "Left" boogie man  that's  rioting and threatening to decent people.  It's part of Trump's strategy to throw whatever is said about him back onto his opponents.   But as this Washington Post article outlines, 

• there is no monolithic organization called Antifa; 
• it doesn't mastermind violence at BLM rallies;
•  it's not affiliated with the Democratic party; 
•  it's not funded by billionaires like George Soros; and 
• they aren't 'the real fascists.'

At best it's an idea that people scattered around the US identify with in opposition to the fascist direction of the far right.  But again, Trump will even take a name that is "anti-fa(scist)" and say that it is fascist.  

And there have been NO riots or even rowdy BLM marches in Anchorage or other parts of Alaska.  Only benign peaceful events.  Clearly this is nationally directed rhetoric by people who know nothing about what's happening in Alaska.  If Alaskan's did write this, it's based on national talking points, not Alaskan reality.

2.  "Steal this district from Republicans" assumes that a district is owned by one party or another. But each district belongs to all the constituents of the district.  There are no "Republican" owned districts for Democrats or Independents to steal.  I find this particularly invidious.

3.  Outside money and influence.  

Actually, "outside" was written with a small 'o' suggesting he didn't mean Outside of Alaska. But it doesn't matter, since pretty much all candidates have money from 'outside.'  Nationally, it's clear that Senators from red states represent tens of millions fewer voters than Senators from blue states, but have more Senators, as this chart from 538 shows:

So people in the more populous blue states recognize that ideological Supreme Court nominees get approved in the Senate because small state Senators (each state gets two regardless of population) representing a minority of the US population, make up the majority of US Senators.  And so they know that if they want their majority views to prevail in the Senate, they have to contribute to Senate races outside of their own states.  

And both Republicans and Democrats only complain about Outside money when it's their opponents Outside money.  I haven't hear Revak complain about all the Outside money Governor Dunleavy, who appointed Revak to his Senate seat, raised.  

4.  Defund Police

Another national Republican talking point.  In Anchorage,  conservative Mayor Sullivan defunded the police during his terms and more liberal Mayor Berkowitz added back police.  And nationally, the argument isn't to simply defund police, but rather to steer money to people and programs better equipped to deal with the causes of crime and defusing conflicts.  The argument is that the police have to deal with too many issues they aren't trained or equipped to handle.  Like poverty, addiction, and mental health issues.  Fund experts and programs dealing with those issues and free the police to handle the real criminals.  

That's it, a review of the campaign media of three candidates that came my way.