A Loud Whisper

In a rare offensive move yesterday, Lt. Governor and Senate hopeful, Mead Treadwell, released a direct challenge to opponent Dan Sullivan. Treadwell, typically seen as the reserved (read: nice) candidate, had yet to take a truly hard line against any of his opponents. His performance in debates and in interviews has left many voters with a view of a kindly, but extremely intelligent, policy-driven candidate who stays above the mud slinging. Unfortunately, Treadwell’s “niceness,” at times, has left him playing more defense than offense. Besides a few unsubstantiated rumors of a “whisper campaign,” the Treadwell office hadn’t sent any flak up at the other candidates- until yesterday.

Yesterday’s  press release from Treadwell was a measured statement, and not a “Whisper”. It seems Mead is making good on his promise to be honest and tough, but is it being tough to ask for honesty? The press release calls on Sullivan to give a clear explanation of his record on “Stand your ground” legislation. As Treadwell puts it in the release, “It’s time for my opponent, Dan Sullivan, to be honest, even if it requires that I’m tough on him.”

In the release, Treadwell called for an honest explanation of Sullivan’s recent radio ads, which purport that Dan fought to pass “Stand your ground.” In the release Treadwell calls for honesty because, he says “Our right to self-defense under the second amendment it too important.” In a confident, yet somewhat humorous, move, Treadwell promises that if Dan can “Produce one piece of credible, time-stamped evidence” that shows he did, in fact, fight to pass “Stand your ground” legislation as AG, Treadwell will put a Sullivan campaign sign in his yard. Unlike invitations to debate Treadwell, this is going to be hard for Sullivan to ignore.


Ready, Aim, Quagmire

Sullivan’s troubles with the “Stand your ground” issue began in June. The Sullivan campaign released a radio ad stating, “As Alaska’s attorney general, Sullivan successfully fought to protect our Second Amendment rights and passed ‘stand your ground.’ ” Unfortunately for Dan, the popular political fact-checking site, politifact.com, found the evidence of Sullivan’s “Stand your ground” support as  “dubious at best.” After researching the issue, politifact rated the statement in the radio ad as false.

If Sullivan’s continued rhetoric that he “fought” for “Stand your ground” legislation is false, then what is the real story? Well, the real story has been out for awhile- but few have paid much attention to it during this primary. In 2010, Alaska Rep. Mark Neuman authored HB 381. HB 381 proposed a self-defense policy in Alaska under which victims would no longer be forced to prove that they attempted to flee from an attacker(s) before defending themselves with deadly force. Representatives like Stoltze & Ramras cosponsored that original bill. At the same time that this “Stand your ground” legislation was being proposed, Dan Sullivan was the Attorney General.

There is no evidence to date of Sullivan’s alleged support of the legislation; in fact, there is little evidence of Dan’s involvement whatsoever. As far as time-stamped evidence that ties Dan to the legislation, there are only two: First, there is a 5-page letter, sent directly to the Chair of the Alaska House Judiciary Committee and Committee members, with Dan’s Signature on it. Secondly, was a fiscal note dated March 30, 2010 submitted by the Department of Law which was “Approved by: Dan S. Sullivan, Attorney General.”

Writing a letter may not be “fighting,” but hey at least he supported it, right? Wrong. Throughout the 5-page letter one can only find vehement objection to the passing of “Stand your ground” legislation. Some of the highlights include arguments that HB381 would promote violence and vigilantism, would “encourage the needless taking of human life”, and would be a “recipe for inviting gang violence on our streets.” Sullivan sure put up a fight, but it seems he’s forgotten which side he was fighting for!

If Sullivan has forgotten which side he was fighting for, there are plenty of people who can remind him. One such person is Annie Carpeneti. Carpeneti was one of Sullivan’s deputies in the Department of Law, she also testified against HB381. Having seemingly taken a cue from her former boss, Carpeneti argued before the House Judiciary Committee that “Stand your ground” legislation would legalize vigilantism and invite violence. After Carpeneti echoed Sullivan’s sentiment, Neuman withdrew the bill. He later reworked it with the National Rifle Association and re-introduced it.

Another person who may be able to jog Sullivan’s memory about his stance is Democratic Alaska State Senator Hollis French, who currently chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. In 2012, Rep. Neuman introduced HB80, a successor to the failed HB381. This piece of “Stand your ground” legislation did pass, though not without reservation from French. French, who was against the bill, accused the new AG and bill supporter, Michael Geraghty, of “abandoning the policies of his predecessor, Attorney General Dan Sullivan.” It seems that those who oppose NRA backed self-defense bills miss Dan in their corner.


Danny Boy?

Sullivan’s response to the mounting evidence is exactly what you’d expect from a DC lawyer; deny, deny, deny.

On Sullivan’s campaign website, they have an entire page rewriting Dan’s involvement on “Stand your Ground”. The page is misleading to say the least. It leads readers to assume that Dan supported “Stand your Ground”, the wording must have been written by a lawyer, as it seamlessly substitutes Sullivan’s name with the “Attorney General’s office”, and “The Attorney General”. This misdirects the less attentive as they’re led to assume that Sullivan is the Attorney General that is being referenced and not Michael Geraghty. There is also a link to a non-time-stamped constituent letter written by the bill’s author, Mark Neuman, which uses the same lawyerese to insinuate that Sullivan supported the bill.

The campaign is currently putting money into search engine optimization to make sure that their claim is among the first that comes up through a Google search.

As Amanda Coyne wrote earlier this month, “the Sullivan campaign calls Politifact’s false claim false.” Although very convincing, it’s going to take a bit more than a game of “Yes I did” and “Neuman-said” to sway the voters about this issue. Sullivan’s solution; he denies ever knowing about HB 381 or the subsequent letter sent from his office in the first place.

Even though Sullivan’s name is on the letter, even though it was printed on Sullivan’s letterhead, even though it came from Sullivan’s office, and even though the Anchorage Daily News reported the letter as his; the Sullivan campaign is stating that it was Sullivan’s Assistant Attorney General, John Skidmore, who authored the letter.

According to information obtained by Amanda Coyne, Skidmore has apparently confirmed Sullivan’s account. Skidmore added that, “he never spoke with Sullivan about the legislation, and to his knowledge, Sullivan didn’t know about the letter or have any information about it, which isn’t unusual.” (http://amandacoyne.com/politics/assistant-ag-who-penned-stand-your-ground-letter-confirms-sullivans-account/)

Stuck Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Let’s say, for a moment, that Sullivan is telling the truth; he supported stand your ground and his immediate subordinate sent a 5-page letter, with Sullivan’s name on it, opposing a huge piece of pro-2nd Amendment legislation to the House Judiciary Committee. This is incredibly telling. First, it’s clear that Sullivan can’t keep his house in order. If, as the AG, his assistant AG is sending out such incredibly important correspondences, without his knowledge, how is Sullivan going to run a Senate office? Second, even if it is proven that Skidmore wrote the letter, thus proving that Sullivan didn’t directly oppose the legislation on paper, where is there any proof that Sullivan supported stand your ground?

Sullivan said he fought to pass it, yet he’s claiming to know nothing about the bill. These two statements cannot co-exist.

There is, as previous mentioned, an undated letter from Neuman leading readers to believe that Sullivan aided the legislation in some way. However, as written by Amanda Coyne, “Neuman didn’t work directly with Sullivan, but he assumed that Sullivan was kept abreast of the discussions.” http://amandacoyne.com/politics/sullivan-stands-up-for-his-support-for-stand-your-ground/)

It’s a bit odd of Neuman to be thanking Sullivan for his effort, when Neuman himself had no idea if Sullivan even new about the “Stand your ground” legislation. To be fair, Neuman cannot be called a liar, as the letter was very carefully written and lets the reader fill in the gaps.

Finally, and perhaps most terrifying, if Sullivan is telling the truth, then as many sources have commented in his defense, he had no idea what was going on. How can Sullivan support a piece of legislation if, as his defenders assert, Sullivan didn’t know anything about it.

If Sullivan and his camp are to be believed, then Sullivan has effectively jumped from the frying pan into the fire. He may be able to escape allegations of flip-flopping and deceit regarding “Stand your ground,” in the Primary Election, but if he does, do you think that Mark Begich will let that die during the General when he gets an endorsement from the Non-Partisan NRA?

If Sullivan had just come clean in the beginning about his past position on the issue and explain why his views had changed since then, this wouldn’t be an issue. Instead, he chose to exaggerate to the point of deception. The stance of honesty and explanation is sure to resonate better with voters than outright deceit.

So far, Sullivan has either proven himself incapable of handling public office, or has shown himself to have a fundamental problem with honesty.

So Where Do We Stand

In this hotly contested Primary I mirror Gail Phillips’ sentiment in a Peninsula Clarion article titled,  Voices of Alaska: Who vets the candidates?” Gail wrote, “As a Republican, I want to know what measure of responsibility my Party is taking to make certain we send our best candidate forward to the General Election in November.” Whoever we Republicans put our support behind on August 19th is the man we want in D.C., but first he has to beat Begich. After months of mudslinging with Begich, Sullivan already has a target on his back. After problems like Sullivan’s residency have come up, and now this “Stand your ground” snafu, it’s hard to see Sullivan putting up a credible fight. This is only the Primary, all the dirty laundry needs to be put out there so Begich has nothing to attack. So I ask, have we seen all of Dan’s or is this just the beginning?

Stand for Something

Treadwell attacked what he saw as an inconsistency, he did not attack Dan on the administrations stance, he asked for honesty through clarification. Even when Treadwell attacks, he does so as a statesman, he does so honorably. Nobody can criticize somebody for seeking honesty, and this was a very smart stance to take.

I look forward to seeing a response to Mead Treadwell’s challenge that isn’t “Neuman said” and “Yes I did”, but I don’t think that will happen. Will Dan be able to clear up his “Stand your ground” mess, and more importantly; at this point, will it even matter if he can?

Written by Matt J. Beck a resident of the Matanuska – Susitna Borough

The post Sullivan feeling a “Duty to Retreat”? appeared first on Alaska Politics & Elections.

By Erick Cordero Giorgana

Looking at recent census data, the Hispanic population in Alaska is over 40,000 or about 6% of the general population. It is a low number when compared to the national average of 16%. However, when it comes to elections in Alaska, every single vote counts and Alaskans know that one or two votes can make the difference.

National candidates have spent considerable amounts of campaign funds reaching out to the Hispanic population. From social media, to radio and TV ads; they have pulled all the stop signs trying to get the Hispanic vote. For example, in 2013, gubernatorial candidate from New Jersey, Chris Christie, received 51% of the Hispanic vote after a big effort from his re-election campaign to reach out – almost 20% higher support than that of his previous election. Connecting with and appealing to Hispanics, a pool of over 23 million eligible voters according to the Pew Research Center, has been a steadily growing trend among Republican and Democratic candidates on the national stage.

The majority of Hispanics in the country are U.S. born or naturalized citizens, permanent residents, or refugees. According to the Pew Hispanic Research Trends Project, about 48% of Hispanics are U.S. born. A survey by that same agency showed that Hispanics are more socially conservative on issues like abortion, but more liberal on issues like same-sex marriage. The results also indicated that U.S. born Hispanics (30%) identified themselves as liberal in contrast with foreign-born Hispanics who identified themselves as conservatives (35%).

The majority of Hispanics in Alaska are concentrated within the Municipality of Anchorage; over 22,000 according to the most recent Census numbers. It is difficult to pinpoint how many Hispanics are eligible voters in Alaska, but despite that, some Alaskan candidates have tried to reach out to that community during campaign season.

Previous attempts by candidates have included ads directed to the Hispanic community in Anchorage through Telemundo; one of the major Spanish-language television broadcasting stations that can be viewed in Anchorage, or by participating in one of several forums that leaders in the Hispanic community have hosted over the years. Former U.S. congressional candidates Diane Benson, Ethan Berkowitz, Gabrielle LeDoux and Sean Parnell participated in one such event back in 2008. Senators Mark Begich and Lisa Murkowski have also made it a custom to participate in Hispanic-sponsored events when they are not working in their Washington D.C. offices.

During the Anchorage mayoral race of 2010, one of the candidates used large signs in Spanish that featured a local Hispanic community member to show his or her support of that candidate. State Representative Gabrielle LeDoux had a Spanish version of her website during her State House race.

In the current campaign cycle, the Mead Treadwell U.S. Senate campaign has plans to organize events with the Hispanic community. Attempts to contact the Dan Sullivan and Joe Miller U.S. Senate campaigns went without success, but it is possible that these campaigns will also reach out for the Hispanic votes. Democrat incumbent U.S. Senator Mark Begich has, and will continue, to reach out to the Hispanic community in Alaska in his re-election effort.

Does the Hispanic vote really matter in Alaska? Despite the low numbers of Hispanics living in Alaska, and the low turnout in elections, recognition every single vote counts has made it a fruitful demographic target by candidates. As seen by previous and current campaigns that have attempted to attract the Hispanic vote, and the increasing local polling trend in the Hispanic population, it would not be a surprise to see more campaigns reaching out to the Alaskan Hispanic community.

Erick Cordero Giorgana is one of the founders of the Hispanic Affairs Council of Alaska. He is an Alaskan Chamber of Commerce “Top 40 Under 40” winner and former member of the School Board for the Mat-Su Borough School District.

The post The Hispanic Vote; Does it Matter in Alaska? appeared first on Alaska Politics & Elections.

Be it the original version in 1970 from the Ottawa, Canada rock group Five Man Electric Band, or Tesla’s 1990 remake, most of us recognize the lyrics to the song “Signs” are a harbinger of things to come this summer for Alaskans statewide.

“Sign, sign, everywhere a sign Blockin’ out the scenery, breakin’ my mind”

Granted, the topic of political signs may be better left for radio talk show hosts and rallies, or for the campaign wonks who strategize where, when and how many stakes to drive into the ground. The question remains whether or not a candidate’s signage actually generates votes.

Historians recognize the first modern political campaign occurring back in 1878. British Liberal Party leader William Ewart Gladstone was making a comeback and challenging Benjamin Disraeli for his support of the Turks, who were allies in the Crimean War. Gladstone’s constituency in Scotland, particularly Midlothian, boosted him to victory thanks in part to his strategic campaigning.

Americans must have taken note of Mr. Gladstone’s successful tactics because since the late 1880s there have been handouts, mailers, buttons, pins, and other messaging paraphernalia of the print and billboard sort across our fruited plains. Political signage is part and parcel to the communication mediums U.S. politicians depend on year after year, scattered across the country.

Google terms like “political signs” and “effectiveness” and all sorts of professorial commentaries surface. These days, academia seems to be the go-to source for expertise as much or more than actual political consultants. It’s unclear if actual scientific data exists concluding political signs concretely alter an election’s results.

What the “experts” are saying

An underlying premise when it comes to the use of political signs is that people tend not to vote for candidates they don’t know. The rationale goes that a sign plants a seed in the mind of the viewer and name recognition is generated. The more signs, the more name recognition. When the day of the elections arrives, and names are listed on the election ballot, the constituent will recall the name of the candidate, in part, because of the signs.

While name recognition is a critical component to any campaign endeavor, and signs considered integral to achieve name identification, other collateral effects tend to be referenced by researchers:

Psychological Support/Momentum – If you’re a candidate, or a supporter, in a competitive election there’s nothing as encouraging as seeing your team’s yard and billboard signs plastered throughout a neighborhood. The same goes for spotting an opponent’s signage, and the visceral reaction to want to pound more of your own signs in the earth to trump the competition. This mind-set is fast appearing in the digital realm too, like in social media with candidates competing for followers, friends and likes on Facebook and Twitter. Perhaps for online we can label it “Facebook Like Envy” or FLE.

Public Perception – People who typically vote every or most elections, whether you label them a “super voter” or an engaged citizen, have a pretty good idea who’s who in each local, state and federal election. Yet, psychological ticklers infiltrate all of our minds. To witness the virility of signage, densely caking a neighborhood or community, is bound to spark some inkling of recognition, if not generate a twinge of affinity or rejection. Think of sporting events and when you’re not vested in the outcome of two competing teams. Some people jump on board a slaughter and feel connected to the team with momentum. Others tend to side with the losing team and feel empathy for their plight. Candidates and their signs may compel the same emotions. The third choice, and some hold tight to this guttural sensation every election, is a negative feeling. Sometimes we all feel that way, suffering the gauntlet of correx missives blocking our line of sight and blurring the horizon in the majestic Alaskan distance.

Accomplishment – Ever run for office? If you want to win, it’s not just about time spent and volunteers active, it’s also about money. The less you have, the more difficult it is to build the dynamic website or secure the prime time T.V. commercial time slots, or reserve the most effective radio messaging for broadcast that smacks attention. For federal races in Alaska it’s in the millions of dollars, and state gubernatorial races are right behind congressional efforts, while Lt. gov. and state senate races can require $100,000 to $300,000+ for a win. State House races and larger Alaskan city assembly/council battles also rise to the $100K realm if high-profile. So if you’re short on coin, and have to choose one messaging medium beyond a brochure, signage is typically the optimum choice. And to that end, to achieve an equal or superior position in sign placement against your opponent instills confidence and passion. The bad news is, a lot of signs exclusively won’t produce a win.

Endorsement Effect – A questionable result of a political sign in front of a business or in its window, or in a neighbor’s yard, is that the populace will assume the occupant endorses the candidate. This logic is simple and suggests that if you promote through a political sign on your property, you’re behind the candidate or ballot measure. If you respect a neighbor, and he/she has a sign for a candidate, that may cause you to think twice about the choice. It also applies for those jerk neighbors you disdain. Of course, sometimes you’ll see a friendly neighbor, who can’t say “no,” with every candidate’s signs in the yard. Occasionally you’ll see a bi-partisan landscape with Democrat and Republican candidates for different seats displayed on the lawn or attached to a fence. It varies, it’s fickle, but for all intents and purposes a political yard sign means at least one member of the household supports the branded candidate. Spousal differences is an entirely different matter and the arguments that have arisen, because a sign was placed in a yard without approval by the other half, is epic.

Rules of engagement

 
We’ve all seen the illegal sign placements at election time, and not just in Anchorage. From Sitka to Barrow, Fairbanks to Homer, last-minute hustle to get voters’ attention means a sign bouillabaisse in some areas of town, rooted and attached to your imagination’s worth of structures and ground.

Theft is a nuisance, as much as unattractive signs. If you haven’t felt the searing pain of losing a political sign, sign stand or complete array of signage at the hands of a nefarious opponent, then welcome to the world of high blood pressure. It happens at night most often, and replete with denials from the other side. Loss of signs by malicious hands is a frustrating event that’s all too common, and it tests the metal of the most moral and ethical candidates on not physically pummeling the opponent, or at least his or her volunteers (or doing the same in retaliation by taking or destroying THEIR signs).

And what about legal vs. illegal placement? Periodically government enforcement officials are liberal in ignoring improperly placed campaign signs, but State and municipal laws are on the books and tolerance is waning year by year. The Department of Transportation delineates on its website, referencing Alaska Statute authority, that the placing of signs on State roads and highway rights-of-way is deemed an unauthorized encroachment, and signs will be removed. Further, outdoor advertising may not be erected or maintained within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way. http://dot.alaska.gov/campaignsigns/index.shtml

In Anchorage, the state’s biggest city, there are even more rules and a permit required for each larger signs in specific areas, controlled under Title 21. http://www.muni.org/Departments/OCPD/Planning/zoning/Pages/Signs.aspx

It’s no different in Soldotna,

http://www.ci.soldotna.ak.us/signs.html

or in Wasilla,

http://www.cityofwasilla.com/departments-divisions/city-clerk/election-information/political-sign-posting

or in Juneau.

http://www.juneau.org/clerk/elections/Election-Sign.php

Candidates, staff and volunteers have no excuse not to verify and comply with the rules this summer and fall, and most cities and boroughs have direction codified in their ordinances.

And take them down after the election, win or lose! Those candidates who remove their signs the day after an election truly deserve special recognition, especially if they lost – when depressed and feelings of optimism ripped from their soul after a hard-fought competition.

Notables

 
Who can forget former Republican State Representative Terry Martin and his en mass storm of political signage in East Anchorage in the late 1970s, 80s and 90s. It got worse when he lost his first race as an incumbent against veteran campaigner Bettye Davis for state senate. The days of highly competitive races in Fairbanks, Juneau, Ketchikan, on the Kenai Peninsula, and especially in Anchorage and Mat-Su, have not waned. If anything, signs of all sizes and shapes are appearing more and more.

In the 1970s and 80s, Eagle River Democratic State Representative, then Senator, Sam Cotten, was known for his hand painted blue and gold wooden signs. From Mafia Mike to Tom Fink for mayor, Anchorage has a history of fun and smile-inducing signage. Who can forget Steve Strait against Becky Gay in West Anchorage back in 2002.

Sign wars are soon to arise as Republican U.S. Senate candidates Mead Treadwell, Dan Sullivan and Joe Miller vie for the best and most prominent locations statewide. Don’t forget Governor Sean Parnell (R) and challengers Byron Mallot (D) and Bill Walker (I). The Lt. Gov’s race will be no less visible, with state senators like Hollis French (D) and Lesil McGuire (R), Mayor Dan Sullivan (R), and equally hard working challengers like math teacher Bob Williams (D) in Mat-Su and Independent Craig Fleener (I) in Fairbanks. And yes – all the state’s House and Senate candidates may be even more visible, as they press for district exposure on T.V., radio, digital and signage amidst PAC and big campaign monies flooding the message mediums.

Bring back that 70s music…

So it’s not the 1970s anymore. That’s a bummer for the awesome music we’re missing these days. It’s also deflating a bit, if you grow tired of politics in your face and neighbors’ front yards every year.

But let’s face it, political signs are a big deal for candidates. Signs also induce different reactions from the voter and public, ranging from pleasure to annoyance.

As the election nears, we’ll address signage further at APE, highlighting the companies statewide that print signs, the service companies building the frames and stakes and deploying said signs, and which candidates seem to have the most success as the Primary and General come and pass.

The question APE poses to all of you in the meantime is:

Do signs make a difference to you as a voter, and if they do or don’t, why? Comment below and let’s start a dialogue.

The post “Signs, signs, everywhere there’s signs” – or soon there will be appeared first on Alaska Politics & Elections.