This morning on KFQD 750 AM’s Bernadette and Berkowitz radio show, Republican U.S. Senate Candidate Joe Miller monopolized the attempted conversation in an effort to contrast himself from his Republican opponents. Miller’s incessancy to distinguish him from his Primary Election adversaries, particularly with the claim he lacks rhetoric or political spin, has had the opposite effect.

Joe Miller, in fact, is full of rhetoric.

Science and Reality

Joe Miller doesn’t disagree with Mead Treadwell or Dan Sullivan that the science on climate change is inclusive. Yet Miller continues to promote falsities about Treadwell and Sullivan by suggesting they are “climate change alarmists” and embracing “dubious scientific claims.” (May 17, 2014 article on Miller’s blogsite).

Miller’s demagoguery of science is unconstructive in solving the problems of pollution and society’s amalgamation to changing weather patterns, no matter the cause. The reality is that Treadwell and Sullivan oppose a carbon tax, which is levied on the carbon content of fuels (carbon is present in every hydrocarbon fuel – such as coal, petroleum, natural gas). Treadwell and Sullivan are also opposed to cap-and-trade, which is an environmental policy tool used to yield results based on a mandatory cap on emissions. Further, it’s unclear, as Miller alleges, where Treadwell and Sullivan have supported a “man-made global warming agenda” or “top-down federal regulation” relating to climate policy. Miller’s claims are erroneous of his two opponents in these contexts, and his weaving of the term “liberty” in the narrative makes no sense. It’s rhetoric and misapplied.

Joe Miller needs to recognize, as former Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Robert Papp Jr. stated to the U.S. Senate’s Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard (chaired by U.S. Senator Mark Begich) on August 12, 2011: “The recession of the ice age continues to open new water in the summer months. While there is less ice and more water, the unpredictable movement of existing ice flows and uncharted waters beneath a previously frozen sea could present risks to ships that venture into these waters.” On July 16th President Obama selected Admiral Papp to serve as the United States’ special representative for the Arctic. Papp will be the U.S.’s top-level envoy for Arctic issues affecting our nation.

Alaska’s Arctic region is changing, primarily because of a warming of our climate. It’s fact, not hyperbole. While former U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) recently endorsed Joe Miller, recall DeMint was one of the few U.S. senators opposed to establishing policies that will afford the U.S. – and particularly Alaska, a seat at the Arctic policy table. This is a policy arena in which Mead Treadwell has the most expertise and leadership. This policy collective includes deepwater ports, ice breakers and enhanced Coast Guard patrols and presence. Miller has neither expertise nor credible insight on Arctic policy, only rhetoric.

Miller has also spoken the least about alternative energy options. While Treadwell and Sullivan have embraced and recognized wind, solar, hydro and tidal, and other forms of Earth-powered energy sources and uses in places like the Northwest Arctic Borough, Cook Inlet and Kodiak, Miller often evades the dialogue on renewables. From the continued leak of nuclear waste into the Pacific Ocean at Japan’s Fukushima Plant to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, Miller should take note and seek remedies and alternatives or he won’t be representing Alaskan’s interests, particularly in the huge seafood and fishing industry. [A Gyre is a naturally occurring vortex of wind and currents rotating in our two hemispheres; five major Gyres are in the oceans worldwide and the Northern Pacific Gyre – the Great Pacific Garbage Patch – has an estimated 11 million tons of floating plastics over 5 million square miles.]

Alaskans need federal representation that embraces good science and real science. Ice has been melting long before the internal combustion engine, and yet – it’s still melting – and the Arctic is still warming. Humanity needs to address the current environmental weather cycle. It’s not a partisan issue, but rather societal. Alaskan communities and economies depend on policymaking champions who are proactive and reasonable. Joe Miller has a bag full of one-liners and finger-pointing claims against his opponents, but it is Treadwell who has been the Arctic policy champion and Sullivan who served as an attorney general and Natural Resources commissioner. Miller has no tangible record in this arena, nor scientific training in the field, to impugn his opponents.

When it comes to responsible and Alaskan-centric environmental and Arctic policies, Mead Treadwell and Dan Sullivan have the more rational approach. Better yet, they respect others’ opinions absent offensive attacks that Miller displayed this morning on air.

Can you even imagine going to Washington DC to visit a “Senator Joe Miller” and his reaction if you had any other opinion but his own regarding the plethora of science and climate and environmental issues? Open mindedness and courtesy matter in leadership and diplomacy.

Joe Miller’s consternation of rhetoric is ironically shrouded by his own pomposity, especially when it comes to the environment and Alaskan solutions vs. placing blame and assigning culpability.

The post Rhetoric on Climate Change and Policy – Joe Miller Style appeared first on Alaska Politics & Elections.

As candidate forums go, tonight’s CBS 11 and Alaska Dispatch News Debate between Republican U.S. Senate hopefuls Joe Miller, Dan Sullivan and Lt. Governor Mead Treadwell was instructive.

All men are proficient orators and skilled in rational based thinking and analysis. The majority of their answers were similar, so there is not really a true “stand out” in the bunch for policy direction. They all looked nice and no awkward facial expressions or body gestures fouled the play.

Joe Miller remains the strongest debater in terms of Tea Party flavored sound bites and grandiosity. He is sharp and witty with one-liners, and the ability to answer questions in volumes. The worry remains if he is a consensus builder or so dogmatic and zealous in his own philosophy that he’ll neglect the 750,000+ people in Alaska he would ultimately represent.

Dan Sullivan, though at times scoring with comprehensive answers and examples, lacked crisp, concise responses. He appeared uncomfortable formulating comments – and those he did muster to completely offer lacked in depth (or were laden in “ums” and paper shuffling). Sullivan, as in the last rural debate, simply does not answer questions as assiduously as Miller or Treadwell, speaking more in generality.

It should be noted that Alaska Dispatch News’ Nat Herz kept Sullivan in check on three occasions when avoiding answering questions, and news anchor Joe Vigil was exceptional in keeping the candidates reigned in from completely disrespecting time lines and end points.

Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell, after the rhetoric dust settled, was the winner on multiple fronts tonight. Here’s why:

 

• Treadwell gave the most cogent, concise and responsive answers.
  
  
• Treadwell was the most thoughtful and responsible in staying focused on questions and not straying into the periphery with diatribes (Miller) or answering with a question to evade an answer (Sullivan).

• Treadwell was honest when it came to tough questions like admitting smoking marijuana, writing Lisa Murkowski on his ballot in the 2010 General Election, and agreeing to support either Republican challenger should the others win the Primary on August 19th.
  
  
• Treadwell was fresh – he didn’t repeat the canned quotes and familial backgrounds that his opponents have used in past forums, and for which he would score the most points if he tried such debate tactic – having lost his wife to cancer and raising his kids as a single parent.
  
  
• Treadwell was the most courteous in his questions and looked the most senatorial. All men claim to be the best David and against the Begich Goliath. Treadwell appears to fit best in those shoes (OK – sandals to be exact).

Only Alaskan voters can decide who will be the Republican U.S. Senate candidate to challenge Democratic incumbent Senator Mark Begich in November, but if tonight’s debate is any indication, Mead Treadwell looks to have the best chance at the title.

The post Treadwell Takes CBS 11 / Alaska Dispatch News Debate appeared first on Alaska Politics & Elections.

Is there a self-appointed “patriot” on the list of U.S. Senate candidates? How about someone who incessantly refers to our Founding Fathers when it comes to their social policies (e.g. slavery, suppression of women’s rights, destruction of American Indian culture, rampant child abuse) with zealous reverence?

When it comes to supporting the farmer, is there one candidate from the myriad U.S. Senate hopefuls that stands out and has caught Alaskan farmers’ attention?

The answer is “yes” to all of the above. His name is Joe Miller.

I’ve listened to Mr. Miller on the radio, and in T.V. interviews. I attended the East High School debate in Anchorage with other Mat-Su farmers. I’ve engaged with him on air in the Valley on local radio talk show several times.

Over the months I’ve followed him, Joe Miller has been critical of farmers while claiming to be a fiscal conservative. Originally I thought Mr. Miller was an Ivy League educated attorney living in Alaska, collecting a farm subsidy for land he owned in Kansas. But according to our conversation on the Tom Anderson Show back in May 23^rd, Miller said he bought his farmland in Kansas and collected a farm subsidy while subdividing the farm. So if I’m correct, he was actually a developer collecting a farm subsidy. According to Miller, this wasn’t a big deal because he wasn’t actually collecting very much money from the federal government. In the conversation on air he said he was earning around $100 a month (I looked it up and he averaged $118 a month for over five years). Miller also denied collecting farm payments while he was in Alaska, yet his own U.S. Senate campaign admitted back in 2010 that he did, in fact, collect the subsidies while working as an attorney and residing in Alaska.

Granted, some voters may not like the idea of farm subsidies, but one-line sound bites by a pandering politician disparaging the program and the farmers who receive them is a betrayal of the men and women in my industry.

Consider how vital agriculture is to our society and how quickly it’s declining. In 1935, the number of farms in the United States peaked at 6.8 million, while the population was approximately 127 million. Farmers have continued to fade away while our population and demand for farmed resources escalates.  There are now over 313 million people living in the United States, tripling since 1935, but just one-tenth of 1% are farming as an occupation. There are now only 2.2 million farms in the entire U.S., and a small fraction of those in Alaska, yet the majority of us thrive on such produce and savor every farm fresh meal.

America has some of the richest agriculture soils in the world and we are paving over one million acres of these soils each year. It’s estimated that by the year 2050 the world food production must double to meet the demand. This will impact every American either positively or negatively depending on what we do today. If we continue to pave our agriculture soils – our grandchildren will struggle to feed their families, and I’m unsure Joe Miller understands this reality.

Closer to home, and for a perspective on Alaskan farming and government support, from 1995 to 2012 nearly 89 percent of Alaska’s farms did not collect a farm subsidy. Of the farms that did collect a subsidy, 80 percent received on average $134 a year. That’s about 1/10 of what Joe Miller was receiving.

The Department of Agriculture’s website states that “U.S. agricultural trade generates employment, income, and purchasing power in both the farm and non farm sectors. Each farm export dollar earned stimulated another $1.65 in business activity in calendar year 2006. The $71.0 billion of agricultural exports in 2006 produced an additional $117.2 billion in economic activity for a total economic output of $188.2 billion. Agricultural exports also generated 841,000 full-time civilian jobs, which include 482,000 jobs in the non-farm sector. Farmers’ purchases of fuel, fertilizer, and other inputs to produce commodities for export spurred economic activity in the manufacturing, trade, and transportation sectors.”

80 percent of the funds in the most recently passed national Farm Bill are for food stamp benefits and have nothing to do with farming – unless one blames farmers for providing the food that feed people. Only 20 percent of the funds in the Farm Bill are for farm programs, and some of these programs may actually be responsible for funding the construction of the home in which you live.

And when it comes to “subsidies,” every homeowner who took out a traditional mortgage received a federal subsidy in some form or another, such as artificially low interest rates, federal loan guarantee, etc. Is Joe Miller also an advocate for letting the free market decide what the interest rates will be? Are we ready for 18 percent home mortgage rates? Did Miller shop around for the lowest federally subsidized rate or did he seek a non-federally manipulated loan (is there even such a loan?)  Or did Miller pay cash for his home in protest of the federal subsidies provided to America’s homeowners?

When I first heard the bullet points of his “freedom and liberty” rhetoric he had my attention. But after listening more closely and examining the real message from Joe Miller, I’ve become troubled at the lack of integrity in his value system.  Or gently phrased, his lack of understanding of the agriculture industry. When he accuses American farmers of “not meeting the needs of this country,” I am baffled. Have Americans truly ever missed meals because of the lack of accessible food? If American farmers are guilty of anything, isn’t it of being too efficient at their job and providing an inexpensive over-abundance of food (and add to the menu: feeding the world).

I once heard Miller claim that it was the Republican establishment that cheated him out of his victory in his 2010 senate race, and that he won’t support either Mead Treadwell or Dan Sullivan, should they win the August Primary. The way I see it, it was Joe Miller’s hypocrisy that cheated him out of a seat in the U.S. Senate.

If you think it is good that Americans have access to inexpensive, safe food, and you believe exporting hundreds of billions of dollars every year in farm products is good for this country economically, then you should truly research political candidates when they speak in macro terms, generalities and impugning an industry they have little knowledge about.

In all honesty, I did not write this opinion article to defend farm subsidies (it’s a complex issue I hardly understand), but rather to point out the fact that the biggest problem with our current system is that an Ivy League attorney and land developer like Joe Miller, who lives thousands of miles away from a farm he owns, can still receive a farm subsidy for fields he doesn’t farm.

Joe Miller doesn’t understand the agriculture industry in Alaska, nor the country. I fear he shrouds himself in slogans and patriot spectacle, seasoned with hypocrisy, and is the wrong person to represent our state in the U.S. Senate.

Arthur Keyes owns Glacier Valley Farm in Palmer and is the founder of the South Anchorage Farmer’s Market. He was a produce manager for Safeway in Anchorage and has worked in produce all of his adult life. He’s currently on the Board of Directors for the Palmer Soil & Water Conservation District, and is the past president of the Mat-Su Farm Bureau, past director on the Alaska State Farm Bureau, and currently serves on Mat-Su’s Board of Directors. 

The post Joe Miller doesn’t understand the farm industry and is not the man for the job appeared first on Alaska Politics & Elections.

By Carl Nelson

It’s quite interesting what surfaces during election season. The microcosm of rhetoric and chest-pounding, cheap shots and personal attacks. In concert, it’s almost comical. Yet, when it comes to the direction Alaska will be headed on a national and international level, and considering our current federal representation, I fear that comedy is the last thing Alaskans need.

I’m a lifelong hunter and fisherman. My father was a Scout Master in East Anchorage growing up. I learned like many Scouts did, about fishing and hunting, and about honor and telling the truth.

As the August 19^th Primary Election gets closer in voters’ sights, I hope Alaskans who value transparency, particularly when it comes to hunting and fishing recreation, will consider all of the Republican candidates for U.S. Senate closely. Specifically, Dan Sullivan should be scrutinized beyond fancy radio and T.V. advertising and out-of-state PAC messaging.

Label me overboard, but I follow campaigns. Granted, I’m not political, don’t work in government, nor have I ran for office or worked for a politician. I follow what candidates say and do because it’s important to me both as an informed voter and to measure integrity.

Early on, the Democrats began running with the narrative that Dan Sullivan is not Alaskan. From owning a house in Maryland to having a non-resident fishing license in 2009, they’ve done a fairly good job keeping that message alive. Sullivan constantly refutes the claim by saying that he moved to our state in 1997, which is the first time he fished at his wife’s fish-camp on the Yukon River. His time fishing there appears true and is substantiated by his photos.

While the Democrats have asserted that Sullivan had a non-resident fishing license in 2009, it would be easy for Team Sullivan to refute their claims by showing his fishing license from 1997 when he was at his wife’s fish camp on the Yukon.

As an informed voter, and a guy who loves and thrives in the great outdoors, I don’t hang my hat on one claim or another in political posturing, but I do take offense to posers. Sullivan once spoke on a local radio talk show in Anchorage about the fact his opponents (Miller and Treadwell) wouldn’t know the dangerous end of rifle. This is a ridiculous kidney punch to men like Joe Miller, who owns and has hunted with multiple firearms all of his life, and to Mead Treadwell. When Treadwell and I spoke at Alaska Outdoor Council, NRA and Safari Club International events over the years, I certainly didn’t see Dan Sullivan in the room but for recently because of his candidacy.

Regarding Sullivan and fishing, the logical reaction to a questionable licensure claim would be to call the Alaska Department of Fish & Game and verify who was licensed when…since tags and licenses are public information. However, if you did that, you would find that Dan Sullivan never purchased a fishing license until 2009.

When Dan was fishing at his wife’s fish camp “every summer since 1997,” it appears to have been done with no fishing license. While the statute of limitations regarding the law has probably expired, that doesn’t mean accountability isn’t in play. Dan Sullivan, a Yale Law School graduate like President Bill Clinton, has no excuse to claim ignorance on the law.

Fishing regulations and boasting of being a “guy’s guy” and outdoorsman is disingenuous if you really are not, and you don’t even comply with the fishing regulations that govern anglers’ actions.

Dig a little deeper, and listen to the likes of the Alaska Democratic Party, Joe Miller, and Mead Treadwell, and the hornets’ nest buzzes a bit more. Dan Sullivan’s fishing license history is sketchy:

• In 2009, Dan Sullivan received a Non-Resident Fishing License.

• In 2011, Dan Sullivan claimed he had been a resident for 1 year, 9 months (indicating arrival 4/09).

• In 2013, three months before he declared his candidacy, he claimed he had been a resident for 10 years.

• Even if Dan had been in Alaska from 1997-2002 (a little over 4 years), and then again from late 2009-2013 (4 years) – he hadn’t been an Alaskan resident for 10 years.

A friend of mine recently contacted the Alaska Department of Fish & Game to determine if there might be a problem with Sullivan’s disclosure discrepancies. He asked a staff member to review the licensing history juxtaposed to his residency and intermittent times in Alaska. The staff member noted that the discrepancies are a problem and people are fined for such routinely. But not Dan Sullivan.

What excuse does the former Attorney General have for violating fishing regulations? Sullivan has responded that he was only completing the applications based on Fish & Game staff guidance. This time, Rep. Mark Neuman may not be able to cover for Mr. Sullivan, and it’s easy to blame staff but typically that doesn’t work for the common folk like you and me (e.g. try turning your PDF application in late or erroneously and blame staff).

With a five-minute phone call to F&G, it can be shown that Dan Sullivan has broken two regulations/laws and has shirked accountability.

Do you really think Senator Begich isn’t ready and eager, champing at the bit to pounce on Sullivan’s inconsistencies? If you think the Primary is a battle, just wait until the General Election and WWIII of Democrat vs. Republican carnage.

Disappointingly, this year’s Primary looks like 2010 all over again, and if something isn’t done now, Mark Begich has the ability to put a Republican hopeful in handcuffs (or at least publicly castigate and shame him).

Remember the lessons learned four years ago: Base your vote on proven leadership and consistent statesmanship; Don’t trust the rhetoric: Don’t invest your vote in an unvetted, unknown candidate with alarming out-of-state ties.

The Republican Party got lucky when they went against Scott McAdams (“Scott who”? you ask. The big guy from Sitka), but this isn’t a candidate as lack-luster as McAdams. The GOP’s choice will be challenging Mark Begich, who is arguably the best and most skillful campaigner the Democrats have ever groomed in Alaska. We saw what he was willing to do to our beloved Senator Ted Stevens in 2008. Do you not think Begich is willing to do that again, especially against Dan Sullivan?

For me, it’s about walking the walk. If a candidate says he loves to hunt and fish, then I hope he really does and is not claiming such hobbies to curry my vote. As for following the law, I do – and you do, when it comes to fishing and hunting. You’d expect someone running for U.S. Senate would comply the same way. If not, then it’s time for voters to reflect on their own values and lack thereof of some politicians who would do anything to represent them.

A charlatan is defined as a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill, or plain and simple: a fraud. If Dan Sullivan’s unsupported outdoorsman bravado and self-aggrandizement are based on improper fishing licensing, that doesn’t bode well for the Republicans against Mark Begich.

Perhaps it’s time to cut the fishing line on Dan Sullivan.

Carl Nelson is a U.S. Army veteran. He has lived in Alaska since 1972. Carl is an avid fisherman and hunter, and is a lifetime member of the NRA and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, as well as a member of the Alaska Outdoor Council and Safari Club International.

The post Beware of Outdoorsman Charlatans: It’s Election Season appeared first on Alaska Politics & Elections.

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.

Political campaigns are like a performance

When candidates file for public office, everything from set to design, apparel to script, comprises the show. Audience appeal and applause, and the critique’s assessment, are pretty close representations of the actual electorate and media.

On Tuesday August 19^th, 2014, Alaskans will have the opportunity to cast a vote for the Republican U.S. Senate candidate that will challenge incumbent Mark Begich (D) in the November General Election.

As attention to the candidates surfaces, so do the PAC and candidate sponsored advertisements and messaging, in concert with candidate appearances, endorsements and the omnipresent news coverage which makes the job for the editorial staff at APE a whole lot easier.

And then there were three

Three viable candidates want the chance to take center stage alongside Begich.

Joe Miller has the most national notoriety and Tea Party-esque appeal, with a smidgeon of infamy and a dash of spectacle. He’s a West Point and Yale Law School graduate. He’s probably the superior debater of the three candidates, and the most tenacious. Miller’s resonating voice and cadence might afford him a radio host gig if he so chose, and his core supporters remain allegiant and diehards. He’s tried for State House, Alaska Republican Party Chairman and U.S. Senate against incumbent Lisa Murkowski, but without success.

Dan Sullivan seems the Washington DC insiders’ choice. Coming from a wealthy Ohio family (Ohio’s slogan is “So Much to Discover” and that seems to be Alaskan journalists’ goal, not knowing much about the newcomer), he has equally impressive education credentials to Miller with an Economics degree from Harvard and law degree from Georgetown. He’s charismatic and polished. Sullivan has built his resume with a state commissionership and attorney general stint about as fast as Sarah Palin came to and departed from the governor’s office.  Sullivan remains an unknown comparatively, and his di minimis time spent and living in Alaska are fast surfacing as an Achilles Heel comparable to Begich’s Affordable Care Act vote. Politico just today (4/16/14) reports that Sully trumped Begich in political donations for a second reporting quarter. His will be a multi-million dollar war chest.

As for military service, Miller is a former Army officer and a Bronze Star Persian Gulf War veteran. Sullivan is a Lt. Colonel in the Marine Reserves. Both are married with children.

These first two candidates either have the name recognition or the out-of-state money to push them into the limelight.

But isn’t there a third character? Who is the candidate who seems to have star quality but keeps getting short shrift in coverage, recognition and stage time?

Enter Mead Treadwell, Alaska’s Lt. Governor

In his first run for elected office, Treadwell stomped former State Representative Jay Ramras so bad it was like the old advertisement in 1970s comic strips where the scrawny kid on the beach is picked on by the huge body builder kicking sand in his face, only Treadwell – as the bodybuilder, after kicking the sand – actually took the kid’s cookies and girl, and the kid stayed wimpy the rest of his life.

Treadwell is smart. He’s thoughtful. He’s good on his feet with facts, figures and knows Alaskan government and process likely better than his opponents. It would be rare to hear someone say Mead Treadwell shows hubris, but most will recall him genuinely (non-election year) attending a NRA, Safari Club or Alaska Outdoor Council event, or charity event for cancer patients who suffer the same long and arduous gauntlet of tests and treatments his wife experienced before her passing.

Is there a difference?

Granted, all three candidates love their kids, but Treadwell raised his alone.

All three men have Ivy League educations, but Teadwell’s Yale undergraduate degree and M.B.A. from Harvard extract him from the growing incessancy of lawyers serving in federal office. He’s not a lawyer! That’s a rare claim to fame.

All three men suggest they have a unique vision and understanding of Alaska and its majesty, but Treadwell is the one candidate who is an entrepreneur and has owned and managed sizeable state and national corporations. He’s also an expert on Arctic development, infrastructure and policy as the former chairman of the Arctic Research Commission appointed by President George W. Bush.

If you toss all three men into the spotlight, one certainly has the far right’s nod, while another gets the wink from the richest of the rich and political powerbrokers. This demographic is typical in most states where money and affiliation matter, as do notoriety and appeal from the nation’s capital.

But it’s time to pay attention to the fact there are actually three stars in this performance

In the middle there’s a third choice, and Mead Treadwell has the heart of a leading man. To many behind the scenes, he’s the one that’s been getting the job done, success after success, with tenure, absent fanfare, and powered by a purpose driven faith in his public service journey.

Most will agree that Shakespeare was the king of metaphor. Recall in “As You Like It” his famous words:

“All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,”

If the Alaska U.S. Senate Republican Primary is a stage, and the aforementioned candidates are the performers, don’t be surprised should the consistent, structured, less flamboyant character draw the most applause (votes) in August.

The political “performance” continues with four months to go. Whether you label election politics “theater” or plain old campaigning, the person most observed, or most critiqued, isn’t necessarily the favored cast member.

APE simply asks that you hold your Academy Award speculation until the end of the show and pay attention to the lines and passion of all the candidates. In Lt. Governor Treadwell’s case, he’s on stage too, quite relevant to the storyline, and may turn out to be the headliner.

The post To Be, or Not to Be: Mead Treadwell appeared first on Alaska Politics & Elections.

We live in a digital world when it comes to politics and elections. And that’s a remarkable reality.

From social media and platforms like Facebook and Twitter, to the periodic eNewsletter that curates top story content, to online websites that alert you with breaking news, it would appear social dialogue and opinion really matter in campaigning – and ultimately how someone votes.

However there’s a catch. Most people that own a newspaper or media center in Alaska, and that includes every digital digest, blog, news missive and commentary – are biased, and more often than not, to the extreme left or far right.

Perhaps that’s plain old human nature, but it tends to frustrate and suppress the depth of the online conversation. Liberals and conservatives have opinions, but so do progressives, libertarians, humanists, and myriad others within the intellectual collective of our society.

Add to the equation the fact most news sources don’t solely focus on issues, candidates, advertising and imaging, nor the plethora of components that comprise Alaska’s political world. Suddenly there’s a clear and present thirst for nitty gritty political reporting. How about national and international themes permeating into Alaska policy and politics; or robust case studies on electoral process.

It’s a huge mosaic of potential information sharing, gathering, and assimilation that benefits people so they can make better informed decisions.

Enter Alaska Politics & Elections (APE)

This is a new political forum. We’ll be attempting to capture as much information as possible relating to campaigns statewide, from city to state to federal, that include or involve Alaskans.

Think of a candidate’s latest political ad on T.V. or radio or in print that you missed; envision poll results or Alaska Public Offices Commission data and financial statistics for Alaskans running for office that you may not be privy to; ruminate on breaking news about momentum or snail’s pace activism, advocacy and campaign messaging.

APE welcomes contributing writers like former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz, foreign relations and Middle East expert Jonathan Greenberg, oil/gas/resource development guru Brad Keithley, economist and land use expert Bill Reid, and many more topics and writers covering candidates, propositions and elections with Alaska at the center. We’ll have some surprises along the way, and all of our experts providing thought-provoking information.

Make sure to like our Facebook Page. Sign-up for our forthcoming eNewsletter which will include each week’s articles. Most importantly, we hope you’ll engage in the conversation and submit your own work product and messaging if you’re a campaign consultant or candidate.

Thanks for your interest in our new digital campaigns and elections forum. Please join us for a worthwhile journey into Alaska politics.

“I claim that human mind or human society is not divided into watertight compartments called social, political and religious. All act and react upon one another.”

– Mahatma Gandhi

The post Alaska Politics & Elections (APE) Launches appeared first on Alaska Politics & Elections.