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.

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.

Senator Mark Begich hopes to run for reelection this fall by making President Obama “irrelevant” in Alaska.  This translates to running away from Obamacare, the president’s dismal foreign policy record and several continuing scandals so Alaskans forget that he is the leading Democrat and most important Obama supporter in the state.

Begich is also trying to change the subject by attacking U.S. Senate candidate Dan Sullivan, who appears likely to win the August primary election.

Begich’s early attacks on Sullivan reflect how deeply Democrats are afraid of him.  Sullivan has attracted unusually broad support and may be able to unite the Republican Party and win over Democratic and Non-Partisan voters.  Sullivan is a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves with 20 years of service as an infantry and reconnaissance officer.  He served as Governor Sarah Palin’s Attorney General and as Alaska’s Commissioner of Natural Resources.

Sullivan also held high-level jobs in Washington DC with the National Security Council and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate to be an Assistant Secretary of State in the Bush Administration.

Sullivan is endorsed by the conservative Club for Growth, as well as centrist Republican Condoleezza Rice, the former Secretary of State.  He has a moderate position on climate change that will make it difficult for Begich to portray him as an extremist.  Sullivan has vastly out-raised his primary election opponents, generating even more money for his campaign than Senator Begich in the first quarter of 2014.

Begich’s main attack on Sullivan so far is that he’s not a “real” Alaskan.  Sullivan moved to Alaska in 1997, although he spent a significant amount of time out of the state between 2002 and 2009 because of his military service and senior jobs with the U.S. government.

If Begich’s argument is valid, Hillary Clinton never would have been a U.S. Senator.  Unlike Sullivan, who has held senior jobs with the state government and served for several years with the Anchorage-based Fourth Reconnaissance Battalion – the Marine Corps Reserve’s premier cold weather reconnaissance unit, Clinton moved to New York solely to be a senator from a state where she had never lived.

Begich is also attacking Sullivan by going after the billionaire Koch brothers who are regularly demonized by top Democrats as conservative outsiders trying to buy elections.  Although Sullivan says his campaign has taken no contributions from the Kochs, PAC ads have aired throughout Alaska on T.V., radio, and online mediums that Begich claims the Koch Brothers funded.  The paranoid Democratic complaints about the Kochs have become tiresome.  It’s also difficult to palate Begich’s fear mongering about a “new tidal wave” of out-of-state money buying campaign advertising when a Democratic super-PAC largely funded by Harry Reid’s Senate Majority PAC has already committed over $1.6 million for Begich’s re-election according to online’s RealClearPolitics.  Rest assured millions of dollars will also be spent to defend Begich by left-wing Democratic moneyman George Soros.

Dan Sullivan doesn’t have the Republican senatorial nomination wrapped up.  Lt. Governor Mead Treadwell may be down over 10% in the polls, but he has a good ground game, is respected throughout the state, and historically – Alaskan primary polls have been unpredictable.  Treadwell is a viable and worthy candidate, but is behind in fundraising. Often in large-scale state and federal campaigns, a sizable messaging and communications budget matters.  The third Republican candidate, Joe Miller, is far behind Sullivan and Treadwell based on recent national polling data and has a slim chance of winning the primary comparatively.

Mark Begich recognizes the major issue in his Alaskan U.S. Senate race will be President Obama and the growing unpopularity of the Administration because of failed policies and growing scandals (Benghazi and the Veterans Administration most recently).  As a Democratic Senator who has facilitated Obama’s policies – especially by championing and voting for Obamacare – Begich is desperate to change the subject.  That’s why he’s focusing on false issues about Dan Sullivan.  Yet – he remains inextricably linked to the president.

The fact that Begich and Las Vegas Democratic U.S. Senator Harry Reid began their attack on Sullivan so early is indicative of how fearful they are about Begich’s re-election chances, should he face a formidable candidate like Dan Sullivan. Sullivan will appeal to Republican, Democratic and Non-Partisan/Undeclared voter bases in the state (as will Treadwell), and whether Sullivan or Treadwell win, their top priority should be to continue directing voter attention to Mark Begich as Obama’s top guy in Alaska. A clear, legitimate difference in candidates will be visible for voters to consider once contrasted. No wonder Begich is scared.

David Frazier is a licensed Impact Strategist and President of DFA Benefits. He has over 35 years of insurance and healthcare industry experience in Alaska statewide.

The post Begich wants to change the subject with silly attacks on Sullivan – but he’s still Obama’s Top Guy 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.

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” – Sir Walter Scott

Indeed, the author of Marmion and Ivanhoe may be onto something beyond love and war. It would seem his quote is just as appropriate when used in politics, especially online.

I presented to the Palmer Chamber of Commerce a few weeks ago, discussing what my PR firm offers in the field of political communications. It was enlightening to observe the smiles, frowns and eye-rolls from the chamber members as I laid out the process through which a candidate or initiative is branded. Clearly, some adore campaign chatter, and others abhor it, while a swath of Alaskans just ignore it and have indifference for the political season.

Campaigns are percolating into the boiling mode now, while many people finish spring cleaning, dust off lawn mowers and weed eaters, and start pulling fishing gear from the shelves. The weather is gorgeous in the Valley, and that bodes well for barbecue fans and the lake-dwellers salivating over water play, all of whom candidates seek attention from.

Did I mention school is almost over? But you probably knew that one already.

For those of us in the political world, this is as critical a time as ever to fine-tune messaging and weave the most salient points to attract attention for clients. Our prize is the precious vote from each and every one of you.

T.V. ads and videos are not inexpensive to produce, and placement on air is no less costly. Radio ads are a bit easier to craft, yet buys on air remain a significant cost factor in the campaign budget.

Digital advertising is available, and far less expensive (the Frontiersman, by example, has a popular online website and digital messaging opportunities). The printed postal message is a dying method, but some still hold dear to the concept of receiving a political missive in the mailbox.

After T.V., radio, digital and print, and the occasional yard sign, what’s left is the free and high-traffic venue of online messaging. Think about blog sites, the comment section at the end of an article in a news source, social media portals like Facebook and Twitter, and video feeds like YouTube and Vimeo. All in all, and at negligible to zero cost, a candidate who posts messages and spreads his or her platform by comments online can capture attention and build visibility.

But what about reputation? Is it fair to say the most people online who read and post comments have good intentions. Do the comments you read on political blog posts and at the end of news columns on the Internet indicate public sentiment? Of course not!

Recently, my firm designed a thoughtful video message for a political client, and the response was instructive. The legitimate news sites that require an actual person (through Facebook) to post, absent avatars and fake profiles, seem to draw little ire and vitriol. People either lack the courage to publicly give their opinion, or they just don’t have the time or inclination to respond.

The Frontiersman is a prime and positive example of a news source that won’t let people post a comment if they don’t identify themselves. There is integrity in this rule.

However, there are other sites that do no sift through real vs. fake profiles, nor prohibit such mischief. What that translates to is a blog sites where hurtful, negative aspersions can be scattered along comment walls and article input line, and the public, if they even read the sources, has no idea who the person commenting is in real life.

I don’t give much credence to Internet trolls and campaign supporters and staff who don’t have the backbone to reveal who they are when posting Internet comments. In a way, perhaps attention, good or bad, is a form of flattery. In advertising circles, often times any attention is helpful because it resonates in the mind of the consumer or voter.

As the August 19 primary election nears, whether you adore, abhor or ignore all the political messaging, just remember not to base your decisions and votes on fake names and unsubstantiated allegations. Diatribes may be part of elections, but sources and accusers matter, and the purity of the process depends on honesty in journalism and transparency in opinion makers.

For those who want to file as a candidate, the deadline to file paperwork to become a candidate for a statewide or legislative office is 5 p.m. on June 2.

New voters and people changing their registration status have until July 20 – 30 days before the primary – to do so. But don’t wait until the deadline, which falls on a Sunday, when state elections offices may be closed.

The post Political Communications and Blog comments: Adore, Abhor, Ignore 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.

Alaska’s state representatives and senators chose not to adjourn this year’s Second Session of the 28^th State Legislature by Sunday evening at 11:59 PM. As a result, the three ballot measures calendared for the primary election in August have been nudged into the November election. One of those measures will undoubtedly attract the lion’s share of local and national attention:

An Act to tax and regulate the production, sale and use of marijuana.

[ http://www.elections.alaska.gov/pbi_ini_status_list.php ]

The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Alaska “YES on 2” Committee was organized by Tim Hinterberger, a University of Alaska-Anchorage professor, Mary Reff, a retired Anchorage accountant, and Bill Parker, a former Department of Corrections deputy commissioner.
[ http://regulatemarijuanainalaska.org/about/ ]

PR firms have since been making their way to the communications helm of messaging on both sides. The better the consultants, the more dynamic the messaging and branding, so this particular public campaign should be fun to watch.

There are some solid, veteran political campaign advisors helping on both sides:

Pro-Pot

Leading the consulting efforts for the legalizing marijuana advocacy is Strategies 360 out of Seattle. The firm has satellite offices in 10 states including Alaska. Strategies 360 specializes in public policy, government affairs and marketing. The firm’s Anchorage office is managed by longtime Alaska public radio correspondent David Shurtleff. Ethan Berkowitz, the former Democratic state representative and minority leader (and now host of Anchorage’s KFQD radio morning talk show) is also on the Alaska team, as is Taylor Bickford who was the executive director of the Redistricting Board appointed by Gov. Parnell and has filled various management capacities for the state and national Republican Party.

The national advocacy group Marijuana Policy Project is capturing attention with cogent arguments for expanding medical marijuana access, revising prison-sentencing guidelines and adopting a “sensible system of regulation” of marijuana in all 50 states. MPP’s website is detailed and informative. The organization is based out of Washington D.C. [ http://www.mpp.org/about/ ]

Smaller, targeted groups are also forming in Alaska to support legalization like the group of graduate students studying business administration at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) School of Management called the Coalition for Responsible Cannabis Legislation (CRCL). Led by Executive Director Brandon Emmett, the organization “seeks to establish a coalition of reputable business owners, educated consumers, and prominent persons in the community with the purpose of influencing future cannabis legislation.”

[Per its April 23, 2014 Press Release: http://us8.campaign-archive1.com/?u=5bcfd7e2f2df15880185220f5&id=ef3beb620b&e=ec095b62dc ]

No-Pot

During 2013 there didn’t seem to be a concerted effort in protest of the rumblings of a pot movement, nor of mounting signatures. But then certification of the ballot initiative to legalize marijuana was made and in April 2014 the group Big Marijuana. Big Mistake. Vote No on 2 filed its application with the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC).

The founders of Vote No on 2 include Deborah Williams, former director of the Alaska Lung Association and Anchorage youth advocate, Northwest Strategies owner and former KTUU Channel 2 News anchor Tim Woolston, entrepreneur Matt Larkin – who purchased Dittman Research from legendary political consultant Dave Dittman, and Alaska Native leader Mike Williams of Akiak (42 miles northeast of Bethel) who is an Iditarod musher and mental health/substance abuse counselor.

Comparable to Strategies 360, the informal partnership of big guns like Dittman Research and Northwest Strategies upped the ante in the messaging game. Both firms are notable for their design work, production capabilities (T.V. and radio) and digital craftsmanship. Dittman is one of the premier polling firms in the state and is eponymous for Republican surveys and research.

A national group called Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) chaired by former Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy (son of the late U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy) has announced intentions to reject legalizing marijuana in Alaska. The group’s three primary goals (from its website) are to: Believe in an approach that neither legalizes, nor demonizes, marijuana; Reject dichotomies — such as “incarceration versus legalization” — that offer only simplistic solutions to the highly complex problems stemming from marijuana use and the policies surrounding it; Champion smart policies that decrease marijuana use — and do not harm marijuana users and low-level dealers with arrest records that stigmatize them for life and in ways that make it even harder for them to break free from cycles of substance dependence.
[ http://learnaboutsam.com/about/ ]

Devil or Angel?

The debate over legalizing marijuana in Alaska has been slow and simmering. As articles and commentaries surface across the Internet, and political messaging blossoms, the boiling point is imminent.

The history of court rules and laws dealing with marijuana in the Last Frontier is instructive. Journalists Megan Edge and Laurel Andrews with AlaskaDispatch.com wrote a thoughtful and comprehensive article on the timeline and mileposts of pot’s legal evolution. Clearly, as witnessed by the ebb and flow of court and policy decisions, it’s been a love-hate relationship with cannabis in Alaska.
[ http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20140413/timeline-notable-moments-40-years-alaskas-history-marijuana ]

The 1972-1975 Ravin v. State of Alaska legal journey would ultimately set temporary parameters in the state as the Alaska Supreme Court ruled possession of marijuana in the privacy of one’s home constitutionally protected. Buy an El Camino and crank up the Doobie Brothers on your 8-track tape stereo, it’s the 1970s in Alaska!

As Edge and Andrews delineated in their chronology, medical marijuana became legal in 1989 as 69% of Alaskan voters supported an initiative. To legally possess cannabis for health reasons, registration was required and one’s name added to a State database, authorizing possession of an ounce or up to six plants, of which only three could be budding. The problem remains that obtaining pot is still prohibited and illegal.

Below is the link to the application for a Medical Marijuana Registry card.
http://dhss.alaska.gov/dph/VitalStats/Pages/marijuana.aspx

Fast-forward through two failed attempts to legalize herb in 2000 and 2004 in Alaska, and now the state is offering its registered voters a third chance through popular vote. This time, there may be a trend as Washington state and Colorado have legalized private marijuana sales and use in the last 18 months.

Based on the website PolicyMic’s statistics, medical marijuana is legal in 20 states and Washington, D.C., while legalization momentum via ballot measure and voter approval in 2014 is occurring in New York, Tennessee, Florida, Arizona, Kentucky, Maryland, New Hampshire and Alaska. The site further states: “Based on a combination of factors including polling data, the current legal frameworks in place, and ballot measures in the works,…. California, Oregon, Alaska, Maine and Massachusetts are the five states most likely to move forward with legal weed.”
[ http://www.policymic.com/articles/80099/where-will-marijuana-be-legal-next-this-map-points-to-5-specific-states ]

APE intends to address the marijuana legalization pros and cons in more detail in coming months through contributing writers and analysis.

We leave you with some considerations:

(1)         Is the debate over legalizing marijuana more about freedoms or the fear of abuse and consequences?

(2)         Are the pundits of legalization overlooking, or blatantly ignoring, the medicinal benefits from marijuana and particular edibles?

(3)         Are the proponents of legalization overlooking, or blatantly ignoring, the risks and negative physiological impacts of marijuana and misuse?

(4)         How important is money (namely taxes and income to the State) in the dialogue?

(5)        Can sentencing laws be changed so it’s not as easy to incarcerate for marijuana possession and use, yet prohibition remain?

(6)        How will Americans reconcile the federal government still not defining acceptable and prohibited use and sales in individual states while more states consider legalizing (yet the federal government defines as illegal)?

Indeed, the marijuana issue will be a worthwhile discussion, and apparently the devil is in the details.

The post Marijuana: Maleficent or Miracle for Alaskans? appeared first on Alaska Politics & Elections.

By Fred Fleitz

I was pleased when Tom Anderson asked me to write for his Alaska Politics and Elections blog. I’m an East Coast guy, but Tom and I have become long distance friends because of interviews I’ve been doing for his radio show. I worked in several national security jobs with the U.S. government, including as a CIA analyst and Chief of Staff to John Bolton. Tom calls me once in a while to tap my expertise to discuss global security issues for his Alaska audience.

Sarah Palin has made a significant impression on the rest of the country for Alaska, more than many Alaskans may realize. It is a tragedy the way the mainstream media and late night comics have ridiculed her. This reflects the double standard that the liberal elite has for conservatives in America politics, especially women and minorities. Sarah’s distinctive heartland accent, her strong conservative views, and her hard-hitting rhetoric have been too much for the left to take.

And please don’t tell me Palin came off as not being bright because she misspoke a few times during the 2008 campaign. Like most people speaking off the cuff doing cable TV and radio interviews, I’ve made lots of verbal mistakes.

And why does Joe Biden get a pass from the press for his constant misstatements? Remember when Biden said in 2006, “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.” Would the media let any Republican politician get away with saying such a thing?

Palin said during the 2008 presidential campaign that it was possible to see Russia from an Alaskan island, a true statement. After Tina Fey said while impersonating Palin on Saturday Night Live, “And I can see Russia from my house,” pundits and the news repeatedly mocked Palin for Fey’s line. On the other hand, Barack Obama said there were 57 states when he was a presidential candidate but the media has ignored this and every other Obama misstatement.

Some in the mainstream media tried to undermine Palin’s credibility by pointing out that she attended several colleges to earn a bachelor’s degree in journalism and did not go to an elite college. But for top Republican women, the left really doesn’t care how well educated they are. The sexist grilling the media gave the late Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick – a former Georgetown professor –was much worse than what Palin has been put through. For example, feminist Naomi Wolf once said Kirkpatrick was “a woman without a uterus” because she was a Cold War hawk. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice – a Stanford University professor—was prevented from being the Rutgers University commencement speaker this year by the Rutgers faculty and has been called an “Uncle Tom” by black liberal activists. Harry Belafonte once called Rice a “house slave.”

What did civil and women’s rights groups do to defend Kirkpatrick, Palin, and Rice from such attacks? Nothing.

That brings me to Sarah Palin’s prescient statement concerning the Russian invasion of Georgia when she was the Republican Vice Presidential candidate in 2008. Palin said:

“After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”

This was a truly inspiring prediction. If a similar prediction concerning a Republican president had been made by liberal foreign policy experts like Madeleine Albright, Joseph Nye, or Jane Harman, there would have been dozens of press stories over the last few weeks applauding them for their brilliance and foresight. The few recent media comments about Palin’s 2008 statement have been negative and sneering.

Palin’s prediction would have been controversial even if John McCain had made it because it went against the foreign policy establishment’s historic tendency to downplay threats from Moscow and criticized Obama. Mitt Romney encountered this during a 2012 presidential debate with President Obama when he identified Russia as a major U.S. geopolitical foe. Obama mocked Romney for this remark by flippantly saying “the 1980’s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.”

The news media and foreign policy experts were much harder on Palin in 2008 for her statement about Georgia and Ukraine and portrayed it as another sign of her stupidity. Foreign Policy magazine called Palin’s statement “strange” and “an extremely far-fetched scenario.”

In a March 3 blog post, Foreign Policy “sort of” admitted Palin was right and it was wrong about the Georgia invasion and that it could be followed by a Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, the magazine caveated this by criticizing Palin for not having a background in foreign policy.

Other experts tried to dismiss Palin’s claim in a February 28 Facebook post that she predicted Putin may invade Ukraine if Obama was elected president as only “half true” because they said she only raised this as a possibility and stressed her allegedly weak foreign policy credentials.

But let’s face it, if Dr. Kirkpatrick or Dr. Rice had made Palin’s prediction in 2008, the foreign policy establishment and the mainstream media would have slammed them too. Sarah Palin’s foreign policy background had nothing to do with criticisms of her prediction. It was all about her being a conservative woman.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media has said almost nothing throughout the Obama presidency about the stunning foreign policy incompetence of Mr Obama and his national security team. This includes:

• Consistently misjudging and underestimating Russia as a U.S. adversary, not to mention every other U.S. adversary.

• The president’s naive approach to the Arab Spring and his 2009 “apology tour” speeches in Istanbul and Cairo.

• Laying down red lines and ultimatums to U.S. adversaries but failing to back them up.

• Janet Napolitano, Mr. Obama’s first Homeland Security, trying to remove the word “terrorism” from the U.S. government lexicon and replace it with the nonsensical term “man-caused disasters.”

• Treating Islamist terrorism as a law enforcement matter and reading Miranda rights to terrorist suspects, even some captured on the battlefield.

• Trying to move dangerous al Qaeda inmates from the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba prison facility to prisons in Michigan and Illinois and proposing to try some of these prisoners in New York City.

It’s worth noting that Mr. Obama supported these and many other ill-advised foreign policy initiatives during his presidency despite the fact that he served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The abysmal foreign policy record of President Obama is making Sarah Palin look pretty good. She has shown common sense on national security matters and hasn’t been afraid to buck the establishment. If she had been elected vice president, Palin would have received daily intelligence briefings and the assistance of national security advisers. Like most newly elected to the branch and Congress, Palin would have quickly filled any alleged gap in her foreign policy background.

Harvard Law-educated President Obama had slightly more foreign policy experience than Sarah Palin did in 2008 from his four years in the Senate. However, he lacks her common sense and has surrounded himself with a weak national security team.

Now more than ever we need elected officials with common sense who know how to govern. Sarah Palin’s 2008 prediction about Georgia and Ukraine is another indication of the kind of competent government we missed out on with the election of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The bashing of Palin reflects the determination of the liberal elite to prevent outsiders – especially those who challenge liberal foreign policy assumptions – from assuming higher office. Hopefully, the disastrous domestic and foreign policies of the Obama years will cause Americans realize this and elect outsiders like Palin who will challenge the mainstream media and the foreign policy establishment in the future.

Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst, is a Senior Fellow with the Center for Security Policy and Chief Analyst with LIGNET.com.

The post The Ukraine Crisis Says More About Sarah Palin Than You May Think appeared first on Alaska Politics & Elections.

Alaska’s legislative session is about to come to a close this evening.

It’s doubtful legislators will be done while you’re eating Easter dinner, or even while watching prime time Sunday T.V., but the hope for many Alaskans is that they finish their business and accomplish much.

More likely than not, our state representatives and senators will be pressed to scoot right up against the midnight hour before closing shop. That’s been the case in sessions past. It is guaranteed that every single member of the Legislature, whether in the House or Senate, has a bill, amendment, or combination of both that is important to them. Hundreds of eager special interest groups, unions, non-profits, companies, and advocacies are keeping a close eye on the finale.

Some of our legislators are in a scurried rush to beat the clock and affect a bill in process, pro or con. Legislators would love the Easter Bunny to make an appearance this evening with a fat basket filled with policy successes and ‘yes’ votes on measures they support or sponsored. Maybe they’ve authored legislation that is a signature policy or passion. Perhaps it’s a member of the House or Senate Minority, desperate to add an amendment or block a measure.

 
The feeling is palpable, and anxiety is tense this evening for our public servants in the state capitol, and possibly even more for their staff. Been there, done that (in both capacities).

APE encourages you to send some positive thoughts to Juneau (but don’t call or email – they’re too busy this late in the game to greet sweet nothings).

Just think about a state legislator’s mindset, potentially after two years of hard work on an issue. For most it’s a bill or resolution that staff worked tirelessly researching, presenting, organizing, and then hopefully passing through the policymaker’s talent and networking. The process can be arduous, typically requiring a journey through both bodies and multiple committees, including the intimidating Finance committees, and the gatekeeping Rules chair of both House and Senate, and then the nerve-racking floor vote in two separate chambers.

Logjams in hearings arise for many reasons, ranging from limited committee time, to member questions that may require research and response. There’s also the classic unspoken reason: a chair of a committee simply doesn’t like you or your legislation.

The fate of a cluster of pending legislation in the waning hours of the final session often rests with a few powerful standing committee chairpersons and the leadership.

Back in 2006, voters passed an initiative establishing a 90-day session in statute, which took effect in 2008. It’s still unclear if reducing the session from 120 days to 90 days has made a difference with efficiency, thoroughness, or fiscal responsibility. This determination depends on the viewpoints of the policy maker, benefactor of legislation and the advocacies urging support. In other words, if your bill or capital budget request doesn’t come to fruition by tonight, you may be less than enthused with a 90-day limit to Alaska legislative session.

But what if the Legislature doesn’t finish its business tonight? If enough legislators, or at least the important ones in leadership positions, don’t get passed what they deem critical for their constituent and political agendas, is a special session plausible?

Here’s the link to Alaska statute sections referencing special session:

http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/statutes.asp#24.05.100

One cautionary note: If the Legislature continues past midnight, even a minute after, then a domino effect would happen when it comes to the initiatives on the ballot. Why? Because they will be pushed to the General Election in November. Add to the mix 24-hour budget rules, and the lack of consensus in stressful times, and one never knows. The presumption is that neither body would delay the opportunity for Alaskans to vote in the August Primary Election on minimum wage, marijuana and the Bristol Bay mining ban. But legislators may not have a choice based on the rules and Alaska Constitution. As for the repeal of the Oil and Gas Production Tax (former SB 21) referendum, this one will be safe for the Primary per Alaska’s Constitution no matter when adjournment occurs.

APE suspects the Legislature will go over midnight and the ballot propositions will be pushed to the November election.

 
Becky Bohrer from the Associated Press apparently referenced this same possibility in an article yesterday published in the Anchorage Daily News stating:

“If work runs past midnight, the placement of initiatives on this year’s ballot could be affected. Alaska’s primary date moved up a week, to Aug. 19 this year, under a bill passed last session. Legislative attorney Alpheus Bullard, in a memo last month to French, said if the session lasts beyond 90 days, the three initiatives slated to appear on the primary ballot will get bumped to the next statewide election. A special legislative session, if called instead, would not affect the placement of the initiatives, he said.”  http://www.adn.com/2014/04/19/3433377/lawmakers-aim-to-complete-work.html?sp=%2F99%2F100%2F&ihp=1

 

Whether we witness political posturing into the wee hours of night or a clean adjournment, be prepared for the onslaught of campaign messaging and fundraising invites in the coming weeks as the August Primary is the next big gig. Envision T.V., radio, online, via phone and email, and postal service…Oh Joy!  We in the political communications world have so many delightful ways to make contact with you.
Watch Gavel-to-Gavel if you want to see the real-time deliberations tonight:

 http://www.360north.org/

Happy Easter!

The post A Legislative Easter – Hopping Down the Adjournment Trail appeared first on Alaska Politics & Elections.