Alaska is a land of character and characters – colorful folks who’ve become deliciously quirky icons and who, like the late Uncle Ted Stevens, and the current Don Young, are mixed bags. Sure, the Congressman for All Alaska is admirably unafraid of his party’s leadership in DC. It’s always great to see him thumb his nose at John Boehner. And he completely deserves a gold star for dubbing Governor Sean Parnell “Captain Zero.” But must he wear a propeller beanie on his head in a committee hearing, or wave the penis bone of a walrus at the head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

There’s a certain quirky lad who fits this tradition nicely (the mixed bag one, not the walrus penis bone one). He was characterized by Sarah Palin in her book Going Rogue as an “effete young chap,” and came in third in a three-way race for governor against Palin, and former Democratic governor Tony Knowles.

There’s much to like about Republican Andrew Halcro, especially when considering how far his party has drifted into wingnuttery of late. He’s not a bigot, he doesn’t make demands to see the “real birth certificate,” and has spoken out eloquently against right-wing chestnuts like private school vouchers.  The voucher system, he says, does not make economic sense. He rightfully lambastes the Education Committee for passing HB145 on to the Finance Committee with ”no question how we fund a new program when we’re currently struggling to fund our existing education obligations.”

At a time when many Republicans hyperventilate about the secret Muslim Kenyan in the White House, or try to take steps to ban Sharia law here in Alaska, Halcro is a refreshingly cerebral, civilized sort of fellow. Like David Brooks and David Frum, he’s the sort of Republican of whom progressives will sometimes say nice things.

He has even brilliantly poked fun at his own foppishness in an unforgettable fireside reading of that offending passage from Going Rogue.

So, that’s the nice part.

The less appealing side appears when Halcro channels his inner Mitt Romney, resplendent in all his out-of-touch One-Percentish hyperbolic finery.

The Oil Tax Debate

Like Romney, Halcro has assumed the unenviable task of insisting to people who ought to know better, that not enough income has been upwardly redistributed to The One Percent. At a time Alaska faces domestic violence and sexual assault epidemics, chronic poverty in its rural villages, and school districts that are being forced to cut critically important positions, Halcro insists that it is some of the most profitable corporations on the planet and their absurdly compensated executives who require our sympathy, and our money, from our oil. If the Big Three were only richer, we’d have nothing to worry about. This is, to put it politely, a tough sell.

When Alaskan schoolchildren go to Juneau, and beg for desperately needed resources, only to be told “no” by Governor Zero, it’s a bit obscene to suggest that those who deserve our advocacy and our money are a few bazillionaires in Texas and Great Britain.

Halcro may fan himself and gasp “class warfare!” at this, but the component parts of fiscal policy do not occur in a vacuum. That is to say, there are two sides to the ledger, and each dollar taken from the state of Alaska and given to Texan and British oil companies is a dollar that is not going into our Permanent Fund, not building out our young, underdeveloped infrastructure, and not maintaining our commitment to educate the next generation of Alaskans.

The governor can brag all he likes in his State of the State Address about the sweet economic metrics that trickle like fiscal honey across our state budget—relatively low unemployment and foreclosure rates, coupled with budget surpluses at a time the Lower 48 states are running in the red. But if the net outcome of this is at the expense of our most vulnerable – selling out our future in order to subsidize Conoco CEO Jim Mulva’s next yacht – we may as well be Mississippi. And nobody wants that.

“Fiscal Conservatism”

Why is it most Republicans only discover “fiscal conservatism” when it comes to school kids and basic services, but in the case of tax giveaways to obscenely profitable corporations, they turn into drunk sailors on shore leave?  Even Halcro who comes down on the right side of “school choice” is perfectly willing to throw billions to the oil companies, with guarantee of return on investment. He says on his blog regarding vouchers:

It’s a bad idea. This year we’re paying private tuitions, next year were funding private school improvements. Anytime you give groups with political power direct access to state coffers, you’re in for a penny in for a pound.

Yes. Groups with political power always want more. More power, and more money. And it’s up to us to decide when enough is enough, and to restrain the rampant greed that would rob our state coffers and take money from the things we value, in order to enrich themselves beyond excess.

He goes on:

In this case, education committee members appeared to be all to willing to ignore the pesky little details like how do we financially sustain this new program and how will this impact the public school system which serves ninety percent of Alaskan students.

And he asks us to ignore that hypocrisy, and ignore the pesky little details like how do we financially sustain this $2 billion annual give away, and how will this impact the vital services and programs that serve all the residents of the state?

Perhaps the saddest part of Halcro’s sheltered, clueless elitism is that it colors the admirable parts of him. He’s someone whom thinking people want to like. He is witty, and charming, and good company over a martini. I’d like to think he takes his positions against homophobia and school vouchers on their merits, but have begun like many to wonder whether he simply cannot stomach the ghastly, downmarket Tea Party demographic much in the way old-monied Yankees like Bush Sr. of Kennebunkport could never quite stomach Southern rednecks.

Halcro in Carhartts would look as credible as Dukakis in a tank.

Why So Snippy?

Which brings us to a bizarre trajectory played out in the Alaskan media over the past several months—Halcro’s increasingly heated and snippy tone toward those with the nerve to not share his position on oil taxes.

It’s bizarre because, let’s face it, Halcro has much more in common with Bill Wielechowski and Hollis French than with most who share his oil tax position. I could actually conceive of the three of them matching wits in an impassioned but cerebral debate over a good microbrew.

I can not imagine Andrew enjoying himself while listening to monosyllabic blatherings from Cathy Giessel about how our biggest entitlement problem is public education.

Senators Wielechowski and French are not, as Halcro’s predictable, played-out meme has it, “anti-business” or “anti-oil and gas” or “anti mom and apple pie,” and it’s clear to anyone who is even halfheartedly paying attention. Just to set the record straight, they also don’t wish to kick down your door in the dead of night, eat your puppies, and inject you with liquid socialism.

No, contrary to Halcro’s breathless hyperbole about how Sen. French is a “one man assault on Alaska’s economy” etc. etc., the difference between the senator and Halcro is the difference between believing our relationship to the oil companies should be a partnership versus a servile one. Do we acknowledge that the relationship between Big Oil and Alaska has been one of mutual benefit, and move forward together, or do we become the beaten dog who hopes the master doesn’t get angry with us and smack us around with an empty pipeline? Do we simply want to acknowledge that it’s our oil, and it’s our responsibility to get the most we can for it , for the benefit of our future? Or do we want to hand over $10 billion from our bottom line to multinational corporations over the next five years and pretend that it won’t make a very real difference in the quality of our lives?

This flexibility-of-principle is a pattern with Halcro, who currently runs Avis Rent A Car in Anchorage. Happy to support an income tax, a sales tax, the raiding of the permanent fund, and even a head tax on Alaska workers (including children) during his legislative stint, apparently the only people who deserve tax breaks in Halcro’s view are oil …and rental car companies. Go figure.

It’s been correctly pointed out that oil pays 90% of the bills in our state. And the first thing any investment advisor will tell you is to diversify your portfolio instead of putting all your eggs into the same basket. In the case of Alaskan oil, it gives a handful of powerful corporations an undue amount of influence over those we elect to represent us. Alaska’s economy needs more diversity, not less.

Where the Rubber Meets the Road

Which brings us to the final Romney analogy. While a local right-wing blogger or two and their twelve readers may be urging Halcro to challenge Sen. French, simply because they hate the latter for being a thorn in their side, Halcro shouldn’t kid himself. Supporters of Hollis French will walk across broken glass to get to the polls because he’s likable, he’s effective, he’s smart, and he makes sense. Mental ninja gymnastics are not required to understand his positions across issues. Halcro just doesn’t inspire that kind of commitment from the GOP’s activist base, largely because they correctly view him as not one of their own, accurately remember him giving the Republican caucus the finger during his short legislative stint, and can be forgiven for wondering why, save for his position on oil taxes, he’d even run as a Republican anyway.

He’d probably get a nice check from Rebecca Logan and the rest of the oily “Make Alaska Submissive Coalition,” but good luck getting any of them to knock on doors in freezing weather.

By Elstun Lauesen

One of the terms we often hear lately is “agenda.” This politician has an “agenda” or that group has an “agenda.” Mostly we mere mortals are left to speculate what an “agenda” might be among the players in the rarified climes of politics. Thanks to the just concluded trial over the lines of the political districts drawn by the redistricting board, we get an actual glance into one of these “agendas,” the agenda of the Republican Party of Alaska.

By way of background let me explain that every decennial census requires adjustments of political boundaries based on the “one man one vote” decision by the Supreme Court in Reynolds vs. Sims — that is — each district must have an equivalent base which, in Alaska, is around 17,500 per representative. In sparsely populated areas, the districts can be very large. The districts need to conform to some standard of compactness, continuity and socioeconomic integration of the population. You can imagine that each 10 years, depending on who is in power, the party out of power will be suspicious of a political “agenda” in the drawing of the election map.

The board faced a difficult situation. Since statehood, Alaska required voters to read and write English, which was a common device used in southern states to limit Black voting. In Alaska it limited Native voting, and continued a controversial process that began in territorial days. More recently, Alaska has enacted “English-only” laws which prohibit use of ballots in any other language, and has not provided translators in Native communities where English is not the predominate language in use. These laws have been found to be discriminatory, and they have subjected Alaska to federal oversight intended to stop discrimination against Black voters in the south.

In the recent redistricting trial, Judge McConahy observed that talking about race and politics in Alaska is difficult. As Alaskans we often want to delude ourselves and pretend that we are better than the rest of the country and that we have progressed to the point that as a society we recognize and honor the humanity in all people. The recent litigation over the new plan redrawing Alaska’s legislative districts provided an ugly reminder that our smugness is probably not well earned.

The redistricting plan upset many because it created a district that included the Ester/Goldstream precincts in Fairbanks and the Yupik villages at the mouth of the Yukon River. Most Alaskans had difficulty understanding this plan, because the redistricting board didn’t publicly articulate why it was creating such a district. When the reasons came out in the trial, the press, unfortunately, focused on the easy and obvious: the partisan battle between Republicans and Democrats, and largely ignored the redistricting board’s stated reasons.

Under the federal Voting Rights Act, the U.S. Justice Department must review changes in Alaska’s election laws to insure that changes, such as redistricting, does not dilute the strength of Native voters. Some would like to characterize this as one more layer of senseless federal regulation, but as Alaska’s redistricting board started their work, they discovered Alaska’s dirty little secret.

The board found that racial block voting was increasing in Alaska. More specifically, they discovered that white Republican voters will generally not cross over to vote for a candidate preferred by Alaska Native voters. They discovered that white Democratic voters were more willing to cross over and vote for a candidate preferred by Alaska Native voters. The board claimed that the relative decline in Alaska Native population in rural Alaska required that a district combining some rural Native area and some “urban” non-Native area needed to be created. Thus, in order to not dilute Native voting strength, “urban” white Democrats needed to be added to this new “rural/urban” district. The theory is that urban white Republicans would never cross over to vote for a Native preferred candidate. Of course, the obvious unstated assumption is that white Republicans exhibit racist voting behaviors. The sensitivity of this unstated assumption is why the Republican-dominated board never publicly explained its decision, as well as the discomfort experienced by the press covering in the trial.

The challenge to the redistricting plan generated the predictable knee-jerk reaction by the Alaskan political and media establishment. “The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner,” for instance, has just called for an end to the federal Voting Rights Act review. They characterize the problem as unnecessary federal regulation. And they argue that Alaska should seek to end federal oversight of our election processes. But ignoring racism in our society only provides comfort for racists. It is in such comfort that racism gestates.

We Alaskans see ourselves as a tolerant multi-ethic society. We share that vision not because we are a tolerant multi-ethic society but because we want to be that tolerant multi-ethic society. But we will never achieve our dream if we do not confront the reality in which we find ourselves. We will not, nor should we, escape the need for federal oversight aimed at combating racism at the ballot box, until we take the necessary steps to purge racism from the soul of our society. Sadly, that cannot be accomplished by the Democrats in Ester/Goldstream. Rather the task is a challenge to the Alaska Republican party.

Yesterday, Senate President Gary Stevens (R) spoke to Commonwealth North at the Captain Cook Hotel in Anchorage about a variety of issues facing the Legislature in its upcoming Session, including HB 110 (also known as Governor Captain Zero’s oil tax plan). Below, you will find a copy of his prepared remarks. Senators Kevin Meyer (R), Hollis French (D), Bill Wielechowski (D), Bettye Davis (D), and Linda Menard (R) were also in attendance for the organization’s annual Legislative Meet & Greet.

Kudos to Gary Stevens for putting Alaska first. He nails this from beginning to end, and calls the Chamber of Commerce’s “grading system” out for the farce that it is.  One observer described the reaction from the crowd as “stunned silence.”

The Mudflats has not awarded one of these as of late, but bestows upon Gary Stevens, the coveted Golden Spine Award.

To listen to Senator Stevens’ Speech, click here.

Senator Stevens’ Prepared Remarks

Thank you for inviting me to speak. Frankly, you’ve got a lot of nerve. I stand before you as the recipient of an “F” from the Alaska Chamber of Commerce and the Resource Development Council. Legislators were given grades by these organizations, apparently based on our support or lack of it for the Governor’s Oil Tax Bill, HB 110. So, the biggest issue facing the legislature this year is STATE OIL TAXES. Big surprise, right? This has been the biggest issue for many years running.

All Representatives who got A’s voted for the Governors oil tax bill, while those of us who got D’s and F’s either voted against it in the House, or like myself, dared to question it in the Senate. Former Governor Jay Hammond was a constituent of mine for several years after he left office. Hammond, liked to quote Article 8, Section 2 of the Alaska Constitution:

The legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the state, including land and waters, for the maximum benefit of its people.

That’s people, not businesses or corporations, but the people of Alaska – You.

It’s a very unusual constitution in this regard. Now, you should know, I love the oil industry. I want to see more oil flowing through the pipeline. Oil provides jobs to Alaskans as well as lots of jobs to outsiders. But it is our oil, and Prudhoe Bay belongs to us. It is true oil pays the bills here in Alaska. Some 90% of our annual revenue comes from oil taxes. So, we like you, we respect you, and we need you. We want you to be profitable.

So let’s not forget the constitution or Jay Hammond. But, to be fair, let’s not forget the abuses we have suffered at the hands of the oil industry.

Remember Edmund Burke’s famous quotation – “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” I don’t want to dwell on those abuses but I would ask you to remember just 3 events in our historic relations with the industry, so we won’t repeat them. Surprisingly enough, so many Alaskans don’t know or remember these events:

1. Remember Amarada Hess, when the industry was found guilty of falsification and depriving the state of nearly 1 billion dollars

2. Remember the Exxon Valdez, when the industry despoiled our environment from which it has not fully recovered even today

3. Remember Bill Allen, when some of our elected politicians were bribed and sent to prison

Those 3 events are not the only abuses we have experienced. These are just the 3 I’d like you to remember.

Alaska v. Amarada Hess was a court case which found that from 1977 to 1992 companies were guilty of “deliberate falsification in computing the price paid to Alaska for its royalty oil.” It ended with the judge saying that we, the state, were guilty of “inexcusable trustfulness” in dealing with the oil companies.

You did get that, didn’t you? : The judge said we trusted the oil companies too much. That we were guilty of inexcusable trustfulness, WOW. I think you can get into heaven for that.

The 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill was a disaster I well remember. With enormous damage to Prince William Sound, the Alaska Oil Spill Commission said Alaskans were abused in Exxon’s approach towards risk management, saying the company showed “a corporate culture of irresponsibility” and was unwilling to jeopardize profit when it came to safety and risk mitigation.

I was elected to the legislature in 2000 and was surprised to see Bill Allen and Veco employees so often in the halls and offices of the capitol. As we now know, some of our elected public officials were bribed yet still voted on oil tax bills, and even went to prison for their actions.

So, that’s all in the past. You may say things have improved greatly and I want to believe that.

Still, the wise person learns from history and remembers our past. We don’t want to be accused again of inexcusable trustfulness. We don’t want anyone to think that a culture of irresponsibility is OK, and we don’t ever want to see our elected politicians bribed. To maximize benefits to the industry and to the people – What’s good for the industry may not be good for you.

So, let’s get back to our current situation and the bill introduced by the Governor. It is HB 110 and readily, if barely, passed the House and was sent on to the Senate. It gives away billions of dollars in taxes to the oil industry. Upwards of $9 to $10 billion of your money with very little in return to Alaska.

We have been asking the Administration for months to give us some proof this will do Alaska some good. We asked them to make their case. Give us reasons to vote for it. Show us the proof that we get something out of giving up billions. What does it mean at various oil prices? We have yet to receive that information. And I hope it will be forthcoming before our session begins in January.

Jay Hammond was asked how he would tax the oil companies and he said, “For every cent we could possible get.” Sometimes, even I think Governor Hammond may have gotten a little carried away. I think what he meant was that Alaskans need to get their fair share. He knew the job of the oil company CEOs was to maximize benefits for their shareholders, and they have done that. They have made enormous profits. And I don’t question that they should make enormous profits. They have done well for themselves and for us. But Hammond saw his job, as Governor of Alaska, to do the same for his shareholders – to maximize benefits for you – to make sure Alaska got its fair share.

So, the Senate still has the Governor’s bill, HB 110. Right now, it is in Senate Labor and Commerce Committee. They are studying the issue of jobs. We all know how important this is to Alaskans. We have been told, if we pass HB 110, that more Alaskans will be hired on the North Slope. But as the committee has done its work, they have found we have nearly as many jobs now as we have ever had and they found that the lion’s share of new jobs have gone to outsiders, not to Alaskans.
The normal course for HB 110 would be to go to Senate Resources, to Senate Finance, then to the Senate Floor. Many Senators have concerns about the bill – real and important questions. I suspect if it does make it out of the Senate, it will only be with major changes. A big issue is that of progressivity, which is the tax we charge when oil reaches high levels of value. This I think is something that could be done and might give the oil companies the relief they seek. Also we will be discussing heavy oil. My priority is and will remain to provide for the maximum benefit to the people of Alaska

It is quite telling that Pedro Van Meurs, an international oil consultant, in his presentation here in Anchorage earlier this month implied that Alaska tax rates are not particularly out of line with other regions and suggested that there may be no need to make significant changes in Alaska’s oil tax program. He did not recommend approval of the Governor’s HB 110. This is the best evidence yet that the Senate was right. Let me say that again, Pedro Van Meurs comments are the best evidence yet that the Senate was right.

The past session and this interim have been most contentious. The Senate did not rush to pass the Governor’s oil tax give away bill. We were called a “do nothing” senate because we would not be rushed into a precipitous decision that could cost the state billions with little in return.

In conclusion – Have I mentioned the State Chamber of Commerce and the Resource Development Council? I think I did. As you know they gave those of us who dared question the Governor’s oil tax bill failing grades. They gave D’s and F’s to just about every Representative who voted on the House floor against the bill. Realize the vote was 22 to 16, so that’s hardly a landslide. They also gave failing grades to all the Senators who dared ask questions about the bill.

Many of those representatives and senators are right here in this room, right now. Look around you and maybe you will see members with giant letters on their chests. It’s right there if you can’t see it. Sort of like a target. A Giant Scarlet Letter. Though I prefer to think of it as a Red Badge of Courage.

Anyway, thank you for inviting me.

Let’s play a little game. Imagine this scenario, and then tell me in what country this story takes place. You wake up and go to work. Maria, in the next cubicle over, isn’t there. And she isn’t there the next day. You and your coworkers come to find out that military officers knocked on her door in the middle of the night and took her away somewhere. She was suspected of being an enemy of the government – suspected of being a terrorist. No benchmark of proof was necessary. No presumption of innocence. The executive branch of the government gave the order, and the military responded. You realize that not only do you not know where she is, but she can’t call you or anyone. She has no legal representation. She has not been charged with anything. She can be held indefinitely on suspicion… of something. And there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

If someone had told you in the year 2000, that eleven years later, a Democratic led Senate in the United States of America would vote to pass a bill including a provision that allowed the United States military (not law enforcement), on U.S. soil, to detain and hold American citizens on a suspicion of terrorism, and to hold them indefinitely without legal representation, and without even a charge, would you have believed them?  Perhaps if you were a Japanese American of a certain age, you might. Almost 70 years ago, Executive Order 9066 authorized the U.S. military to remove any person from designated “military zones” without charge, trial or due process.  What happened next was the forced evacuation and internment of more than 120,000 Japanese Americans, two thirds of whom were U.S. citizens. Many spent years in camps. Their only crime? They looked like the people who bombed Pearl Harbor.

Last week the Senate voted on an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill of 2011. The Feinstein amendment said that it was not okay to use the military on US soil against the citizens of its country. The majority of your elected representatives in the senate didn’t much like that idea, and voted it down 55-45. It remains to be seen if the bill will see a presidential veto.

Every school child learns about Habeas corpus. It is one of those procedural remedies which made us, as Americans, feel grateful for our system of justice. It was one of those reasons that we felt proud to live in a country where individual liberties were valued, where the rights of the citizens meant something. We embraced that ideal of the founders that the people ran the government. We were not a citizenrywho lived in fear of tyrants, of governments who wielded their power by unjustly imprisoning those they wished to silence, those who were considered a “threat” by the subjective standard of the executive branch. This was America, and Americans were free.

But Habeas corpus is only a guarantee and a procedural remedy against illegal detention. Illegal used to mean held without charge for an indefinite period of time. Illegal used to mean that the government could not use the military against its own people. Now, it doesn’t. So, the former best safeguard of our individual liberties has been put through the wringer. Illegal detention doesn’t look like it used to, and neither does Habeas corpus.

And then there’s the Constitution – the rule book, our political Bible, the blueprint of our nation, our birthright as citizens. It had a few things to say about criminal prosecution and detention. Who can forget these old favorites?

‘In the trial of all crimes there shall be a jury, and the trial shall be held in the State where said crimes have been committed.”

No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, except upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.

As an American citizen, this is what you get.  This is the prize for winning the political lottery. This is why politicians love to say how “exceptional” we are as a country. These are the actual freedoms that our troops supposedly go fight for – the very troops who may now be called upon to seize and arrest you with no charge, no presumption of innocence, no jury trial, no lawyer, no court,  in violation of the Constitution they have sworn to protect and defend.

That’s a nice kettle of fish.

Now, don’t delude yourself. It isn’t like the Bush and the Obama administrations haven’t been doing this already. It’s one of the things for which progressives and Democrats used to love to criticize the Bush administration. But most seem strangely silent about the fact that the Obama administration is doing the very same thing.  And the “Constitutional conservatives”  and small government Republicans who turned a blind eye to Bush, but were happy to criticize Obama, are now strangely silent when the vast majority of Republicans voted against the Feinstein amendment.

So, what’s the difference if all this has already been going on for years?  Why should we care?  The difference is this:

First, this will actually codify unconstitutional acts into our body of law. It condones it. It puts it on the books. It is another hatchet mark in the Tree of Liberty, to use a favorite Tea Party metaphor. And every stroke of the axe brings the tree closer to collapse.

Second, we now have the privilege of knowing exactly who is on the side of the Constitution and the intent of the founders of the country. We also know who is willing to sell your most basic unalienable rights down the river. They do it because of political calculation, ineptitude, or desire to keep the nation in a perpetual state of war with an amorphous enemy that exists under every rock, and behind every tree until the end of time. The battlefield is everywhere, and the enemy is “terrorism” – the dark art practiced by those who “hate our freedom.” Ironically, we just gave them less to hate.

I was pleased to see that there were Republicans who actually walked their small government, individual liberties, Constitutional talk. Kudos to Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Susan Collins of Maine, and Mike Lee of Utah for breaking with their party and standing up for the people of the country.

It would have been nice to see Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) have the courage to do the same. She has been criticized by the far right for being centrist, and moderate, and sometimes even liberal. The reason Democrats were given by the Murkowski campaign to vote for her in her historic and victorious write-in campaign (against far right Republican candidate Joe Miller, and progressive Scott McAdams) was that if she were re-elected in this way, it would free her to be more “herself.” She’d now be unshackled and not beholden to the pressures of the Republican party. She could vote her heart.  Well, take a good look, Democrats who voted for Lisa Murkowski. Peek in to that heart and tell me what you see – it either belongs to someone too weak to buck the party that threw her under the bus in the 2010 election, or an attorney who thinks nothing of voting against the Constitution she swore to uphold.

Ironically, both of her opponents in the 2010 senate race would have voted for the amendment, despite their very different political philosophies.

When asked if he would have voted for the Feinstein amendment, Joe Miller said in a statement to The Mudflats, “I absolutely would have voted for it.  Please note that my position on the Constitution and the liberties it guarantees has been consistent, no matter the position of party leadership.  I am very concerned about the increasing reach of the federal government to the detriment of individual liberties.  Alaskans can rest assured that whatever I do in the future, I will continue to fight aggressively to protect their fundamental rights.”

Democratic candidate Scott McAdams agreed, and told The Mudflats, “Empowering the executive branch with the power to arrest, detain and deprive a sovereign citizen the due process rights promised in our constitution is undemocratic and anti-American. No amount of security is worth demolishing the civil liberties that make America great. I am appalled Senators from a state that values individual and civil liberty above all would support this horrible affront to the core of who we are as Alaskans.

“As a locally elected leader, I have seen inconsistencies between a governing body’s intended purpose of a policy or ordinance and the manner in which such is carried out by staff. As community members, we would rally against an official who misused their authority, suspend a child from school without a stated purpose, or fire a public employee without just cause. It is outrageous to imagine that we as citizens would ever allow our local police departments to arrest and indefinitely hold a suspect with no promise of a trial. Our senators can’t possibly be naive enough to believe that the potential for abuse inherent in this short-sighted security measure is not real, and I hope Alaskans let their delegation know it.”

When Lisa Murkowski’s father Frank Murkowski lost the gubernatorial primary to Sarah Palin, the bumper sticker “Anyone but Frank” was seen on the rear ends of cars and trucks across the state. So, who would have voted for the retention of your civil liberties in the senate? Who would have voted to preserve the intent of the writ of Habeas Corpus, and the Constitution?  In 2010, the answer would have been “Anyone but Lisa.”

Now, let’s look at the Democrats who voted against this amendment – those who bucked their party in order to do the wrong thing. Here are the Democrats who think that violating your Constitutional rights is OK, as long as it serves their own political purposes – Richard Blumenthal (CT), Daniel Inouye (HI), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Mary Landrieu (LA), Carl Levin (MI), Joe Manchin (WV), Ben Nelson (NE), Mark Pryor (AR), Jack Reed (RI), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), and yes, Mark Begich of Alaska.

Shame on every Democrat who decided to buck their party, only to officially codify the theft of your Constitutional rights.

Any Alaskan who doesn’t have their head in the sand isn’t surprised by Murkowski’s vote. But, in a moment when Mark Begich could have distinguished himself from Murkowski, appealed to civil libertarians in Alaska (of which there are many from the Tea Party to the Occupy movement), defended the oath taken by servicemen and women in the military, and didn’t even have to vote against his party, he blew it.

As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air –however slight -lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.
– Justice William O. Douglas, US Supreme Court (1939-75)

Fifty five senators who feared to look “soft on terror” have taken away our basic civil liberties in a way the terrorists never could.  Who should we really fear?

Here are a few of the items that will be up for bid!  It should be a great time!

* Halibut Cove Weekend. Two nights for up to 4 guests at Peter Mjos’ beachfront rustic cabin at Halibut Cove, across Kachemak Bay from Homer. Enjoy a unique and fun-filled excursion hosted by Peter and Karen. Includes hiking in Kachemak Bay State Park, clamming and kayaking. Gorgeous view. Includes all meals, as well as Gin & Tonics made with glacier ice!

* Two Night Stay at Laughing Raven Guest House in Homer. Two nights at a private, luxurious home in Homer for 6-8 people. The Hillstrand family built and operated the Land’s End Resort in Homer, and now Mo Hillstrand operates this spacious rental home overlooking the Homer Spit. Fully equipped, 3 bedrooms + sofa bed in TV room; hot tub and grill on the deck. Perfect get-away spot for large family or up to four couples.

* Vancouver Island Boating Adventure. Join owners Mike Singsaas and Rocky Plotnick on board their 48-foot Sailing Vessel “Trinity”. Two adventurers can spend up to 6 nights in the private guest cabin. The boat is docked at Canoe Cove Marina on southern Vancouver Island. Nearby attractions include Butchart Gardens, bike trails, the Gulf Islands and downtown Victoria, BC. Offer includes food & beverages and the unique charm of the local area.

* Upper Kenai River Float Trip for Two. Join Alaska AFL-CIO President Vince Beltrami for a fly-fishing trip for two (lunch and fishing equipment provided).

* Alaska ACES hockey with Jerry Mackie. Tickets for an Alaska ACES home game at the Sullivan Arena for up to 4 guests. Watch the ACES from the owner’s box with co-owner Jerry Mackie. Includes passes to Boomer’s Club VIP Lounge for snacks and beverages pre-game and between the 1st and 2nd periods.

* Harry Crawford’s “Hot Louisiana Cookout” for 10-12 people. Bid Winner and Harry to decide when and where to create this “Hot Feast.” Menu can include ettouffe, gumbo, jambalaya, barbecued ribs and or chicken, boudin, crawfish, shrimp or oysters, hot pecans, wine or juicy politics depending on the Winning Bidder’s desire.

* Conversation and Coffee with Fran Ulmer. Up to 4 guests will enjoy stimulating conversation with our former Lieutenant Governor and UAA Chancellor in her West Anchorage home. Fran Ulmer will provide coffee and a light brunch/snacks.

* Hawaii Yoga Retreat – Enjoy a relaxing and fun-filled yoga vacation on the Big Island of Hawaii. One week package includes 7 nights at the Kalani Honua Retreat Center, 2 yoga classes daily, 3 delicious healthy meals each day, optional evening programs, and use of the pool, hottub and Kalani amenities. January 2013 date TBA.

Kudos, and a rousing “Ho ho ho!” to Rep. Scott Kawasaki from Fairbanks! He has introduced legislation aimed at protecting children’s health from unnecessary and dangerous chemicals in everyday consumer and child products. The bill would require Alaska to adopt and publish a watch list of priority chemicals of high concern, and would also requires manufacturers to disclose the toxic chemicals they add to products. The bill authorizes the state to require safer alternatives.

“This would be a huge victory for the health of our children,” said Representative Kawasaki, “There are holes in our laws that allow toxic chemicals in everything from rubber ducks to baby dolls. Alaska must ensure that toxic toys aren’t sold to unknowing parents.”

Rep. Kawasaki’s office released a statement explaining that

House Bill 238 would establish Alaska as a leader in safe chemicals policy reform, along with Maine, Minnesota and Washington, which all passed similar legislation. House Bill 238 creates a list of chemicals already known to harm children and a process for Alaska to take advantage of the best scientific research and phase out the use of these chemicals that are known toxins. The bill also requires manufacturers to disclose the use of these chemicals in products and authorizes the Department of Health and Social Services to phase out the use of dangerous chemicals when safer alternatives are available.

“Studies show children are particularly harmed by toxic chemicals even at very low doses because their bodies are still developing and especially vulnerable,” Representative Kawasaki said. “Children inevitably put toys in their mouths and parents deserve to know what is in them.”

Bisphenol-A, a chemical widely used in consumer products such as plastic baby bottles is known to harm children and came under fire recently from government scientists in the United States. The National Toxicology Program reversed a previous opinion by declaring that Bisphenol-A may be linked to a number of common and serious reproductive and developmental problems including breast cancer and early puberty. Under HB 238 Bisphenol-A could be listed as a dangerous toxin which would allow for specific measures to curb its use. The Alaska Public Interest Research Group recently published the 26^th Annual Report: The Trouble in Toyland in advance of the Christmas shopping season. It includes important information and tips on toy buying which you can read HERE.

Please contact your legislators and urge their support of this important bill that will help keep our babies and children safe all year long.

Are we really surprised that Alaska is overrepresented in anything having to do with bizarre politics?

No, we are not.

Inspired by the very strange Herman Cain ad, in which his campaign manager, as a finale, takes a nice deep drag off a half-smoked cigarette, followed by a cutaway to an extreme closeup of Herman Cain staring in to the camera and taking a full ten seconds to finally and veeery sloooowwwly smile, the Washington Post has posted the top ten most bizarre political ads of all time.

Guess who won the top spot?

Anyone living in Alaska at the time will remember it. The gold medal went to none other than Mike Gravel, former Alaska Senator and candidate for President in 2008. Behold the majesty. In a staring contest, our guy would wipe the floor with Herman Cain. But don’t tune out half way through. Something does happen, but I don’t want to be the spoiler.

Also making a showing in the top ten was a spot from Alaska Congressional candidate Diane Benson that same year. I actually thought this one was pretty hilarious.

You can check out the others HERE.

Well, this is one that definitely stood out.

We’ve got two candidates – Neal Foster, and Donny Olson. They’re both from Nome, and they are both running for re-election to the state legislature – Foster in the House, and Olson in the Senate.

Now, let’s put on our reading spectacles and have a careful look.

First, let’s see who our hosts for the event were. Who were those notable members of the community, whose ideals and principles are aligned with the candidate, and who put their names out there in close affiliation as if to say, “I, (fill in your own impressive name) support this candidate, and by virtue of that fact, so should you.” Let’s have a look at the top four.

1) John Shively – Pebble Partnership

Whoa. Right off the bat, number one sponsor, name in front, loud and proud. Shively used to be Chief of Staff for Governor Bill Sheffield and got caught lying, shredding documents, and being a general ne’er do well. He decided to turn his life around by doing something equally abhorrent, taking the reins on the Pebble Mine Project which threatens to destroy a huge commercial, sport, and subsistence fishery, the way of life for Alaska Natives in the region, and jeopardize thousands of sustainable jobs – all to line the pockets of some of the wealthiest and dirtiest environmental degraders in the world, in the form of foreign mining conglomerates Anglo-American and Northern Dynasty Minerals.

2) Gail Phillips – Former Republican Speaker of the House, and current shill/flak for… you guessed it… Pebble Partnership. She’s the Chairperson for the group “Truth About Pebble.” Yes, the name is as Orwellian as it sounds. Think “Ministry of Truth”, “Patriot Act” and “Clear Skies Act.”

3) John Binkley – Fairbanks native son, and former Republican candidate for Governor of Alaska. He ran in the primary against Frank Murkowski and then long-shot Sarah Palin. She used to call him “Bink” and “Rich Man Binkley” and “the machine candidate.” She accused him of “stealing” her website, and reacted to his copycat ways with a scathing “Shhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzz.” She worried that he was going “use his goofy grin” and the support of some of his influential “Mormon buddies” to gain support. She despised him as one of the corrupt “Good Ol’ Boys” that were the movers and shakers in the Republican Party, and as part of the problem she wanted to expunge from state politics. She shouldn’t have worried. But, Mr. Rich Man Bink landed on his feet and now works at the Alaska Cruise Association.

4) Orin Seybert – The founder of Peninsula Airways, and large political contributor to Republican candidates over the years. A quick search reveals that since 2006, he’s made 14 donations to Congressman Don Young (R), 7 to the late Sen. Ted Stevens (R), and 1 to former Gov. Frank Murkowski (R).

OK, knowing all that, are you ready for the question? This is going to sound like a total no-brainer. Ready?

What political party do both of the legislators for whom this fundraiser is being thrown belong to?

~Rep. Neal Foster and his candidate for United States Senate

If you’re still on the fence, take a look at where the fundraiser is being held – McGinley’s Pub in Anchorage. Yes, the same McGinley’s Pub of which Mayor Dan Sullivan is part owner. That little factoid totally clinches it for you, right?

Yes, they are Democrats.

(A collective WHA??? is heard over the mudflats)

You’ll notice how the flier carefully avoids that fact. They aren’t “Democrats” who’ve made a difference. They are “legislators” who’ve made a difference. What difference? Well, they’ve certainly made a difference in constituents’ ability to tell what political party they belong to, that’s for sure.

And this leads me to a question. Do we as Democrats (yes, I am still one for now) have no set of minimum basic requirements to allow our candidates to proudly put that D after their names? Should they not, in fact, draw to them people who believe as Democrats do, who want to see Democrats in office, and who support Democratic ideals?

Yes, I would argue, we should.

Perhaps there are those who would admonish a Democrat who said this with the argument, “Why are we fighting amongst ourselves? Let’s not eat our own!” But is there not some point at which we draw a line? Who is “our own?” And who is the “You” in the headline of this invitation? Inquiring minds want to know.

A man is known, the old adage goes, by the company he keeps. And this is some sad, sad company indeed for anyone who claims to represent the party for which they are registered. And truly, if these are your friends, and those who support you financially, and those who host fundraisers for you, then for crying out loud have the decency to take of the D-sguise and proclaim that you’re one of them.

[h/t Mudflatter North of the Range]

I roll over lazily, stretch, yawn, and open one eye…

I do a combined gasp/shriek, recoil a little, and bury my face in the pillow.

Yes, my strange bedfellow is still here. I thought he left after the 2010 election, but apparently not. Given that you all know how I feel about former U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller, that I agree with virtually none of his political philosophy, and that I am grateful every day that he is not in Washington, D.C., he does bring up an interesting point to the readers of his website.

The topic of the article is pretty much the only thing I agree with Joe Miller about, with the notable exception of the fact that I, too, would rather have had Scott McAdams as Senator than Lisa Murkowski. Miller’s website links to an article by a man many of you know from The Mudflats, one Mr. Brad Friedman. He is more used to having strange bedfellows than I am, and this is because the issue closest to his heart, and the one to which he devotes an incredible amount of time, is election integrity.

Election integrity simply means that your vote should count one time, and represent the actual way you voted. It means having confidence in the methodology and accuracy of the vote count. Seems simple enough, and most people just assume this to be the case. That’s what representative democracy is all about, right? One person, one accurately-counted vote.

The more you learn about this issue, the more horrified you will get. Not just in Alaska, but across the nation there are consistent problems with ensuring an accurate vote. Machines can be manipulated, numbers changed, ballots are kept in unsecured locations, results show that they were changed with no record of who did it or when…

Republicans are the main culprits suspected of the hinkiness, but there are exceptions. As it always is with the human beings, the people tempted to abuse power are the ones who have it. So, election integrity is NOT a partisan issue. It is amazing though, that when you stick up for the principle, how often you will be accused of being partisan. Just ask Brad Friedman who, depending on what side happens to be in his cross-hairs, has been accused of being a Republican hack, or a “Democrat” hack.

It should be said also, that The Mudflats got its share of grief by agreeing with Joe Miller that the Alaskan voting system is broken, and needs to be repaired. But we march on anyway, because in this case, regardless of how brutal the game is between the red shirts and the blue shirts, we all must agree on the rules or there is no game.

So what’s got Joe Miller, and me in knots today? I’ll tell you what. (my emphasis added below)

It could be one of the most disturbing e-voting machine hacks to date.

Voting machines used by as many as a quarter of American voters heading to the polls in 2012 can be hacked with just $10.50 in parts and an 8th grade science education, according to computer science and security experts at the Vulnerability Assessment Team at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. The experts say the newly developed hack could change voting results while leaving absolutely no trace of the manipulation behind.

“We believe these man-in-the-middle attacks are potentially possible on a wide variety of electronic voting machines,” said Roger Johnston, leader of the assessment team “We think we can do similar things on pretty much every electronic voting machine.”

The Argonne Lab, run by the Department of Energy, has the mission of conducting scientific research to meet national needs. The Diebold Accuvote voting system used in the study was loaned to the lab’s scientists by VelvetRevolution.us, of which the Brad Blog is a co-founder. Velvet Revolution received the machine from a former Diebold contractor.

Yes, the Diebold Accuvote is subject to massive tampering from any Junior MacGyver with a paper clip, a wad of gum and a cell phone. Alarmingly, Dr. Roger Johnston of Argonne National Lab’s Vulnerability Assessment Team now believes they could use a similar method to manipulate the vote count on a paper-ballot based optical-scan system like the ones we use in Alaska as well!

So, in other words, the low-rent attack Argonne has demonstrated — requiring no knowledge of the voting system software, $10 to $26 in off-the-shelf computer parts, and little more than an 8th grade computer lab education — could also be implemented not just on touch-screen e-voting systems, with or without a so-called “paper trail,” but also on the paper ballot op-scanners used to count the majority of votes that will be cast in the U.S. in next year’s Presidential election.

But here’s the good news. You’ve got some homework that you may actually enjoy! You know your relatives that are the die-hard Teabagger conservatives? The ones that you’re already dreading having to talk to at Thanksgiving? The ones that, after you talk about the weather, and football, and the kids, you find yourself with nothing to say but “Pass the gravy”?  Well good news. Because now, you can send them to Joe Miller’s website and tell them to read the fascinating article there. You can tell them how right on the money it is, and blow their minds.

Here’s where you have to make a call. Depending on your relatives, you can do one of two things:

1) The Kumbaya Strategy – You can talk about the need for good people on both sides of the aisle to find issues on which they can agree, and that are important to the country, and point out election integrity as one of those issues.

2) The Cynical “Whatever it Takes” Strategy – You can withhold that information and let them believe that Joe Miller is a visionary reformer who is helping to bring an important issue to light. (Warning – Take care not to choke on your turkey)

Whichever strategy you choose to employ, encourage them to share the article and the information with all their Tea Party pals. The important thing is to make as many people aware of, and invested in this issue as possible.

You can read Joe Miller’s intro to the Friedman article, in which he asks questions regarding the Lt. Governor’s refusal to grant him a hand count even when he offered to pay for it,  HERE.

Or you can skip right to Brad Friedman’s article in its entirety at Salon HERE.

For hard-core election integrity junkies, you can read more at The Brad Blog HERE.

That’s it! Keep going.

Well done. I knew you could do it.

With those images assaulting us endlessly in the media, it’s been incredibly refreshing to see two amazing, strong, intelligent women who can also boast sanity credentials enter the field.

First, in Wisconsin, ground zero for labor activism taking a dramatic stand against Governor Scott Walker and his cronies, we have Representative Tammy Baldwin (D) who has entered the race for a Senate seat which will soon be vacated by retiring Democratic Senator Herb Kohl.

It won’t be an easy race. Baldwin is unabashedly liberal, openly gay, and an incumbent in a Congress which is viewed negatively by the public at large. She’ll have a tough fight, and though she’s been re-elected since 1998 in her district, this will be her first statewide race. Will she play in the red rural districts as well as she plays in her own? Time will tell, but if anyone can pull it off, this feisty kick-ass candidate who was both the first woman, and the first openly gay person to be elected to congress in Wisconsin can do it.

“… this campaign is not about me,” she said. “It’s about the middle class. People are asking, ‘Doesn’t anyone hear us?’ Well I do. That’s why I’m running.”

You can donate to Baldwin’s campaign HERE.

Next up, a woman who has created vast amounts of political buzz and national name recognition in recent months – Elizabeth Warren. Her list of credentials is beyond impressive:

Elizabeth Warren is an American attorney, law professor, and United States Senate candidate. She served as Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She is also the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where she has taught contract law, bankruptcy, and commercial law. In the wake of the 2008-2011 financial crisis, she became the chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the U.S. banking bailout (formally known as the Troubled Assets Relief Program). She long advocated for the creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was established by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act signed into law by President Barack Obama on July 21, 2010. As the special advisor she worked on implementation of the CFPB.

She’ll be running as a Democrat for Ted Kennedy’s old seat that Senator Scott Brown is currently occupying. Karma and Elizabeth Warren are coming to take it back.

Referred to as one of the “New Sheriffs of Wall Street,” Warren’s national appeal on issues important to the middle class, and her financial bona fides will put her in the ranks of Senators like Bernie Sanders, and former Senator Russ Feingold.

You can donate to Warren’s campaign HERE.

Local races are always important, but these are two women who, if elected to the Senate, can influence the country as a whole in some very remarkable ways. (And they don’t screech!) They deserve our support and encouragement. These are a couple donations that will feel really good, especially if you have to hold your nose when you vote locally.

And onward we march toward 2012. At least we have two bright beacons on our journey.