My Twitter Feed

November 28, 2021


Ex-Palin lawyer reported source of Gosar’s ‘most toxic’ media -

Friday, November 19, 2021

McConnell/Trump Alaska Cage Match -

Sunday, November 14, 2021

‘Full of madness!’ -

Friday, November 5, 2021

Sullivan Saga…Chapter 2. The Cocktail Waitress Speaks.


Court documents came to light yesterday which seemed to point to Dan Sullivan mayoral candidate and bar owner, as the infamous “Dan” who served drinks to a young cocktail waitress in his employ until she was over the legal limit and then sent her out into the world at 4am to drive the wrong way down I Street, cause a head on collision, flee the scene and ultimately end up arrested.  The right wing leapt into action proclaiming that it couldn’t possibly be THAT Dan.  Surely there must be some other Dan….a miscreant Dan…a Guinness pouring Dan at McGinley’s pub that this young lady was talking about.  We need to search until we find “the real Dan.”

And Dan Sullivan himself couldn’t be reached for comment to put our minds at ease as to whether he was the Dan in the court documents.  He slipped past the inquiring minds of the media after the AARP candidates forum that night.  And today, he was a “no show” at a radio debate with Eric Croft, an event he was promoting heavily on his website.  He told KTVA that he “didn’t recall” the incident and whether he was involved.  Curioser and curiouser.

Oh, and if you’re interested in putting a face to the name, you can click on this link to McGinley’s pub.  He’s the one on the contact page under the big thought bubble that says, “Guinness is good for you.”

So, what does every good political scandal need?  Enter the audio tape! ====>   Audio of Deposition

The “It might not be Dan Sullivan” crowd were hoping, but alas, the theory of the “parallel Dan” is debunked.

I Give to You…..Testimony of Cocktail Waitress A.  This is her deposition from October of 2006 Case No: 3AN-06-10675CR.  This is her testimony from trial day four, Friday Jan 11 2008. 

Q.  Do you know someone named Dan Sullivan?

A. Yes.

Q.  What was your understanding of his role?

A. Dan was the person who interviewed me for the position there.  I understood him to be pretty much the main owner and the brain child I guess, of the pub.  It was his idea, and he really wanted that location and all of those things.  So, I considered him to be my boss.

Q.  On the morning of October 5th, what time did you get off?

A.  I think I clocked out at around 1:00.  I know my last table had cashed out.  I had dropped the bill shortly after 12:30 and clocked off by 1:00 and then…and then, um…hung out.  I, I chatted with Dan for a while.

Q.  Was he there that night?

A. He was there until I left.

Q. And so you checked out, and what happened then?

A. I sat at the bar and had a drink with Dan and chatted with him, and another bartender named Jennifer, and we…

Q. Had you had anything to drink, any alcohol before you clocked off shift?

A. No.

Q. They don’t let the cocktail waitresses consume alcohol?

A. Well, it’s our policy that you’re not supposed to.  I don’t know what action they would take if they actually caught you doing it.

Q.  But it’s not unknown to have somebody do that?

A.  Yeah, well, in the industry, I’ve been told…I don’t know for sure…

Q.  Just tell us about what you know.

A.  Well, I know that we’re not supposed to, so…

Q.  Did you have anything to drink that night before you got off work?

A. No.

Q. So, you sat at the bar and had a drink.  What happened then?

A. I just chatted with uh…with Dan for a while and then um we were having… we had a … what’s they call a “soft opening” earlier in September and then we were having more of like an official opening and there was going to be a big party, and a lot of Dan Sullivan’s um… political friends there the next day, like him and Jack ______, everybody was dressed in tuxedoes the next day so there was a big to do going on the next day, and him and I rolled some extra silverware.  They’d gotten some like fancier silverware for the event.  We moved a lot of tables around because they didn’t want the exact same layout that they had had during the…

Q.  Was there anybody else there helping with this preparation?

A.  Basically Dan, myself and Jennifer, the other bartender.

Q. So you had a drink at the bar, right?

A. Yes,

Q.  What did you have?

A. Dan and I were splitting a…a…well he had gotten a pitcher of Guinnes and so he gave me a pint.  I just got a glass of that pitcher.

Q.  And was the joint still open while you were sitting up at the bar?

A.  Yeah, it was still open.

Q.  And then at some point it closed.

A. Mmm-hmm.

Q. And you stayed there to help rearrange the furniture and get ready for the next day?

A. Yup.

Q. Did you have anything to drink during that period of time?

A. Well, I had that beer and I was moving around so I was just coming back and kind of like sipping throughout the course of chatting and moving things around.

Q.  So you couldn’t tell whether somebody was keeping your beer freshened up or not, because you were gone from the glass for a while?

A.  I suppose not.  There were only like three of us in there and um..I know that… I don’t know… Sometimes drinks get topped off, like if you’re at an event, people will top off your wine glass, or something like that so it’s definitely possible.

Q. When you were leaving the bar…

A. Yes…

Q.  About what time was that?

A.  It was close to 4:00.

Q.  Did anybody else leave at that time?

A. Jennifer and Dan.

Q. So everybody kind of closed ‘er up and said “We’re out of here?”

A. Yeah.

Q. So where did you go then?

A. I walked to my car.

Q.  Where was your car parked?

A. It was on the corner of 8th and G….8th and H.

Q.  Was it light out or was it dark?

A. It was dark.

Q.  So you’d been working there a couple of weeks by that time.

A.  Mmm-hmm.

Q.  How many days had you been working there?  How many nights a week?

A.  Four to five.  I was working a little bit more in the beginning because they wanted everyone… they just wanted to have as many staff members on…more than they would  normally have, just so everyone could feel the place out and get as much experience on the computers, and just get all caught up.

Q.  Do you recall any discussion between you and Dan and Jennifer about you not being able to drive?

A.  No, they both gave me a hug and then, we all exchanged hugs and then we left.

The focus of Sullivan supporters seems to be to attack Allan Tesche, the person who wrote a letter calling for an explanation from Sullivan.  I’ve found that in general, when someone doesn’t have a decent arguement, they just attack the person who called them on their bad behavior.  Otherwise, you have to admit you’re wrong.  And that can be downright uncomfortable, especially 5 days before an election.  The Daily News reports:

Tesche is a Croft backer who said he’s donated the maximum allowed to Croft’s campaign, but he said that has nothing to do with his outrage about the incident, which he said shows poor judgment on Sullivan’s part. “I call on Dan Sullivan to explain the management practices of his bar that apparently enabled one of his employees to leave work unable to drive safely, endangering her life and those of other drivers on the road,” Tesche’s e-mailed statement said.

Sullivan finally came out with a statement Friday night which said:

“Tesche is clearly working to do last-minute smears on behalf of the Croft campaign,” Sullivan said.

It’s clearly someone else’s fault.

“We follow the strictest rules in terms of service of alcohol. …

Then why did this employee leave the establishment legally intoxicated?

“If something happened to someone after they left our facility, we don’t know where they went or what they did after they left, but while they were in our facility whether it’s a patron or an off-duty employee, they’re subject to the strict rules that we adhere to.”

Then why did this employee leave the establishment legally intoxicated?  One of those “strict rules” is supposed to be that you don’t let drunk people leave and go get in their cars, isn’t it?  And that one obviously was NOT followed.  (imagine a snappy graphic of flaming pants here.  Searched everywhere but couldn’t find one)

And then, as always, there’s that matter of judgement.  Out until 4am drinking with a cocktail waitress half your age, giving her drinks until she is drunk, hugs around and then sending her to the car with keys in hand, resulting in a head-on collision.  Then, after it comes out, smear the person who brought it into the open, and blame your political opponent.  Then for good measure, deny that you broke the rules.   That you broke.

***Early voters can do so this weekend on the second floor of Loussac Library from 10-6 on Saturday and noon to 5pm on Sunday. You can also vote early on Monday from 8 am – 5 pm on the second floor of City Hall or from 10 -5 at the Loussac, and from 8:30-5 pm at the Chugiak Senior Center.



85 Responses to “Sullivan Saga…Chapter 2. The Cocktail Waitress Speaks.”
  1. TBNTJudy says:

    @austintx and Mary in Tenn:

    Hear, Hear! (raises my glass of, er, water – no wait – I’m not driving – make mine wine!) Cheers!

  2. Mary in Tennessee says:

    Well, from down here in Rethuglican East TN, it seems to me that ole Dan has two reasons for passing this shameful incident as “I don’t remember”.
    1, He was too drunk to remember
    2, He is lying his ass off to cover up his little shenanigans, so as not to give his wife a clue what he really does after hours at his place of business…or elsewhere (“I had to work over, dear, because…blah, blah”).

    I had an ex-husband once that used both these sorry excuses frequently…until I made him move out. Sounds like a ‘David Vitter’ moment to me. Next thing you know, he will be dragging poor wife before the cameras and ‘apologize’ so he can do something stupid again.

  3. austintx says:

    Serving booze to a subordinate employee in the wee hours and not making sure said employee gets safely home is the height of poor judgement. Then to say you can’t remember is a lame-ass deflection. As Judy stated – “Timing means nothing if truth is the issue.” The only “drive by” aspect on any of this is the young lady in the car. Dan has shown extremely bad judgement.

  4. TBNTJudy says:

    @michigander, I understand the point you are making; I just don’t happen to agree. That is in no way intended to be personal.

  5. Say NO to Palin in Politics says:

    AKconstant @ #67…….. who are you referring to in your post?

    You wrote: “After watching what the Feds did to another Alaskan recently, pardon my friends for being skeptical of any drive by smear attempts.”

  6. michigander says:

    sauerkraut – thanks, I enjoy yours too. Truly appreciate your kindness in responding (o:

  7. sauerkraut says:

    michigander – I enjoy your posts. Nothing personal intended.

  8. TBNTJudy says:

    “There are many who are still determining. We shall see how much impact this issue has.”

    Ahhhh. What, exactly, is the ISSUE? Is it shooting the messenger (Tesche), or is it the message he delivered? If folks get caught up in shooting the messenger, perhaps they have missed the message?

    @Sauerkraut: “If Sullivan’s role in the dui crash has remained unknown this long then it’s appearance at the surface is long overdue. How unfortunate for him that it arises out of the mud at election time.”

    Oh, so true…

  9. michigander says:

    I want Croft to win. I can’t stand Sullivan. I believe in the truth. I hate smear campaigns and I hope this doesn’t hurt Croft. I would still vote for him but it may garner sympathy for Sullivan from undecideds and moderates. Will they be making a mistake? Yes, in my opinion. I hope Sullivan continues to react in a way that shows his true colors and he screws his window of ‘sympathy’.

    I am tired of people having tunnel vision and making others feel unwelcome because they voice an opinion. Maybe I am just too sensitive.

  10. akConstant says:

    Were you planning to vote for Dan Sullivan on last Thursday? Likely not. There are many who are still determining. We shall see how much impact this issue has.

  11. sauerkraut says:

    Yer right, michigander, I do not get your point.

    As Judy wrote, “timing means nothing if truth is the issue.”

    If Sullivan’s role in the dui crash has remained unknown this long then it’s appearance at the surface is long overdue. How unfortunate for him that it arises out of the mud at election time.

  12. sauerkraut says:

    aye, aye, captain!

  13. michigander says:

    Sorry but I think timing is important in a myriad of situations. There is a huge difference between waiting to tell someone about something and lying if that’s what you’re getting at.

    Timing means everything in this situation and can hurt BOTH candidates, how much is yet to unfold. Unfortunately you don’t get my point.

  14. TBNTJudy says:

    “Damn the torpedoes; full speed ahead!”

  15. TBNTJudy says:

    Timing means nothing if truth is the issue.

  16. michigander says:

    If the timing on ‘shining the light’ appears to be a last minute smear attack it could backfire. If the consequences are Croft loses votes it will hurt Alaskans.

    Part of shining the light is knowing when the light needs to be turned on.

  17. TBNTJudy says:

    @akconstant: I’m just going to have to agree to disagree.

    @Say NO to Palin in Politics: “ahhhhhh…….. akconstant who are you referring to? TED?”

    I hadn’t thought of that. This was hardly a drive-by smear attempt on Uncle Ted. But the Feds definitely screwed this up, didn’t they? Dropping the case because of procedural error certainly doesn’t mean Ted is innocent.

    @michigander: People need to keep shining the light no matter what the consequences.

  18. jojobo1 says:

    What turned me off in the presidential election was all the trashing and bashing and I have to say I like it that Obama tried to stay out of it unless he had no choice.Some from his own party trashed him and of course Ms Palin did her attack dog thing real well.The smears that were put out there about President Obama were just awful and uncalled for..I remember Kent state very well and the war demonstrators and they were not called terrorist back then,when some used that term now they should say the same for the people who blow up clinics and kill doctors and hurt innocent people because they have differing opinions .Should the right to life people be called terrorist because of what they or at least some of them do and by saying nothing about it condoning it.

  19. michigander says:

    akconstant – I totally get what you’re saying. I tried to point this out earlier and am concerned. I hope it doesn’t hurt Croft’s chances.

    Say No – thanks for posting the laws. I was curious (o:

  20. Say NO to Palin in Politics says:

    ahhhhhh…….. akconstant who are you referring to? TED? “After watching what the Feds did to another Alaskan recently, pardon my friends for being skeptical of any drive by smear attempts.”

    akconstant also said: “without any due process. If in fact the police determined there was no cause to go after the owners of Sullivan’s bar, then likely, there is no issue.”

    I say that your “due process” is the exact question being asked about now, being asked for clarification, being asked “if” all was handled correctly and yes, it’s a d*m shame it just now came out, more time to delve into it would be lovely!

    Which also brings me back to “why” weren’t these “due process” questions asked by “real media investigators”? HUH? because frankly that in itself leads me to wonder what ELSE is being swept under the rug with this guy.

    You say “if in fact the police determined no need”……..I say well yes maybe they did decide that, but was it correct? because if it’s not there may be “more” that needs to come out, just sayin. It’s been known to happen.

    Let the public also determine before they vote whether there was a need for cause or action. Late to come out or not.

    Get the facts out in the open so people can make informed decisions.

  21. Say NO to Palin in Politics says:

    And now that I’ve thought more about this, the employee didn’t say anything about being “asked” or “expected” to stay and do this getting ready for the re-opening gala the next day.

    what time to they open? when was this event with Sullivan’s political tux clad
    friends supposed to start? 9 am? what time does this place open? when does it close? was there not time the next day for these hours time spent moving tables around and getting ready.

    Why were these 3 supposedly “hanging out” drinking and “chatting” together then “readying for the next days event” until the wee hours of the morning, but “clocked out”? were these 2 employees traded free drinks for this work? drinks on the (Dan Sullivan) “house” as owner? I don’t know I’m just askin questions.

    I guess Dan the hubby and dad had to leave and go home at some point before sunrise, eh? Was this “getting ready” a good excuse?

    see, there are so many questions this whole thing brings up, questions that I think are valid and need addressing before this person is put to a vote.

  22. akConstant says:

    The obvious issue to me is that this is a drive by attack meant to cause as much harm as possible without any due process. If in fact the police determined there was no cause to go after the owners of Sullivan’s bar, then likely, there is no issue.

    How this whole thing, tape included, came to light so late in the game, poisons the whole attack to me and many others. After watching what the Feds did to another Alaskan recently, pardon my friends for being skeptical of any drive by smear attempts.

  23. Say NO to Palin in Politics says:

    AKconstant……all I’m doing is pointing out obvious issues.

    Now I have concerns about the possibility that Sullivan “kept” this incident with all the details from some of his business partners.

    If he did doesn’t that also say something about this man?

  24. Lee323 says:

    59 akConstant Says:
    May 2nd, 2009 at 1:47 PM….” My theory on who is the weak or easily swayed voter is the one who follows the party line without consideration of the merits of the candidate.”

    Voters who slavishly follow the party line without consideration of merits or issues are certainly “weak” voters in my mind, too…..but by definition, they are not easily swayed to the opposite party. In fact, it can be very frustrating to try to engage in reasonable political dialogue with an uninformed hard party-liner because they will not be swayed, even in the face of incontrovertible facts.

    My expereince has been that people who are easily swayed are not familiar with the issues or are inordinately voting their feelings.

    From what you say, your three acquaintances don’t fit my generalizations here. No offense intended.

  25. akConstant says:

    I am not saying Mudflats is wrong to follow her writing muse, wherever it leads. If it harms her cause though, I would expect a bit of reflection. Of course that is a big IF. Tuesday will tell.

  26. TBNTJudy says:

    “One thing I wonder when the deleterious effect I have been pointing out are proven at the ballot box, will the list of bloggers so quick to join the fray feel bad for being used in this manner. For I sense that they are simply tools right now. The timing is too suspect.”

    Who is really being used? Is it the person who is sidetracked by timing/motive or is it the person who is addressing the issue?

    AKM, at least, is sticking to the issues.

  27. Say NO to Palin in Politics says:

    All three of the people involved with this mess “should” have known better! this never should have happened.


    Mandatory Alcohol Server Training

    All servers of alcoholic beverages, their supervisors and persons providing security in licensed businesses must receive approved alcohol server training within thirty days of employment. Each server, supervisor or security person must renew their server training certification every three years. Persons may enroll in any one of the following approved courses by contacting the vendors:

    * Training for Intervention Procedures (TIPS)
    National: 1-800-438-8477
    Local: 907-644-4747 (Northern Hospitality Training)

    * Tecniques in Alcohol Management (TAM)
    Phone: (907) 274-8133
    Outside Anchorage: 1-800-478-2427

    * ServeSafe Alcohol Server Training Course
    Phone: (907) 272-1229

    * $8 Alcohol Server Training
    Phone: (866) 573-2835

  28. akConstant says:

    It is easy to say that when someone doesn’t agree with me or hasn’t made up their, that htey are uninformed or easily swayed. Not true of my examples. I tend not to spend time with weak willed people. They have all done their homework.

    Both candidates have their strengths and weaknesses. And there are many for each.

    My theory on who is the weak or easily swayed voter is the one who follows the party line without consideration of the merits of the candidate.

  29. Lee323 says:

    54 akConstant Says:
    May 2nd, 2009 at 12:47 PM …..”I have heard three people this weekend who said they were still undecided until they heard this screed arise. They told me they are planning to vote for Dan because of this negative attack.”

    The ballot box is used by many people to vote their feelings about ancillary issues…..instead of voting on the basis of informed, considered judgments of the candidates themselves. I suspect that the undecided voters had not really availed themselves of the information out there on both candidates if they were so easily swayed by this issue.

  30. TBNTJudy says:

    “I am attacking Tesche. The timing, the tone, all of it, smacks of weak drive-by smear tactics.
    It hurts Eric with all except the ones who already support him deeply. You are all peeling off moderate votes with every posting on this subject.”

    As Redwoodmuse has stated several times, the issue that Tesche has brought to light should have been dealt with a long time ago by investigative journalists. Tesche’s timing and motive are irrelevant; what is relevant is the truth (or not) of the issue he brought up and what it might show about the character/competency of Dan Sullivan. Ad hominem reasoning (an oxymoron in my book) to justify voting for a candidate is a great example of how politicians sway public thinking by getting the focus off of the issue and on to “that bad person who is trying to tear me/my candidate down.” Classic bait and switch. Can we say SP or GWB?

    It’s a scary thing when it is so easy to sidetrack the voters.

  31. WhichTruth says:

    Finally! One media outlet mentions the “controversy”–Some interesting comments over at KTVA website. Feel free to put your 2-cents worth in.

  32. akConstant says:

    And I agree, had the information come out sooner, it might have made a valid contribution to the election discussion. One thing I wonder when the deleterious effect I have been pointing out are proven at the ballot box, will the list of bloggers so quick to join the fray feel bad for being used in this manner. For I sense that they are simply tools right now. The timing is too suspect.

  33. akConstant says:

    The conspiracy I keep wondering about is how people believe Sullivan kept the courts from acting on this? I don’t think that is possible. I don’t think Weasely Tesche was conspiring with others. I think he just thought this would help Eric. I am sad the flak that is coming off of this, not on Dan, but on Eric. I have heard three people this weekend who said they were still undecided until they heard this screed arise. They told me they are planning to vote for Dan because of this negative attack.

  34. Say NO to Palin in Politics says:

    You go Phill !!! He had a chat with radio talk host Mark Coloavecchio about this Dan thing, here’s part of it……I wonder how those other owners feel about Dan’s judgement?

    Mark: He owns the place.

    Phil: He’s one of ten owners. He didn’t tell the other nine about this. Many just discovered this yesterday.

    Mark: That’s not true. They knew about this – in October of 2006, they all knew about it, Phil, when it came out.

    Phil: You’re sure about that?

    Mark: I’m positive about that, because I talked to them all yesterday. ….. You know what, Phil? By the way, in those court documents, it never names Dan SULLIVAN.

    (from a comment to Phil)

    As for the Sullivan thing, I know a couple of the other owners of McGinleys, and they are great people, BTW-they knew NOTHING ABOUT THIS!!! Mark DID NOT talk to ALL the owners…Podcasts are great lie detectors!

  35. John says:

    I like Tesche, but of course he is doing this for political purposes. So what? The rest of us don’t have to care about his motives. The question is whether we want a Mayor who drinks pitchers of beer at 2 AM with employees half his age. And then says he can’t recall whether he was involved in this particular beer drinking incident. If he only did it once, he would remember.

  36. akConstant says:

    Had it come out a month ago, it might have hurt him. Those saying I am making a conspiracy theory, look at the other side. So Dan has the ability to stop the courts from acting? That is a mighty conspiracy theory.

    Most of the time, when things appear to be a conspiracy, it is simply timing.

  37. Say NO to Palin in Politics says:

    I agree AKconstant, it does smack of smear, but it’s still true that this did happen…….why the heck didn’t it come out earlier? I don’t know.

    But to me it does say something about his judgment, and the defense of “not knowing” what she did after leaving his bar is stupid, how far away was the accident, blocks? was there no time given on the police report?

    And if this was something that couldn’t hurt Dan, why didn’t Dan himself clear it up earlier?

    Why did it take so long for this case to be settled? Isn’t that a bit odd? Maybe I’m missing some details.

  38. The Wright Stuff says:

    I have read the information on the case of the intoxicated employee of McGinleys. Allowing an employee to leave work intoxicated knowing that the individual was going to be driving is inexcusable. There is another problem with what I read in the testimony.

    On Page 6 of DS3.pdf, she states that she got the job before they opened and that she had been working there for about two weeks. In Exhibit F, she states that she got to work about 6:20. She further states that she would get off at 1am assuming the place was busy. She then stated that they did not have to close until 2am. She stated in her testimony that she left the bar at 4:00. Working from 6:20 to 4:00am is 10 hours. On page 8, under Cross Examination by Ms. Smith, she states that she clocked out at 1am, that she was doing odd jobs around bar, working off the clock, rolling silverware takes 45 minutes, can sit at bar and roll silverware, as long as I am off the clock. This means that she was working at least for 2-3 hours that she was not paid for, with at least one of those hours being overtime.

    This is illegal under the Alaska Department of Labor to fail to pay employees for time worked. Here is the statute:

    Sec. 23.10.065. Minimum wages. (a) Except as provided under (b) of this section and as otherwise provided for in law, for work performed on or after
    January 1, 2003, an employer shall pay to each employee wages at a rate of not less than $7.15 an hour for hours worked in a pay period, whether the work is measured by time, piece, commission, or otherwise.

    If someone is working for you, you must pay them for their time. An employee may not volunteer to do work that they should be paid for. In that she had been at the bar for two weeks and believed that she could only roll silverware while off the clock, she must have gotten that information from her manager. If the owner of the bar was aware that she was working while clocked out, they were aware that the law was being violated.

    Under United States Department of Labor, employers must maintain records of hours worked.

    “Every employer covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) must keep certain records for each covered, nonexempt worker. There is no required form for the records. However, the records must include accurate information about the employee and data about the hours worked and the wages earned.”

    It appears that the bar was in violation of both Alaska and United States Law and that this happened under the direction of the owner of the bar. In that the testimony indicates that the young lady was working with Dan Sullivan that evening, it is apparent that he should have been aware or that he was clueless. Neither of these choices describe someone who qualified to be the Mayor of Anchorage.

  39. UK Lady says:


    Half Irish, does that count?

    I looked at the link AKM gave for the pic of Dan Sullivan, the one that has a thought bubble coming out of his head saying ‘Guinness is good for you’

    Bet he’s rethinking that sentence right about now!

  40. ez.pz. says:

    Ok… all this talk about Guiness… I have to ask… exactly how many mudpuppies/lurkers are Irish? I am, for starters 🙂

  41. honestyinGov says:

    Those downright sneaky , crafty audiotapes. I’ll bet this one is related to the same tape that was recording W.A.R. that day. Maybe they are in the same family… or Brothers…?
    I definitely know these two tapes got together just to smear ‘Dear old Dan’… it’s a CONSPIRACY I say!!
    They might have even been paid by the DNC or David Axelrod to tell their story.

    Let’s pass a law banning those ‘audiotapes’….. it’s bad for Political ‘business’.
    (Monkey business)

  42. akConstant says:

    You wrote that Sullivan supporters seem to be attacking Tesche. I am not a Sullivan support, and I am attacking Tesche. The timing, the tone, all of it, smacks of weak drive-by smear tactics.

    It hurts Eric with all except the ones who already support him deeply. You are all peeling off moderate votes with every posting on this subject.

  43. Star says:

    Me thinks ole Danny boy has his tit in a ringer…Not a good role model..He should’ve been held accountable for his role in this!!! JMO :))

  44. Snoskred says:

    I have to say I agree with Blooper – there are three hours between 1am and 4am. One drink during that time does not equal a DUI at .09 in my opinion and experience – not even if that one drink is a shot of wild turkey let alone beer! Plus, she fled the scene, so who knows how much time went by before they were actually able to give her a breath test.

    I just love how people minimize the wrong they did, you know? Why don’t these people just say ok, I screwed up, I drank and then I got in the car, I deserve whatever punishment you want to give me.

    Oh, because that would be responsible and the right thing to do.. 🙂

    Dan and I were splitting a…a… hmm.. does it sound like someone was about to tell the truth there, and then thought better of it? And were they perhaps splitting something a bit stronger than a pitcher of Guinness?

  45. John says:

    Yup, serving Guiness in a pitcher ought to be a felony. But then, I heard they got in trouble early on by serving pints in 14 oz glasses. That is even worse.

    On topic, if the waitress only had one glass (maybe topped off once) then Dan had the rest of that pitcher. Who drove him home? His wife is a teacher so surely she was home asleep by then.

  46. BigLake says:

    It’s really about judgement, here. (including – Jaysus, Mary and Joseph – serving Guiness in pitchers?)

    May be the ADN is continuing its traditional ‘kiss of death’ with endorsements …this time for mr. D.

  47. Say NO to Palin in Politics says:

    guys, go to comments on adn and “share” what you think about this.

  48. Blooper says:

    Despite its dark appearance, Guiness is actually a light beer in terms of alcohol.
    I find it highly doubtful that just 1 pint over the course of several hours would put her over the limit. They were probably drinking like the fishies in the sea.

  49. Bones AK says:

    “Why did it take the prosecution 14 months to try her? She was convicted a month after Mr. Sullivan declared his candidacy for mayor.” This was from Shannyn’s blog.
    Check hers out.

    Actually, in some respects he IS a Standard (New Style) Alaska politician. Truth is what THEY say it is.

  50. redwoodmuse says:

    @Say No to Palin in Politics – as far as I can tell this was not covered at all by any of the media when it happened and it looks like there was no follow- up by ABC (no penalty etc), which indicates to me that perhaps the police didn’t report it to ABC. All just guessing on my part, but there are at least six or seven separate stories I can see here…and that isn’t counting a story about ’23 year old teacher arrested for drunk driving after hit and run accident. Cops say she blew (I forget what it was but it was high) 2 hours after the incident.’

    I have to ask again, what are your traditional journalists doing up there? This should have been a no brainer story for whoever covered the cop/court beat. And that is the bare minimum.

    Also, apparently, the court case happened right around Sullivan declaring himself as a candidate. Someone should have picked up the story then.

    Oy vey, thank the Goddess for bloggers.

    and the traditional media wonders why some say they are no longer relevant. Sheeesh.


  51. UK Lady says:

    Mag the Mick

    The man is certifiably bonkers Mag, no one with a right mind serves Guinness in a pitcher, how big are they anyway?

    p.s. I am an expert on this subject, me mammy bein’ an Irish colleen.

  52. Mag the Mick says:

    One of the biggest crimes here, one which nobody has picked up on, is…serving Guinness in a pitcher. Sweet Jaysus, is yer man mad entirely? I’m sure Irish Girl and possibly even UK Lady would agree with me.

  53. Say NO to Palin in Politics says:

    Was there no follow up by the police on this? what’s that story?

  54. Say NO to Palin in Politics says:

    Granted no one was injured, thank goodness…….but it could have had a terrible outcome and the shop owner would have faced legal charges.

    Dram shop liability refers to the body of law governing the liability of taverns, liquor stores and other commercial establishments that serve alcoholic beverages. Generally, dram shop laws establish the liability of establishments arising out of the sale of alcohol to visibly intoxicated persons or minors who subsequently cause death or injury to third-parties—those not having a relationship to the bar, as a result of alcohol-related car crashes and other accidents.

  55. CorningNY says:

    I wish I could vote against Sullivan…
    I agree that bartenders and staff drinking after hours is probably a common occurrence, but that doesn’t make it acceptable. And the big issue for me is that Sullivan’s way of dealing with it is just deny, deny, deny–plus blame the person who brought it up. He must be channeling SP and WAR.

    Why is is so hard for Sullivan, as redwoodmuse said, to just (GASP!) admit he made a mistake, apologize, and promise to do better? When people try to cover up one thing, it always makes me wonder what other skeletons are lurking in the back of their closet…

  56. Say NO to Palin in Politics says:

    Here is the whole explaination of the AK law……

    Liquor Liability and the Alaska Dramshop Act

    Under Alaska law, the selling or providing of alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of 21 or to a “drunken” person in violation of applicable statutes will support a claim of “strict liability” in the event that the minor or “drunken” person injures someone.

    Given the transient nature of Alaska’s population, the key to handling any claim or potential claim in this area is an early and aggressive investigation. Locking in the witnesses is vital. Once that is done, the insurer or self-insured can take somewhat of a “wait and see” approach until suit is filed. This is an area where experience in this type of litigation pays off.

    Statutory liability for providing alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated person or to a minor is limited to the holders of a liquor license. AS 04.21.020 . While common law liability may exist, there is no statutory prohibition which controls the activities of a private citizen involved in such distribution.

    AS 04.21.030 imposes a duty of “reasonable care” upon the seller of alcoholic beverages to ensure that the business is “lawfully conducted.”

    AS 04.16.030 states that a “licensee, an agent, or employee may not with criminal negligence ”

    1) Sell or give alcoholic beverages to a drunken person ;
    2) Allow a drunken person to enter and remain on licensed premises;
    3) Allow a drunken person to consume alcoholic beverages on licensed premises; or
    4) Permit a drunken person to sell or serve alcoholic beverages.

    AS 04.16.051 and AS 04.16.052 create the same criminal negligence standard with regard to selling alcoholic beverages to persons under 21 years of age, the legal age for drinking in Alaska. Proof of age may be required. AS 04.21.050.

    There are two definitions found in AS 04.21.080 which are very important. They are:

    (1) a person acts with “criminal negligence ” with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a provision of law defining an offense when the person fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists; the risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

    (2) “drunken person ” means a person whose physical or mental conduct is substantially impaired as a result of the introduction of an alcoholic beverage into the person’s body and who exhibits those plain and easily observed or discovered outward manifestations of behavior commonly known to be produced by the over consumption of alcoholic beverages.

    There are, among others, two additional relevant definitions found in AS 04.21.080 . These are:

    (1) a person acts “knowingly ” with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a provision of law defining an offense when the person is aware that the person’s conduct is of that nature or that the circumstance exists; when knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, that knowledge is established if a person is aware of a substantial probability of its existence, unless the person actually believes it does not exist; a person who is unaware of conduct or a circumstance of which the person would have been aware had the person not been intoxicated acts knowingly with respect to that conduct or circumstance.

    (2) a person acts “recklessly ” with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a provision of law defining an offense when the person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists; the risk must be of such a nature and degree that disregard of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation; a person who is unaware of a risk of which the person would have been aware had the person not been intoxicated acts recklessly with respect to that risk.

    There are Supreme Court decisions interpreting various provisions.

    1) Violation of the statute regarding sale to minors which results in an accident where there is injury to others is negligence per se. Morris v. Farley Enterprises, Inc., 661 P.2d 167 (Alaska 1983) . Note: This was decided under the earlier repealed statute. There have been no subsequent Supreme Court cases testing this principle. If the evidence shows that the seller did not, in good faith, obtain proof that the purchaser was of legal age, the strict liability standard will probably be applied by the trial court.

    2) Insofar as proximate cause is concerned, it is neither unforeseeable nor extraordinary that a sale of alcoholic beverages to a minor would result in his sharing that with other minors resulting in an accident. Morris v. Farley Enterprises, Inc., 661 P.2d 167 (Alaska 1983) .

    3) A jury’s conclusion that defendant did not with criminal negligence sell to a drunken person means that defendant was immune under the statute for all unlawful providing claims. The focus of the jury’s attention should be whether the seller responded as a reasonable person would to the appearance and outward behavior manifestations of the person to whom the alcoholic beverage was sold, not on any specialized training the seller should have had as an aid to recognizing when a person is intoxicated. Gonzales v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 882 P.2d 389 (Alaska 1994).

  57. Say NO to Palin in Politics says:

    Hi all, back from a well needed break…….okay, so why hasn’t this guys liquor license been inspected? this is proof it has been violated. How many others have been allowed to drink too much and drive?

    Alaska Dram Shop Law

    Sec. 04.21.030
    Sec. 04.21.030 Responsibility of licensees, agents, and employees.

    The licensee has a duty to exercise that degree of care that a reasonable person would observe to ensure that a business under the person’s control is lawfully conducted. This duty of the licensee includes, but is not limited

    (1) to ensuring the compliance by agents or employees with this title and regulations adopted under this title, including acting with reasonable diligence to determine that agents or employees are advised of the provisions of this title and the regulations adopted under this title, either by securing the agent’s or employee’s written acknowledgement of posted instructions or otherwise; and

    (2) to ensuring the compliance of the premises with public health, fire, and safety codes and ordinances of the state or municipality having jurisdiction.

  58. redwoodmuse says:

    In Oregon, if any staff is found with a drink after hours and the front door is not locked, the bar is busted, fined and often closed. One of our local joints was closed for two weeks when I moved here for exactly that violation. Patrons were gone and the bartender was cleaning up…with an open beer on the counter.

    As for this not coming out until now…again speaking as someone who a) doesn’t live in AK, and b) spent 30 years as an investigative journalist……my guess is that there may have been some talk in closed circles but not outside…and let’s face it, those on the inside have no reason to divulge….or

    none of the reporters on the cop/court beat saw a story in a bar owner implicated in a 23-year-old being arrested for drunk driving (btw she was a teacher) read the court papers. Maybe this kind of thing happens often enough that

    …the reporter(s) saw it and decided not to report it (draw your own conclusions) or…

    there weren’t any good bloggers willing to dig for the truth at that time….

    As a former investigative journalist, I think it is shameful that Tesche had to be the one to bring this story up…should have been an initial story about the accident,a follow-up on the court case and court decision, a story on the ABC actions against the bar….at least then

    , when it was brought up again at election time, Sullivan could say, “yes, that was two years ago. In the excitement of getting ready for our opening, I showed some bad judgment. I’m so grateful no one was hurt. We paid our penalty (fine, closed for two weeks etc) . It has never happened again. I take full responsibility. But, that was two years ago and we changed our policies so that something like that could never againhappen at my bar.”

    You can’t blame the guy for wanting to hide his, oh, let’s just call it idiocy, from the crowd. You can blame the reporters who should have covered this story when it happened.

    Where oh where, are your journalists? What are they doing?

    You blogging folks have proven that pajamas are powerful when it comes to breaking stories and following through. I’m so proud of you. I give you all the Standing Tall as a Redwood Award.


  59. crystalwolf aka caligrl says:

    Shoot the messenger that’s what they call it…Myself I wouldn’t vote a Tavern owner/bar owner for mayor, just too conflicting, liquor laws, codes etc.
    There is one local bar here where I live the bartenders frequently have a beer or shot or two during shift! They are quick to stop serving someone who they think “had too many” But that doesn’t apply to themselves…the old double standard.
    I don’t think it should be allowed, it can cloud your judgment about a patron or EMPLOYEE and you can’t drink on the job anywhere else, so why is a bartender/cocktail waitress any different?
    Big slick posted a Breathalyzer key chain the other day…now that is a smart idea, I know a few people who are in need of those, bartenders and patrons!

  60. Largo says:

    What was her blood alcohol level?

  61. nswfm CA says:

    When I was in college, a guy at a dinner of 6 of us topped off my wine and my room mate’s, and we didn’t know, but we were walking home. She had the dry heaves all night whcih kept me awake and taught me to always watch what’s going on with alcohol and guys.

    I hope this young woman and others have learned their lesson from the crash. Not holding my breath.

    Hope Croft wins.

  62. Frozenturdlette says:

    Alaska does extend responsibility to bar owners and servers. The state course all bartenders take burns this into your brain!! Maybe it was because the bar was closed for business – I dunno.

    If there was all this prep going on that night for a ‘tuxedo’ opening then this was EARLY in the pub’s existence. Something like this, and thank goodness it wasn’t worse, should have endangered the business or at least DS’ ownership in it.

    Anchorage (and Alaska) is a very small town – people had to know about this. (And unless DS is just an empty pint, he has been losing sleep about this from the moment he learned his employee was in an accident on the way home from his pub that night!)

  63. Hobos are Us says:

    Sounds like another fiscal conservative outlaw. Dan must think DUI and liquor license laws don’t apply to him and his employees.

  64. WaCaGal says:

    AKM – here is your pants on fire graphic! Complements of Politifact’s Truth-o-Meter.

    The graphic should be a lot bigger based on the size of pants that Dan Sullivan is burning right now……..

    HA! AKM

  65. Grandma Nancy says:

    I think that there’s a new game in town now that there are people like AKM and we are all “bloggers in pj’s” who can help dislodge the “skeletons”. The internet has given us fast information, easily checked and verifiable information that used to take weeks or months to disseminate. Those things that people knew and talked about, but didn’t make it into print are now on the internet. Since the information is now documented and stored (on many different computers), it’s also relatively easy to go back and take another look if something else seems to fit with what we remember reading or seeing before. Politicians used to be able to go to an event, spin their talk for that event; go to another event, and say something else for those potential voters, and go to another location and say yet another thing for their new audience. Photos used to appear in newspapers and magazines and then disappear as people recycled old newsprint. That’s no longer possible now once it makes it to the internet, people copy it and save it and now so many MORE people have access to the internet. We are all now capable of taking videos, photos, and disseminating information instantaneously, especially our young people. Something GINO and other politicians have yet to learn.

  66. austintx says:

    The whole thing shows incredibly fool-ass judgement on Dan’s part. The voting citizens need to ask themselves if they want a yahoo running the city.

  67. Karin in CT says:

    I too am surprised by the silence on this.

    Anyone know how the laws work in AK regarding DUIs and accidents? If this happened in CT the driver of the other vehicle would likely be suing the pants off of the bar owner.

  68. michigander says:

    Writing from Alaska – I’m sure if the accident had been more serious or God forbid someone had been killed it would have come out when it happenned.

    The timing is the point I was trying to make in my above comment as it comes off sounding like a strictly political move.

    Even if I personally feel that Sullivan was in the wrong, he isn’t being prosecuted nor fined etc. If the accident had been more serious I’m guessing he probably would have been held accountable in some way. Laws are twisted. Tantamount to not disciplining a child for throwing a dart at their sibling if it didn’t get ’em in the eye.

  69. Frozenturdlette says:

    Too many years on both sides of the bar. It’s not unusual for staff to hang and unwind after work at work; actually in some places it was a problem so much so that if your shift was over the employee was to be off premises. And most owners are older than their wait staff – nothing new there – simply finances.

    What surprises me is the silence on this – all the way around (waitress, her attorney, competing bar owners, Daily News (ah maybbe not) and even some of the blogs)

  70. I am surprised this didn’t come out until now – ? Or am I missing something.

    It came out yesterday. AKM

  71. Deb in NH says:

    Something else struck me about this (besides the obvious middle aged man drinking with two cocktail waitresses after hours and letting at least one of them drive drunk)

    Why was this woman working for several hours to set up for the next days event AFTER she had already clocked out? Is this also a labor issue?

    (Proud teacher and union member)

  72. sauerkraut says:

    “I’ve found that in general, when someone doesn’t have a decent arguement, they just attack the person who called them on their bad behavior. ”

    Ain’t that the truth. Of course, it does work both ways as Sarah Palin often reminds.

    There was a similar type of case down here in pennsyltucky, although I forget exactly where. All involved in that crash perished. The bar lost its license and the owner faces charges linked to serving an intoxicated person. Of course, in your story, we are not (yet) privy to what the waitress did/drank during the time between when she left and when she hit the other vehicle. I do not believe her testimony that she didn’t/doesn’t know if anyone topped off her “one” drink during the 3 hours she spent at the bar after punching out.

  73. austintx says:

    9 Carol.Seattle Says:
    May 2nd, 2009 at 4:57 AM
    Seems to me that we’ve seen this picture before. The not-so-ethical, or at least not responsible actions, consequences occur because of those poor actions, then the hiding, the blaming “anyone but me,” the denials… the black is white statements. Typical of many Republicans on the Federal level over the last 8 years. There’s been too much of that for too long.
    They sure want to run every aspect of our lives though. Abortion , gay-marriage , etc.

  74. michigander says:

    I’m curious as to Alaskan law regarding bar owner/manager responsibility on this – I think it must vary state to state.

    Also hope it doesn’t backfire and garner too much sympathy for Sullivan. It reads like a ‘gotcha’ at the last moment and unfortunately a lot of people might feel sorry for him especially in a state where drinking is so popular.

    I do hope Croft wins as he certainly is the better candidate.

  75. Martha says:

    Wow ….thanks for typing that put in readable form! I read the documents on another site and it was in 3 parts very difficult to read and boring as court documents are for me.

    I think the mining industries (must be them) have polluted your state with narrissism. …….lol

    Good Grief Charlie Brown!!

    Sullivan behaves like Sarah Palin with a penis, of course Palin has more than just a whiff of the drag Queen look about her anyway.

    She just might end up as popular as Judy Garland, in that regard. There’s probably an act in Frisco as we speak.

    Wouldn’t THAT be entertaining in Alaska!! An entertainer that could do a fake press conference, word salad and all. Palin always has something to hide, in this case…….well you know.

    If you folks have any 24th of May celebrations, it would be a hilarious way to welcome summer. Shanny Moore could “interview” fake Palin etc.

    I watched “Prisilla, Queen of the Desert” again a few days ago, if you haven’t seen the movie you simply MUST. Hilarious, as in roll on the floor.

    I used to be a fan of Dame Edna, when she had her show. Watching “her” interview celebrities was very entertaining and I could hardly wait to see what new outfit she would wear.

  76. womanwithsardinecan says:

    Well, either the young lady was lying about topping off her own glass or one of the other two was doing it. Drink topping was one of the big problems I encountered when I lived in Alaska, the other being people buying you another round. I solved the problem by always ordering white wine and a glass of water. I would drink part of my wine and then pour in water to make my glass almost full again. After a while I would be drinking straight water in my wine glass and nobody got the opportunity to top or buy another round. And I would be the one sober enough to drive.

  77. Carol.Seattle says:

    Seems to me that we’ve seen this picture before. The not-so-ethical, or at least not responsible actions, consequences occur because of those poor actions, then the hiding, the blaming “anyone but me,” the denials… the black is white statements. Typical of many Republicans on the Federal level over the last 8 years. There’s been too much of that for too long.

  78. Elsie says:

    Since we have a pretty good idea that all those Failin’ Palin dudes and dudettes pal around together, like a band of thieves, I’m thinking that if Dan needs a lawyer, he could give his ol’ buddy W.A. Ross a call….Since W.A.’s not busy these days…

  79. Bou says:

    Guess I haven’t been keeping up on this story too well. Does the waitress really believe she only had 1beer that night and it put her over the legal limit?

  80. austintx says:

    Does the waitress still work there ?? Or for that matter , the other young lady also.too.

  81. Snoskred says:

    It was only published two hours ago, and most of the US is asleep. I am sure comments will come as a surprise over the next 24 hours or so. 🙂

  82. Nan says:

    Being “highly irresponsible” is not a good thing for a barkeep, either.

  83. I, too, am amazed that there aren’t more comments. But what can you say? Sounds to me like good ole Dan is guilty of some very bad judgement, not to mention the stupidity of the whole thing. It all falls in the category of “What was he thinking” when he sent her off with keys in hand, but that’s obvious – he wasn’t. And it shows him to be highly irresponsible. Not a good thing for any political candidate.

  84. Irishgirl says:

    Methinks there is too much Guinness floating around! 🙂

  85. ChiCat says:

    Are there really no comments here?

Leave A Comment

%d bloggers like this: