Is This a Presidential Campaign or a Freak Show?

Fri   8 Oct 1999   11:53 by Kevin McGehee in Peachtree City, GA 0 comments [Our Times] [Get Offa My Lawn!] [My Two Cents]

The Y2K presidential race has begun to look like the front rows of a taping of “Let’s Make A Deal” with Monty Hall, with everyone doing whatever they can to catch the attention of an increasingly jaded and cynical press corps. New Hampshire Sen. Bob Smith was one of the first, with his flirting with leaving the Republican Party. Then came Pat Buchanan doing a similar act and proving that he could make it last longer because he’s a more accomplished performer. Now we have the spectacle of the Reform Party basically tearing itself to bits as it contemplates its array of would-be presidential hopefuls. Donald Trump? Are you kidding? In the latest “Rant” at CapitolHillBlue.com, the normally offensive Chris Rock is quoted as saying he would never vote for Trump: “Halfway through his term he’d leave us for a younger, more beautiful country.“ (Good one, Chris, that’s actual humor—you should bookmark it for later study.) And Jesse “The Mental Case” Ventura has suggested that Woody Harrelson would make a good vice-presidential candidate. Maybe Jesse is confusing Woody with the character he played on “Cheers”, an Indiana farm boy who mirrored Hollywood’s image of Dan Quayle. And let’s not forget about Warren Bulworth, and Cybill Shepherd, and who-all else. At this rate, we’ll have Madonna throwing her pointy bra in the ring. Or maybe Larry Flynt will announce his own candidacy. Perhaps in a “Hustler” centerfold or something. This trend began to intrude on presidential politics in 1992, when Bill Clinton and Ross Perot co-conspired to strip the presidency of its every pretense to honor and dignity. Clinton talked about his underwear on MTV, and Perot gibbered about fiendish plots to humiliate him at his daughter’s wedding. It was a Hollywood satire of campaign politics come true. And in keeping with the Hollywood connection, our Constitution has brought us a sequel every four years since, none of which so far has been anywhere near as entertaining. I have to admit, any of the above clowns does have something positive they could bring to the White House. With “the Donald,“ we wouldn’t be stuck with a First Lady we didn’t like, at least not for very long. With Beatty, we’d have a presidential sibling—Shirley MacLaine—who’s probably met most of America’s past presidents all the way back to George Washington, and thus could probably advise him better than Bobby could ever advise JFK. When President Larry Flynt gets caught doing no-no with an intern, it won’t even be news. And there’d be no reason for Madonna to talk about her underwear… But I shudder to imagine what new crop of freaks will emerge in late 2003 jockeying (or boxering) for the attention of a press corps whose attention span has recently been declared the smallest measurable object in the universe. For a sneak preview, just tune in the next episode of “Guinness World Records”. My money’s on the guy who takes off his face—powerful people should always be self-effacing.

Earth Calling Safire

Thu   5 Nov 1998   7:03 by Kevin McGehee in North Pole, Alaska 0 comments [Get Offa My Lawn!] [Media Ochre] [My Two Cents]

William Safire says the Republicans’ social agenda is what hurt them on Election Day. Earth calling Safire! Everything I’ve seen indicates that a major problem for the Republicans on November 3 was that—in most of the country—the so-called “Religious Right” didn’t turn out in the numbers Republicans needed to overcome the high Democratic turnout sparked by the Open Sewer Party’s scare ads. In states where there were social-conservative issues on the ballot (like, say, Alaska) religious conservatives turned out in nice, big numbers and kept the Democrats from doing as well as they might have. In other states this didn’t happen. Why? Timid national leadership, for one. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott’s comment about homosexuality being like alcoholism might have made a few points with social conservatives, but the Senate’s refusal to consider even a relatively infinitesimal tax cut wasn’t an affront only to so-called fiscal conservatives. It was an act of cowardice in the face of a weakened and reeling President, something that anyone with any amount of character had to find revolting. The too-little-too-late “honesty” ad campaign also came across as a last-minute bone to social conservatives, probably in response to internal GOP polls that may have warned of low turnout in that constituency. Just as the “Religious Right” didn’t forgive George Bush’s “no new taxes” betrayal on the strength of his pandering at the 1992 Republican convention, that vital segment of the party didn’t buy the last-minute campaign ads. I think also that many social conservatives are growing increasingly discouraged by the trends of the last six years. A president who represents promiscuity, mendacity, abusiveness, and a towering Messiah complex, apparently manages to maintain sufficient popular support that two-thirds of those polled want him to receive a purely symbolic, meaningless and unconstitutional “punishment.“ Language, situations and acts that a generation ago could only be shown in adult movie theaters now appear regularly on cable television and are making inroads on broadcast TV. Lawyers and judges find nothing objectionable about demolishing fundamental pillars of our civilization, object to asking the people what they think of it all, and reject the results when they don’t like them. And the Four Horsemen of the American Apocalypse—CNN and the news operations at ABC, CBS, and NBC—smugly disregard fact and balance in their reporting on the most corrupt president in American history. A growing number of social conservatives, I fear, are retreating from political involvement, having concluded that the nation is beyond saving by political means, and may not be salvageable at all.  The loss of those committed voters, navigating the political waters by a reliable moral compass, can only doom the Republicans to fall back into permanent minority status. The Democrats have no such constituency to lose—all Democrats seem to be united by the lure of being on the receiving end of wealth redistribution, and it’s hard to disillusion people with such squalid character. No, Mr. Safire, what hurt the Republicans on November 3 was not their “social agenda,“ but their lack of one—and their lack of backbone in pursuing any agenda at all in the last two years.

Ten Days to the Election

Sat   24 Oct 1998   7:54 by Kevin McGehee in North Pole, Alaska 0 comments [Alaska] [Get Offa My Lawn!] [My Two Cents]

The Republican Party of Alaska has yet to decide who its 1998 nominee should be. Since Jerry Ward has apparently indicated that he won’t abandon the Lindauer ticket, the party has basically two choices: Robin Taylor and Wayne Ross. Taylor has the stronger claim, given his better showing in the August 25 primary, but there are reasons why he might not be the better choice. For one, the heavy involvement of people formerly connected to his campaign in prosecuting the Lindauer mess, has left hard feelings among current Lindauer supporters whose votes would be needed to boost the new nominee’s chances. While die-hard Lindauer followers are going to vote for Lindauer regardless, there’s sure to be some soft support for Lindauer that could be persuaded to participate in a write-in vote for someone else—but not Taylor. Besides—you just know a whole lot of people trying to cast write-in votes for Taylor will spell his last name TAILOR. Remember, spelling counts in write-in voting. If the RPA selects Taylor, I’ll vote Taylor. But all things considered, I think it might be wiser for them to choose Wayne Ross. § In her radio ads, District 32 Democrat nominee Claudia Douglas is still running against Al Vezey, yammering about his “negative smear tactics.“ So what are her television ads doing? Smearing her Republican opponent of this year, John Coghill—a third-generation Interior Alaskan—as a “new kid,“ as well as a proponent of government control, and a theocrat. Of course the TV ads don’t inform viewers of the basis, if any, for these labels. As usual, Douglas can’t afford to go into any substance in attacking her opponents. Maybe she was hoping John would dig into her credit records, but in a clear example of unfair campaigning, he didn’t. How is poor Claudia supposed to run against somebody who doesn’t give her something to attack!?   § [The Republican Party of Alaska did finally choose Robin Taylor, and I did spell his name right on the write-in ballot. There were, in fact, more write-in votes for Governor that year than conventional ballots cast for Lindauer. But Knowles was (of course) re-elected. For further background on this piece, I’ll add that during the primary campaign I had supported Taylor for the nomination, and was paid by his campaign to put together a website for use in the Fairbanks area.]

A Democrat Fights the Last Campaign

Thu   15 Oct 1998   8:31 by Kevin McGehee in North Pole, Alaska 0 comments [Alaska] [Get Offa My Lawn!] [My Two Cents]

House District 32’s Democratic nominee, Claudia Douglas, is desperately trying to gain traction in her campaign against her Republican opponent, John Coghill—even to the point of running radio ads implying that her real opponent is outgoing incumbent Al Vezey. In what has become almost as predictable locally as the tired, national “for the children” refrain, Douglas, in her second attempt on the House seat representing Fort Wainwright, the western North Pole area, and portions of eastern Fairbanks, continues to chant, “Vezey, Vezey, Vezey…“—claiming credit for helping to defeat Vezey, presumably in his primary campaign for the state Senate. Some of you may recall that I distributed a piece during the early stages of that campaign criticizing Vezey’s opponent, Pete Kelly (like Vezey, a Republican), for stooping to a Democratic tactic in playing on a reputation largely (though of course not exclusively) bestowed on Vezey by Douglas and the Democrats two years earlier. One might conclude that Douglas’ role in engineering Kelly’s victory on August 25 consists of playing the victim to Vezey’s narrowly successful re-election battle of 1996. This is leadership among Democrats in the late 1990s; if it weren’t so pathetic it would be—well, no, it is funny. The Vezey name will not be appearing on the ballot in November. That means Al Vezey probably will not receive any votes. We can assume Claudia will get at least some votes. At last she will beat Vezey! That other guy, though, John Coghill—he’s running for the same seat that Claudia Douglas is, and if he gets more votes than Douglas he wins. But don’t tell Claudia, it might upset her strategy. It’s clear that she can’t focus her campaign on Coghill—he hasn’t yet been given a bad rap by the local media and the wild-eyed Left. Perhaps if John had been involved in the last reapportionment process, the vindictiveness of the Left might have been brought to bear on John the way it was focused on Vezey for years and years and years. But in the absence of a pre-existing negative public image, anyone running against Claudia Douglas might as well have a free pass—because she has no issues. Where Douglas’ radio ads aren’t invoking the name of Al Vezey—like schoolgirls repeating “Bloody Mary” thirteen times while staring into a mirror in a darkened room—they are remarkably similar to those of Anita Bush’s doomed 1994 campaign for the same seat. You might remember those, with the tagline, “I’ll put that House in Juneau right.“ Not that Douglas isn’t a threat to Coghill’s chances. As a former president of the state’s chapter of the NEA, Douglas has access to campaign money from a much greater patch of territory than her opponent—undoubtedly including out-of-state sources. (Odd, isn’t it, that when a national network of liberals works together to influence voters in the hinterlands of Alaska, it’s just politics as usual, but when a national network of conservatives works together toward the same end—for example, Ballot Measure 2—it’s some kind of Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?) Given the funding available to Douglas, she could conceivably overwhelm Coghill’s message, leaving the average uninformed voter with the impression that Vezey is running for his old seat on November 3. John Coghill can use all the help he can get.

Actually, Timing ISN’T Everything

Sat   10 Oct 1998   22:34 by Kevin McGehee in North Pole, Alaska 0 comments [Alaska] [Get Offa My Lawn!] [My Two Cents]

Sometimes bad news comes out on its own schedule, not needing any malicious plotting to determine how much or how little negative impact it will have. Die-hard supporters of John Lindauer can’t rebut the charges—that he’s knowingly and willfully broken campaign finance laws in his Ahab-like quest for the governorship, that he’s knowingly and willfully lied to the press, the Republican Party, and the people of Alaska to cover up these violations, and that he’s portrayed himself as Alaska’s last honest man even as his cover-up crumbles before our eyes. So these die-hard supporters attack the timing of the allegations, and offer an unlikely roster of Lindauer-haters who have joined forces in a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy to prevent him from saving Alaska from their sinister schemes. Sidney Blumenthal would be proud. In the larger but very similar crackup occurring in Washington, D.C., it can be argued that the case law in sexual harassment lawsuits—which enabled Paula Jones’ lawyers to ask detailed and intrusive questions about Bill Clinton’s sex life, and required him to answer completely and truthfully (which, for those who haven’t been paying attention, he didn’t do)—is excessive and needs to be rewritten to protect people against such interrogations. Many people in Fairbanks, myself included, think the jury-tampering charges against Frank Turney were bogus and shouldn’t have made it into a courtroom, much less to conviction and sentencing. And it’s certainly true that the state campaign finance law that prohibits John Lindauer from using his wife’s money to campaign for governor, is imbecilic in the extreme, just like those whose initiative drive led to the law’s enactment. This is the same imbecilic law that forbade successful 1997 Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly candidate Mike Prax from lending money to his own campaign during the final weeks of the campaign. His own money! But when APOC charged Prax, he took the consequences and paid up like the honorable man he is. In each of these cases of bad law, there is a way to deal with the problem. Bad sexual harassment case law can be dealt with by Congress enacting legislation to limit the scope of discovery in a lawsuit—not by lying to the court as Clinton did. A bad verdict on a bogus jury-tampering charge can only be overturned on appeal to a higher court. And the difficulties created by the state campaign finance laws can only be addressed by the Legislature. In the meantime, Bill Clinton and John Lindauer have no less of an obligation to abide by the laws than anyone else. When Lindauer’s supporters point fingers at supporters of state Sen. Robin Taylor for their part in his miseries, they overlook one very important fact: Robin Taylor obeyed the law.

Jerry Ward for Governor

Wed   30 Sep 1998   17:43 by Kevin McGehee in North Pole, Alaska 0 comments [Alaska] [Get Offa My Lawn!] [My Two Cents]

John Lindauer has a heart as big as all Alaska—and it rattles around inside his ego like a pebble in an oil drum. But that’s not what bothers me most about 1998’s Republican nominee for Governor. When Gov. Phony Knowles released his income tax returns to the public, Lindauer refused to follow suit, citing privacy. This was a political miscue of massive proportions, especially at a time when our soon-to-be-former President has been claiming the investigations into his acts of criminal perjury violate his privacy. Lindauer’s honesty had already come into question by this time, and this apparent stonewalling only made it look even more like he has something to hide. Now Lindauer’s attacking the leadership of his own party by accusing them of trying to overturn the results of the August 25 primary. Yet another page right out of the Clintonista spin manual, even as Lindauer supposedly prepares to take on Alaska’s most prominent Friend of Bill this November. This we do not need! If John Lindauer won’t withdraw from the ticket despite the obvious political fallout he’s inviting to himself, the party, and Alaska (another chilling parallel to Clinton), then perhaps someone can prevail upon his running mate, Jerry Ward, to withdraw from that ticket, thus freeing himself to run at the top of the GOP’s preferred write-in ticket. This would certainly undermine Lindauer’s claims that only disgruntled former supporters of his defeated primary opponents are upset at him (just like Bill Clinton’s troubles were cooked up by a vast right-wing conspiracy, d’you suppose?). Lindauer’s claims, by the way, are a clear case of the chicken and the egg, to anyone who looks closely: those who supported Lindauer’s opponents for the nomination did so because they already expected something like this was going to happen if Lindauer were nominated. Of course they’re upset at him! He’s proven them right in their negative expectations of him, and it’s virtually guaranteeing a second term for Phony Knowles! Looking beyond November 3, though, this year’s fiasco proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Republican Party of Alaska has to do something about its gubernatorial nomination record. The illegal and half-hearted attempt to close the primary didn’t help much, and the suggestion that nominees take an oath of fealty to the party’s platform went over like the lead balloon it was—but there has to be something that the RPA can do to make sure that a viable candidate of statewide reputation is able to win the nomination in 2002. Republican gubernatorial tickets have won in Alaska only three times: 1966, 1974 and 1978. Maybe we can count the 1990 revolt, in which the Republican-occupied AIP ticket came in first and the Republican ticket came in third, but I wouldn’t. That wasn’t a win, it was a backhanded save that shouldn’t have been necessary. In a state with an all-Republican congressional delegation and a veto-proof Republican majority in the state Senate, this Lindauer disaster should have been avoidable. But it wasn’t, so now we have as our party’s alleged standard-bearer an Alaska Republican mirror image of Bill Clinton. Thank God the RPA isn’t willing to sell its soul to Lindauer like the Democratic National Committee did with Clinton. A small favor, but much appreciated.

Hold District 32

Thu   27 Aug 1998   7:20 by Kevin McGehee in North Pole, Alaska 0 comments [Alaska] [Get Offa My Lawn!] [My Two Cents]

Fellow Alaskans, Two years ago, Democrat Claudia Douglas massively outspent incumbent state Rep. Al Vezey and nearly succeeded in unseating him. In 1998, she hopes to have better luck against first-time Republican candidate John Coghill, who faces her fundraising machine in this fall’s general election campaign in District 32. Coghill, the son of former Lt. Gov. Jack Coghill, holds many of the same views that had led District 32 voters to keep re-electing Vezey. He also has served as GOP chairman in that district, and benefits (of course) from the name of his father. Nevertheless, in this his first campaign for elective office, the challenge of opposing a former president of NEA-Alaska with the immense statewide fundraising clout that implies, makes it imperative that those who want to keep that House seat in the Republican column help John in whatever way they can. In 1996, Douglas not only swamped the Vezey camp in a tidal wave of special-interest cash, she influenced allegedly non-partisan municipal officials to lend their public support to her campaign in a full-page ad in the News-Miner. This year, there will undoubtedly be calculated—and well financed—attacks on John for his views, his family attachments, and lowest of all his religious affiliation. There are a lot of critical races ahead of us this fall, and District 32 is only one of them—but a Claudia Douglas victory in November would become a liberal Democrat rallying cry for future assaults on Republican-held legislative seats, not just in the Interior but all across Alaska. Please help hold this seat.

Some Get It Right (Part 2)

Mon   17 Aug 1998   23:07 by Kevin McGehee in North Pole, Alaska 0 comments [Alaska] [Get Offa My Lawn!] [My Two Cents]

The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner sent questionnaires to Interior candidates for Legislature, and all candidates for U.S. Senate, U.S. House, Governor and Lieutenant Governor, for publication in Sunday’s 1998 Primary Election special supplement. As usual, some of the questions are virtual non sequiturs in this election, but the answers nevertheless offer a certain ideological perspective on the candidates—which is why they’re asked (or so I would assume). In lieu of presenting a personal endorsement of any candidate, I thought it might be useful to go through the questions, give what I consider to be the right answers, and then identify the candidates who came closest. I should also point out at the beginning that an additional consideration—electability—would color my own decision of which candidate should receive my personal support. Part One dealt with the national questions asked of candidates for U.S. Senate and House. This is Part Two, spotlighting the state questions and candidates. Because of the number of offices and candidates, I’ll have to go into less detail in discussing candidate responses. “This year’s falling oil prices again highlighted the state’s dependence on its oil reserves and earnings accounts. Has the time come to consider a tax or a cap on the state’s permanent fund dividend? If so, what would best serve the state? If not, where do you propose finding the $685 million needed to close next year’s anticipated budget gap?“ There is no time to consider a cap on the dividend. As for what the falling oil prices show, the question overlooks what should be obvious: the weakness of Alaska’s near-monolithic economy. The only way a direct state tax can ever be justified is if it comes after the state’s economy has been stabilized by abandoning the command-economy approach established after the Prudhoe Bay oil strike, freeing the state to grow, and pursuing ways to diversify. Among the essential steps toward that end must be marshaling the political will either to sell the Alaska Railroad to a buyer who will bridge the rail gap between Interior Alaska and the Lower 48, or to do the job ourselves—though I don’t favor misleading people into thinking the job will be cheaper than it will be. Only when the economy no longer teeters on the shifting winds of the oil industry can the state justify asking Alaskans to agree to a direct tax. Governor: Republicans Wayne Ross and Robin Taylor both come closer to the right answer than any others. Lt. Governor: Virginia Collins (R) alone mentioned diversifying the economy. Jerry Ward (R) said, “I believe that privatization can help close the budget gap.“ Senate P: All except Jane Haigh (D) opposed capping the dividend at this time. Pete Kelly (R) and Al Vezey (R) oppose any direct taxes or attacks on the dividend. None addressed Alaska’s economic vulnerability. Senate R: None support direct taxes or capping the dividend. House 29: Bonnie Williams (R) opposes both new taxes and a dividend cap. Scott Calder (AIP) opposes a dividend cap but did not discuss direct taxation of Alaskans. House 30: Judy Warwick (R) says, “We need to continue to diversify the economy.“ [“Continue”? When did we start? -KM] House 31: It’s really scary when Valerie Therrien (D) comes closest to the right answer. House 32: Only John Coghill (R) stated an opposition to taxes and to a dividend cap. House 33: Neither candidate supports direct taxes or a dividend cap. House 34: No support for direct taxes. House 35: No support for direct taxes or for a dividend cap. “The Legislature opted against reinvesting $600 million in surplus interest earnings into the virtually untouchable state permanent fund because some lawmakers feared Alaska might need that money in the future. Please explain what you would do with the money?“ I would have put the money back into the fund principal. Governor: All three Republicans, along with “Republican Moderate” Ray Metcalfe, answered the same. Lt. Governor: Virginia Collins (R), Doyle Holmes (R), and Jerry Ward (R) all answered correctly. Senate P: All except Jane Haigh (D) said they would have put the money back in the fund principal. Senate R: Only Phyllis Tate (R) favored reinvesting the money into the fund principal. House 29: None said outright that they would have reinvested the money, but Bonnie Williams (R) says, “my inclination is to support proven success [reinvesting surplus interest earnings].“ House 30: Neither made the right call. House 31: Tonya Brown (D) gave backhanded support to reinvesting surplus earnings. House 32: John Coghill (R) and Charles Rollins (D) got this one right. House 33: Both favored reinvestment. House 34: Neither favored reinvestment. House 35: No one said they would have reinvested the money in the fund principal. Anne Mauer (R) ducked. “Earlier this year, the state Department of Law said Native tribal courts have the same authority as state courts over some domestic matters of their members. What kind of powers do you think tribes should have?“ We have to remember that a tribal court is, in effect, a racial court. Such courts are unconstitutional where Indian country doesn’t exist (there’s some reason to question whether they’re constitutional even there)—and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on Indian country in Alaska. Native villages may establish local courts only if and when municipal-level courts are ever established in Alaska. The unpleasant truth is, the Alaska Department of Law has a dismal record over the last four years—maybe it’s time to remove that agency from gubernatorial patronage. Governor: Coming closest to my admittedly somewhat radical position were Wayne Ross, and Robin Taylor, all of whom insist that tribal courts must be subordinate to state courts. If tribal courts must exist, this is the only way. Lt. Governor: Clyde Baxley (“RM”), Doyle Holmes (R), and Jerry Ward (R) expressed a view that tribal courts ought to be subordinate to state courts. Senate P: Both Pete Kelly (R) and Al Vezey (R) spoke of the racial character of tribal courts, and both also hinted at possible devolution of some municipal-type functions to municipal governments. Senate R: All hold that tribal courts should be subordinate to state courts. House 29: Bonnie Williams (R) opposes a dual court system (the Law Department opinion envisions precisely that). House 30: Judy Warwick (R) agrees that tribal courts must not be equal to state courts. House 31: Jim Whitaker (R) finally gets one right. House 32: Only John Coghill (R) addressed the question of a dual court system (he’s opposed). House 33: Gene Therriault (R) opposes increased powers for tribal courts. House 34: I’m not sure what to make of Bill Lewis’ (D) answer, and Jeannette James (R) says, “I haven’t sorted that one out.“ House 35: Only John Harris (R) stated forthrightly that state courts should be superior to tribal courts. Again, Anne Mauer (R) ducked. “A constitutional amendment on the ballot this fall defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Please explain how you will vote on this.“ Yes. It’s sad that judges have gone so far out into the ozone that a constitutional amendment defining marriage is necessary, but there you are. Governor: Nels Anderson (D), Wayne Ross (R), and Robin Taylor (R) expressed intent to vote Yes. John Lindauer (R) expressed opposition to gay marriage without pledging his vote. Lt. Governor: Virginia Collins (R), Doyle Holmes (R), Don Smith (R), Jerry Ward (R), and Dan Winn (G) all said they’ll vote Yes—though Winn added, “I don’t think it’s necessary. It’s just mean people being mean.“ Senate P: Pete Kelly (R) and Al Vezey (R) said they will vote Yes. (Kelly was instrumental in bringing the amendment to the ballot.) Senate R: Scott Smith (R) and Phyllis Tate (R) both say they’ll vote Yes. House 29: Bonnie Williams (R) pledged to vote Yes. House 30: Neither candidate pledged to vote Yes. House 31: No candidate pledged to vote Yes. Tonya Brown (D) deemed it a religious matter. House 32: John Coghill (R) declared a Yes vote. Claudia Douglas (D) tap-danced away from the question, which in my opinion is far worse than an outright No. House 33: Both say they’ll vote Yes. House 34: Jeannette James (R) will vote Yes. House 35: John Harris (R) and Edward Varnes (R) said they will vote Yes, while Anne Mauer (R) voiced conceptual agreement with the amendment without pledging a vote. “Alaska is second in the nation in the proportional growth of its population of people age 65 or older. By 2015, Alaska is expected to have about 81,000 people in that age category. The Alaska Commission on Aging expects a corresponding increase in the number of people with Alzheimer’s disease. With people in need of Alzheimer’s care filling up the state’s Pioneer’s Homes, how should the state prepare to adequately care for even more patients? Or should it? Explain.“ [In general, when a question requires *this* much preliminary exposition, it’s because those asking it know that even the well informed are largely unaware of the issue—suggesting that the question is aimed not at addressing a real issue but at trumping up a media issue. Nevertheless…] As a nation, America has made a solemn promise to its people that basic health care would be available to them in their old age even if they individually couldn’t afford it. Although logistically this was a stupid and ultimately unkeepable promise, we are bound to do the best we can to keep it, but I fear we are coming to the point where even our best will be like trying to kill a tyrannosaurus rex with a flyswatter. Therefore it is absolutely essential that the will be found at all levels, particularly in our communities and families, to develop and adopt alternatives to institutional, taxpayer-funded health care regimes. Governor: Wayne Ross (R), and Robin Taylor (R) get this one right. Lt. Governor: Don Smith (R) favors encouraging people to plan for their later years. Senate P: Only Al Vezey (R) addressed the possible role of the private sector in dealing with this issue. Senate R: None spoke of alternatives to taxpayer-funded health care. House 29: Only Bonnie Williams (R) addressed the need for alternatives to taxpayer-funded care. House 30: Judy Warwick (R) discussed private-sector alternatives. House 31: No mention of alternatives to taxpayer-funded care. House 32: Only John Coghill got this one right. House 33: Gene Therriault (R) wrote, “The state should look for ways to encourage the expansion of private care providers.“ House 34: No mention of alternatives to taxpayer-funded care. House 35: No mention of alternatives to taxpayer-funded care. “Eighty-five percent of the 500 people responding to an Alaska Department of Transportation survey do not want the Denali Highway paved. DOT intends to proceed with the $5 million project to resurface 20 miles of the road west of Paxson. The agency says it can maintain pavement cheaper than it can gravel. The job also includes other improvements. Most money for the project is federal highway cash. Should DOT proceed with the project? Why or why not?“ I was under the impression the survey was about the entire length of the highway, not just 20 miles of it. I have to wonder what the respondents thought it was about? If they had the same impression as I did, maybe there’s no real issue here so long as DOT limits the resurfacing to that section already paved. As for the federal highway funds, there are many Interior highway projects that could use that money, that have more safety problems than the Denali. Nor does the fact the feds are giving away money necessarily mean that we have to take it. Governor: Nels Anderson (D), Harold Haldane (AIP), Wayne Ross (R), Jim Sykes (G), and Robin Taylor (R) all oppose “the project,“ which may mean either the 20-mile resurfacing or the concept of paving the entire road. This question really is badly put. Lt. Governor: Doyle Holmes (R) alone says, “Don’t pave it.“ Senate P: None favor the project. Senate R: Only Phyllis Tate (R) says the highway should not be paved, and makes many of the same points I did above. House 29: None favor the project. House 30: Tom Brice (D) opposes the project. Judy Warwick (R) waffled. House 31: Jim Whitaker (R) opposes the project. House 32: Claudia Douglas (D) and Charles Rollins (D) oppose the project, while John Coghill (R) favors paving the 20 miles west of Paxson (I guess he saw how badly drafted this question was). House 33: Both say no. House 34: Jeannette James (R) thinks there are higher priorities. Bill Lewis (D) personally supports paving, but defers to the 85% opposed. House 35: Only Anne Mauer (R) opposed the project without mincing words. Tom Van Brocklin (D) retreated into bureaucratese but seemed to be opposed—sort of—weather permitting. * * * “A new state law allows the state to cut a deal with investors of a natural gas pipeline for relief from the current tax system, which includes property taxes, the state corporate income tax and the gas severance tax. Is this an appropriate incentive to gain construction of a pipeline? Why or why not?“ It is not, because the gain to the state is not enough to justify the precedent that would be set. In the end the pipeline would prove to be a state-subsidized jobs program, with more such programs coming later. The question should be whether the pipeline is economically feasible—the fact it requires such extensive concessions argues persuasively that it is not. If in the future it should become so, then it should be done. While Alaska does need to pursue ways to strengthen and stabilize its economy, this kind of centrally planned, command-economy approach is just more of what’s held the state back for decades. Candidates for Governor and Lt. Governor were not asked this question (see next question) Senate P: Betty Rollins (D) and Al Vezey (R) oppose these incentives outright. Senate R: Only Bert Cottle (D) got this one right, though Phyllis Tate (R) seems to be the only candidate so far to bother looking at the natural gas market and see problems for the pipeline. House 29: No one got this one right. House 30: Neither got this one right. House 31: No one got this one right. House 32: Only Charles Rollins (D) opposes this boondoggle. House 33: Doug Welton (D) simply says “No.“ Gene Therriault warns, “I would not have supported this legislation if it did not require further legislative scrutiny.“ House 34: Jeannette James (R) says she is not comfortable with the incentives at this time. House 35: Only Edward Varnes (R) expressed misgivings about the incentives. “Alaska is the only state without a mandatory hunter education program. The state is considering whether to require that hunters attend such a program prior to obtaining a hunting license. Does Alaska need this? Why or why not?“ No, because more people are killed in Alaska while wandering unarmed through wild areas than while hunting. By the logic invoked to call for hunter education programs, we should require every tourist to attend a tourist education program before venturing into the woods. Governor: Only Tony Knowles (D) did not oppose the requirement outright, deferring to the Board of Game. Lt. Governor: All except Dan Winn (G) and Fran Ulmer (D) oppose the requirement outright. Winn positively supports it. Legislative candidates were not asked this question. “Some Alaskans say urban residents receive more state services than rural ones. Others believe the opposite. Does the state spend money and provide services evenly between the regions or, if there are differences, are they justified? What would you change?“ This would be a non-issue if the state were not responsible for so many services across so much of Alaska that would better be provided by municipal governments. There are differences between services provided to urban vs. rural residents, and there is good reason why there should be those differences—but the state’s approach to that difference has been fundamentally flawed from the beginning, ranging from reserving to the state so many municipal-type powers, to the concept and application of the constitutional articles and state laws regarding boroughs. It’s simply not possible for a state administration in Juneau to properly serve people living in the Yukon Flats or the Y-K Delta without serious deficiencies. Governor: None came close to making my admittedly somewhat radical point, but all acknowledged that differences between urban and rural levels of service do exist, and are unavoidable. Lt. Governor: Doyle Holmes (R) says, “This is a false issue!“—but focuses on cost information rather than the systemic flaw I cited above. All except Don Smith (R) acknowledged that differences between urban and rural levels of service do exist, and are unavoidable. Senate P: Pete Kelly (R) opposes subsidizing communities that “have no economic reason to exist.“ Al Vezey (R) suggested the need to make numerous changes to state law. Senate R: All accept that differences in levels of state services are unavoidable, but none considered whether fundamental changes are needed in Alaska’s government structure. House 29: Bonnie Williams (R) called for “a major review of just what we do provide—and need to provide.“ House 30: Neither addressed the basic flaw I see in this situation. Tom Brice (D) tap-danced around the question without addressing it at all. House 31: All acknowledged that differences are unavoidable. Jim Whitaker (R) expressed complacency. House 32: By unanimous decision: Differences are unavoidable. House 33: Only Gene Therriault (R) acknowledges that it’s impossible to ensure total fairness under the present system. Doug Welton (D) says, “make it fair for all” without suggesting how. House 34: Bill Lewis (D) acknowledged what most everyone else acknowledges. Jeannette James (R) bailed, citing the word limit imposed on her reply. House 35: Nothing radical. “What are your views on abortion and the government’s role in regulating it or allowing it?“ The U.S. Supreme Court in its Roe v. Wade decision overstepped its authority in thousand-league boots and placed the federal government in the position of not simply allowing abortion but of positively promoting it (albeit in a falsely passive voice). Nor does any government at any level have any authority to spend taxpayer dollars on a medical procedure that takes a human life, when 99.99% of those procedures are discretionary. I am pro liberty and pro pursuit of happiness, so how can I be anything but pro life? Governor: Nels Anderson (D), John Lindauer (R), Wayne Ross (R), and Robin Taylor (R) all oppose taxpayer funding for discretionary abortions. Ray Metcalfe (“RM”) used the question as an excuse to blast all pro-life Republicans as “right-wing religious fanatics.“ Lt. Governor: Virginia Collins (R) supports regulating abortion. Doyle Holmes (R) says, “I am opposed to abortion.“ Don Smith (R) and Jerry Ward (R) oppose taxpayer funded abortions, though Smith adds, “government should not tell anyone what they can do to or with their bodies,“ while Ward declares, “To me [partial-birth abortion] is murder.“ Senate P: Pete Kelly (R) says, “I am pro-life.“ Al Vezey (R) says, “Abortion for the purpose of birth control is wrong.“ Senate R: Scott Smith (R) and Phyllis Tate (R) expressed pro-life sentiments. House 29: Bonnie Williams (R) says, “I believe a fetus is a human and therefore entitled to protection under the law.“ House 30: Neither candidate overtly expressed a pro-life view. House 31: Jim Whitaker (R) somehow decided that a fetus is a child only after the fourth month of pregnancy—but he still did better than the others. House 32: John Coghill (R) says, “I am pro-life.“ House 33: Both expressed pro-life sentiments. House 34: Jeannette James (R) wrote, “I believe life begins at conception.“ House 35: All except Tom Van Brocklin (D) declared themselves pro-life. “What is the most pressing state issue facing Alaska? What would you do about it?“ I hate to quote James Carville, but: “It’s the economy, stupid.“ We’re too dependent on too few industries, too few transportation options, and too large an array of governments, from the federal on down to, in many cases, municipal. Alaska must be set free to grow in as many directions as it can. This will require action at all levels of government (mostly a matter of getting out of the way), but I think it can be done. It has to be done. Better sooner than later. Governor: No candidate focused on setting Alaska free to grow. Tony Knowles (D) did focus on the economy, but from a central-planning perspective. Lt. Governor: Only Fran Ulmer (D) focuses on the economy, but with the exact same words and from the exact same perspective as Knowles. Jerry Ward (R) mentions privatization in connection with the budget gap. Senate P: Only Pete Kelly (R) noted the need to diversify the economy and reduce Alaska’s dependence on the oil markets. Senate R: Phyllis Tate (R) discussed the economy. House 29: None discussed the economy. Bonnie Williams (R) spoke of good budgets. House 30: Nothing from either about the economy. House 31: Jim Whitaker (R) focused on the economy, but supports centralized planning rather than freedom to grow. House 32: None discussed the economy. House 33: Doug Welton (D) wrote (quoted in full), “Jobs—year-round.“ It’s a start. House 34: Nothing about the economy. House 35: Only John Harris (R) even mentioned an economic issue—“The creation of new jobs”—but spoke of “creating an atmosphere” to encourage growth. Huh? Well, that’s that. Whether you agreed with me or not on any given issue, I hope at least you got some insights into the issues and candidates that will help those of you who are as yet undecided.

Some Get It Right (Sort of)

Mon   17 Aug 1998   23:06 by Kevin McGehee in North Pole, Alaska 0 comments [Alaska] [Get Offa My Lawn!] [My Two Cents]

The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner sent questionnaires to Interior candidates for Legislature, and all candidates for U.S. Senate, U.S. House, Governor and Lieutenant Governor, for publication in Sunday’s 1998 Primary Election special supplement. As usual, some of the questions are virtual non sequiturs in this election, but the answers nevertheless offer a certain ideological perspective on the candidates—which is why they’re asked (or so I would assume). In lieu of presenting a personal endorsement of any candidate, I thought it might be useful to go through the questions, give what I consider to be the right answers, and then identify the candidates who came closest. I should also point out at the beginning that an additional consideration—electability—would color my own decision of which candidate should receive my personal support. Anyway, here goes Part One, with the national questions asked of candidates for U.S. Senate and House: “The United States is expecting its first budget surplus in almost 30 years. What should Congress do with the money?“ The right answer is that the alleged surplus is smoke and mirrors. The Clinton Administration sold the concept of a budget surplus based on longstanding use of Social Security tax receipts (there is no “trust fund”) and an expected onetime revenue windfall from the tobacco settlement that congressional big-spenders scuttled with their greed for pork. Since the Social Security revenues oughtn’t to be spent on anything but Social Security benefits, and the tobacco deal revenues aren’t going to be there, there will be no surplus. House: the candidate who came closest to getting it right is Republican Jim Dore, whose reply began, “How can you have a surplus when you’re in debt over $5 trillion.“ But even he didn’t complete the indictment of the question. Senate: Democrat Joe Sonneman hit it right on the head by stating up front, “No budget surplus exists.“ He overlooks the role of the non-existent tobacco settlement, however, and assumes, incorrectly, that a Social Security “trust fund” even exists. “Federal welfare reform will remove many Alaskans from public assistance in the coming years. Rural community leaders say their economies do not have enough jobs to employ these people. How would you address their concerns?“ If the objective is to improve the overall state economy so as to help improve the economies of rural communities, exemptions from welfare limits make no more sense than free air commuter service between Bush villages and the places where the jobs are now. What is needed is for those populations that are in dire economic need to join politically with those of us who support setting Alaska’s economy free to grow, and fight against those special interests that seek a centrally planned command economy for Alaska—namely Big Labor and the Greens. House: The candidate that got it mostly right on this one was, again, Jim Dore. Republican incumbent Don Young has the “promote general economic growth” rhetoric down pat, but he’s stuck in the command economy mindset that has crippled Alaska since the Prudhoe Bay oil strike. Democrat Stu Pechek says, “Rural Alaskans must not be forced to leave their homes, families and villages,“ but fails to explain why such an imperative, if valid (it’s not), justifies spending from the U.S. Treasury to benefit a handful of people. Senate: Libertarian Scott Kohlhaas gets the nod on this issue. Republican Frank Murkowski takes credit for a limited, temporary Bush exemption from the welfare limits. Joe Sonneman wants permanent limits, and fellow Democrat Frank Vondersaar wants a federal jobs program in the Bush. “Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has limited the extent of Indian country in Alaska, what role should Congress play—and how much autonomy should tribes have—as state, tribal and federal governments define their relationships?“ Congress should stay out of what is essentially a question of the relationship between the state and its citizens. Insofar as ANCSA reserves a role for the federal government, the federal courts will undoubtedly have some things to say, but ANCSA also establishes, as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, that Alaska Natives are Alaskan citizens, not a separate nation within the U.S. House: Again, Jim Dore leads the field, while Don Young acknowledges that the state should have a larger role than Congress. Jim Duncan’s answer, which like all of his answers presumes a lord-vassal relationship between the federal government and the state, suggest he would be very dangerous in Congress. Senate: No candidate comes very close, though Republican Frank Murkowski does tout “local control in cooperation with the state.“ Libertarian Scott Kohlhaas preaches Libertarian doctrine that, while technically right, doesn’t really address the question. Democrat Joe Sonneman wants Congress to shoulder the state out of the way in dealing with Natives. “Do you think the historic mining and transportation trails should be recognized as state highway rights of way? If so, what rights does the state have to develop these as roads? If not, what kind of trails should be recognized and, possibly, developed?“ Yes; the state has the powers established in its Constitution, and the rights enshrined in the Statehood Compact. There is no federal legislation affecting these rights of way that rightly supersedes the Alaska Constitution (regardless what Bruce Babbitt might say). House: The Republicans both are right on this one, but again Jim Dore is closer to the mark. Don Young notes however that “the state should have unrestricted discretion over it as implied under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.“ Not bad. Democrat Stu Pechek argues that the state “does not have the right to use [the rights of way] in a manner that unreasonable interferes with the owner” of land crossed by them—which overlooks the state’s right of eminent domain with respect to private owners, and the fact that the federal government is nowhere granted a constitutional power to own land for parks or wilderness. Senate: The best answers come from Republican Frank Murkowski and Democrat Frank Vondersaar but neither quite reaches the mark. Libertarian Scott Kohlhaas repudiates eminent domain, despite the fact it is one of the elements of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “Pressure to drill for oil has shifted west lately from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. How much, if any, of the NPR-A would you like to be opened to exploration?“ Exploration should be permitted throughout the reserve. It would have made more sense to find out first whether there was any oil there before designating it a petroleum reserve, but oh well… (no pun intended) House: Only Jim Dore gets this right. Don Young points out why opening the reserve would be environmentally sound, but stops at wanting to open only the northeast section, noting that this is all that the bureaucracy has studied. The Democrats also support opening the reserve, but with more “green” restrictions. Senate: Again, Republican Frank Murkowski and Democrat Frank Vondersaar give the best answers to this question. “A bill that failed in the current Congress would have banned “soft money” donations, unlimited and largely unregulated contributions that can be made to state and national political parties that can then use the money to support individual candidates. The bill also would have limited spending on some political ads and provide for better contribution disclosure. Do you support or oppose this bill? Why?“ Oppose!!! The problem is not the amount of money that political parties spend, nor the amount that individuals or organizations contribute—the problems are participation and disclosure, not necessarily in that order. Under Alaska’s recent state campaign finance deform (excuse me, I mean “reform”—or do I?) law, candidates for office have to spend so much of their time chasing smaller contributions that they are unable to get their message out to voters; this results in the opposite of what the “reformers” claim they wanted because now only the wealthy can run for any office. Nor is it constitutional to prohibit a candidate to donate to his own campaign (the Alaska Supreme Court to the apparent contrary notwithstanding). The main problem with our political system is that good, decent, honest people who might otherwise wish to get involved have become thoroughly disillusioned with the way a very few politicians have played the system to their own advantage against the best interests of the nation, the state, or the community. If Alaska’s campaign finance law is any indicator of how federal “reform” would work, such a law at the federal level will only make matters worse by several orders of magnitude. Hell no. House: Both Republicans get it right, each in his own way. Democrat Stu Pechek claims incorrectly that term limits will make campaign finance “reform” work. Democrat Jim Duncan oozes concern for “the ability of groups and individuals [note which comes first in his mind] to express their political feelings,“ while still supporting fraudulent reforms. Senate: Republican Frank Murkowski notes that the Clinton-Gore abuses of 1996 were violations of existing campaign finance laws and therefore do not indicate a need for new laws, he vows furthermore, “I will never support bills that limit political speech since that is the heart of the First Amendment.“ Democrat Joe Sonneman calls for an hour of free air time per candidate. “A procedural vote in the Senate this summer killed a tobacco bill that would have raised at least $516 billion over 25 years, in part by raising the price of a pack of cigarettes by $1.10 over five years. The bill would have allowed the federal government to regulate nicotine and limited the industry’s ability to advertise. It has not come up in the House.“ Good. It may be appropriate for nicotine to be regulated, but limiting cigarette advertising has always held out a dangerous precedent to the right of a law-abiding business to do business. Where a cigarette company has broken a law it should be subject to penalties like any other business, but the tobacco bill was a bad answer to a problem that mostly doesn’t exist, and where it does exist should perhaps be a state matter, not federal. As for the cigarette tax, I have a saying: “Friends don’t let friends raise taxes.“ House: Republican Don Young comes close to my view on this one, although Jim Dore raises the issue of whether Congress has constitutional authority to regulate nicotine (or, presumably, anything else). Even without federal regulation, states should have the power to regulate nicotine if their legislators choose—but this would be out of Congress’ hands anyway so the point goes to Dore. Both Democrats said they’d have supported the tobacco bill. Senate: Only Libertarian candidate Scott Kohlhaas gets anywhere near right on this question, and he’s right on the money this time. “A bill in Congress would give the University of Alaska 250,000 acres of federal land and another 250,000 if the state provides an equal amount. The university would use the land as it sees fit to raise revenue. The governor, in vetoing state legislation, said giving land to the university could hurt municipal land holdings and conflicts between land owners and users. Do you support or oppose giving the university 250,000 acres?“ Both the state and federal governments owe at least that much to the university, and the obligation should be discharged. Whatever conflicts Tony Knowles may have perceived were most likely illusory anyway, dreamt up to justify doing the bidding of environmental extremists who would rather that no land development take place in Alaska at any time for any reason. What few legitimate concerns remain can easily be dealt with by anyone with an ounce of sense. House: Republican Jim Dore notes the lack of U.S. constitutional authority for federal ownership of more than 60 percent of Alaska, while Don Young argues that the bill mentioned in the question places more of a burden on the state than he thinks appropriate. The Democrats’ answers call for tougher restrictions but express support—in concept—for the land grant. Senate: Republican Frank Murkowski has it right this time, noting that the University of Alaska has been shortchanged on its land grant (Murkowski introduced the bill in question). Libertarian Scott Kohlhaas grudgingly accepts the bill “as a step toward less land owned by government.“ Frank Vondersaar blindly follows Gov. Knowles’ lead, while fellow Democrat Joe Sonneman predictably says, in effect, “Yes, but…“ “What are your views on abortion and the government’s role in regulating it or allowing it?“ The U.S. Supreme Court in its Roe v. Wade decision overstepped its authority in thousand-league boots and placed the federal government in the position of not simply allowing abortion but of positively promoting it (albeit in a falsely passive voice). Nor does any government at any level have any authority to spend taxpayer dollars on a medical procedure that takes a human life, when 99.99% of those procedures are discretionary. I am pro liberty and pro pursuit of happiness, so how can I be anything but pro life? House: Republican Don Young comes closer to my view than does Jim Dore, who opposes abortion “with no exceptions.“ In conscience I have to acknowledge, at the very least, an exception where both the mother’s and the child’s lives would be lost otherwise. Democrat Jim Duncan mouths the usual “pro-choice” platitudes, while Stu Pechek is perfectly comfortable with Roe v. Wade. Senate: Murkowski wins again (at least on federal abortion funding), while both Democrats express “pro-choice” views and Kohlhaas declares, “Libertarians are pro-choice” while also opposing the use of public funds for abortion. “What is the most pressing federal issue facing Alaska? What would you do about it?“ The intrusion of the federal government into areas that are lawfully and rightfully the prerogative of the state. If I were in Congress I would push for a substantive revisit to those portions of ANILCA that the Clinton Administration has drawn upon to justify its illegal usurpation of state power over fish and game management in Alaska. No other state has been forced to cede its powers in this sphere, not even on federally claimed land. House: Don Young is right, although I give a nod to Jim Dore for vowing to support impeachment of President Clinton. Democrat Jim Duncan holds to the idea that the federal government has a role in education (it does not), while Stu Pechek wants a three-way referendum on a state constitutional amendment on subsistence—which I don’t think is legal, and is certainly not a matter for Congress. Senate: Game, set and match to Murkowski. Part Two will cover state candidates and the questions posed to them.

Bill’s Got a Bridge He’d Like to Sell in the South

Fri   25 Oct 1996   13:15 by Kevin McGehee in North Pole, Alaska 0 comments [Get Offa My Lawn!] [My Two Cents]

President Clinton’s “bridge to the 21st century” sold pretty well to the uncritical bunch in Big Media, but now he’s touring the South with it, hoping to keep the Republican presidential ticket from turning the region’s traditional conservatism into a threat to his re-election. At the same time he was telling people in Alabama that it looked like they’d like to “cross that bridge” with him, Reuters was reporting that a poll shows Bob Dole and Jack Kemp slightly ahead in Texas (though within the margin of error). I’ve been wondering lately about the other polls, the ones purporting to show Clinton maintaining a steady double-digit lead nationally among “likely” voters—wondering just what Clinton’s actual numbers are in those polls. That part hasn’t been quite as prominently discussed… With Ross Perot running about five percent nationally, and the minor-party tickets threatening to stay in their usual three-points-or-less-combined ghetto, if Clinton is doing no better than—oh, let’s say 43%, just at random—then this race is nowhere near as cut-and-dried as many are making it appear. Bear in mind that in the final results in 1992 Perot had about 18 percent, and the popular-vote difference between Clinton and Bush was only six points. If Perot has slipped as much as the polls now say—thirteen points!—Clinton is toast if he can’t do better than he did back then. So can he? And can he do enough better, in a good enough distribution among high-electoral-vote states, to actually win? These questions don’t seem to be getting much attention right now. But as I read about Slick Willie traveling the South talking about a bridge, I can’t help but think that there are a great many people out there who are in for a real surprise. Especially when you consider that Clinton’s biggest and most persistent scandal involves the sale of swamp land… Can it be that Dick Morris’ departure has left the Clinton/Gore campaign with no more savvy than to go to Dixie to sell a bridge?

Page 58 of 60 pages « First  <  56 57 58 59 60 >