Open Left - alaska

2008 Electorate: Native Alaskans - An Economic Factor?

dreaminonempty — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:42:02 GMT

Alaska: Land Without Counties. You may have noticed every election results website (that I saw) showed you results by county for every state except Alaska. That's because their vote is tallied by State House district instead, and it takes a bit of effort to reorganize the data for different geographic units - of which the closest equivalent to counties are boroughs and census areas. Here's the map of the 2008 election results by State House district:

Click to enlarge.

Each district had somewhere between about 5000 and 12000 votes cast. Democratic strength is centered in Anchorage and Juneau, while Republican strength is in the South Central region (outside of Anchorage) and Fairbanks.

So what about the Native Alaskan vote, about 10% of the total voters?

Precinct Level Map

Zooming in one geographic level, the map below shows 2008 presidential results by precinct - but it only shows precincts that were more than 85% Alaskan Native or Native American in the 2000 census.

Click to enlarge.

At first glance, this a patchwork crazy quilt. Part of this is because almost half the precincts had fewer than 100 votes, and when you have so few votes, things get squirrely. But there are some geographic patterns there if you squint.

Compare to the map of native languages, or the related map of Regional Corporations formed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Here's an overlay of the Regional Corporations on the results map:

Click to enlarge.

Overall Support

Overall, the exit polls show 52% support of Obama among the racial category of Other in Alaska, which made up 11% of the electorate. I'm willing to bet it's pretty hard to do an exit poll in the less populated areas of Alaska, though. So let's go back to estimates

The census records four main groupings of Alaskan Natives. Calculations of Obama's support among these groups statewide shows that the Alaskan Native population is far from uniform in voting behavior among these four groups as well:

Click to enlarge.

Why?

Well, Why Not? Why would we expect much homogeneity across such a huge expanse of territory?

The answer is we wouldn't - and one possible reason is economic interests. In the maps above, we see there is a region of low support for Obama in Northwest Alaska, including almost all of (but not limited to) the NANA Regional Corporation. This Alaska Native Regional Corporation owns the Red Dog Mine, the world's largest zinc mine. Census data show that in this area (NW Arctic Borough, Census Tract #1) 27% are employed in mining (which includes oil), far higher than any other part of Western Alaska. (Note that another area of weak support for Obama among Native Alaskans, in Southwest Alaska, does not show a similarly large proportion of workers in the mining industry.)

What we have is a large state, and a diverse population, relatively small in number, with varied economic and cultural interests. Diverse political views are no surprise.

________________________________________________
This diary is the ninth in a series taking a close look at the 2008 electorate and exploring three themes: diversity within demographics, progressive feedback loops, and demographic change.

Previous diaries:

Looking Back
Alternate History
Why Republicans Should Be Really Scared
African-Americans - We Are Not All of Us Alike
East and South Asian Americans - Diverse and Growing
West Asian Americans - Rapid Change
Native Americans - Increasing Participation
Islander Americans - In Need of More Representation

Tomorrow: The Latino Electorate: Increasing Influence

Cross posted at DailyKos.

On Ruling The Arctic Frontier, Part Two, Or, There's Stormier Weather Ahead

fake consultant — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:20:53 GMT

In order to complete today's story we return to travelling the seas around the High Arctic...and in telling the first half of the story we were introduced to a sea captain and his parrot, we examined the destruction of a tribal village by United States Marines-and we learned that "tricing up" someone is not some kind of weird dating ritual.

The story has already raised questions of race and culture; and as we move forward it's going to encompass whaling, an incredible rescue, and more personal trials and tribulations-not to mention the Brewery Worker's Union-and if all that wasn't enough, we'll even bring in a few thousand reindeer to round the whole thing out.

So put on your caribou fur, clean up your sled runners--and let's head north to Alaska, before the rush is on.
Those of you who were with us last time will recall that we are telling an epic tale of 19th Century Alaska...and for those of you who were not, let's bring you up to date:

Captain Mike "Hell-Roaring" Healy, possibly the most influential man in the Arctic at the time, had risen from a Georgia plantation birth to become the commander of the most important ship in the Arctic, the Revenue Cutter Bear.

From his Aleutian base at Unalaska, his influence ran from Anchorage to Point Barrow-and even to Siberia...and within that "sphere of influence", his word was absolutely the way it would be.

In many ways he was the United States in Alaska: his was the only (white man's) law in a lawless Territory, he carried the mail, and he and his ship were often the first responder in emergencies.

There had been controversy, however-and when Part One of this story ended Captain Healy had just survived an investigation into his methods-and his alleged heavy drinking--while in command.

And with the catching up out of the way, let's talk reindeer.

Despite what you might think after hearing about Captain Healy's involvement in the destruction of that tribal village in Part One of our story, he was regarded as a man who cared deeply about life in the tribal communities.

And when American officials worried about those communities, the biggest fear was starvation.

For those not aware, most of the time, most of the interior of Alaska is geographically inaccessible, and to make things worse, what little growing season there might be is too short to allow for any real agricultural production.

That means much of what Alaska natives were eating was gathered from the sea...and since the foreign ships had come to the Arctic, those resources were getting a lot more scarce. (Much of the rest of the local diet was caribou, which is a migratory animal, which means the presence or absence of fresh meat would depend on the location of the herd.)

In the late 1800s, when the whalers had moved from the Pacific to the Arctic as the whale catches began to decline farther south, the walrus and sea lions that were quite abundant in the far north became a natural choice for harvest. At the same time, hunters had begun to work the region with rifles, which was forcing the caribou herds farther inland.

The obvious downside to this new activity was that it was becoming harder and harder for native subsistence hunters to gather enough food for their communities as these animal populations began to decline...which was something the two men who had been sent to Wales, Alaska on the Bear to establish a school had quickly noticed.

(There are those who question whether the new hunting was as serious an issue for the natives as the new educators thought it was; suggesting instead that natural forces were causing the declines in population.)

It was also well known that just a few miles across the Bering Strait, in Siberia, natives were practicing "reindeer capitalism" (the reindeer eat the omnipresent lichen, making them the perfect animal for herding in an Arctic environment).

In 1891, on board the Bear, those two men, their boss (Dr. Sheldon Jackson) and Captain Healy came up with the idea of importing Siberian reindeer to Alaska so that Alaskan natives might have a go at reindeer herding themselves. By the next year, with no official permission from Washington, they brought over the first 16 reindeer.

(It should also be noted that in addition to reducing perceived starvation, the other purpose of encouraging the local population to herd reindeer was to "civilize" the natives through assimilation with the newly arrived Americans; and developing an interest in capitalism was felt to be an effective way to advance that goal.)

By 1900 there were more than 3300 reindeer in Alaska.

The potential future? Sheldon Jackson himself wrote in 1895 that the 400,000 square miles of Alaska's interior could support 9.2 million head of reindeer, which could employ as many as 287,500 herders.

The actual outcome? More or less 125,000 deer were processed, either for food or clothing, from the 1890s to the 1920s; and more or less 10% of those were owned by the Lomen family of Nome, Alaska.

In the 1930s, the herd grew to 650,000, but declined to as few as 25,000 in the 1950s. A renewed interest in herding began in the 1960s, and to this day there is an active reindeer industry in the State.

At the same time Healy was sailing reindeer around the Bering Sea, he was sailing himself into further trouble back home.

A variety of interest groups had been banding together to express their displeasure with Healy's ways...including, oddly enough, the San Francisco branches of both the Brewery Worker's Union and the Women's Christian Temperance Union; and the problem had been building since the investigation of Healy in 1890 had cleared him of all charges.

When Healy had been accused of cruelty in that investigation, his response had been to say:

"We are empowered by Congress to suppress mutinies. We have no right to exercise magisterial functions. Our functions as such are exercised by policemen. We must suppress mutinies. A policeman does not sit in judgment on a man before he acts. We are not allowed to hold trials . . . If a mutiny occurred at San Francisco, to quell a mutiny or disturbance we would go and arrest the man, and turn him over to the police. But, up there, where there is no jail to bring men to, that is the last resort, to trice men up."

And the Investigating Board, in that action, had supported him. But times were changing, and in 1895 25 officers of the various Bering Sea cutters jointly signed a new statement of charges against Healy.

The crux of the matter again revolved around his behavior while drinking; among the charges were accusations that he discovered a burial at sea occurring on board his ship without his knowledge-and that he made his entrance to the somber occasion by announcing that "Aboard this ship I am the resurrection and the life.''

In another incident Healy was accused of literally being "falling-down drunk" on duty: it was alleged that he stumbled right off the dock at Unalaska and into the water at an official social event.

This and the other alleged incidents were investigated back in Washington, DC-and this time, the Investigating Board found him guilty of various forms of bad conduct, "Tyrannous and abusive conduct to inferiors", and "Placing a vessel in a perilous position while in an intoxicated condition, thereby endangering the lives and property under his command."

It was recommended that he be dismissed from the Revenue Cutter Service, but the man who had the final word on the matter, Treasury Secretary John G. Carlisle, gave this order instead:

"That Captain Michael A. Healy be dropped to the foot of the list of Captains of the Revenue Service, and that he retain that place hereafter; that he be suspended from rank and command and kept on waiting orders for a term of four years. and that he be publicly reprimanded by reading this order on board all vessels of the Revenue Cutter Service, by the commanding officer of each, at a muster of the commissioned officers, and admonished that if again found guilty of the excessive use of intoxicants during the term of this sentence or thereafter, whether afloat or on shore, he will be summarily dismissed the Service."

Just as Healy had changed the way the Service operated in Arctic regions in years past, his conviction changed the way the Service operated from that day forward. The excessive use of alcohol was now seen as an offense that demanded serious punishment; and beyond that, the very types of punishment that were allowed had themselves changed as a result of the Healy case.

In a sense, it was almost the end of the "Wild West"-in San Francisco and in Alaska-and as frontier times came to an end so did the tolerance for frontier justice.

At this point, we interrupt the tale of Captain Healy to tell a quick story about the Bear. In 1897 eight whaling ships, with 265 crew aboard, were trapped in winter ice in and around Point Barrow...and the great concern was that they would starve if no relief effort could be effectively mounted.

In November of 1897 the Bear was called upon to take up the task (despite the late date), departing from Port Townsend, Washington, and making its way to Cape Vancouver, Alaska under the command of Captain Francis Tuttle. (There had been an effort to bring Healy out of suspension for the mission, but that was not to be.)

Because of the pack ice, the ship could go no farther north, so the Captain ordered a small party to set out overland roughly 1500 miles, hugging the coast, in order to get rescue supplies to Point Barrow. Remember the reindeer? Along the way, the Overland Expedition was able to locate and purchase from local herders almost 400 head, which were used to pull sleds with supplies...and which would eventually be used for food.

It was now December 15th-which, in Alaska, means nearly 24 hours of darkness, temperatures that can easily plummet below minus 50 degrees F. (-45 C.), and an exceptionally difficult landscape...with no possibility of communications between the ship, the shore party, or those hoping to be rescued.

There were other hazards as well, as reported by Lt. E.P. Bertholf, of the shore party:

"My interpreter, a half-breed Russian, had been listening to the conversation among the natives, and he informed me he drew from their talk that they realized I was unable to obtain other means of transportation in that out-of-the-way place, and thought it was a good time to force me to increase their pay, thus showing a marked similarity to the actions of some of their more enlightened white brethren in civilization. But there was no help for it, as I was obliged to have their teams, so I was forced to listen to their demands."

The shore party travelled along the coast for about 100 days, finally reaching Point Barrow on March 26, 1898. The Bear reached the same point July 28 of that year, and by August the crews (having suffered no fatalities) were on their way out of the Chukchi Sea and heading south.

At the end of his suspension in 1900 Healy returned to command aboard the Revenue Cutter McCulloch, which had fought in the Battle of Manila Bay-but a series of personal tragedies fell upon him, including the order to turn over command of the ship, leave the Arctic, and assume command of the Revenue Cutter Seminole, out of Boston. In the course of returning to Seattle in July of that year he apparently experienced a psychotic episode that caused junior officers aboard the ship to physically restrain him in his cabin. It is reported that at one point he attempted to cut his wrists with the crystal of his own watch.

Healy was treated at Port Townsend...and, amazingly, in 1902 his case was reviewed; and as a result of that review he was returned to command aboard the Revenue Cutter Thetis. He was able to complete cruises to Alaska in 1902 and 1903, after which he finally retired. He died in San Francisco, August 30, 1904, of a heart attack.

(A few words on the death of the Bear are in order at this point. The ship, as we mentioned, survived to be the flagship of Admiral Byrd's Antarctic expeditions in the 1930s-and astonishingly enough, it even served in World War II on patrol in Greenland waters. In 1962, it had been renovated to become a restaurant and museum in Philadelphia, but it sank in waters off Boston as it was being towed there...proving that even a ship would "rather be here than in Philadelphia".)

Way back at the beginning of Part One I promised you a surprise ending that would make this story of Arctic history relevant to today's times...so here it is:

Captain Mike Healy was born a slave.

His father, an Irish immigrant, had chosen to live with a woman who had been born a slave, and under the Georgia law in force at the time, not only would Mike and all her other children automatically be classified as slaves, their father was prohibited from freeing them.

That's why they were sent to Boston for their education.

It is reported that the 10 children had varying skin tones, which meant James, who was darker, could not "pass" as white...but Mike could-and apparently he successfully did.

He is today regarded as the first black commanding officer of a United States ship-although there are some who might consider a discussion of the "one-drop rule" to be appropriate before offering the good Captain that distinction.

I promised to answer one other question as well: how did this story never become a movie?

Dr. John Murphy provides that answer in his "Portrait of Captain Michael A. Healy":

"In the late 1930s representatives of the film industry, planning to make a film on the life of the noted captain, wired to Healy's daughter-in-law their wish to examine his four-volume diary. When they arrived it was in ashes. Apparently the daughter-in-law, reading the diary for the first time, learned that her husband's grandmother had been a slave."

So that's the epic tale: born a slave in Georgia, but also born to the Arctic, Captain Mike Healy saved lives, changed the Revenue Cutter Service's way of doing business-twice-and remains a controversial figure to this day, even as the ships that represent his name and his most famous command continue to ply the seas.

And now, as Paul Harvey would have said: you know the rest...of the story.

On Ruling The Arctic Frontier, Or, Polly Want A Reindeer?

fake consultant — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:45:44 GMT

We have an epic tale of history to tell today, and it has everything you'd want in your standard-issue epic tale: the vast expanse of ocean, exploration on the shores of an unknown land, questions of race and slavery and opportunity and torture...and in the center of it all, a real larger-than-life sea captain (and his parrot) who some say was more powerful in Alaska than the Territorial Governor and Circuit Judges who were his frequent shipboard guests.

Such was his influence on the Revenue Cutter Service (later to become the United States Coast Guard) that two Coast Guard Cutters operating today are named with him in mind: the USCGC Bear, named after the most famous ship our sea captain commanded, and the USCGC Healy, the newest icebreaker in the Coast Guard's fleet.

And with that, Gentle Reader, allow me to introduce you to Captain Mike "Hell-Roaring" Healy-and the Arctic which was his domain.

"Captain Mike Healy is a good deal more distinguished person in the waters of the far Northwest than any president of the United States or any potentate of Europe has become. He stands for law and order in many thousand square miles of land and water, and if you should ask in the Arctic Sea, "Who is the greatest man in America?" the instant answer would be, "Why, Mike Healy." When an innocent citizen of the Atlantic coast once asked on the Pacific who Mike Healy was, the answer came, "Why, he's the United States. He holds in these parts a power of attorney for the whole country."
--"The New York Sun", January 28, 1894

Mike Healy, oddly enough, was born on a Georgia plantation in 1839. His father sent him (and his nine brothers and sisters, as they came to age) to Boston for their educations. Fate found them among the very first enrollees of Holy Cross College. Several of his brothers and sisters became notable persons in America's Catholic history (one became a Bishop, one a Rector, three sisters became nuns, and his brother Patrick became President of Georgetown University during the 1870s and early 1880s), but such a path was not to be Mike's.

He ran away from several academic placements in the United States and in Europe, eventually finding himself (at age 15) serving as a cabin boy on the clipper Jumna out of London (which he reports his parents helped to arrange, although this is disputed). In less than 10 years he had risen through the ranks to "...have been three times second officer and once first officer of a brig...", as he wrote in his 1863 application for a commission in the Revenue Cutter Service. Two of his brothers were now in a position to offer influential assistance, and by January 1865 he found himself a Third Lieutenant of the Service.

By 1868 he had been dispatched to his first Alaska assignment, and by 1877 he was in command of his first ship, the Revenue Cutter Chandler. In 1880 he began one of the first of the two most significant commands of his career aboard the Revenue Cutter Thomas Corwin.

At this point we need to step back and talk about exactly what it meant to be in command of a revenue cutter in late 19th Century Alaska...and to do that, we need to start with a bit of geography.

The Aleutian Islands form an arc roughly 1500 miles long from roughly Anchorage to roughly Vladivostok, separating the Pacific Ocean from the Bering Sea. North of that is the site of the "land bridge" that once connected North America and Asia (near what is Wales, Alaska today), and north of that are the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Unalaska is a city located about halfway down the Aleutian chain, and Point Barrow is the northernmost point in the United States.

Within that space the revenue cutter commanders were the most visible official symbols of the United States. They were responsible for preventing smuggling, enforcing the laws among the whaling and sealing fleets and against liquor smuggling and distilling, and rescuing the various explorers, miners, traders, mappers, and other sailors that required their assistance.

Their responsibility also extended to maintaining positive relations with "the natives"-or putting down disquiet by force when relations weren't so positive. Beyond that, before there were sheriffs and courts and jails the cutter commanders were the law on land as well. They also provided the visible face of the United States at public ceremonies.

The revenue cutters would transport the Territorial Governor on inspection tours, as well as the Circuit Judges who would occasionally visit the region (not to mention the mail), they would provide medical services to anyone they came across who might be in need; and they would often return to bases at Port Townsend, Washington or San Francisco bearing prisoners, or those that had been rescued-or both.

To survive in this environment, with that mission, requires an individual who can not only manage the administrative and diplomatic requirements of the job, but also a leader who can command the respect of a crew of fairly tough sailors...and Healy was more than up for the task.

It is reported that over the next decade his expertise in seamanship and Arctic operations grew to the point where he was involved in not just captaining a ship, but helping to design the ships that were subsequently built for Arctic service-and the way operations were conducted on board those ships.

Although much of the "Wild West" was becoming a lot more civilized than had been the case even 20 years before, in 1880 Alaska was still very much an untamed frontier territory. This meant that "frontier justice" was often the rule, and the ship's Captain would often be required to take action.

In October of 1882 a whaling party near Angoon, Alaska experienced an accidental explosion of a "whale bomb", killing a tribal shaman who was employed by the trading company conducting the whaling. Following the custom of the time, the two white members of the whaling party were taken hostage, along with the company's equipment, and a demand was made for compensation (due to the importance of the decedent, the demand was for 200 blankets).

(A quick word on tribal traditions: it is likely that the large number of blankets were related to the Potlatch custom. In an interesting form of reverse capitalism practiced throughout the Pacific Northwest at the time, status is bestowed by an individual's ability to give lavish gifts; and blankets might be turned into "button blankets", which are worn at feasts and other ceremonial occasions.)

The Collector of Customs and the Commander of a US Navy ship, the Adams, responded by sending a force of Marines on a steamer owned by the Company, and coming in person aboard Healy's ship the Corwin (the Adams being too large to navigate the waterways close to the village).

As soon as both vessels had arrived on the scene, the hostages and property were recovered. Healy's report on the events describes what happened next:

"...as a punishment and as a guarantee for future good behavior, Captain Merriman [the Naval Captain] demanded twice the number of blankets demanded by the Indians, and threatened, in case of refusal, to destroy their canoes and villages. Refusing to pay the amount and remaining defiant, their canoes, to the number of forty, were taken and destroyed, after having selected those which belonged to the Indians who had remained friendly to the white men. Remaining unsubdued, their summer camp at this place was burned. Weighing anchor we steamed out of the lagoon, and at two o'clock hove to off the village of Hootsnoo and proceeded to shell the town. After shelling the village the marines were landed under cover of the guns, and they, setting fire to the houses, destroyed the entire village, with the exception of the friendly Indians."

Although there was a considerable outcry over the events of that day, it did not prevent Lieutenant Healy from becoming Captain Healy the next year.

The most famous ship in early Arctic history is undoubtedly the Revenue Cutter Bear. The ship's first work was in the sealing trade and after it was rebuilt for the US Government as a rescue vessel, it helped recover the few survivors of the Greely Expedition. In 1886, after modifications, Captain Healy took command and it became the flagship of the Bering Sea Force. (Fun Fact: the Bear, beginning in 1933, also became Admiral Byrd's command ship on his Antarctic missions.)

In 1890, more controversy over Healy's "frontier justice" form of dealing with problems and his hard-drinking ways came in the form of an investigation of charges of "cruelty and intoxication". The long and the short of the thing is that certain sailors of the merchant ship Estrella acted in a manner that, on the scene, was felt to be mutinous. Captain Healy, as the only law enforcement official available, was called upon to punish the offenders.

"...The three sailors were then taken on board the Bear and triced up. The master at arms of the Bear, who performed this interesting ceremony, explained his method on the stand. The arms of the sailors were bent behind their backs, with their hands manacled together. Ropes were then fastened to the handcuffs, passed through ring bolts overhead, and hauled up. Master at Arms Hughes testified that after he had hauled the men up as high as he thought they ought to go, Lieut. Buhner ordered him to trice them up higher. They were then hoisted up so high that their toes barely touched the deck and they could be spun around like tops.
After remaining in this position five to seven minutes each, suffering intense agony, they were taken down and seated with their backs against stanchions, around which their arms were stretched and fettered behind. They were kept in this position for four hours, and then triced up again, after which Commander Healy seems to have thought their crimes sufficiently punished..."
--"The New York Times", March 12, 1890

Healy was exonerated of all charges. The Investigating Board placed no credence in the charge of drunkenness, and they felt:

"...that there were no courts or peace officers within reach, and that, therefore, the punishment of the crew as a last resort to suppress the mutiny was justifiable."
--"The New York Times", April 5, 1890

I have had to apologize on too many occasions for stories that are too long, so let's take a break here and finish up in Part Two...but before we do, let's recap where we've been.

Alaska in the second half of the 19th Century was all the frontier anybody could want, Captain Mike Healy had risen from a Georgia plantation background to become perhaps the most recognized man in the Arctic, commanding one of the Nation's most historically renowned ships...and while he was enjoying his successes, there had already been questions about his methods-and his drinking.

In Part Two we tell the story of an amazing overland rescue, we learn about international reindeer transplantation, we examine Healy's troubled life and times-and just as if we were Paul Harvey, we end with a "rest of the story" that makes everything you've heard so far become an even more unlikely narrative...and one that will end with a controversy unresolved to this day.

It's an epic tale indeed-and for those of you who wonder "why hasn't anyone ever made a movie out of this story?"...well, we'll answer that question too.

Stolen election in Alaska? Five reasons why that accusation is premature.

Celtic Diva — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 19:30:00 GMT

Many people are shocked that convicted felon Ted Stevens could possibly be ahead of Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich in the fight for his US Senate seat, or that under-investigation Congressman Don Young has probably held on to his seat against Ethan Berkowitz. This seems especially dubious as polls that were correct in every other state were seemingly way off in Alaska. An article in the Anchorage Daily News titled "The Pollsters missed the mark" discusses this:

"The real question is where were the all the Democrats?" Dittman said, noting the voter turnout was supposed to be in record proportions. Instead, only an estimated 57 percent of registered voters had a say - a far drop from the 66 percent turnout in the 2004 presidential election, according to state elections division figures.

The issue of the incorrect polls has triggered some concern both here and in other parts of the country, especially on the "interwebs" where folks have raised the specter of a "rigged election." It's understandable that we're all having flashbacks to Alaska 2004, where the Division of Elections reported some precincts had over 100% turnout. (Voting "early and often" is not just a tongue-in-cheek saying in Chicago!)

However, we should all subscribe to the "Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy" mantra of "Don't Panic!" I can think of at least ~~four~~ five reasons why:
1) Per the Division of Elections, there are three different types of ballots that still must be counted: 1/2 of the early voting ballots (9,500), the absentee ballots (48,000) and the "questioned" ballots (16,000). ("Questioned" ballots come from registered voters who go to a different precinct and are allowed to vote the Congressional and Presidential elections or un-registered voters who go to a precinct and are allowed to register and vote in the presidential election only. All of these votes are checked by hand to determine the voters status.)

That's 73,500 ballots which equal about 15% of all registered voters in the state of Alaska. That's a lot of votes yet to be counted.

2) While Ted Stevens is making the claim that absentee votes "always break conservative," we are operating in an entirely new world because of Barack Obama's campaign strategy. As the result of an Obama and Begich Campaign "Get Out the Vote" juggernaut, it's quite possible that those absentee, early voting and questioned ballots will break Progressive (I know mine is in there)...completely turning that "conventional wisdom" on its head. Also, the absentee ballots are often military-dominated, which has caused them to trend towards conservative in the past, polls and FEC records have shown this election cycle that both the oversees and US-stationed military have heavily favored the Democratic presidential candidates...specifically Barack Obama...over the McCain ticket when it comes to political donations. This "conservative assumption" no longer carries any weight.

3) Much of this "poll angst" is based on the inaccuracy of the pre-election polls. However, those are not the "canaries in a coal mine" when it comes to election tampering or election fraud. International election-watching experts like Nobel Peace Prize recipient President Jimmy Carter have made the case for watching exit polls:

Exit polls are the most accurate way of detecting election fraud. In fact, according to my fellow peace witness, Dr. Daniel Hurwitz - professor of mathematics at Skidmore College - if the exit polls are more than 1 percent different from the outcome of the election, "something fishy" is going on. The 1 percent rule is what international election protection organizations (like the ones that send in Jimmy Carter as an observer) use to judge whether or not fraud is taking place.

The AP conducted an exit poll in Alaska of 20 random precincts polling of 1294 Alaskans:

"...the exit poll and incomplete ballot results had the 40-year incumbent with a very slight lead - 3,363 votes - over Democratic rival Mark Begich, the mayor of Anchorage. More than 60,000 absentee and questioned ballots remain to be counted, so the outcome may be days in coming."

I have talked to AP and have gotten some of the mathematical break-out. However, since 253 of the 1294 polled were absentee/early voters, I won't be able to do an accurate comparison until all of those votes are counted.

4) Per the Democratic Party, changes have been made since 2004 which ensure that (and this is important) every Alaskan has a paper ballot. Any possible machine discrepancies should be caught in a recount, which we can almost guarantee will happen by either the Begich or Stevens campaign after all ballots are counted.

5) Alaska is the only state in the US that knew Obama had probably clinched the presidency almost two hours before our polls closed at 8:00 PM. Between the the good folks at Rasmusson, etc...giving both Begich and Berkowitz a "comfortable" lead and the news showing that Obama would probably be the victor before many folks got off work, it's possible they just went home. This reason makes me the most uncomfortable and is the one I will refuse to accept unless, in the end, all evidence points this direction.

While vigilance in the voting process is definitely required and rage over past problems is understandable, these accusations are premature. According to the nice lady at the Division of Elections as well as Heather Rauch of the Begich Campaign, all ballots should be counted by November 21st.

Let's wait until then before we "don the tin foil."

Linda Kellen Biegel is blogmistress at Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis--Alaska's only Progressive Community Blog.

What The Hell Happened In Alaska?

Chris Bowers — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 03:00:00 GMT

I have to chime in Shannyn Moore and Nate Silver: what the hell happened in Alaska?

In the extended entry, I look at the various irregularities, and weigh the current theories.
1. Was turnout abnormally low in Alaska?
Shannyn Moore wonders why, in the first election when an Alaskan was on the ticket of a major party, turnout in Alaska crashed. She writes:

Four years ago, 313,592 out of 474,740 registered voters in Alaska participated in the election-a 66% turnout. Taking into account 49,000 outstanding ballots, on Tuesday 272,633 out of 495,731 registered Alaskans showed up at the polls; a turnout of 54.9%.

That certainly seems low. In the article linked above, Nate Silver suggests that the drop is turnout in Alaska may have been due to being in a later time zone. However, Hawaii the population of Hawaii lives, on average, two times zones later than Alaska, and turnout there seems to be down only 3% (see current and 2004 results). Why did turnout in Alaska drop so much more than Hawaii?

The answer is it didn't. As tietack notes in quick hits, the correct number of ballots yet to be counted in Alaska is, according to the state website, 74,000, not 47,000. In addition to the 47,000 absentee ballots, there are also 9,500 early votes uncounted, and 16,000 "questioned" ballots. Add these into the overall turnout figures, and that would put Alaska in exactly the same 3-4% turnout drop as Hawaii. This lends credence to Silver's thesis, and raises a lot of doubt about the notion that turnout was abnormally down in Alaska.

2. Why were the polls so wrong in Alaska?
According to current results, in all three of its federal campaigns this year, Alaska broke all records for polling average error. The most inaccurately polled elections this decade are now, in order, Alaska Senate, Alaska President and Alaska House. In fact, the Alaska House campaign has more than doubled the post-2002 previous record for polling error. Here is a comparison of the final Alaskan election polls, according to Republican site Real Clear Politics, to the current results in Alaska for all three federal campaigns:

President
Final polling average: McCain +14.5%
Current results: McCain +25.3%
Shift: Republican +10.8%

Senate
Final polling average: Begich +10.3%
Current result: Stevens +1.5%
Shift: Republican +11.8%

House
Final polling average: Berkowitz +8.5%
Current Results: Young +8%
Shift: Republican +16.5%

How unusual are these shifts? Consider that in all other 2004, 2006 and 2008 campaigns, no polling average was wrong by more than 7% (see 2004 and 2006 data here).

One explanation is that the polls were not wrong, and the remaining 74,000 votes will shift the campaign back toward Democrats and within the polling average margins of error. This might be true, but we won't know until all the votes are counted.

A second explanation is that the polls were all simply modeled wrong. This is possible, and worth looking into, but we won't be able to start doing that until we know what the final results are. Again, we need to wait for the remaining votes to be counted.

A third explanation is that the campaign was tampered with.
Shannyn Moore notes that there is a history of election oddities in Alaska:

Alaska has certainly had our share of election hanky panky. Check out this link to our 2004 election results. There are 40 districts in Alaska. The Anchorage area districts run from District 17-District 32. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and pick any district from 17-32. Pay particular attention to the 3rd column labeled % turnout. Hit the back arrow and select another district. There are more precincts with voter turnout over 100% than under 100%. In other words, many more people voted in Anchorage area precincts than there were registered voters. Clearly, this is not possible. In 2006, the Democrats filed a lawsuit against the Alaska Division of Elections to release public records needed to verify the 2004 election results. The Democrats ALSO sought to have the Alaska Division of Elections release the raw election data for the 2006 election. With that history, and the bizarre anomalies in polling and voting and reports from the field of ballots not being scanned on-site due to broken machines, could this election have been stolen?

That certainly isn't an encouraging past. Also, given that Ted Stevens was recently convicted of multiple penalties, and Sarah Palin was recently embroiled in multiple ethics scandals, the people running the state aren't the cleanest folks around. This is certainly possible, but I think we need to wait for the final results, and look into the other explanations, before jumping to this conclusion.

There are other explanations, but they fail to account for the shift across all three campaigns. For example, saying it was the Bradley effect doesn't explain the Senate or House campaigns, nor does it explain why this effect only happened in Alaska. Also, arguing that Steven's closed the gap at the end due to his last minute commercial buy doesn't explain it, since that only focused on the Senate campaign. Any explanation needs to account for all three campaigns, and only the three above explanations make that cut.

This is all very fishy, but I suppose we should wait to see what the final vote tallies are before jumping to any conclusions.

The Needs of Alaska's National Guard are Beyond Politics

Bobby Muller - Veterans For America — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:31:37 GMT

Veterans For America has long been focused on issues surrounding our National Guard soldiers and assessing the problems that they face when returning home from Afghanistan and Iraq. Through VFA's nonpartisan National Guard efforts, the group has conducted reports and examined National Guard units on a state-by-state basis to determine their needs and analyze the issues they face.

On Wednesday, VFA released its most recent report that takes a look at the Alaska Army National Guard. The report has garnered plenty of media attention and The Minnesota Independent provided its own look at the report:

The latest iteration of this formula comes to us by way of Lt. Gen. Craig Campbell, commissioner of the state Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, who groaned yesterday that a Veterans for America report constitutes a political "ambush" of the governor. Campbell described the preliminary report - which focuses largely on post-deployment problems, especially vets' insufficient access to health care - as "poorly written, lacking substantiation of allegations and basically filled with plain incorrect information." Veterans for America points out that it had begun its review of Alaska's National Guard more than a year ago, long before Palin became a national figure.

As indicated by The Minnesota Independent, this review was started over a year ago - long before most of America outside of Alaska knew who Sarah Palin was. The goal of this report isn't political. The goal of this report isn't to target a now-prominent political figure. The goal of this report was to address the needs of the Alaska National Guard and determine what is required to address those needs.

Gov. Palin doesn't deserve a pass. Palin has touted since her entry into the presidential race that she headed the Alaskan National Guard. If that is what she wishes to tout, then she should be able to answer questions and address the problems facing her state's National Guard soldiers.

But the issues with the Alaska National Guard are bigger than one person. These issues impact many soldiers returning home from deployments (and, at times, multiple deployments). Troops that are deployed face many obstacles in post-deployment life. Right now, the programs and systems aren't in place to address these obstacles. VFA concluded in the report that the United States should not deploy National Guard soldiers from Alaska any longer until these problems are remedied.

With Alaska at the forefront thanks to Gov. Palin's notoriety, this is a time where we can really address how we are letting our National Guard fall through the cracks. Trying to pass off a sincere attempt to address the urgent needs of our soldiers returning home from multiple deployments as politics is a great disservice to our troops and veterans who face post-deployment obstacles upon their return and lack the necessary programs and systems to deal with these issues.

I'd rather see the needs our National Guard met, even if it means suffering accusations of 'playing politics', than to not see them met at all. Again, these issues are bigger than Gov. Palin. This affects many National Guard troops and their families. These issues must be addressed before Alaska fails to provide the necessary services to those who have honorably and bravely served their country.

Veterans of America is proud to sponsor the Our Troops Newsladder, a new tool to find the top news and articles in the progressive community by, about and for our troops.

Ted Stevens - How can he represent Alaska in the Senate?

NoThirdBushTerm — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:11:19 GMT

Senator Stevens has two messages for us:

1. He stands behind what he has done and is not guilty of any wrong doing.

2. He understands that he has done things that are illegal and may be subject to fines or jail time.

Well, which is it? Looks like Stevens is more interested in saving his own hid from his own wrong doings than actually representing the people of Alaska.

Alaska National Guard members aren't getting what they need, and Governor Palin is complicit

Bobby Muller — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:57:57 GMT

*Titles and affiliations of each individual are provided for identification purposes only.

Governor Palin's cavalier approach to learning about U.S. national security policy is offensive, given that she is well aware of the horrific impact that the war in Iraq has had on the Alaska National Guard.

When I read the preliminary findings from Veterans for America National Guard Program's work in Alaska, I was outraged. It is unconscionable to think that the citizens of Alaska are suffering in part from her neglect while she - and others associated with the McCain-Palin campaign - uses them to boost her own national security policy credentials.

I have spent the better part of a year trying to get our presidential (and now, vice presidential) candidates to recognize the unprecedented sacrifices that have been asked of our National Guard, but, to date, the response has been inadequate.
According to VFA's preliminary Alaska findings, "The post-deployment challenges facing Alaska's Army National Guard are more daunting and widespread than any seen by Veterans for America."

The Alaska National Guard needs their governor to advocate and fight for their needs - not exploit their deployments for her own political advantage.

We cannot let her shy away from this. We must demand that she answers questions during Thursday's Vice Presidential Debate - and accepts responsibility - for the conditions on the ground in Alaska. For any who might say that what's happening in Alaska is part of a larger Army problem (or any other excuse), remind them of what the Adjutant General of the Alaska Guard recently told Fox News: "Yes. Governor Palin is in charge, the commander-in-chief for the Alaska National Guard, and she plays the same role that all governors in all 54 states and territories play, running and managing and operating the Guard day to day for the states that they're responsible for... National Guards are state military forces run by governors, and Sarah Palin does it great."

The Alaska National Guard is set to again mobilize an additional 140 Aviators from the 207th Aviation Regiment in December for a one-year mobilization. We know that Alaska does not have the ability to care for Guard members post-deployment, and we are sending them anyway.

Governor Sarah Palin needs to address the needs of the Guard as governor and as a Vice Presidential candidate. Any candidate who speaks of war while not adequately responding to the immense human implications deserves to be held responsible.

*Titles and affiliations of each individual are provided for identification purposes only.

The Palin Doctrine: You Pay for Your Rape Kit, I'll Pay for My Tanning Bed

Living Liberally — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:31:20 GMT

Laughing Liberally To Keep From Crying
by Katie Halper

Sarah Palin was ambushed by Charlie Gibson with a gotcha question about the Bush Doctrine. Well, maybe Palin isn't an expert on the current president's doctrine, but, as her hero Virginia Woolf would have it, the governator has a doctrine of one's own, the Palin Doctrine, which strikes a balance between governmental largess and governmental neglect.
Under said doctrine, for example, the government will pay for basic necessities such as installing a tanning bed in the Governor's mansion. We all know a depressed Governor makes a depressed state, and nothing gets rid of Seasonal Anxiety Disorder better than a fake tan. So Palin was acting with the economic and emotional well-being of Alaska in mind, when she had a tanning bed installed in her house.

As the women of Wasilla know, however, the Palin doctrine doesn't rejects government hand-outs such as rape kits. During Palin's mayoralty, women were stuck with the tab for their forensic exams, which range from $300 to $1,200. Palin refuses to perpetuate the endless cycle of rape-victim welfare. By paying for rape kits, the government would be rewarding people who break their abstinence-only pledges, which, as we all know, are sacred to the entire Palin family, especially Bristol.

But by charging rape victims, the government encourages women to keep their purity pledges to their fathers. Plus the expense, makes women think twice about crying wolf, thus helping to reduce Alaska's per capita rape rate, which stands among the highest in our great nation.

McCain/Palin's Next Big Lie: Alaska's Energy Production

Reece — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:40:43 GMT

Over the past couple of days, both John McCain and Sarah Palin have asserted that Palin knows a lot about energy, especially as it is related to national security issues, because she is governor of Alaska which "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy."

McCain has repeated this claim. Apparently, they have been using it for at least a week. It is going to be one of their talking points. It is a lie.

More below the fold
The original factcheck on this comes from this post over at TPM: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsme... It's not my insight, but it needs to be passed around as much as possible until the MSM is keyed in.

Wark, the original poster at TPM links to an Energy Information Agency report on Alaska which indicates that Alaska produces 3.5% of the US energy supply, NOT the 20% claimed by McCain/Palin. Alaska does, however, hold 18.5% of US oil reserves. That seems to be the "nearly 20%" that Palin is talking about.

To be explicit, they are intentionally conflating the term "energy" with "oil." This should call into question not only Palin's suppposed expertise about energy, but her and McCain's future policies. This statement strongly indicates that their policies will be oil centric.

Palin saying it to Charlie Gibson: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id...

McCain saying it: http://ap.google.com/article/A...

The EIA report: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state...

The threat to America, at our weakened far northwestern flank

murlandguy — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:56:37 GMT

[Cross-posted from Free State Politics]

With things apparently heating up between the U.S. and Russia, we need to be on our guard everywhere, including in the Arctic region, where we are separated from Russia only by the Bering Strait. Our own state of Alaska sits astride that strait, due east of the Big Red Bear. Do we have the kind of leadership in Alaska we need to face down the supposedly reformed Commies, if the situation goes critical? If that red phone rings at 3am, do we have the right people in place to answer the call?

Sadly, the answer to that is, 'apparently not'. Governor Sarah Palin is hiding from the U.S. media. If she is too cowardly to face our lapdog corporate national media, how can we expect her to face Putin and his forces of world domination? For the safety of the nation, not only should she not be a heartbeat from the Presidency, she should be impeached by the state legislature of Alaska for failure to show adequate courage in the face of the threat to Alaska, and our nation.

Please, Senator McCain, do the right thing, and find someone brave enough to take that position of being "one heartbeat from the Presidency", who won't whine about her treatment by our docile media puppies (what, is Gov. Palin afraid of being licked to death?).

You have proudly noted your past record of working with Democrats. Replacing Sarah Palin with the braver and tougher Hillary Clinton would demonstrate both bipartisanship and resolve, and serve as yet another supreme act of patriotism in your long career as a public servant. The applause Senator Clinton received during mention of her name at the Republican National Convention tell me that this would be a winner, and would bring us together as a nation.

Senator McCain, I ask this as a concerned American. Be the patriot you have always been. Remember, Country First!

UPDATE: Hah, Gov. Palin has decided to let a media puppy dog lick her face after all! Charlie Gibson of ABC News gets to do the honors. Steve Benen speculates that internal polling by the McCain camp showed that too many folks had noticed. Personally, I still think exchanging her for Senator Clinton would send a better message of bipartisanship and Country First!-ism.
Wolverines!

UPDATE #2: More on the upcoming interview of Governor Sarah Palin by ABC's Charlie Gibson - this from Josh Marshall:

...it's pretty clear this farce is going to be close to unwatchable. Set aside that this comes just on the heels of McCain campaign manager Rick Davis saying Palin would not sit for any interviews "until the point in time when she'll be treated with respect and deference." The tell comes high up in the AP story by David Bauder. The second graf reads ...
Palin will sit down for multiple interviews with Gibson in Alaska over two days, most likely Thursday and Friday, said McCain adviser Mark Salter.
Political interviews are never done like this. Because it makes the questioning entirely at the discretion of the person being interviewed and their handlers. The interviewer has to be on their best behavior, at least until the last of the 'multiple interviews' because otherwise the subsequent sittings just won't happen. For a political journalist to agree to such terms amounts to a form of self-gelding. The only interviews that are done this way are lifestyle and celebrity interviews. And it's pretty clear that that is what this will be.

My guess is that ol' Charlie may stop wagging his tail and licking Gov. Palin's face long enough to ask whether a McCain-Palin Administration will cut his capital gains taxes. Once he gets the answer he wants, he'll resume tail-wagging and face-licking.
Fortunately for Sarah Palin, she's not a Democrat.

Alaska News: Palin Corruption Report Moved Up, New Polls

Chris Bowers — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:09:50 GMT

The Alaska State Senate is now a center of national news:

ABC News has exclusively learned that Alaska Senator Hollis French will announce today that he is moving up the release date of his investigation into whether Gov. Sarah Palin abused her office to get the Alaska public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, fired. The results of the investigation were originally scheduled for release Oct. 31 but will now come almost three weeks earlier, according to sources.(...)

"It's likely to be damaging to the Governor's administration," said Senator Hollis French, a Democrat, appointed the project manager for a bi-partisan State Senate Legislative Counsel Committee investigation.

This is a good response to the new stall and avoid tactics of the McCain campaign. Palin had earlier refused to testify before the commission, in an obvious tactic to delay the release of the report until after Election Day. It is part and parcel with their strategy of not talking to the media, and while simultaneously attacking them at a partisan institution. Fortunately, Hollis French is not going to put up with it.

In other Alaska news, two new polls show that the state is now out of play in the presidential election because of the Palin selection. Also, Ted Stevens has received a bump according to one of the two polls, and now only trails by three. However, the House seat is still a clear Democratic pickup, as long as incumbent Republican Don Young hangs on during his primary recount.

Palin's foreign policy experience

Englishlefty — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 18:56:27 GMT

It's obvious to anybody paying any attention whatsoever that Sarah Palin's foreign policy knowledge is limited. She had to get a new passport to visit Alaskan troops in Kuwait. OnTheIssues records no foreign policy positions taken by her. She supported Pat Buchanan, for chrissake.

But of course, Fox News and the right wing swung into action. Of course she has foreign policy experience! Alaska borders Canada! And Russia!?!

Most people seem to be laughing this one off or ignoring the charge as beneath reasonable notice. Michael Kinsley pointed out that though her state does include the Aleutians, which were occupied by the Japanese in WW2, there's no evidence that Palin herself was involved in driving Hirohito's troops from American shores.

Still, I think there's an opportunity here. Maybe it can wait a few days (and maybe her candidacy will implode before we get a chance to ask,) but I think we could actually perform some pretty nice aikido here.

We just have to get Palin to talk about her negotiations with Russia. Join me on the flip for my reasoning.
The mainland of Western Alaska is about 50 miles from the Chukchi peninsula, part of the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug. Islands within the Bering Strait belonging to the U.S.A. and Russia respectively are no more than a mile distant.

So you might think that there would be some contact between those in charge of the two remote areas of the two great superpowers that come closest to each other. It may not be as important a part of the world as in the Cold War, when almost every plane-crash in Alaska led to suspicions of Soviet involvement, but maybe something happened.

Chukotka's governor from 2000 up until July 2008 was one Roman Abramovich. I doubt he's well known in America, but in Britain, he's notorious as the owner of the (association) football team Chelsea F.C. Somewhat more substantively, he's also a Russian oligarch and previously a close friend of Boris Berezovsky.

Abramovich was elected in 2000 and spent large amounts of his own vast wealth (acquired from asset-stripping) on the province, perhaps to try to retain some social capital. He didn't visit particularly often, and wouldn't have stood again, but Putin turned the governorship into an appointed position and refused to let Abramovich resign.

When he was allowed to stand down, he was succeeded by his deputy, Roman Kopin, who appears to be a career bureaucrat, famous exactly nowhere.

So how much contact did Palin have with either?

With Abramovich, it's hard to tell. Searching for "Roman Abramovich" "Sarah Palin" merely gets you a lot of articles on news sites about Palin but with a link in a sidebar to an unrelated article about the other.

So I used the following search term: "Roman Abramovich" ********** "Sarah Palin"

If I've used the command right, that should flag up every occasion those two phrases pop up within 20 words of each other.

And what do we get?

This is result no. 34. It's the first one to mention them in the same context. And all it's doing is asking the same question as me (although it's out of date about the governor).

None of the other results in the top 50 mention them in the same context. Hell, half of the Palins in the search results referred to Michael, not Sarah.

And Palin and Kopin?

"Sarah Palin" "Roman Kopin" returns three results. Two are duplicates. None of them mention them in the same context. Roman Kopin, in fact, is so obscure he's probably John McCain's back-up pick.

So let's hear about their relationship. Who knows, maybe there are a few paragraphs in the archives of a newspaper in Nome about them negotiating about a few fishermen who wound up on the wrong side of the border. Maybe their police chiefs cooperated to fight some small scale smuggling (when they weren't concentrating on firing their workforces).

But while that was happening, Joe Biden was chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. Barack Obama was dealing with the most important issue there is in Russia today - loose nukes. We're dealing with a whole different level of importance here.

Ask Palin. Feign interest. Get her talking, and tape it. Because it would be hilarious. And devastating for Republican chances.

Al Franken's "Fishing Buddies" ad

Books Alive — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:25:13 GMT

Here's a link to Al's website. Cursor down to the first ad on the right - it's a cutie, showing Norm Coleman on a paid-for fishing trip on the Kenai River. How about some support for Al in his effort to unseat a hanger-on in honor of today's Republican spotlight on the state!

I say, donate to Al, kill two birds with one stone - make your contribution an anti-Palin atatement, in other words.

Palin Rationale

Chris Bowers — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:47:42 GMT

Quick thoughts on why McCain chose Palin:

Takes Alaska off the table. In most elections, that might seem unnecessary. However, Obama was leading in the most recent Alaska poll, so this year it actually mattered. Palin's approval rating in Alaska is pretty high (64% in the most recent poll I could find), so this probably moves the state off the table.
This is the Sarkozy strategy that Gingrich talked about last year. In this vein, Palin is designed to help McCain on ethics, and in distancing McCain from governing Republicans. The idea here is that she was able to win the Alaska Governorship in 2006, a Democratic year, by making corruption charges in her own party, and defeating an incumbent in a primary. Look for McCain to start trumpeting his role in exposing the Abramoff scandal now, too. It could be an effective message, as it makes McCain look willing to stand up against his own party and take a hard line on ethics. I worried about this message last month.The problem for Palin is that she is now embroiled in a nepotism scandal.
Obviously, designed to help McCain with PUMA's and wavering Clinton supporters. The decision was probably made after Clinton was not chosen as VP, and during all the coverage of Clinton supporters during the convention. However, for that purpose, the pick probably came too late. Most of Obama's current bounce is from that exact same group. McCain should have announced on Sunday to peel off more of those supporters.
For all of the reasons listed above, it is designed to make McCain look "mavericky." Picking someone from Alaska, picking a woman, picking someone who ran against her own party, picking someone who wasn't talking about that much, picking someone who, at least at one time, fought corruption in her own party--in many ways, it is exactly the right pick for McCain to bolster his image.

The key to fighting Palin is to hit her on the scandal she is in now, to point out McCain hypocrisy on experience and "being ready to lead," and to use a lot of Hillary Clinton.

I admit that Palin and Condoleezza Rice were the only two possible picks that ever actually worried me on the Republican side. Now, however, after Palin has been picked, it just feels kind of lame and obviously political. The only reason that McCain picked Palin is that he thinks she will help him get elected. The pandering electability of it all should appear obvious to just about everyone. Clearly, McCain didn't care about or believe in the attacks he was making on Obama's experience. He just wants to win.

Gov. Palin outsourced a $26 billion dollar construction contract

joejoejoe — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:20:25 GMT

If Palin is McCain's VP pick this should be part of the discussion.

Aug. 29 (Bloomberg) -- TransCanada Corp., the nation's largest pipeline company, won approval from Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to build a $27 billion pipeline to carry natural gas from the Arctic to U.S. markets.
Palin on Aug. 27 signed a bill authorizing the state to award Calgary-based TransCanada a license to build the 1,715- mile (2,744-kilometer) link from Prudhoe Bay to the Alberta Hub in Canada, according to a statement. The license will be granted in 90 days.

That's great news. For Canada. Why did Gov. Palin choose a Canadian company for a $26 billion dollar infrastructure project?

More on the flip [x-posted at Daily Kos]...

Anchorage Daily News, 1/5/08: On Friday, TransCanada's proposal for a 1,715-mile, $26 billion pipeline running from the Slope to Alberta became public for the first time.
Its application also contained a surprise -- the suggestion the U.S. government might need to take on some of the huge risk of the pipeline by signing on as a "bridge shipper."
This means the government would agree to pay some of the pipeline transportation fees -- potentially billions of dollars -- should gas producers not commit enough gas initially to operate the line at full capacity.

Huh? So Gov. Palin awards a $26 billion dollar construction contract to a Canadian company and the U.S. taxpayer has to assume the risk of paying for the contract if the natural gas customers don't materialize?

But don't worry, the TransCanada CEO has his priorities straight.

Some Alaska state lawmakers... wondered what [TransCanada CEO] Kvisle meant when the Toronto's Globe and Mail quoted him saying, "Nothing goes ahead until Exxon is happy with it."
Harris fired off a letter to Kvisle on Monday afternoon seeking further explanation.
Harris wrote: "It is imperative that this statement be clarified and fully understood immediately. Any implication that Exxon Mobil Corporation some how has 'veto authority' is extremely disconcerting for not only legislators, but for many Alaskans."

How many $26 billion dollar infrastructure projects are there in the US? Do we have to outsource them to Canadian companies and then have the US taxpayers guarantee the payments?

It's not just TransCanada that lives to make Exxon happy.

It's McCain/Palin.

Mapchanging Fact and Fiction

Chris Bowers — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:35:34 GMT

There is a new poll out today that shows Obama ahead by 5% in Alaska, 45%-40%. It is from a Democratic firm, and outlies a bit from other recent polls in the state. Despite those negatives against the poll, it does at least confirm that Alaska is indeed a swing state in this election. The most recent poll from the four polling organizations to survey Alaska in the past month now show an average of McCain 46.5%--43.0% Obama.

This got me to thinking--what about the other red states that Bush won by about 20% in 2004, but that seem competitive in 2008? These states include Georgia, Indiana, Montana, and North Dakota. The Obama campaign is targeting all of these states with paid media and staff, so they feel it might be competitive, too.

To answer this question, follow me to the extended entry for a quick round of mapchanging fact and fiction, deep red state edition.
Question: Like Alaska, Are These Deep Red State Actually Competitive?

Georgia: FICTION: Outside of Insider Advantage, a polling firm with a questionable track record, no polling firm has shown Georgia to be truly competitive. The talk of 600,000 unregistered African-Americans in the state also doesn't mean much, because you simply are not going to manage 100% turnout among that group. Fact is, the Obama campaign would be lucky to get 30% of that group to vote, given the wave of voter registration campaigns that already took place from 2004-2008, but somehow missed these voters. Obama won't win Georgia unless he wins nationally by more than 8%. As such, it is not a swing state.
Indiana: UNCLEAR: While I lean toward fiction, the truth is that there simply isn't enough recent evidence to know what is happening in Indiana. The polling is really strange--and old. Survey USA, which I trust, confirms Zogby in a close campaign, but both of those polls were taken in June. The trendline also favors Obama in the Downs Center polling, but their last effort was in late April. Other than that, two of the other three firms in the state, all with old polls, show McCain ahead by 8%. However, one shows Obama ahead by 8%, further muddling the picture. While I simply have a very, very hard time believing that Indiana will be competitive this year, there isn't enough evidence to preclude the possibility.
Montana: FACT: The simple truth is that there is no way to argue that McCain is ahead in this state. The last poll to show McCain ahead here was Rasmussen in April. However, since then, Rasmussen has released two Montana polls, one with Obama winning, and one with a dead heat. It makes sense, too. Democrats have been on a real roll in Montana for the past four years, and Obama is campaigning here (as recently as the 4th of July) entirely unopposed. Montana even voted for Clinton back in 1992, one of the few non-southern states that Clinton won but both Kerry and Gore lost.
North Dakota: FACT: McCain is now purchasing paid media in the state, which is all the confirmation of the close polls you will ever need.

Three key threads uniting the clear mapchanges in Alaska, Montana, and North Dakota, is that all three states have relatively small populations, inexpensive media markets, and were also key nomination contests for Obama that he basically contested unchallenged. With Obama being the only national candidate to campaign in these states for a couple of decades, and since you only need to flip about 50,000 voters in each state to win there, it isn't hard to see how Obama can be competitive in those states in a Democratic year. While it is possible that over the long term, Georgia and Indiana can become the new Virginia and North Carolina, I don't see it happening this cycle. In fact, I would actually put more money on Texas flipping long term than Montana and Indiana, given the huge and growing Latino population in the state. If that ever happened, Republicans would have a generational minority.

Ted Stevens Has Forty Point Lead in Republican Primary

Matt Stoller — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:28:20 GMT

This poll was taken a day after Stevens was indicted.

Though Stevens faces six opponents in the Aug. 26 Republican primary, the poll showed him with a handsome lead over businessman Dave Cuddy, his chief competition. In the same July 30-31 survey, which polled 219 Republicans about the primary, Stevens scored 59 percent and Cuddy had 19 percent with about 20 percent undecided.

Cuddy has to consolidate the anti-Stevens vote and pick up 32 points in 26 days. That means pulling all the undecideds and converting about 10 percent of the voters who have already settled on Ted Stevens. It's possible, but extremely hard.

And in the general, with Stevens in the race, Begich is up 56 to 35. I met Begich at Netroots Nation, and I've seen him speak. It's very simple why he needs to be in the Senate, and it's not because he's a Democrat. Begich is going to become our icon for climate change in the Senate; he can talk effectively about villages in Alaska sliding into the sea, and he can talk about what it's like to convert an oil rich state into one that uses tide and wind power, and conservation.

Begich is one of our Better Democrats. He won't be there with us on everything, but he's going to be with us on climate change and civil liberties, and that counts for a lot over the next few years.

AK SEN: Mark Begich Supports Net Neutrality

Matt Browner Hamlin — Mon, 12 May 2008 18:52:01 GMT

It might come as no surprise to the online community, but Ted Stevens is probably best known outside of Alaska for his stance on net neutrality. Needless to say, when it comes to internet freedom, there is an ocean of difference between Ted Stevens and his opponent (and my boss) Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich. Today Mark put out a very strong statement in support of keeping the internet free and open.

"Net Neutrality has allowed the Internet to drive economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. I will protect and preserve net neutrality's level playing field, so that all Alaskans -- and all Americans -- can experience the vast social and economic benefits of an open Internet connection."
"Discriminatory pricing would turn the open internet into a toll road that serves only those companies that can afford the price. Access to the internet is no longer a luxury; it's a lifeline for many Alaskans."
"I will work to see that Congress adopts public policies that will protect net neutrality, preserve an open Internet and spur the growth of Alaska's economy."

You can read our Internet Freedom statement online now.

Net neutrality is only one area where Stevens has put telecom companies' special interests ahead of Alaskan families. Two years ago Stevens sought to make VOIP providers like Skype pay hand over fist for their service. More recently Stevens has been a vociferous advocate for giving telecom companies that helped the Bush administration spy on Americans without warrant retroactive immunity from prosecution. That issue remains pending, but sadly Stevens is not interested in protecting the rights and privacy of ordinary Alaskans when his special interest pals come calling for different treatment.

Mark Begich is offering something completely different. I'm glad that Mark recognizes the important role that net neutrality has played in the development of economic growth nationwide, not to mention in connecting rural Alaskan communities to the rest of the world. The internet is a communications tool that has helped bring the global economy, education, and even medical resources into parts of Alaska that are benefiting greatly as a result.

Even my decision to move to Alaska and work for Mark Begich's Senate campaign was made possible by the internet. I first saw and spoke with Mark on a Skype video conference call. There's no doubt that if Ted Stevens and his special interest buddies had their way and the internet was a toll-road of tiered service, Skype might never have been developed and Mark and I might never had that opportunity to talk to each other about our shared visions for the future of our country.

The fight to save the internet continues and will continue in the 111th Congress. Electing Mark Begich to represent the people of Alaska in the U.S. Senate will mean having one more vote to the side of freedom. Mark and I can greatly use your help and we'd greatly appreciate it if you supported our campaign for honest leadership and bold change for Alaskan families today. You can make a donation at Begich.com or through ActBlue.

Disclosure: I work as Mark Begich's Online Communications Director. You can learn more about our campaign for honest leadership in Alaska at Begich.com.

Begich Supports Webb's New GI Bill, Calls on Stevens to Step Up

Matt Browner Hamlin — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:14:22 GMT

Earlier today the Begich campaign held a press conference where Mark expressed his strong support for Senator Jim Webb's efforts to pass a new G.I. Bill for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Begich is currently a candidate for US Senate from Alaska. Webb and 56 other senators have signed on in support of this legislation, which seeks to provide educational benefits for our veterans in line what veterans of past wars have received.

Joined by students and veterans at the University of Alaska, Anchorage, Begich called on Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) to join him in honoring the service of returning veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan and other areas of conflict since Sept. 11, 2001. Sen. Lisa Murkowski has already signed on to the bill. Begich said:

"When our veterans come home from Iraq, Afghanistan, or other areas, we want them to have the same educational opportunities as those who served before them in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. To support anything less is wrong."
"This is not complicated. Our veterans have sacrificed for America and we owe them this opportunity. I urge Sen. Stevens to join me in providing veterans the full cost of a college education, like he received after World War II, thanks to the G.I. Bill."

Currently, there are an estimated 70,000 veterans in Alaska and a total of 1,600 enrolled at the University of Alaska, Anchorage and the University of Alaska, Fairbanks combined. Two of these young veterans - Charles Bergeron and John Roberson - spoke at today's event about their experiences returning from service and facing insufficient support for their educational needs.

The 21st Century G.I. Bill, introduced in January 2007, is supported across party lines by 57 Senators; including 44 Democrats, 11 Republicans and 2 Independents as well as a majority of the House and most of the nation's leading veterans' organizations. To qualify, in general, veterans must have served between 3 months and 36 months of active duty, beginning on or after Sept.11, 2001. It also includes activated reservists and National Guard members.

The Act provides veterans with money for the full cost of attending a state university for in-state residents (as well as a stipend for living expenses) equal to a total of 36 months, which equals 4 academic years. The benefit is capped at the cost of the most expensive public state college or university in any given state.

Cross posted at VetVoice.

You can read the full text of Mark's speech at the Begich Blog.

Disclosure: I'm the Online Communications Director of Mark Begich's campaign to represent Alaska in the US Senate.