About the blog: The race to become Alaska's next governor is on and it's about to get muddy. Grab your boots and follow the Daily News along the winding campaign trail.
Contact: thetrail@adn.com
Blog : Alaska Politics
Happy trails - 11/8/2006 8:05 pm
Forty-two - 11/8/2006 8:01 pm
Election hangover - 11/8/2006 10:25 am
Tonight (updated) - 11/7/2006 12:18 pm
Full Moon - 11/6/2006 7:11 pm
Fishy photos? - 11/6/2006 12:08 pm
Smelly deal? - 11/5/2006 3:31 pm
Sunday best (part two) - 11/5/2006 3:18 pm
'It's going to be madness' - 11/4/2006 8:33 pm
Final push - 11/4/2006 8:26 pm
Ivan Moore - 11/4/2006 1:45 pm
Furrowed brow - 11/3/2006 2:20 pm
New poll (updated) - 11/3/2006 2:00 pm
Berkowitz - 11/3/2006 10:29 am
Predict the future - 11/2/2006 10:53 pm
Live debate (updated 9:37 p.m.) - 11/2/2006 8:19 pm
More on the e-mails - 11/2/2006 7:14 pm
Channel 7 debate (updated) - 11/2/2006 7:12 pm
Round two - 11/2/2006 4:20 pm
Read the e-mails - 11/1/2006 9:45 pm
TV debate tonight (updated) - 11/1/2006 11:02 am
Anchorage Rotary debate - 10/31/2006 4:58 pm
Posted by thetrail
Posted: November 1, 2006 - 9:45 pm
Tomorrow's campaign round-up will include a little bit about the e-mails Palin, Knowles and Georgianna Lincoln were talking about on the Fagan show today.
The chain of e-mails began in October, and appeared to be forwarded to any number of people. The copy I have, provided by the Palin campaign, starts with this e-mail:
From: Myrna D. Gardner
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 6:26 PM
Subject: Candidates should respect their constituents
On Tuesday, October 3rd Sarah Palin was too busy to meet with the
largest, Alaska Native Corporation President and CEOs. How ironic on
Monday, the Alaska Business Monthly Magazine had its Gold Standard of
Business Top 49ers award. It recognized the value of the top 49 business
in Alaska of which 18 of them were Native businesses. But Sarah Palin
doesn't think they are worth her time. She was so rude she cancelled
attending the meeting the morning of. So if Natives and 18 of the top
businesses in Alaska aren't important to her, who is? Obviously, not
Alaska Natives and their corporations.
Myrna
Then,
Georgianna Lincoln replied with this message:
From: Gerogianna Lincoln
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 4:59 AM
To: Myrna D. Gardner
Subject: RE: Candidates should respect their constituents
Myrna;
Thank you for a very powerful reminder when we go to the polls, we must remember such occasions and pass your note and others like them on to our friends, relatives and acquaintances. She also will be a NO SHOW, as I understand, at the GET OUT THE NATIVE VOTE gathering for ALL
candidates in Fairbanks tomorrow at the Chief David Salmon Traditional Hall. Additionally, she has publicly come against our critical rural
preference on subsistence, which we must make known to our Native people around the state. That should be published in every rural publication we know, in addition to "letters to the editor" in urban publications.
Thanks again Myrna for your commitment to all of us.
friend, georg.
Finally, there's another e-mail in the chain that reads:
From: Teresa Germain
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 10:20 AM
Subject: FW: governor candidate
Subject: governor candidate
See Senator Georgianna Lincoln's update below identifying that Sarah Palin (Republican Governor candidate) plans on being a NO SHOW at the "Get out the Native vote" She is also publicly against rural preference
for subsistence.
Please let others know that live in Rural Alaska! As it stands now, she is anti-rural, anti-subsistence, doesn't support Native vote, and doesn't support recognizing native businesses.
What color and where do you have to live to be important to this
candidate?
November 2, 2006 - 7:12pm | leslie
We don't and wouldn't send out a nude picture of Palin. Please stop the false accusation. Not necessary. Thanks.
8 November 2, 2006 - 2:00pm | rfn
It has now been firmly established in this blog that women have no place in politics and that Tony is going to win by unanimous consent. So that means it's time for our own little poll!
WHEN Tony is elected AND spends every available penny on new and wonderful big-government programs and kinder, more gentle union negotiations, which of the following to you prefer?
1. The Great Alaska Personal Income Tax?
2. The Grand Alaska Statewide Sales Tax?
3. Increased taxes on fuels to not only raise money but to ease the threat of Global Warming?
4. Phaseout of the PFD?
Feel, free, of course to discuss your answer but please choose only one. It's perfectly OK to just post a single digit. No fair raising one.
November 2, 2006 - 2:12pm | mike_l
why are you telling people that Palin supports these taxes and phasing out the PFD?
November 2, 2006 - 3:56pm | rfn
WHEN Tony is elected and WHEN Tony spends all the money and comes crying for one or more of those options....
What part of the above do you find so challenging?
Or is it that you'd favor doing all of those money-making things?
7 November 2, 2006 - 12:22pm | haasedj
I guess girls should just stay out of politics.
I’ve never heard anyone refer to a male politician as “b****y” or “fragile”, or just a pretty face like Knowles supporters Mike_l and ilovelucy in this thread. The message projected to women seems to be “Keep out. This is the old boys club”.
“She doesn't have the skin for this kind of office. She is fragile...too fragile to be governor.”
- mike_l | November 1, 2006 - 8:36pm
“On the debate tonight she sounded bitchy”
- ilovelucy | November 1, 2006 - 11:01pm
“I think the Palin campaign wrongly assumes Halcro is taking more Knowles votes than from Miss Alaska.”
-mike_l | November 1, 2006 - 8:42pm
November 2, 2006 - 1:32pm | alaskastraightalker
I just think that any candidate- male or female- should be able to answer simple questions on things like gas line preferences, education plans, health care improvement plans, school vouchers, abortion, gay rights, Juneau access road, ferry system, and other issues which have come up on which Palin has either taken multiple stands (gasline, school vouchers, legislature move), tried to hide her stand (like her extremist position on abortion), or has avoided a simple yes or no answer. For example, does she oppose abortion in case of rape or incest (Haasedj- I bet you would like a straight yes or no to that one!)? Does she support extending health care benefits to same sex partners, yes or no? Simple questions.
Male or female, candidates should not surround themselves with confidants like Jerry "I don't know where my $142,000 campaign fund came from" Ward, Robin "I love mismanaging the ferry system and getting my 3 high PERS years in" Taylor, Rick "I sold my hunting lodge to Veco" Halford, and Paul "let's talk about stem cell research and gay rights accidentally on a statewide teleconference" Fuhs.
By the way Mr. Haase, I'm sure if you scrolled through these threads you'd find the language used by some Palin supporters has been a lot more offensive than your selected sample.
November 3, 2006 - 2:03am | amoeba
and I am voting for Tony Knowles. He is the best candidate regardless of gender. As much as I would like to elect our first woman governor, I won't vote based on gender, or party affiliation for that matter, and I hope no one else does either.
I do think it is inappropriate for people to tear Palin down because of her beauty queen past, or anything else not pertinent to this campaign. There are many more relavent things I feel are worth criticizing, starting with her overwhelming inability to honestly address the issues Alaskans, and Alaskan women, care about.
I am voting Knowles because I trust him to do the best job negotiating a gas line. Because he has a solid, coherent plan to improve education. But mainly because I think he has an inspired vision that will lead our state to great places.
It's got nothing to do with gender and everything to do with experience, leadership, and vision!
November 2, 2006 - 2:42pm | GeordieBC
Maybe it's just a woman thing....
But those questions don't seem simple to me...
Edgar Paul Boyko used to say, "If a client comes in and says he has a simple legal questions, run like hell or get a huge retainer because nothing is simple."
November 2, 2006 - 4:42pm | alaskastraightalker
If a candidate can't answer a simple question, run like hell.
November 2, 2006 - 1:08pm | mike_l
you flatter me with all of the attention.
Sounds like Palin posting, taking something out of context and misrepresenting the facts.
My statements are true. And I don't quite see your point with my use of the word "fragile" or citing Palin's experience as a Miss Alaska beauty contestant. I can't quite understand how you can spam childish comments about Halcro and his looks all day long on this blog, but give me a hard time for calling Palin fragile.
Is this another alias of tlamb99503, Brainfart, or Turdball? I'm seeing similarities.
November 2, 2006 - 1:26pm | alaskandomer
The point is that your language is insulting & degrading, not to mention decidedly politically incorrect.
November 2, 2006 - 2:15pm | mike_l
when did use of the word "fragile" or "thin-skinned" to describe a candidate for governor become politically incorrect?
Andrew has his FRAGILE moments too. But Andrew isn't a former beauty contestant for Miss Alaska.
November 2, 2006 - 2:25pm | alaskandomer
Tell us Mike, do you hate women, or are you just afraid of them?
November 2, 2006 - 2:31pm | mike_l
we don't hate anyone.
As a Veteran I am proud to be voting for Knowles on Tuesday. I'm sorry to see the Palin goons regress to name calling of people on this blog. I know it's depressing to blow a 17 point lead, but beating me up is only going to turn off more voters.
November 2, 2006 - 2:58pm | alaskandomer
"Goons" isn't name calling? OK, Mike, you don't hate women. You just don't think they belong in positions of power. Very enlightened. No wonder you see a therapist.
November 2, 2006 - 3:13pm | mike_l
with donuts.
You have problems putting words into others mouths, when you're not hearing what you want to hear.
Fran Ulmer would have made a great governor. But your crew was too busy crowing about how great Frank Murkowski was back in 2001 and 2002.
I have no problems with women in power. I have problems with people who are not ready to govern, who surround themselves by others who want to bully away any critics.
November 2, 2006 - 3:46pm | alaskandomer
First of all, I voted for Fran. I also voted for Mark Begich (3 times). Second, I for one have no problem with thoughtful criticism. Most of your rants, however, would be right at home on an elementary school playground. Third, I don't put words into your mouth. Nobody nees to make you look stupid and bigoted. You do a great job of that yourself.
November 2, 2006 - 4:10pm | mike_l
You couldn't be further from the truth, but I suspect you don't want the truth. However, I'm not going to take another moment to respond to your baseless accusations. I've seen enough of that from Palin and her supporters already.
I'm sorry - but I just think Palin isn't ready to lead the state. She needs training wheels. She is surrounded by radical LNG supporters.
I think Knowles is ready to lead the state forward and get the gasline contract signed.
And I do think she has been FRAGILE and THIN-SKINNED throughout this campaign. I don't want someone like that trying to negoiate with the oil and gas industry.
I voted for Fran in 2002, but would NOT vote for Palin at this point in time.
November 2, 2006 - 4:46pm | alaskandomer
You're right. Sarah HAS had to respond to a lot of baseless accusations. If you don't think she's ready, that's your right, but the "training wheel" and "Miss Alaska" comments stopped being cute a long time ago. I see nothing in Tony's CV to allow me to trust him to not roll over for the oil industry, but I wouldn't think of demeaning him in the way you do Sarah at every opportunity. These candidates have offered themselves up to serve us. Agree or disagree with them, they deserve our respect for that.
November 2, 2006 - 4:59pm | mike_l
but there is no gender put-down with the use of "training wheels." Granted - maybe you could make that connection with "Miss Alaska." So I apologize for my poor judgment. My opinions on the candidates really don't have anything to do with gender. I'm not one of those corn-fed white boys, Copenhagen spit drooling from mouth, etc, that thinks a woman belongs at home.
I'm actually terrified of my wife. Even though I wear the pants at home, she makes all of the decisions.
But seriously, if I offended anyone with my use of "Miss America" - I do sincerely apologize.
November 2, 2006 - 5:16pm | alaskandomer
Fair enough Mike. Actually, I assumed the training wheels put down might be a reference to age as well as experience. I promise to not maake any references to Tony's advanced age, and the assorted problems that go with it. That hits a bit too close to home. In any case, come December, whether it be Sarah or Tony (sorry Andrew, it just isn't going to happen), our Governor is going to need the backing of all of us in order to get a gas line contract crafted to ensure the maximum benefit to Alaskans.
November 2, 2006 - 5:05pm | turk_burlington
Something we all can agree on?
The first court hearing on the Legislature's suit to stop Murk from signing his contract got out about an hour ago.
Highlights: Paper work flies Monday thru Wednesday. Oral arguments Thursday.
But the real up side is that the judge got the Admin to accept that Murk CAN'T seal the deal until the case runs its course.
Can we all agree that's good news?
November 2, 2006 - 12:34pm | GeordieBC
yea, it's the same old people on this blog - glad you called them on it!! Most people just laugh at them I think...
6 November 2, 2006 - 10:41am | disenchanted01
All these eleventh hour revelations, its almost biblical. Culture the divide, feed the fire. Since you brought it up, MsLIncoln, "What color do you have to be, and where do you have to live to be important to Knowles and Halcro?" Most of us are just "away games" to them, they even said so.
November 2, 2006 - 7:38pm | bmcdaniel9
Knowles didn't say anything about away games. I think the comment by Halcro was a reference to the Wasilla Chamber being Sarah's home court. It is a reasonable assessment.
November 2, 2006 - 12:11pm | GeordieBC
So true, so true.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...it's all the same no matter who is elected. God , this is getting boring now - even the accusations and name calling are getting old. Let's vote and get it over with.
5 November 2, 2006 - 8:57am | AlaskaSportsFan
Mr. Hopkins,
With all due respect, you may be the worst reporter in the history of the Daily News - and that's saying something.
I listened to the candidates' dabate on Dan Fagan's show yesterday and cleary heard Ms. Palin accuse Mr. Knowles' STAFF of sending out e-mails accusing her of being anti-Native. This is a very serious allegation. 45 minutes later I heard Ms. Palin, while being confronted regarding her statement by Senator Lincoln, COMPLETELY change her story. A lie early on and then another a few minutes later in an effort to cover for the first.
Then this morning I read your article in the ADN and was stunned you'd written that Ms. Palin had accused Mr. Knowles "suppporters" of having sent e-mails regarding her stands on rural issues. She accused paid Knowles STAFF and you reported it as unpaid SUPPORTERS...making her apparently unfounded accusations sound less egrigious. How could you make such a basic mistake??!!
Will you tell us once and for all if you, a former Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman reporter, are angling for a job with a possible Palin Administration? If she wins the governor's race will you seek or accept a position in her government? To be honest, I hope you reply yes because if your mistakes are simply errors and not planned, you should writing for Fox News...
Any chance your mistake here is connected to the "mistake" your wife made on the candidates' positions on subsistence on Channel 2 News? A little Palin pillow talk going on?
A concerned reader
November 2, 2006 - 4:37pm | thetrail
· I’ve never worked for the Frontiersman.
· I don’t want a p.r. job from anybody.
· Today’s story is accurate. Still, the criticism that I should have made a distinction between Knowles “supporters” and “staff” is fair. It might have been better to write: “Palin said Knowles supporters, including campaign staff, have been circulating e-mails…”
· As for your comments on my wife and "pillow talk" -- that's out of bounds.
-- Kyle
November 2, 2006 - 7:49pm | AlaskaSportsFan
Mr. Hopkins,
1. If you've never worked for the Frontiersman I apologize...I misremembered.
2. Not a "p.r." job, but what about another job?
3. It would be COMPLETELY inaccurate to quote Ms. Palin that way - she said 'staff' and named them, nothing about supporters. Why can't you acknowledge your factual error?
4. If you and your wife are reporters, lying on behalf of the Palin Campaign in an effort to get her elected, I believe calling your motives into question is 'fair game'. "Pillow talk" because of its sexual connotation was a poor choice of words...asking about possible collusion is, I believe, fair.
I guess in a couple of weeks, should Ms. Palin win, we'll know about your family's next steps....
November 2, 2006 - 9:41am | mike_l
anyone who heard Palin foaming at the mouth yesterday saw the blunder. We didn't need Kyle or the ADN to facilitate the moment.
And leave the wife out of it. Those kind of comments make me want to hog-tie you, stuff a donut in your mouth, and throw you on to the dance floor in Mad Myrna's during disco night.
November 2, 2006 - 9:55am | AlaskaSportsFan
....exactly, anyone who heard Ms. Palin would be correctly informed...but what about the thousands of people in Anchorage who rely on Mr. Hopkins, the ADN's "premier" political reporter, for their information? They are poorly served by his inaccurate reporting.
I believe it is equally fair to criticize Mr. Hopkins' wife for incorrect reporting - there are journalistic standards it's fair for a reader and viewer to expect. Her report was so off the mark one of her colleagues had to issue a correction during their next broadcast.
For the record, I don't eat doughnuts let alone dance to disco.
November 2, 2006 - 10:24am | mike_l
Channel 2 and Dan Fagan have done a little of both. They both have done critical pieces on Palin on multiple occasions. Channel 2 for instance, showed a prominently missing Palin from the recent BP debate. Fagan has also has held her accountable on numerous shows for saying stupid things (airing her "bias" comment clip on mulitple occasions), saying things that didn't make sense, and for supporting the LNG route. However, both Channel 2 and Fagan also gave a free podium for former disgruntled worker Susan Harvey to make meritless claims, even after she went on the air and said she was a Palin supporter and couldn't imagine another 4 years under Knowles. That threw any objectivity to her claims out the window.
We also know that Fagan is a conservative, hates unions, and generally accuses all Democrats of being anti-military and liberal -which isn't true. Nonetheless, you know where Dan stands. I listen to the guy every day. And though I don't agree with most of his propaganda, I do believe he tries to be objective. The reality is, he is a talk show radio host and he didn't get to be #1 in the state by talking like Mr. Rogers and giving out group hugs.
ADN and the Voice of the Times have both endorsed Knowles. Both have been critical of Palin and Knowles in the past.
I don't think Kyle's reporting has ever been one-sided. He strives for objectivity. And although he may not sensationalize the facts, he does a good job of reporting his observations.
I think the wife comments are out of line. Please apologize to him.
Lastly, we need to get back on point. Knowles is ready to move this state forward and get the gasline contract signed. Palin is just too advesarial with the oil and gas industry, and is surrounded by some really scarey people. Red of Blue, R or D, or whatever, we need someone who can run the state and get the job done now. Knowles is ready. As a Veteran, I am proud to be voting for him on Tuesday.
November 2, 2006 - 11:04am | turk_burlington
Susan Harvey: Meritless claims?
For anyone who wants them, I have both versions of the Coffman Report (Draft and Final) and everything that's public that came between (BP emails, Bp's official comments/request for edit, third party analysis of those comments, the works)
turk_burlington1@yahoo.com
Also, I have docs and analysis on the BP/ARCO merger and Charter.
Free to all. One request - Knowles people: appoint a representative and share.
Tony's a shill. Period. Will he negotiate a contract. Probably. Will he sign it? Certainly. Will it be a "hard fought bargain" that protects Alaska? Not bloody likely.
November 2, 2006 - 11:57am | alaskastraightalker
Harvey's Part of the Palin Campaign
Meritless or not, Harvey chose to remain silent when she could have done something about her concerns. When she resigned, she was asked by the media to detail her reasons; she chose not to.
For nearly 5 years, she could have gone to the Murkowski administration, the legislature, federal agencies, or her former oil company employers with her concerns- she chose not to.
She only chose to express her concerns after close coordination with the Palin campaign. When asked about that on radio the other day, she kept saying sher never spoke with Sarah Palin herself- but the question was- repeatedly- whether or not she had spoken with anyone from the Palin campaign.
The lack of honesty in her response cast a pall over her credibility and the truthfulness of the remainder of her statements.
Also, it is quite clear that she has been personalizing DEC bureaucratic decisions when her superiors reassigned her. Sort of reminds me of Palin, as evidenced by the "Who's Yer Daddy" diatribe passed out at the school principals' conference, still harboring ill will against Frank Murkowski because she wasn't appointed to the US Senate.
November 2, 2006 - 11:28am | mike_l
when you get in front of the media, TV and Radio, to make personal accusations of unethical/illegal behavior, and then say at the end that you are a Palin Supporter AND can't handle the thought of another 4 years of Knowles, yes -the objectivity of those statements go out the window. But she got her five minutes of fame. However, it backfired for the Palin campaign. People don't want negative campaigning. And they don't want candidates surrounding themselves by disgruntled former workers with an axe to grind.
People are also wondering why this accusor, who claims to be so concerned about the environment, would wait nearly five years -and 11 days before an election -to tell anyone or warn them about a problem/conditions that could produce an environmental disaster. Maybe she has been promised a job down in Juneau, alongside Robin Taylor, Jerry Ward, and the LNG guys.
November 2, 2006 - 4:10pm | Black3
All you Tonybots must be unemployed;
all you can think about is who's going to get a job. They're really not very good jobs. IF you have any skills, you can do better in the private sector except in very specialized, public sector only, jobs. And if you really want to do better, you can move to most any other Western state. If you're a degreed professional, you can do better even in the South and never have to deal with snow and high prices again.
November 2, 2006 - 11:46am | turk_burlington
The timing of her statement is only relevant if the claims she makes are unfounded. Based on the evidence, there is a factual basis for her assertions.
Under your line of logic, Tom Irwin and the rest of the DNR resignees were mere "disgruntled employees". I'd like to hear your boss say that on air tonight.
November 2, 2006 - 12:08pm | realist
Tom Irwin et al were very open about their disagreement with Murkowski from the get-go. They did not wait until a campaign season, let alone late in a campaign season, to "go public" with their concerns. They were very open about them from the beginning, even testifying to the legislature about them. And they never coordinated their concerns about the gas pipeline contract/Point Thomson/net-profits tax with any kind of campaign against Murkowski's re-election. (Though yes, I know, Tom Irwin is supporting Sarah Palin and Marty Rutherford and, I think, a few of the others are supporting Tony Knowles.)
I'm not an anti-Susan Harvey person here. I think there's lots of merit to her concerns. (I also think there's lots of merit to the defense of DEC's policies, which were judgment calls at the time that look like mistakes, of course, in hindsight; and yes, the legislature demonstrated a little bit of poor judgment too, though it was more understandable considering budget realities at the time.) But I think the value of Harvey's claims is overshadowed now by her obvious personal emnity towards Knowles and others. Also, I think she really erred by accusing those who disagreed with her of being corrupt. That's one sure-fire way to undermine your effectiveness.
However strongly they disagreed with him, Tom Irwin, Mark Myers and Marty Rutherford never, never attacked Murkowski personally or questioned his ethics or morality or fitness for office. They were very specific about their disagreements with Murkowski, but always very forthcoming and very respectful in their many public statements.
November 2, 2006 - 4:26pm | Black3
That fake request for an AG's opinion was done AFTER the decision was made and leaked to the media before the decision was announced. That is outright sabotage and it is what happens when you don't fire every appointee from the prior administration the second your hand comes off the Bible.
Any reasonably accomplished public manager knows how to play the AG's opinion game. You lobby the assistant AG's to your position, you use the formal request to get your way or stop someone else from getting theirs. It is the normal way of doing business on any consequential issue. You do it while the decision making process is underway. You do NOT do it after the decision is made. If you're an appointee and the Gov makes a decision you don't agree with, your choice is simple; carry it out or quit. You don't gut shoot the Governor with a fake, leaked AG opinion request.
And note I earlier referred to a "Formal" AG's opinion request. There are procedures in place for such a request that have been relatively unchanged for years. Requests are sometimes initiated by subject matter staff, sometimes by directors. They go by formal memorandum thru directors to the commissioner of the cognizant department to the chief of staff and on to the AG. They DO NOT go by dark of night email directly to the AG! And they damned well don't get emailed to the press. Unless and until a final decision is made, they are privileged on both attorney-client and deliberative grounds.
They should not have been given the courtesy of resignation; their heads should have been on pikes in front of the Capital.
November 3, 2006 - 8:00am | lewisandclark
It does appear to be a game at the AG opinion mill. But what do you expect with an Attorney General that looks like a member of the Adams Family and comes into the state from VECO's lot.
By the way, the supremes released a decision last May/June that would tend to make a whistleblower want to properly go outside ("public") the chain of command of a Government system.
Knowing and breaking rules is what the ethics opinion "game" as you call it seems to be about. Management will rubber stamp infractions all the way to the top, while also cooking up retaliation. It doesn't mean that there wasn't an effort by the Legislative Audit and legislation to stop the activity and make certain things illegal, and reduce liability. It's just that they are flat out ignored.
It's the person with the complaint that gets canned and by every effort possible the violation is swept under the rug. The complainant just goes away is the hope.
Until of course, a pipe falls apart, spills 210,000 gallons of oil, Shuts Down one of America's biggest oil resources. Then She's 'politically motivated' for comming forward. I just don't see it, but again why can't she be? Tony could have done right, and she could have contributed to his doing so.
Maybe by using the rules in place, the desired result being fewer "disgruntled" people would be a better policy. Too late for Tony, his committment is the other way.
I think perhaps it's high time to change the negative psychological connotations of the word 'disgruntled.' As we see with Susan Harvey, there is cause and reason, and yes an unfortunate effect. Yes it is time for her 15 minutes of fame, and corresponding time for Tony to throw in the towell.
The AG website clearly shows a double standard on their opinions:
[Attorney General opinions express a well-considered opinion that may or may not be agreed with by a court faced with the same issue at a later date. The Attorney General may reevaluate and, if necessary, revoke or modify prior opinions. Additionally, because the Attorney General’s obligation to publicly provide advice may at times collide with the Attorney General’s obligation to represent the State of Alaska as litigation counsel, the Attorney General may be required to take a litigation position at odds with a prior opinion.]
In other words AG don't care about the law once it's broken, they defend the weasels and doing so help them continue to aid violations with impunity. But what do you expect when 250 lawyers get together under a concept of "State's Immunity."
Soon enough there are none left but weasels running the show. Not something the constituatcy (or FBI) will put up with for long. Result is not only corruption but also a appearance of corruption.
It is clear what Sarah represents to the weasels. It is also clear to the voters that she is as much devoted to irradicating weasel problems as she is any wolf/preditor control.
Just say yes to a Naked Alaskan Prom Queen/Librarian Porn Star- with Platitudes, glittering generalities,Hair Pieces(?), Half-Native Children, and bear gristle in her teeth! GRRRRRR!
November 3, 2006 - 9:38am | Black3
I wasn't referring to Ethics Act opinions, but rather
opinions on questions of substantive law.
Despite your disparagement of him, Marquez has played it straigher than most. My personal favorite in recent times was Bothello's twisting of the Public Records Act to demand $12K in advance for the costs of a phone record search in response to an allegation that State phones had been used by a Democrat Legislative campaign. That request could have been met with one phone call to produce a standard report that any supervisor can get. But if you don't know the game ...
I have no sympathy for "disgruntled" political appointees; they serve at the pleasure and do what the administration wants or they quit or get fired. If they think they were being asked to do something illegal, after they quit, they can seek legal recourse. If they disagree on policy, they can quit and play kiss and tell, but no appointee has an expectation of continued employment by an administration whose policy goals they do not share.
Merit system employees are another matter. Most that get in trouble are high level employees who get crossthreaded with an administration by playing politics. They deserve what happens to them; you play, you pay. But there are instances of legitimate professional or legal positions being overridden by political management for political reasons. An employee in that situation is in a Helluva fix because, you're right, the whole might of the State will defend the administration. That's what the WhistleBlower Act is for. If the internal systems will not act, the employee can go straight to Court without exhausing the administrative processes and grievance procedures, but that is a lonely and expensive course.
The structural problem this exhibits is the fact that the AG is the Administration's lawyer. That isn't an argument for an elected AG, that's even worse. If elected, AG stands for Almost Governor, and every legal question becomes a political question.
My solution would be an appointed and confirmed Solicitor General who serves a set term so that he or she could not be politically removed during the term. The SG's charge, inter alia, would be to handle allegations against the government where the conduct might also constitute a crime or other violation of statute or regulation. The fixed term would give the SG the independence to meaningfully investigate the allegation and, if warranted, charge the administration.
November 3, 2006 - 12:17pm | lewisandclark
The subjects of ethics can be quite simple or complexly intertwined,and criminal acts can be extracted from lapses of good judgment.
Perhaps the disparagement of the AG is uncalled for.But he is familiar with the State's interactions with VECO in an inseparable way. It is at his AG website that they explain the contradiction/conflicts in defending violations which should tend to disqualify the AG's office.
AK bar rules make out this hypothetical situation where an agency might be represented against a person who is also represented by the state, but I know of no case where that happens though many that it should. Probably it doesn't happen at all. It needs to happen.
Harvey should have been represented by the State. I don't know that she was a political appointee, but seeking recourse is a burden that shouldn't be hers. It really shouldn't need to be the burden of the FBI either.
And Irwin wasn't a straggler of any previous Admin, but I guess he falls in the other category of Governor says shut up.
November 3, 2006 - 12:44pm | Black3
a political appointee. She made the choice that most professionals would make, she quit and went on her way. If you are a merit system employee and have a brain and do what they tell you, the administration could never get you no matter how much they want you. If you have the stomach for it, you can just go to your cubbie and take a paid vacation for the rest of the administration; they don't want you to do anything and aren't going to do anything to you for fear of the upset it might cause. No work comes your way, your phone doesn't ring, you don't get the email, and nobody talks to you. Dedicated professionals interested in their career have a lot of trouble not having a real job and often having an office with no windows and a seat that flushes. Few make it more than a year or so before they just give up in frustration and seek greener pastures.
If they supported the administration, the union will not help such an employee any more than the most minimal acts necessary to keep themselves from being successfully sued - and that ain't much.
I think Irwin was a neophyte in government who was led down the primrose path by people who knew exactly what they were doing. He was not alone among Murkowski's appointees in having that done to him.
The upper levels of State government, especially in Juneau, have more intrigue than the eunuchs' quarters in a Turkish bordello. If someone at that level comes up to you and puts their arm around you in an avuncular manner, it ain't affection; they're feeling for the soft spots.
Read the adn.com updated privacy policy | 
Important warning about e-mails purporting to be from the adn.com staff.
© Copyright 2009, The Anchorage Daily News, a subsidiary of The McClatchy Company 
Contact Us | Newsroom Contacts | Communication Forms | Subscriptions | Advertising | Featured Advertisers
Daily News Jobs |
RSS Feeds |
|
ADN Store |
Newspapers in Education
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | About our ads | Copyright
10 November 2, 2006 - 11:16pm | alaskastraightalker
I have a great idea regarding e-mails
Will the Palin campaign open up their computers and files to Kyle Hopkins so that he can review all e-mails sent by, or received by the campaign and Palin supporters.
I bet there's some great material there. I look forward to seeing some examples on these pages.
I suggest starting with ones written by, or received by, Paul Fuhs, Robin Taylor, and Jerry Ward.
| flag this »