UPDATE: The Murkowski ads mentioned here are gone from Murkowski's Web site, but have been running on radio today and will be or have been on TV tonight, according to his campaign.
Looks like a slugfest from here on out.
A new TV spot this morning quotes an old Frontiersman editorial that blasted Palin when she was mayor of Wasilla. Pretty scathing.
The Binkley campaign says they paid for it, but I couldn’t tell if it’s the same editorial the Voice of the Times wrote about recently. Binkley spokesman Russ Kelly and Palin campaign manager Frank Bailey said they didn’t know either.
Bailey said, though, that it was “the same article that was left at the tables at the ARP picnic, before we got in there.
Important warning about e-mails purporting to be from the adn.com staff.
5 August 16, 2006 - 8:23pm | redpike
Murkowski ad - Ethics??
This is the a new Murkowski low.
Latest commercial attacking Sarah Palin on ethics cites at the bottom "APOC Filings - Alaska Statute 39.52.210."
Looked this up and this Alaska State Law applies to "all public officers within executive-branch agencies, including members of boards or commissions". In other words it applies to the state government ONLY.
I am not aware of any allegations of Sarah having ethical problems when she served on the state commission in 2003.
The cited statute WOULD apply to Frank using state jet for personal and for campaign use.
flag this »
4 August 16, 2006 - 3:44pm | fitch575
again...
...did anyone bother to check out anything before writing scathing remarks regarding channel 2? My guess is they're going to do these profiles on all the candidates. If they don't then we can ridicule them for not being a balanced source of news.
Does anyone here really believe that Channel 2 wants Binkley as Gov?
flag this »
August 17, 2006 - 8:43am | akpoliticalanimal
Palin's Story
Her's wasn't as fluffy. they had some dissenters on there. Binkley--all fluff.
flag this »
August 17, 2006 - 9:30am | fitch575
Like I said...
Now we can criticize Channel 2 for not portraying Sarah Palin in the same light. But for the sake of argument, Sarah has been involved in some of the more controversial and dividing issues in Alaska. The whole Randy Ruederich thing, and supporting the LNG project. Then again, didn't they mention Binkley's support of Democrats in the past?
flag this »
3 August 16, 2006 - 10:39am | quixoticneophyte
Murkowski is desperate...
Comparing Sarah Palin to Lindauer?!? Absurd!
Lindauer was the scum of politics, and was dirty to his core. His finances weren't just "shady" or "questionable," but he continually lied and unethically obtained money.
Sarah Palin has become the standard of good government in Alaska, and is *nothing* like Lindauer.
If you ask me, Sarah Palin is best compared to Wally Hickel.
flag this »
August 16, 2006 - 3:34pm | rkrafft
Are you kidding?
For some unknown reason people seem to think Sarah will change the world we live in. The problem is she will not change it for the good. Anti establishment is a popular campaign slogan, but only if the establishment is in fact broken. Murkowski has done some very unpopular things while he has been in office, but on the other hand he has done some thngs that needed to be done. Getting rid of antiquated programs like the Longevity Bonus and an unbalanced revenue sharing in times of low oil prices took courage. He knew the backlash and took the steps to put things in action. Sarah stood by the side and criticized the whole process. Sarah the giant killer, Sarah the fresh face. Sarah the deal killer. How long do we need to wait for the gas line? How many governers in the past have spoken lightly of it but never dared to move forward with actual negotiation? None until Frank came along. His deal may not be the best, and may need some further negotiation, but it stands a lot better change of making it than Sarahs bottle project or Binkley's start over approach. Put the bickering aside, consider what has gone right and forget about the jet which the media doomed from the start.(BTW it can land on gravel and most strips in Alaska, and is much more efficient than the King Air, why else would the jet travel be the norm rather than props?)
Is Sarah like Lindauer, who knows since besides slaying the giant and running Wasilla there is nothing else to look at.
flag this »
August 16, 2006 - 10:54am | quixoticneophyte
Where did those Murkowski ads go?
This might just be a stupid question, but where did those ads go on Frank's website? The double barrel ones?
flag this »
August 16, 2006 - 12:02pm | thetrail
?
No, that's a good question.
-- Kyle
flag this »
August 16, 2006 - 12:39pm | quixoticneophyte
Two ideas...
Well, they either:
1) Are having technical difficulties
OR
2) Took them down (probably so we couldn't criticize them).
If it's 2, let me just say right now that no honest campaign should have to selectively hide their message like that.
Frank, are you afraid we might criticize your ads? Expose their faults? Can't stand up under closer examination?
flag this »
2 August 16, 2006 - 10:14am | akisok2
I agree...
... with the previous post about the fluff piece on Binkley last night. Rhonda McBride is not known for hard hitting journalism, but I'm sure she could have done better and actually asked questions about John's policies, his ideas for the state and his background. Instead we were treated to a 5 minute touchy feely story with no substance. Will KTUU be this nice to the other candidates? You think they'll do a fluff piece on Murkowski? I highly doubt it.
flag this »
1 August 16, 2006 - 10:09am | akpoliticalanimal
Did Anyone See Channel 2 Last Night??
Did anyone catch the story about Johnny Binkley? It's on their website today. www.ktuu.com It's a total freebie for Johnny Binkley. Sarah should be demanding the same treatment or an apology from Channel 2. It's so obvious Johnny has Channel 2 in his pocket! I'm not a Palin fan, but jeezlouise it was over the top. Frank should be mad too but it's hard to do a freebie piece on him since there's not much good to say!
flag this »
August 16, 2006 - 12:51pm | JohnLocke
Frank has many accomplishments!
AKPoliticalAnimal,
There are many good things to say about Frank. Your comments show a lack of knowledge about his work as governor. True Republicans highly praise Frank Murkowski's work.
If Murkowski were to somehow loose, Binkley would be my second choice for governor. So, the KTUU interview was appropriate.
John
flag this »
August 17, 2006 - 8:47am | akpoliticalanimal
I have too much knowledge
of murkowski's work. that's why i don't support him. and binkley? he's murkowski-light. they have the same friends.
flag this »
August 16, 2006 - 2:26pm | chilcoot
"True Republicans highly
"True Republicans highly praise Frank Murkowski's work"? Wonderful! I've long wished for a day when there were maybe three dozen True Republicans in Alaska (i.e. Murkowski, Stevens, and their progeny).
Yay!
flag this »
August 16, 2006 - 2:12pm | lauriejo_6
The Good Professor
Hey John, you seem to accuse any one who disagrees with you of being stupid. Who says you know more about these issues than anyone else, except you of course. It's almost as if you have disdain for anyone with an opinion that's not identical to your own. Maybe, before you start accusing other people of not being your intellectual equal, you should lay out your credentials. Your entitled to your opinion, like everyone else, you are not entitled to question other people's intelligence because they disagree with you. Lighten up, you're not going to change any body's mind by inferring that their stupid, you'll only strengthen their resolve.
flag this »
August 16, 2006 - 2:59pm | quixoticneophyte
I'll second that...
I agree.
flag this »
August 16, 2006 - 3:01pm | julia_thorne
And I'll third that!
Or something like that. I agree too.
QB? (This is where you jump in too!)
flag this »
August 17, 2006 - 8:56am | QueenBee
I fourth it
Ok Club.
I fourth it. Thanks for remembering me.
QB
flag this »
August 16, 2006 - 5:37pm | northeastbear
ktuu & franks killer ads
This profile shows that only Binkley can beat Tony. Those third person stories are the stuff of great commercials. The Murkowski ads while harsh are true Tony will ram the ethics problems up her you know what. No one can use taxpayer employees to run a political campaign like Sarah did like when she ordered donor thank you notes written by city employees. This will be Watergate before Tony’s Henchmen are done.
flag this »
August 16, 2006 - 5:50pm | thetrail
?
If there was/is a smoking gun, why would her primary opponents hold back? I've been thinking a lot about this lately, and I don't see why Knowles would succeed in making the campaign-at-the-office stuff a major issue but her primary opponents couldn't (or won't, or haven't) ...
-- Kyle
flag this »
August 16, 2006 - 7:02pm | lauriejo_6
There Is No Smoking Gun
It seems to be the classic last minute smear. They will throw anything out there and hope something sticks in the minds of those who are not sure who they are voting for. Usually they wait for the Thursday night or Friday before the election so the opponent doesn't have time to respond. If Binkley or frank had any dirt on Palin they would have used it long before she had a double digit lead in the polls. Should be a great debate on KAKM's running on Thursday night. It also seems to me that if adn did support Knowles, they would have done everything in their power to eliminate Palin, because she has the best shot of beating Knowles in the general.
flag this »
August 16, 2006 - 6:49pm | northeastbear
what?
Kyle: Three reasons why the GOPers have not whacked Sarah. One, the 11th commnadment.
Two, in a three way it's hard to know where voters who fall off Sarah will land. No such problem with Tony they go his way or home.
Three, it's the the one of two things Tony will have to use the (other will be the lack of BP oversight her commission failed to do while she was on the oil and gas commission and it's hair). They will file a few ethics complaints with in the month and the so called "Ethics Queen" will be toast. Its the issue she has tried to own and how does she defend making city staff type donor thank you notes, etc.?
flag this »
August 16, 2006 - 6:20pm | quixoticneophyte
Amen! (and a question)
--I agree. What would Tony Knowles have that Palin's primary opponents wouldn't? The answer is nothing. Good point.
--I think another charge that has been suggested here (and other places, specifically Red State) is that the ADN is holding back information. When Palin wins the GOP primary, there are claims that the ADN will suddenly expose skeletons in some previously non-existent closet for Sarah Palin and thereby give Knowles the election.
Kyle, let's set this straight:
You work for the ADN. Are you, or anyone you know, cooperating with the Democrats to push Palin through the primary and then destroy her in the general?
[I will be astounded if I receive anything besides a resounding "No."]
flag this »
August 16, 2006 - 7:01pm | thetrail
No.
I don't have any allegiance to any candidate. On Nov. 8, I want each one to feel like they were treated fairly.
-- Kyle
flag this »
August 16, 2006 - 9:46pm | Beachwriter
Kyle
You've been fair and impartial with everything you've written and displayed on this blog. No doubt it's the reason for its success. Thank You.
flag this »
August 16, 2006 - 7:05pm | quixoticneophyte
Thanks!
And in my opinion, this blog has been doing an excellent job of just that.
flag this »
August 17, 2006 - 8:58am | QueenBee
Mr. Trail
Mr. Trail has done an excellent job with the blog. It has been 100% fair and impartial. I work with a ton of the democratic party and if you even mention the other party, we have to watch for stones.
flag this »