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: October 31, 2006 - 4:58 pm
You know it’s a spicy debate when Halcro’s comments are the most tame.
Knowles went hard after Palin at the noon Rotary debate today, criticizing her for missing meetings and not being ready to handle gas line negotiations, while Palin went after Knowles on his ability to work with the legislature and avoid gridlock.
Rotary members posed the questions, while moderator Paul Davis - a trial lawyer - made a point of trying to call the candidates out if he thought they gave non-answers. (There was a surreal moment where he asked Palin the same question about subsistence at least three times.)
Palin was actually the first to mention yesterday’s BP forum. During her opening statement, she said:
“… What I did out there in Wasilla also, I was able to apply those Rotarian values, that four way test about truthfulness and fairness.
“And I wish that that applied to state politics and to campaigns. Just yesterday, a real quick example of how the nature of the beast of politics is so far from that four-way test of Rotarians, it’s so unfortunate.
“Yesterday, BP forum. I was invited weeks ago to show up. Well I’d already met with the BP group. I just met with the president of BP. Wasn’t able to re-arrange my schedule to get there yesterday. And I get home last night and all over the news is ‘Sarah was a no show. She wasn’t at the debate.’
“There’s a sign out front making it look like I was supposed to be there (and) I wasn’t. But I wasn’t supposed to be there…”
A few minutes later, Davis, the moderator asked this question: “Will you limit your negotiations on the gas pipeline to the producers or will you reopen discussions with others, such as Warren Buffett’s company?
Halcro answered, then it was Knowles’ turn.
Knowles said:
“We need to look at the best deal for Alaska. And there is a clear difference between Sarah Palin and myself. This is a pivotal time. The next governor is going to have to sit down with Alaska business leaders, members of the oil and gas industry and others to negotiate an Alaska gas line on Alaska’s terms.
“I’ve asked Sarah before in terms of what experience she has in negotiating a project and she says she doesn’t pretend to have the expertise and would hire people.
“Well, this is a pivotal point. Sarah Palin has refused to meet with the executives and employees of ConocoPhillips, BP, Alyeska, with the regional CEOs of the Native corporations. With the Anchorage board, chamber board and with the state chamber of commerce.
“I believe that we cannot afford to have a governor who is AWOL. You cannot delegate leadership.”
(There was a smattering of applause. Then, Palin started to talk.)
PALIN: “Well it’s a shame that I would have to spend my 30 or 60 seconds …”
MODERATOR (interrupting Palin so he could ask Knowles the question again): “Hold on a second. So the question was will you reopen negotiations with other people or simply negotiate with the producers?”
KNOWLES: “As I said in my very first statement, I would look to all of the proposals to see what is the best deal for Alaska.”
PALIN: “It is a shame that I would have to spend my 30 or 60 seconds responding to, again, an untruthful statement. I just met with Steve Marshall. I’ve met with Exxon. I’ve met with ConocoPhillips.
“I’ve met with the BP employee group and the ConocoPhillips folks. Heck, I have the endorsement of the North Slope union hands up there. My husband happens to be one of them. But as an employee of BP, I have that.
“So, that’s not true, tony Knowles."
November 2, 2006 - 8:52am | rfn
Liberal Democrat Tony Knowles could not convince Liberal Democrat William Jefferson Clinton to allow the will of congress to prevail and open ANWR.
What magical chemical substance does one have to inject into their veins to believe that Liberal Democrat Tony Knowles will have any greater success in convincing a Liberal Democrat Congress to open ANWR?
Especially when Conservative Republican George W. Bush remains in office; unlikely to veto ANWR in Clintonesque fashion?
Pipeline?
Forget about it. The Sierra Club will never allow it.
November 2, 2006 - 9:07am | coldstrings
Next week, Alaska does not have a voice in the Democratic majority of the U.S. Congress...unless Tony Knowles becomes Governor. There is one sure way to not convince the Democratic majority about anything, and that is to elect Sarah Palin.
Tony Knowles did convince Pres. Clinton's Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt to open NPR-A. With over 1.3 million acres leased, that is a solid accomplishment.
Tony Knowles did convince Tom Daschle, then Democratic Senate Majority under Pres. Bush to put the Alaska Gas Pipeline priority in the national Energy Policy Act.
Even when Pres. Clinton said "No" to ANWR, Governor Knowles persisted on Alaska's behalf and accomplished NPR-A. That is exactly the kind of bipartisan teamwork and effectiveness Alaska needs. Tony Knowles is the best choice for Governor.
8 November 1, 2006 - 11:37am | alambernakis
After lots of agonizing, I've finally decided to vote Knowles
This has been a hard decision. I've watched all the debates. I've read the websites and position papers. I've read this blog since it started.
I am not a big fan of Tony Knowles. I don't like his attitude. I don't like the whole concept of governing by poll that he embodies. I didn't want to vote for him. I really wanted to vote for Sarah Palin. But I've concluded that doing so would be grossly irresponsible, and that her deficiencies far outweigh those of Tony Knowles.
Here's why: She doesn't make sense when she talks or answers questions. She speaks in platitudes and generalization and her remarks have ZERO substance. She seems like a really nice person but, sadly, not very bright. Her answers show that she doesn't understand the complexities of the issues facing the state of Alaska.
When I was watching the KTUU debate, I finally was able to put my finger on what has been bothering me about Palin. It is the George Bush factor. I made the mistake of voting for him and we all have learned the hard way that when you vote for an affable idiot to run government, you get idiotic decisions. The last six years of George Bush have been disasterous for the United States, and I realized that if I vote for Palin, I will be asking for the same kind of idiocy to be visited on Alaska.
The people in charge of leading goverment should be smart and have the life and work experience necessary to make important decisions. Palin doesn't have this. I started thinking who I would hire to run my business and make important financial decisions that effect my life. If I proposed hiring someone with Palin's qualifications to my partners, they would laugh me out of the room.
So the question became, can I let my dislike of Knowles drive me into making the irresponsible decision of voting for Palin? And, ultimately, after much soul searching, the answer is no. After four years of Murkowski idiocy (and yes, I made the mistake of voting for him too), I can no longer afford to vote for someone just because they are a Republican or because I like them. So I am swallowing hard and voting for Knowles and believe I am making absolutely the right decision.
As for Halcro, yes, there are a lot of good things to be said about him, but in reality, there is absolutely no chance he will be elected. Given the closeness of elections in Alaska, I want to cast a vote that matters.
November 1, 2006 - 1:12pm | coldstrings
Thank you for your statement and consideration. It is a serious matter to extend the trust of a vote.
For those of us who have been advocating Knowles, it then becomes our responsibility to pay extra attention to working in a respectful and bipartisan manner, including better listening habits.
November 1, 2006 - 1:22pm | Brainfart
I like how all you clones over at the Knowles campaign headquarters write to each other than act like it's an unsolicited comment. Let's see, straightalker, mike, opal, coldstrings, and of coarse leslie if not in the same room in constant contact with each other. Nice illusion, says a whole lot about character, or lack of.
November 1, 2006 - 9:48pm | opal
about your character. Rather than engage in a debate about the issues with someone you don't agree with, you attack their credibility (yes I'm calling you yeller). You asked if some of the regular posters were affiliated with a campaign. As I told you before, I am not. I am, however, a life-long Alaskan and working mother, who doesn't have the time, energy or desire to work on any campaign. I'll admit posting on this weblog has become a guilty pleasure for me. No, I don't agree with a lot of other bloggers, but I don't need to accuse them of being campaign operatives to avoid a debate. If my knowledge of the issues and my ability to articulate my views intimidates you Brainy, you can blame the Anchorage School District and the fine professors at UAA. The point of this weblog is to debate and discuss the issues, but if you just want to point fingers and name call because you can't handle it you should take your ball and go home.
November 1, 2006 - 5:40pm | rfn
The use of "coarse" instead of "course"?
A mistake is one thing but an intentional slur on a person, even with whom I cannot agree on most things, who has proven herself gracious (OK, misguided) and helpful to many others is just, well, coarse.
Not a joke. I'm hoping it was just a spelling error!
November 1, 2006 - 5:33pm | coldstrings
And the answer is 'No'. However, I am enjoying watching you do Tony's heavy lifting for him. Please, do not stop.
November 1, 2006 - 2:36pm | mike_l
I'm a Palin plant, am female, and will be attending the women's rally on Friday listed on your web site.
7 November 1, 2006 - 11:03am | qtwkids
R & D candidates should know this... Halcro does
The Pipeline Safety Hearing provided a forum to examine technologies available to assess the integrity of pipelines, such as the use of internal inspection tools, and the capability of pipeline operating systems to identify leaks and to prompt timely responses. The hearing also seeked to determine the status of ongoing research in these areas. The hearing was prompted by the Safety Board's past investigations of numerous pipeline accidents in which pipe with time-related defects failed, and the Safety Board's current investigations of six pipeline accidents that have occurred in 1999 and 2000, which include potential pipeline integrity issues.
found here http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2000/pipeline_hearing/default.htm
We have known for a long time there have been issues... this is documented by NTSB and looking at the date of this hearing you can safely surmise that the Governor both outgoing and one coming in from being a US Senator should have known this. And they had an obligation as our representatives to do something then rather than delay. Shame on you Tony! Get with it Sarah... meeting with the outgoing please! How about meeting with your opponents and dealing with the here and now and how about the importance of learning from the past mistakes. What next order another jet? Or like Tony turn your head away from the fallout costs of our no accountability clause for families and children at risk.
November 1, 2006 - 11:21am | realist
. . .but the pipeline accidents that occurred in prior to this year on the North Slope involved what are called "flow" or "gathering" lines, the lines that carry produced water, natural gas and maybe a little oil, or a combination thereof. Prior to this year's Prudhoe Bay pipeline spills, BP, the state, the DOT and even environmental organizations considered such flow and gathering lines to be at the most risk for corrosion. (Actually, despite Prudhoe Bay, they still do consider such lines to be at more risk, due to the corrosive nature of water and especially salty produced water.) Therefore, most of the corrosion-monitoring and control effort was put into flow and gathering lines -- instead of into the transit lines that carry processed crude oil. That is why, long before the Prudhoe Bay spills, the feds and the state were working on (now final, or nearly final) new regulations to tighten control of flow and gathering lines.
Past pipeline spills on the North Slope have generally involved produced water, which is very damaging to the environment but not at all the same thing as crude oil.
Spills from flow and gathering lines, such as that big produced water spill at Kuparuk, are serious, and the far rarer spills from transit lines are serious, but they are not the same type of problem. It may be fair to say that BP and government agencies should have done more to prevent spills from crude oil transit lines, but it is NOT fair to say that BP or government agencies, including DEC under both the Knowles and Murkowski administrations, neglected the problem of leaky flow and gathering lines. Yes, hindsight shows that they should have worried about the transit lines as well as the flow and gathering lines, but it is not correct to say that they ignored pipeline problems in general.
6 November 1, 2006 - 10:46am | GeordieBC
Are only Knowles supporters on this ?
Day in and day out I read this blog and it overwhelmingly is Knowles supporters blogging which leads me to a couple of conclusions : They are unemployed, or wasting time at work, retired or on disability (some whom the disability is readily apparent...) If this is truly the core of Knowles supporters, who obviously have a lot of time on their hands, then Palin will win.
November 1, 2006 - 12:33pm | wakeup
I've noticed there seem to be more pro-Knowles supporters on this blog in recent days as well - but I certainly don't attribute it to Knowles supporters having "a lot of time on their hands."
I'm as hard core conservative Republican as they come and I, too, monitor this blog feverishly. However, my conclusion is that Sarah's supporters are waking up to the reality that their candidate is not at all the image she has worked to portray - that of a policy wonk who deeply understands and cares about the issues and who is an articulate, thoughtful, passionate voice about Alaska's future.
What I am more and more coming to see is that Sarah:
1. Is very attractive
2. Is nice and friendly (so long as she is not crossed, according to those who know her personally)
3. Has a "sound byte" grasp on most of the issues
The debates have provided venues in which Sarah cannot stay safe and secure behind her image as the "outsider trying to clean up the game." She's been subject to the light (I guess "sunshine" is the term she might use) and I think there are thousands of us in Alaska who have been strangely startled to realize she has an exceedingly limited understanding of the issues.
Coupled with the missteps after missteps of her campaign in the general election, what are we to think?
I keep hearing about voters who, for personal reasons, don't think they can vote for Knowles - and even though they might want to vote for Andrew, realize the stakes are too high to take the chance of letting Sarah take the helm, so they plan to write in John Binkley's name next Tuesday.
It seems people want to see Sean in office and want to see Andrew in office but realize that the way the cards are lined up this go around, it is most prudent to elect someone who won't be as fickle in her stands and her approach as Palin.
There's just too much at stake to take such a great risk.
I say Andrew for U.S. House or Senate and Sean for governor in four years.
In the meantime, if personal convictions are such that you can't vote for Tony, join thousands of others in writing Binkley's name down - which will hopefully send a clarion message to the Republican faithful in this State that while we wanted change - we demand REAL change - not just cosmetic, superficial change. Robin Taylor and Jerry Ward are NOT real change - they would push the State back a good twenty years and it should scare the living daylights out of anyone who's paying attention to see that these are the men who clamor, and are welcomed, at Sarah's side.
To the rest of us - as much as I want to cast my vote for Halcro, too - I'll either take Andrew's advice and vote for Tony (he said he'd vote for Tony if he weren't in the race); or I'll write John's name in - then I'll look forward to voting for Andrew in the future.
November 1, 2006 - 12:48pm | alambernakis
I agree with almost everything you say, BUT
writing in John Binkley is the same as voting for Halcro. In other words, it may make a statement, but it won't contribute to the result. As a practical matter, either Knowles or Palin is going to get elected. Although I too am a conservative Republican, for the reasons I described above, I have concluded the only responsible decision is to vote for Knowles.
November 1, 2006 - 1:12pm | wakeup
Yes, I understand what you're saying about casting a vote that "won't contribute to the result," however, I know certain Republicans who, because of right to life opinions, can't/won't vote for Tony.
It's not that they don't realize he's our best chance at getting a gas line - they do (sorry for the double negatives). It's just that their personal belief system would prohibit them from casting a vote for someone with a different opinion on this issue than theirs.
To people in this quandry, I say, write in Binkley's name. At least they won't be voting for an individual who is risky and could do serious harm to the State's economy for years to come. This allows them to:
1. Vote on Tuesday
2. Vote their conscience
3. Send a message to our Republican leadership in this State that we demand qualified candidates in the future to represent our Party
I understand how you would say the "only responsible decision is to vote for Knowles." I'm just trying to voice an option for those who, personally, would have a difficult time voting for Tony.
(...and besides, Binkley would have made such a fantastic governor. Oh, to turn the clock back two months)
November 1, 2006 - 1:44pm | Black3
don't get to pick the candidate to represent our party. Anyone with the filing fee and a few friends that can sign their name can run and set their party affiliation on the day they file. Any R or, especially NP, can vote in the primary.
At the risk of rising to the mobies here, I'll posit that Ms. Palin would not have won a closed Republican primary. You won't be sending the R leadership a message, most of them either stayed with Murkowski out of loyalty to an incumbent or bailed to Binkley. Some of them, I'll admit, haven't come over to Palin and some have done so only half-heartedly. I'm a registered R and have some claim to leadership, and I don't need to be coy about what is very obvious to experienced observers.
This is an election over the wishes of the NPs; other than some oilies who know how to get their bread buttered, no hard R is going to vote for Knowles. No hard Ds are going to vote for Palin, though some of them will hold their noses thinking he's too conservative. Both major candidates can pretty much ignore their hard base, at least in their public positions.
Sarah calculated an "outsider" campaign based on NP's desire to end "business as usual" and assuming the Rs would never vote for Knowles. On November 8th, we'll all know if she was right because she's now facing the ultimate insider whose major weapon has been touting his experience with business as usual.
It's why they have elections and why so many of us are political junkies.
November 1, 2006 - 5:39pm | alaskastraightalker
While not completely closed, the Republicans did change the longtime rules which had been in place for a completely open primary- a move opposed by most Alaskans. You guys made the rules- so you can't complain about how the game is played.
While NP's can vote on either ballot, I don't think you can convince anyone that Palin's margin in the primary was due to the NP's. There was a low turnout, and only R party faithful felt a need to go to the polls. While there may have been some D/NP crossover, much of it may have gone to Binkley.
I think Palin's problem is, first, she's been running forever- every step of her political career has been cunningly calculated for higher office. She's mayor for a few years, runs for lt. governor (even Robin Taylor called her a tax and spender back in 2002), and then thinks she should be appointed as a US Senator.
In the primary, Palin did the better job of painting herself as anti-Murkowski/anti-incumbent in the most negative way, yet was able to say, "gosh, you're being negative, that says something about your character" when Binkley or Murkowski questioned her record. If someone else committed an error, it was a grievous sin; if she did the same thing (and a review of her mayoral record shows there were plenty), it was just a little mistake. It worked for her in the primary- Binkley was simply never able to gain traction. Murkowski never should have run- unless he had restored the longevity bonus when he bought the jet.
In the general, when Palin has had to actually talk about issues that Alaskans care about, especially those in a lower income bracket than black3 (for whom, we must remember, an income of $100,000 is "peanuts"), like health care, education, the gasline, and the state budget, the luster began to wear. The emperor (or maybe I should say the empress) had no clothes.
I know a number of "hard R's" who are voting for Knowles. Their reasons vary from Palin's inability to articulate specific ideas on major issues, or her extremist position on abortion. They do not believe that she has the business acumen to move expeditiously ahead on the gasline; they do not appreciate it that her close advisors seem to be Paul Fuhs, Robin Taylor, Jerry Ward, and other members of the old boys' network.
Since the primary, she has moved from being the Outsider to being the Insider. Her willingness to look the other way when the RGA was spending ill-gotten Beltway money in Alaska signaled that she was willing to be part of the "More of the Same gang" and that politics as usual would go on. Those hoping for a breath of fresh air found it rather stale.
By the way, friends of mine who are NP's told me they got a letter from her today assuring them that, unlike past Governors, she will not make appointments from the Party faithful or based on party affiliation. Really! You better tell Paul, Robin, and Jerry.
November 1, 2006 - 10:14pm | Black3
You must start the morning pulling
the "Talking Points" and "Known Facts" off the fax machine, memorizing them, and practicing before the mirror.
My complaint about primaries is that they are not closed enough. If you're not a Republican, you shouldn't be able to vote in the Republican primary. Republican Party leadership wilted before the howling from Democrats and left the primary open to NPs. NPs gave us Lindauer, who gave us Knowles' second term.
If you are not a registered member of a party, you should not be able to vote in a party's primary. If it offends you to use public resources for closed primaries, I'd be happy to go back to the convention system in which people with brains and experience chose the nominee.
November 1, 2006 - 11:19pm | alaskastraightalker
You must start off the morning wondering how someone like Sarah Palin became the standard bearer for your party. That thought would make me spout off whatever gibberish came to my mind too.
The Republicans did close the primary over the objections of the Democrats. They didn't do anything because of the objections of the D's- they left the NP's in because they did not want to alienate a sizable voting bloc.
As you know, the D's prefer a totally open primary. Personally, I agree with you. Let the R's close the primary to only R's- if the Republican Party pays for the total costs for a closed primary, rather than making all the D's and Np's pay for a private party function. No convention- that just lets the party bosses like you and your friends anoint people- instead of letting all party members have an equal vote.
Don't worry- corruption chair Ruedrich and the RGA can get the money from Veco and Jack Abramoff. And the R's can get great candidates like John Lindauer and other wonderful representatives of the party.
I can't wait.
November 1, 2006 - 2:35pm | wakeup
Black3 - You're right - Republican leaders don't get to pick the candidate to represent the Party - but they sure could have done a MUCH BETTER JOB of convincing Frank to stay out of the primary (John B would have won) or they could have done a MUCH BETTER JOB of coming alongside Binkley and helping him run a more focused campaign. It does make me realize how desperate for actual leadership the Republican party in Alaska is.
That's what I meant by stating a write in vote for John B will hopefully send a loud and clear message to the State's Party leaders that we won't fall into line behind a candidate who is clearly not ready to lead.
If that means Tony takes it - so be it. That will give us four years to clean house and get refocused on what the Party wants to accomplish in Alaska. I hope at the top of that list would be encouraging and working for the BEST THAT WE HAVE to run for high office - not merely the greatest opportunist among us.
For the record - having Frank enter the primary was like having Bob Dole run against Clinton - in, what was it? '96? No R anywhere in the nation thought Bob would pull it off - but, ah, heck, he's the old man of the Party, he's put his time in, if he wants it - it's his. What a mistake.
Where are the leaders who should have said, "No, Bob, your generation's had it's turn, you're rather boring and we won't run you against this young, hip, happenin' current president."
And where are the voices in Alaska who SHOULD have said, "No, Frank. You have the worst poll numbers in America. Grab a dose of reality and bow out with a little dignity. Read the writing on the wall, already."
But no. Now those of us committed to R ideals and who have a long R history are left out in the cold (just like the Palin retirees who, I see, are already out waving signs. How sad.)
You think Sarah "assumed Rs would never vote for Knowles?" Do you think Sarah "assumed" she would do such a shoddy, embarrassing job of running her general campaign?
I agree with you that Sarah "calculated an outsider campaign" to appeal to NPs and Rs - but how "outsider" is Robin Taylor? Or Jerry Ward? That's nothing but business as usual.
We'll see.
November 1, 2006 - 8:41pm | christineofkodiak
Why do you think that Binkley would have won if Frank had not been in the race? Admittedly the race would have been much closer but Sarah did receive over 50% of the vote.
November 1, 2006 - 2:52pm | Black3
There's another side to that story.
I wholeheartedly believe that Murkowski did not want to run. Being Governor of this State is no fun. The government is so powerful and pervasive that anytime you do something for someone, you do something to someone, so half the population always hates you. It is a long way from being a US Senator. Then, unless you're willing to fire, or at least threaten to, someone every day or so, it is almost impossible to get even your politically appointed subordinates to do what you want them to do. Governing Alaska is like trying to push a wet rope.
I genuinely believe Murkowski's committment to getting a gas line contract. There remained hope for that going into the Summer of '06. Had Murkowski announced that he was not running, he would at that moment become the least relevant man in Alaska and with that would have ended all hope of getting the contract in place.
Sadly, I believe that was the brief shining moment, and no matter who the Governor is next Wednesday, there won't be a gas line in the next decade unless the State is willing to finance it - and maybe not even then.
And as to Robin and Jerry, the James Carville rule applies: "you spend the election f**king your enemies then you spend the transition f**king your friends." There's a lot of people contemplating the decor of their new office who should probably wait six weeks or so.
November 1, 2006 - 7:26pm | realworld2
Poor Black! Is governing no fun? Probably not, if your idea of it is to force people to do what you want them to do. That never is any fun. Also not a good idea to go into it hoping everyone will be happy with you all of the time.
When governing IS fun is when you can manage to remember that as the executive you are only one part of a whole group of Alaskans doing their best to make the future better. You have fun when you don't expect people to agree with you, and when you even entertain the idea the other side might be right. You have fun when you don't f**k either your enemies or your friends, but try to see a way ahead that benefits them all.
I'll be voting for Tony Knowles, by the way, because you're wrong about that gasline prediction. He can and will get it done. Palin is too extreme on issues like abortion and creationism in schools and in debates she really seems to have no idea at all what she plans to do.
November 1, 2006 - 9:47pm | Black3
I choose my words very carefully; obviously
far more carefully than you read them.
I said that being Governor is not fun, and I said that in the context of Murkowski having been a US Senator. Res ipso loquitur.
As to "force(ing) people to do what you want them to do," you're damned right; if you work for me, you'll do what I say or your career indicator light will be flashing ominously. Any good manager wants and considers staff input, but in the end, they are staff and you are the decision maker. Once the decision is made they have a simple choice: on the train or on the tracks.
And the rest is just "Known Facts" and not worthy of a response.
November 2, 2006 - 7:20pm | realworld2
i love it when you talk latin!
But I still disagree. I agree that Gov. Murkowski has these problems, but it isn't the inevitable result of being a US Senator. And governing is what governors do, so I am asserting that this can be fun. Aapparently we differ on this point!
I have managed lots of people for a chunk of my career and I never needed to force people into an "on the train or on the tracks" position. Good managers listen to people, and figure out ways to get them onboard. An autocratic attitude is especially ill-suited to a democratic government,and it was too frequently the philosophy of the current administration. My question is, how's going for them so far?
I agree with you that Murkowski did some good things, and that the other portions of his record simply puts them in the dark for now. Don't happen to think the gasline contract was one of them...but history will judge it, probably differently than either you or me.
Still voting for Knowles, by the way.....but I enjoy your comments even though you are clearly crazy-wrong about nearly everything!
November 1, 2006 - 1:22pm | alambernakis
Thanks, now i understand what you are saying
I, too, am strongly right to life. That is one of my problems with Knowles. But, for me, I no longer have the luxury of voting solely on this one issue. It's why I voted for Bush, and it's why I voted for Murkowski, and both have been absolute disasters as political leaders. I'd like to say, once burned, twice shy, but in my case, this time it's twice burned, so time to change my strategy and vote on the issues that are actually in the Governor's control. As Palin likes to point out, abortion is not really one of those issues.
And yes, Binkley would have been an excellent Governor. It's a shame he didn't win the primary.
November 1, 2006 - 2:33pm | Black3
I support GWB and we'll leave it at that.
Murkowski's "disaster" was his twenty-odd years in the Senate. A US Senator gets fawning deference; they're the 100 of the 102 most powerful men in the World. The Governor of Alaska is a working bureaucrat and the people of this State have never even shown a sitting governor respect, not to speak of deference. Murkowski never learned to deal with that essential fact. He surrounded himself with sycophants and consequently lived in an echo chamber. Interestingly, if you got in the guy's face, he respected you and you could work well with him. The way he abused some of the sycophants was awesome to see, yet they always came back for more and always gave him the same echo chamber advice.
He did some good things, but he did enough dumb things that nobody will ever remember the good ones.
November 1, 2006 - 6:29pm | alambernakis
What is a moby?
I tried googling this term and nothing seems to fit. It's an acronym for Marine Optical Buoy, but that doesn't make sense here. The slang dictionary says it's "a title of address, usually used to show admiration, respect, and/or friendliness to a competent hacker." I don't think that make sense either.
November 1, 2006 - 8:48pm | christineofkodiak
somebody asked. I was wondering about this term also, but assumed that it had been defined in an earlier blog.
November 1, 2006 - 9:37pm | Black3
Moby is a blogging term used to
indicate a person who takes a position to see what reaction it might get. It comes from some whacko band guy who didn't shut up and sing and advocated that people hit the blogs and do that.
November 1, 2006 - 10:56pm | alambernakis
You learn something every day!
To answer your question, no, I wasn't looking for a reaction. I was just expressing my honest opinions. I'm sorry if it sounded wacky to you -- and maybe it is -- but the opinions are ones I developed after a lot of soul-searching about what being a conservative actually means to me. Two books I've recently read were very thought-provoking and I highly recommend them both. The first was called The Conservative Soul and is by Andrew Sullivan. The second is Tempting Faith by David Kuo. I don't agree with everything in either book, but they were both insightful and interesting.
November 1, 2006 - 10:52am | mike_l
Check out the Brainfart, Turdball, and rfn posts throughout this blog.
I am not actually a Knowles supporter, but I will be voting for him. I only support donuts.
I vote for the candidate that can get the gasline contract completed, who can answer questions, and isn't surrounded by fanatics looking for a job in Juneau.
5 October 31, 2006 - 11:41pm | alaskastraightalker
I saw a new Palin ad on TV tonight whose theme is- you guessed it- "taking a stand."
Did she take a stand on:
1. Whether it's ok to have Outside groups like the RGA- which has received money from corrupt sources like Jack Abramoff- run negative ads in Alaska, or send illegal mailers, on her behalf? Uh Uh.
2. Which gasline route- the All Alaska route that she supported during the primary or some other alternative- she supports? Nope.
3. Which previous position- for or against- the capital move or Juneau access road she now agrees with? Negative.
4. Which previous position- for or against- the Knik Arm and Ketchikan bridges- she now agrees with? No way.
5. Which previous position- for or against- school vouchers for private and religious schools she now agrees with? Heck no.
5. Which previous position- for or against- teaching creationism alongside evolution in the science classroom she now agrees with? Be serious.
In fact, in the ad she didn't take a stand at all. On anything.
November 1, 2006 - 1:59am | Loquitur
“It is time that Alaskan's move forward, that we grow up and that we grow together in a more united effort in order to progress this state… the only way that we’re gonna get there though reaching our wonderful potential here with wonderful opportunities for future generations of Alaskan's is with new energy and new leadership looking forward looking ahead, not looking behind.”
-Sarah Palin
November 1, 2006 - 9:30am | coldstrings
Through hard won experience Alaskans prefer leadership that looks back, to the wisdom of our senior statesmen and elders, looks around for advice and consensus of current leaders and voters, and then looks creatively forward with a solid base of wisdom and support. Safely navigating Alaska political waters means taking your bearings then setting course. Tony Knowles has the experience and the wisdom to stand on the shoulders of those who came before and deliver strong leadership.
4 October 31, 2006 - 11:25pm | alaskastraightalker
Kyle: Can you explain that one, i.e. why the moderator asked her the same question about subsistence at least 3 times?
By the way, can you have your tech guy change the clock? It didn't change the other night- so posts appear to be made an hour later than they are.
November 1, 2006 - 10:37am | thetrail
I tried to explain this a little better in the story today: The question was about rural preference for subsistence, and asked if the candidates would work to repeal a specific piece of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Palin answered, and the moderator asked her a few times whether her answer meant she would work to repeal this section of ANCSA.
Afterward, I talked to the Knowles camp -- and their take was that the question may have confused ANCSA with ANILCA.
I said surreal because you could her the moderator asking the same question over and over through the microphone, but couldn't really hear Palin responding and it was just kind of this weird moment.
-- Kyle
3 October 31, 2006 - 11:13pm | oil_trash_guy
I was at the BP Candidate Forum on Monday. I went because though I'm leaning towards Knowles I've never seen Palin in person and wanted to hear what she had to say. Unfortunately she didn't show up.
If she had other plans she apparently never bothered to tell the BP CAP people who were putting on the forum. It sure looked to me like they fully expected her to be there. They've been advertising this forum for at least a week.
It seems that Ms. Palin has a history of no-shows. Maybe she is taking lessons from Don Young?
November 1, 2006 - 9:45am | realist
About those lessons from Don Young. . .
Kyle, would you consider starting a thread on the Young-Benson race? It seems pretty interesting and surprising.
I know that Frank Murkowski has been much criticized (justifiably) for being arrogant. But, IMHO, compared to Don Young, Murkowski is a model of humility.
And, Oil Trash Guy, I think that Palin-Young comparison is an interesting perspective. I myself would be furious if a candidate blew off an event my organization was holding, absent a very, very, very good and specific reason.
November 1, 2006 - 9:51am | bmcdaniel9
I agree. Isn't the congressional election at least as important as the gubernatorial?
November 1, 2006 - 10:15am | rkniaziowski
This is the first time I didn't vote for Don. Probably stupid. But his attitude about campaigning told me he has lost touch with Alaskans. Only one debate and that was with ALL the candidates. Less likely to have to say much that will offend sensibilities and he could paint Diane as just another of those other wing nuts.
He will still win, but I think others feel as I do, and his margin of vistory will be less than usual.
November 1, 2006 - 8:52pm | christineofkodiak
Although she will lose, I think she will do better than most people expect.
November 1, 2006 - 9:01am | akisok2
... to check with whom she meets. At the Rotary Debate yesterday, where Knowles rightly slammed her for missing tons of important meetings with constituents including the employees of BP, Ms. Palin had this to say:
"I just met with (BP Alaska president) Steve Marshall. I've met with Exxon. I've met with Conoco Phillips ..." - from yesterday's Rotary Debate
That's all well and good Ms. Palin, but perhaps you should have spent time with current employees instead of executives on their way out the door:
Steve Marshall is out as president of BP's troubled Alaska operation. - from today's ADN
2 October 31, 2006 - 10:39pm | bmcdaniel9
It doesn't make sense to elect someone who freely admits they can't do the job and will hire unknown people who will. Most of us realize we are not qualified to be Governor of the state and have the sense to seek more suitable work. It seems odd that someone like that would attempt to be Governor anyway.
November 1, 2006 - 6:51am | marty2
do the negotiating either. He just tells us that he will. It takes hours and hours and days and days to negotiate a contract like the pipleline.
The governor will not be the one sitting there at the table. And we don't want the governor spending her time that way.
But Tony goes around telling us that he will negotiate the contract...that tells me something about Tony.
If he were to be elected, (and he won't be), he would do exactly the same thing that Palin will do. He will hire qualified people to do the negotiating for him. That is what any responsible executive would do.
Tony and his tonies are disingenuous in their statements.
November 1, 2006 - 9:12am | akisok2
State is looking for chief negotiator...
... not someone who merely hire experts and then sit on the sidelines. You better believe it that the Governor will be an important part of the negotiations.
We need someone who has the energy, experience and resume to be an active leader in the negotiations.
I remember Gov. Knowles personally negotiating the Pacific Salmon Treaty and the Yukon River amendments while he was governor.
I remember Tony personally negotiating the Northstar agreement that has brought in millions of additional dollars in revenues - more than the state would have collected if Gov. Knowles had not negotiated changes to the Northstar lease.
And I remember Gov. Knowles negotiating the Charter Agreement which - among many other things - made environmental protection of the North Slope mandatory for the first time.
November 1, 2006 - 9:29am | Black3
no one is that naive about how a large government really works. The last person you want negotiating any kind of major agreement is someone who doesn't negotiate agreements in that subject matter for a living. Sure, governors or other principals make their cameo appearances from time to time. They might even show up for the short strokes at the end where the decision is a political one that only they have the swack to make. But Knowles didn't negotiate those agreements or any other, nor Hickel before him, nor Cowper before him.
No one with a brain sends principals to the table for anything other than final decisions, maybe, and for the grip and grin when it's done.
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
9 November 1, 2006 - 9:39pm | coldstrings
Looking Forward to Late Next Week
The debates tonight included a lot of talk about looking forward. The Alaska Gas Pipeline project will be the primary task of the next Governor of Alaska. Still, there will remain a strong federal role in the pipeline project.
After the midterm election next week, Alaska will need a bipartisan approach to the new U.S. Congress. The U.S. House and possibly the Senate will be Democratic. The Alaska delegation is Republican.
The new U.S. Congress will be familiar ground for Governor Tony Knowles. As in the past, Governor Knowles will compliment the Alaska delegation’s work. Governor Knowles will reach into the Democratic leadership, while Senators Stevens and Murkowski work the Republican side of the aisle. It is wise to work with both sides in Alaska’s interests.
In 1997, Governor Knowles met with Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbit (under Pres. Clinton), and won an agreement to start the process of opening National Petroleum Reserve Alaska to oil leasing. During 1997 and 1998, the required planning and public process was completed. In 1999, 800,000 acres were leased, followed by another 580,000 acres in 2002.
In 2002 (under Pres. Bush), Governor Knowles worked successfully with the Alaska delegation to pass S.1766 The Energy Policy Act which included prioritization of the Alaska Natural Gas pipeline. In that effort, Governor Knowles successfully communicated with Democratic Majority Leader, Tom Daschle, while the Alaska delegation worked the Republican side of the Senate aisle. Senator Daschle, himself, inserted the language favorable to the gas pipeline into the bill.
Without Governor Knowles, Alaska will not have a Democratic channel open into the U.S. Congress. To the package add Tony Knowles’ experience, bipartisan support, labor endorsements, leadership endorsements, and demonstrated focus on the Alaska Gas Pipeline. Tony Knowles is the best choice for Governor of Alaska.
| flag this »