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 3, 2006 - 10:29 am
One of the more pointed exchanges in last night’s debate came when Halcro criticized Knowles' efforts on crafting a long range fiscal plan and said the governor was too seldom engaged with the Legislature. Knowles disputed that.
Halcro said that when he was in the Legislature, a Democratic lawmaker told him Knowles hadn’t been in the lawmaker’s office in six years.
Halcro had test-driven this comment before. He’s said it to me. It appeared in the Anchorage Press profile that hit the stands the morning of the debate.
But Knowles challenged Halcro - who was this lawmaker?
“Ethan Berkowitz,” Halcro replied.
A few people in the studio audience groaned or shook there heads. (As in "Oh, c'mon.")
“Ethan Berkowitz has never said such a thing, it’s not true,” Knowles said.
Berkowitz called late last night to talk about the debate. He said he doesn’t remember making the comment - but said there’s a lot of “locker room” talk at the capital.
“Legislators talk smack about governors all the time. That’s why we have three branches of government.”
Berkowitz defended Knowles’ efforts on a fiscal plan, saying Halcro was a freshmen lawmaker at the time, who didn’t see everything Knowles was doing. He said he remembers sitting in Knowles’ conference room, working on putting a plan that would have used Perm Fund earning on the ballot.
(That plan failed big at the voting booth. One of Halcro’s criticisms of Knowles is that Knowles wanted the public vote rather than just pushing ahead with the idea, while Knowles has also taken heat from the opposite direction for pursuing the vote at all.)
Another memorable moment in the debates was the series of life-and-death social questions at the beginning. Palin’s opponents have long wanted to make her stance on abortion clear - and viewers heard pretty unequivocally that she’s anti-abortion even in cases of rape, even within her own family.
She also found herself opposite Knowles and Halcro on doctor-assisted suicide and stem-cell research (she’s against both).
She appeared irritated by the questions.
November 4, 2006 - 2:46pm | ilovelucy
is why would Halcro say, practically in the same breath, if he had to choose he'd vote for Knowles over Palin? And I think the answer is that Halcro's a smart man and has made it clear over and over that he's not buying the snake oil Sarah's selling. I also think he knows that she has a radical agenda ready for this state. While I believe she's ignorant on many important issues, I also think she's avoided forums where she'd have to take a radical position on issues important to those constituencies. That's frightening. She actually left a bunch of questions unanswered on a "take home quiz" given by the Anchorage Press, and returned it 3 days late with a bunch of blanks on issues important to rural Alaska. It's not that she didn't have time to formulate an educated opinion - she wasn't willing to reveal to people what she really thinks because it would cost her votes.
Frankly, I'm still stunned that Halcro chose to shoot a sawed off shotgun at the Knowles-Berkowitz campaign at the 11th hour.
And it's a foul any which way you look at it. Whether it's locker-room talk, chat over a beer or whatever, you should know better than to use idle chatter against somebody and name names. Bad form.
November 4, 2006 - 7:11pm | akisok2
Andy said he'd vote for Knowles if he (Andy) wasn't running.
The way I look at it, Andy and Tony (and Ethan) would have been a great team. I think most people agree that Andy has a great head on his shoulders, and he and Knowles share many of the same beliefs (minus the Permanent Fund thing.)
Maybe Andy got pissed at Knowles for not asking him to join the team soon enough, hence the attack at the debate.
14 November 3, 2006 - 10:18pm | alaskastraightalker
Another "soundbite" distraction
Ask current legislators how often Frank comes by their office. You'll find that normal practice is for legislators to go to the 3rd floor- not the other way around.
13 November 3, 2006 - 8:18pm | steve15
Berkowitz finally gets some face time
After being put in the corner after Knowles shoved himself into the Gov.'s race at the last minute, Berkowitz finally gets some press. Too bad its for dissing Tony for years to collegues and the media.
Don't blame Halcro, he didn't out Berkowitz until pressed by Knowles.
Oopsie. Back to your room Ethan!
Did everyone see the KTUU story?
November 4, 2006 - 2:47pm | ilovelucy
Halcro outed Berkowitz before the Debate
It was in the Anchorage Press earlier that day.
November 4, 2006 - 7:47pm | akisok2
... his tacit support for Knowles in the Anchorage Press:
“Tony Knowles. I trust him more in office - but if everybody who said that they wanted to vote for me actually voted for me, I might win.” He paused a beat, and said, “Says the guy with 7 percent of the vote.”
Read it here.
And again in the KTUU candidate profile:
When pressed to choose among his opponents, Halcro said as much as it pains him, if he weren't running himself, he would support Knowles over Palin. He says Palin brings notes to the candidate forums, but there's nothing substantive in them.
You can read that one here.
12 November 3, 2006 - 6:40pm | ilovelucy
Halcro had it and then he lost it. He could've ended his candidacy with the respect of a lot of people, but in one brief moment he lost it in the eyes of many of us. I kept thinking, why is he a Republican? He's got really forward-thinking ideas and while I disagree with him on issues, I felt like he had what it takes to be governor. Now I would never support him. He owes Knowles and Berkowitz an apology.
Besides claiming Berkowitz said something he can't prove he didn't say, Halcro also made a broad, exaggerated statement that isn't and couldn't be true - that Knowles hadn't done anything in 6 years. Knowles was a hands-on Governor who worked hard and got things done. Maybe he didn't work in the warm & fuzzy way Halcro envisions himself working, but so what? Everyone's got a style, but Knowles was an excellent Governor. What was lacking was an excellent legislature, and if he'd been given a 1/2 decent majority of intelligent women and men, our state would be in better shape today. As Halcro pointed out earlier, he quit the legislature because he couldn't stand the dimwits like Parnell who "didn't know what day of the week it was."
Palin did something similar to Halcro when she accused Georgiana Lincoln of sending the email. She didn't have to name names, and she certainly should not have mischaracterized the content of the email.
Politics is "take-the-gloves-off" rough, but there are still some lines that shouldn't be crossed. And it's not a make-it break-it deal. It's bad behavior and shows very poor judgment.
Palin is as far right as Attila the Hun, and just as hypocritical as most of those evangelical self-proclaimed "Christians." If she were elected, Alaska would be embroiled in expensive court cases for years to come. We would become a battleground state, much like S. Dakota. Meanwhile, the gas would languish and our economy would go to hell in a handbasket.
November 3, 2006 - 9:23pm | Black3
don't get is that Attilla was the liberal of the group. Rome had all the power and all the Halliburtons. Hell, they didn't even much tax the rich. The only tax that Rome ever imposed on itself was a 2% tax on prostitution. Attilla was just speaking truth to power.
November 3, 2006 - 11:22pm | ilovelucy
You just described GW Bush's administration.
And Sarah's dream lunch date is Condoleeza Rice. Hmmm, maybe we're going to liberate Canada. Wanna join up, JV?
November 3, 2006 - 10:16pm | alaskastraightalker
That's because they were the Republicans!
And taxed everybody but themselves, especially poorer people throughout their empire.
November 4, 2006 - 3:56am | Black3
distinguishes us from the Romans. The poor in this country don't pay any federal taxes other than FICA if they are bothered to work. The productive members of our society pay additional taxes to pay them for being poor through the EITC.
November 4, 2006 - 7:36am | alaskastraightalker
What happened to your sense of humor. We know you're not a "liberal."
11 November 3, 2006 - 4:48pm | gurfren
He doesn't know what he said. He has never put a "Lt." sticker on his "Berkowitz for Governor" sign at the end of his driveway. (The one my dog visits every day.)
10 November 3, 2006 - 1:46pm | trutheater
I understand why Palin is so afraid of hypotheticals, because they put her vague and broad statements to a test, but what I don't understand is why people haven't pointed out to her that hypotheticals are how the public gets to know a candidate with a very limited public record. Her attempting to deflate questions on touchy subjects by claiming they are unlikely and divisive at the very least insults the public because of the lack of credit she gives them, and at the worst reveals a candidate who, as governor, wouldn't consider the broad possible effects of public policy that she either approves or vetoes.
I'm certain that rational minds will place their vote realizing that good public policy is made by people who consider all the effects, primary and secondary, of legislation that passes over their desks. Palin using the divisive and unlikely line last night in the debate when discussing stem cell research gives further evidence that we must be wary of electing someone with limited experience who doesn't have a proper understanding of how good public policy is crafted.
9 November 3, 2006 - 1:43pm | alaskastraightalker
Palin's bully tactics belong in Kazakhstan
But not the United States of America.
Wev Shea, Palin's chief enforcer, apparently sent Paul Jenkins a threatening letter, dated October 26, 2006, because of Jenkin's comments about Palin.
It must be remembered that Jenkins is a member of the press, and that freedom of the press was so cherished by our Founding Fathers that, as Palin would say, "it's in the Constitution."
These bullying tactics are yet another example that Palin only supports freedom of the press if it idolizes her or lampoons her opponents. Otherwise it needs to be muzzled with threats. It is also further proof that Palin thinks she is above criticism, and, perhaps just as important, has a very thin skin.
I wonder if Wev Shea applies the same standard to Palin supporters' statements about Tony Knowles. I wonder if Wev Shea sent threatening letters to Rydell and Fagan when their radio shows were bashing Knowles daily on behalf of the Palin campaign. I wonder what Wev Shea has to say about the RGA running misleading ads, sending out illegal mailers, or Palin playing the race card. Or is this simply more of the double standard we've come to expect from the Palin campaign and her close advisors?
November 3, 2006 - 2:45pm | mike_l
to the Wev Shea letter threatening the Voice of the Times. We should just call this the Palin Supporters Gone Wild video.
November 3, 2006 - 2:41pm | GeordieBC
Have you seen the letter ? I would be interested in reading it, if it's true or is this just another shot in the dark to scare everyone ?
November 3, 2006 - 5:15pm | alaskastraightalker
I think you need to have Kyle get it from either Wev Shea or Paul Jenkins. It has something to do with Jenkins referring to Palin as a princess.
November 3, 2006 - 5:45pm | mike_l
on this thread was giving me a hard time for pointing out that she as a former Miss Alaska beauty contestant. See below. Maybe it's the same person?
November 3, 2006 - 5:45pm | mike_l
on this thread was giving me a hard time for pointing out that she as a former Miss Alaska beuaty contestant. See below. Maybe it's the same person?
8 November 3, 2006 - 12:54pm | alaskastraightalker
Palin's "irritation comes from the fact that she has tried to portray herself as a soccer mom, hiding her extremist, big government, anti-individual social positions from moderate Republicans and independent voters.
Until last night, every time the subject of abortion has come up, Palin has tried to hide her position relative to rape and incest. Why? Because she wants big government to make the choice if my daughter or granddaughter is raped, rather than leaving it up to my family, with appropriate counsel from our health care providers and our minister.
As I have posted here before, it's no coincidence that Paul Fuhs was overheard on a statewide teleconference about PERS/TRS talking about stem cell research and gay rights. Why? Because the Palin campaign has been quietly exploiting these issues with some of her base, but didn't want the public to know her views.
Palin has repeatedly bristled when she has been asked about her views on abortion, same sex health benefits, and so on. Palin finally admitted last night that she is opposed to Nancy Reagan's views on stem cell research- another on her list of extremist views.
It's those views that are truly irritating.
7 November 3, 2006 - 12:54pm | alaskastraightalker
Palin and her friend Ron Somerville
And don't ask Palin about playing the race card, mischaracterizing what Georgianna Lincoln wrote about Palin's perceived anti-rural bias.
Ron Somerville just endorsed Palin. Would he be doing that if she were in favor of submitting a constitutional amendment on subsistence to the voters? Of course not.
Hope I didn't irritate her.
6 November 3, 2006 - 12:51pm | JaneSmith
New Rasmussen Report pole is out today. Shows Palin with 1 point lead.
November 3, 2006 - 1:35pm | realist
I thought the new poll had a 5-point lead
Could you please clarify? An earlier poll was 1-point, counting "leaners," I know.
For the record, my WAG is a 5-point Palin margin of victory, not exactly the result I was hoping for.
Sincerely, Pessimistic but Realistic
November 3, 2006 - 2:53pm | thetrail
Here's the link: Click here
I'll start a new thread soon.
-- Kyle
5 November 3, 2006 - 12:49pm | turk_burlington
Don't buy the hype, gas reserves tax makes sense for Alaska
Vic Fischer/Spectrum
Vote yes on Ballot Measure 2. The gas reserves tax will be the best leverage that the state will have to get gas production going.
The oil industry has spent millions in advertising against the proposition. That, alone, should make you wary. So be very, very wary.
This initiative does not mean the end of the gasline. Instead, it gives Alaskans a tool to compel the producers to negotiate. It taxes delay by the producers, so its effect will be to speed construction of the pipeline.
Accusations that the initiative could add $10 billion in upfront cost are totally fallacious. The reserves tax does not add anything to the cost of the pipeline project, as the cost of steel, labor and engineering is not affected by the tax.
The proposed tax falls only on the holders of gas reserves at Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomson. It affects Exxon, BP and ConocoPhillips as holders of those reserves. If the producers build the pipeline, as contemplated by the Murkowski administration, the cost of their pipeline will not increase due to the tax.
The reserves tax does not fall on the gas pipeline, regardless of who builds it. Both major gubernatorial candidates say they are open to all pipeline proposals. If TransCanada, MidAmerican (Warren Buffet), the Alaska Natural Gasline Development Authority (Southcentral spur line), the Alaska Gasline Port Authority and Sempra (the All-Alaska project), and/or other entities build the line - this tax does not apply to them.
Without the initiative, the producers can refuse to sell gas, as they have in the case of the Alaska Gasline Port Authority. With a reserves tax looming over them, producers cannot effectively refuse to sell gas - at market value - to another entity.
Thus, the reserves tax can provide effective leverage to the state to get gas production going, provide jobs for Alaskans, and develop a new source of revenues for the state.
There is another reason, a very basic one, to dismiss the polemics against Ballot Measure 2 - and that is found in Alaska's Constitution. It provides a way for the reserves tax to be effectively applied.
Under the Constitution, an initiative is a law enacted by the people. Ballot Measure 2 is an initiative put on the ballot by the signatures of close to 50,000 Alaskans. The Constitution states:
€ An initiative law becomes effective 90 days after certification;
€ The law may be amended by the Legislature at any time:
€ An initiative may be completely repealed after two years.
If voters approve Ballot Measure 2, the initiative law takes effect in February. Thus, while the reserves tax cannot be repealed until 2009 at the earliest, the law may be amended during the very next legislative session. Amending an initiative law is not unprecedented; such laws have been changed before, most recently with respect to aerial wolf hunting and campaign financing.
Authority to amend is particularly important in the case of the reserves tax measure. Various adjustments can be expected after Proposition 2 comes into effect.
For example, the tax could be held in abeyance while pipeline negotiations are under way. Or the tax can be suspended until gas sales contracts are executed, or held off until gasline construction starts.
Having the tax, even if it's held in abeyance, will pressure the producers to sell the gas if another entity builds the gasline. And if the producers are to construct the line, the existence of the tax will speed its completion.
Conclusion. Again, the gas reserves tax can provide effective leverage to get the pipeline built and gas production going, provide jobs for Alaskans, and develop a new source of revenues for the state. It will do no harm.
So yes, vote for Ballot Measure 2.
Vic Fischer is professor of Public Affairs at UAA's Institute of Social and Economic Research. He was an elected delegate to Alaska's Constitutional Convention and served in both the territorial Legislature and the state Senate.
4 November 3, 2006 - 12:46pm | Peter_Doubt
Ultimately, whether or not Ethan made that statement is irrelevant. Anyone who has spent time in the Legislative halls during session knows there’s a fair amount of kibitzing, and that tongues are firmly planted in cheeks as often as not. Whether or not Knowles goaded Halcro into the revelation is also moot – Halcro had already outed the conversation in a previous interview, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s dirty pool to bring up what amounts to a private conversation, completely out of context. The fact is, Ethan Berkowitz has served Alaska with class, dignity, intelligence and unparalleled dedication for 10 years, and no amount of political desperation will change that.
3 November 3, 2006 - 12:34pm | coldstrings
Palin Is Way Over On the Far Right
The significant outcome of the debate was the completed picture of Sarah Palin's politics. Palin is way over on the far right, beyond Frank Murkowski.
On abortion, Palin's stance is extreme - not even in the case of rape of a family member. The majority of Alaskans are pro-choice, and do not want government intrusion in this area.
On stem cell research, Palin's stance is more conservative than most of the Republican party. The American Medical Association supports stem cell research, and points to its potential in treating significant diseases.
On subsistence, Sarah Palin stands with Ron Sommerville, and the other members of the Alaska Outdoor Council, many of whom are on her campaign staff. No wonder the Alaska Native community is upset.
On creationism, Palin's views are contrary to a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision banning the teaching of creationism in public school science classrooms.
On health care rights, Palin tries to obscure the issue of fair medical coverage underneath the definition of marriage.
The whole set of Palin's views on the issues adds up to 'far, far right'.
By comparison, Tony Knowles' views on the issues are moderate and aligned with the majority of Alaskans. Tony is focused on the Alaska Gas Pipeline, and supporting issues of Education and Health Care. Knowles' issues are the issues most Alaska families care about. Tony's campaign is at the political center, that stable, reliable and predictable political center where Alaskans get things done.
2 November 3, 2006 - 12:33pm | hattie
Kyle: Why isn't anybody talking about how Sarah said last night she would support a referendum banning abortion in this state if it were brought to her? That seems one of the biggest things to come out of the debate.
November 3, 2006 - 1:41pm | bmcdaniel9
Palin's comment I read regarding a hypothetical daughter's unplanned, ill-timed pregnancy didn't allow for any choice on the part of her daughter. Tony's response to the hypothetical was so much more tender, loving, and respectful toward his child. For his daughter's sake, Tony's response was the most moral.
Palin displays an undeveloped, immature sense of morality. Renowned Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning involves three stages. Level I, Preconventional Reasoning, reflects an immature level of morality controlled by external rewards and punishments. Level II, Conventional Reasoning, is where individuals abide by certain standards (internal) but they are the standards of others (external). This level reflects the reasoning of Palin and the religious right. Kohlberg’s, highest Level III of moral reasoning is Postconventional Reasoning where the individual recognizes alternative moral courses, explores the options, and then decides.
November 3, 2006 - 9:27pm | Black3
people like you are the reason I'd never vote for university funding. What a bunch of mindless drivel! Only people who'd spent their whole lives in the front or the back of a classroom would listen to crap like that. Get a real job!
November 5, 2006 - 10:30am | bmcdaniel9
I must enjoy your comments so much because I was married to a smart but dysfunctional Conservative for 36 years and grew habituated to conflict.
How do you like this for a response to your above comment: "Nothing in life is to be feared--it is only to be understood." - Marie Curie
November 5, 2006 - 9:45pm | Black3
anything indicative of intelligence is so rare here.
I agree with the first clause of the proposition. I do not agree with the second, and here I align myself a bit with the post-modernists; I don't know that anything involving the human animal can really be understood. There are too many variables. An astute observer can predict with some reliability, but I don't know that that really is understanding.
November 6, 2006 - 6:44pm | alasscan
After listening to Sarah during her years as City Council Member, Mayor, Lt Gov candidate I really must tell you that you are all taking this far deeper than is appropriate to the subject at hand.
This is simple. Really.
Let me put it this way. You do not need a supertanker to cross a bathtub. This candidate doesn't require that much in depth consideration to determine what she stands for or is
.
Therefore, due to a multiplicity of interacting factors I have already cast my vote for Knowles, Benson and Hurley.
November 4, 2006 - 7:05pm | Black3
No, as long as the bedroom door is
closed and they're not too noisy.
November 3, 2006 - 6:30pm | marty2
Is that what you are really saying? It looks to me like you are beginning to fall into the typical leftie mindset of "we are just smarter".
I don't want to accuse you of that because your previous posts do not seem to reflect that.
This theory is obviously based on certain assumptions that reflect an entirely different worldview from that of a religious person.
I would say that Kohlberg's theory is just that, a theory. And it is a theory that while it can never be proven,it would tend to make everyone at the "highest" level feel very superior. When a group of people begin to feel superior there is a tendency to feel that they need to do something about all the lessor beings.
November 5, 2006 - 9:32pm | bmcdaniel9
That's very perceptive about the different world view. Important, well-respected scientists like Einstein, Curie, and Salk and many of the most important social scientists such as Maslow, Rogers, Skinner, Fromm, and Spock were/are all Humanists.
www.americanhumanist.org - no magic, just ethic.
November 3, 2006 - 7:02pm | bmcdaniel9
Katie's comment reported a few weeks back in the Frontiersman resonated with me. She said something like, "I don't need laws to know right from wrong." She was referring to ethics problems with our legislators.
I'm not a social Darwinist. To me, Kohlberg's theory applies to education and it is the best explanation I've heard for the religious right's most extreme and controversial policy positions. Those positions are based on "external" and ancient patriarchal religious laws that no longer make sense in an equal rights world.
I suppose when someone achieves any sort of success they could choose to feel, as you say, superior or they could choose to acknowledge the advantages and assistance they had, be grateful for it, and share with those who are not so fortunate.
November 3, 2006 - 1:46pm | hanson_noah
that morality is a subjective concept! To say she is immoral nad that tony has a better moral decision does not reflect the whole public.
For one, It is highly improbably abortion will be an issue during the tenure of the next governor.
Second, to say her moral reasoning is immature, it quite fallible, hense, look at previous statement about subjectivity!
Dont misunderstand me though, im not for anti-abortion, though, it is an issue that is not going to be brought up during the next governors tenure!
November 3, 2006 - 2:01pm | bmcdaniel9
Every time the governor appoints a judge or someone to the medical board, abortion is a critical issue. As governor, Tony Knowles vetoed the religious right's parental consent law passed by the Alaska legislature.
1 November 3, 2006 - 12:24pm | mike_l
I sensed the same thing. She did seem irritated by the questions. But I think this addresses her larger problem: wanting to say the right things to make everyone happy. The problem is -you can't. You have people like rfn, Turdball and Brianfart who think a woman who is raped should be forced to have the baby. They don't believe in a woman's right to privacy. And unfortunately, Palin agrees with them.
And then you have the LNG and Prop 2 supporters that surround Palin. Not to mention the Jerry Ward's and Robin Taylor's -as well as tlamb99503. It makes her look like a Jerry Springer show. It's hard to take her seriously, or to think for one moment that she could get a gasline contract signed with this circus that she'd bring with her to Juneau. Big Oil simply won't negotiate with her -or anyone she appoints. She is openly hostile towards the industry. And the whack-jobs surrounding her think Big Oil is screwing us over.
November 3, 2006 - 12:29pm | hattie
I think it's telling that Sarah has always claimed that she would hire the best minds in this state, regardless of party affiliation, etc.. And then she says she'd hire Halcro as a statistician, and Knowles as a chef. How insulting. What do you all think this means for her administration?
November 3, 2006 - 1:30pm | bmcdaniel9
To be a successful chef is quite an accomplishment. Alaskan restaurant owners and chefs were likely more insulted than Tony by Palin's insinuation that a chef is a lowly position. My impression of Tony Knowles is that he has a good deal of well-deserved self-confidence and is proud of his cooking skills in addition to his public administration abilities.
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
15 November 4, 2006 - 1:19pm | clurling
More Knowles/Berkowitz Smoke and Mirrors!
While the Halcro-Berkowitz exchange in Juneau could be nothing more than a he said she said thing. I wasn't there as I am sure that many of you staunch Dem partyliners weren't either.
But I have to say, looking at the evidence, Halcro's side of the story is more convincing. I believe Halcro on this one.
Here's the evidence:
1. In 2000 Berkowitz complained to a Southeast Newsapaper that Knowles was "inaccessible". This was reported on the KTUU news last night. (KTUU actually researched and dug up a copy of the article from the Southeast newspaper from years ago).
2. During that same KTUU report Berkowitz was interviewed about whether or not he did say this to Halcro. His response was interesting, at first he seemed to be at a loss for words (Hmmmm). He then said, he "wasn't going to get into whether or not it was said", but instead tried to twist things around to say that Knowles has the ability to lead. SMOKE AND MIRRORS! Answer the question please!
He then said, "I can vividly remember the Governor coming into my office and sitting on my old ragged couch". Well, I am sure that after that article hit the Juneau newspaper in 2000, Knowles finally did show up in Ethan's office.
This is evidence that know one can argue with, it's there and it's documented. Why can't people see that they are being given the same old political rhetoric from the Knowles/Berkowitz camp that Palin's camp is giving.
Berkowitz refused to answer the question! By not answering the question he actually did answer it. It's obvious Halcro is telling the truth. I'm sure both Tony and Ethan's bung holes puckered on this one.
And don't blame Halcro for discussing the issue, he had every right.
This was brought up because it is an issue about leadership. And for any of you smart people out there voting for Tony, can you please answer one question for me? Why didn't Knowles get a gas pipeline done when he was in office the last time?
It was one of his priorties!
He didn't get it done then and he won't get it done now! It shows a lack of leadership and his ability to work as a bipartisan Governor. I think all of you voting for Knowles or Palin for that matter, might as well sell and move your families to another state where you can be a lemming and follow a leader that will tell you anything and everything you want to hear.
The truth is most of you don't want to hear the truth.
I have been here for over 4 decades (and that's longer than both Knowles, 35 years and Berkowitz, 16 years) and I care what happens to this state and I care what happens to my children's futures. Therefore I'm voting for Halcro, if you were wise you would to!
| flag this »