Capitol Undercurrents

Run that by me again - Jerry Ward, former state senator and right-wing gatekeeper of the Republican right wing, is managing ideological soul-mate Jerry Sanders' Alaska Independence Party run for U.S. Senate. Talking to the Anchorage Daily News this week, he said "liberal Republicans" had hijacked the Republican Party and that as long as they had control, the right wing would always put forth an effort, presumably even if that means tipping an election or two to the Democrats in their long-term quest for ideological purity. But it doesn't explain the observation that "[Ward] thinks Knowles is the more conservative of the two." The next day's paper carried no correction, so I guess he really said it, but I had to check.

A real-life 'Northern Exposure' - On the eve of the Jewish New Year, considered one of the high holy days, the Forward, a national weekly Jewish newspaper founded in 1897, ran a story about Fairbanks State Rep. David Guttenberg and candidate for the legislature Jay Ramras. It seems they belong to the northern-most syna-gogue in the world, beating out one in Finland by just a few latitudinal seconds. Reading this article brought back some fond memories for one of my staffers. As a young girl, she used to walk to the corner market in Shaker Heights, Ohio to buy the Forward, published then only in Yiddish, for her grandfather.

Phone: (907) 465-4947
Fax: (907) 465-2108
Mail: Sen. Elton, State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
Email:
Senator.Kim.Elton
Jesse.Kiehl
Paula.Cadiente
Web: http://elton.akdemocrats.org

     Attorney Kevin Clarkson, writing this week in the Anchorage Daily News, excused the governor's showdown with the judicial council. He sides with the governor and says the governor should pick the person he thinks is qualified from a list of all qualified candidates instead of following the constitutional process that says the judicial council should forward at least two names of attorneys they think are most qualified.
     For those of you who read my last policy newsletter, it shouldn't surprise you when I say: "No way! Unh-unh! - Mr. Clarkson misses the point."
     I want to use Mr. Clarkson as an example of what's wrong with his, and the governor's, premise that the judicial council simply forward the names of all qualified applicants. (First I'll note Mr. Clarkson has made a good living working for the state legislature's Republican majority. The majority paid him $340,000 over a period of four years to defend in court their legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage and to defend the state against Planned Parenthood's objection to parental consent. Apparently the majority felt the Department of Law with its pages-long roster of lawyers needed some help. I should also note that in 2000 Mr. Clarkson applied for a superior court opening in Anchorage. His name was not forwarded.)
     Now, the example. Let's assume the governor really liked Mr. Clarkson's position on same-sex marriage, appreciated his position on abortion, and really appreciated his toiling in the trenches for the Republican legislature. We won't go overboard and suggest the governor also reallly, reallllly appreciated Mr. Clarkson's lone ranger ADN opinion piece in defense of the governor's argument with our constitution.
     Under the judicial selection system advocated by the governor and defended by Attorney Clarkson, Gov. Murkowski could pick up the phone and ask: "Hey, Kevin, how'd you like to be a superior court judge in Anchorage?"
     Mr. Clarkson might reply: "Nifty - I tried a few years ago but it just didn't work out and my name wasn't forwarded."
     Gov. Murkowski then might say: "Don't worry - you're a warm body with a law degree who's practiced in our state for a number of years so you're, at the least, minimally qualified. The judicial council has to send me your name. It's a slam dunk for you and me."
     I just made up that conversation. Right now, under the rules of the judicial council as defined in our constitution, that conversation is nonsensical. But, if the governor gets to do it his way, it could happen. That's why the governor's position is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Feelin' blue, seein' red?

       I don't know how many of you feel, like I do, that our state and our concerns are simply footnotes in this 2004 presidential election.
     We've got 'red' states in one party's pocket and 'blue' states in another. Then we've got swing states, often called the battleground states. These are the 15-18 states that pundits, pollsters and politicians say are "in play" this presidential election season. Alaska, like 30 plus other states, is not in play. We're a 'red' state, one of those states swinging easily into the George W. Bush camp.
     All the campaign action and campaign promises are, of course, in the swing states. The states that are too close to call are the ones assiduously wooed.
     Both major presidential candidates are focused on the electoral votes these up-in-the-air states will deliver in November. That means both major candidates are speaking directly to swing voters in the swing states: erosion of industrial jobs in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania; healthcare and drug costs in Florida; agriculture in Missouri, Indiana and Iowa; and bilingual education in New Mexico.
     But the red states and the blue states, and the issues important in them, are nothing more than marginalia in the campaign texts hewed to by the major party presidential candidates. Forget about gridlock in California or urban sprawl in North Carolina. Closer to home, in our state we can forget about a focus on rural education, gas line construction, or fisheries issues in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea.
     When you slice and dice electoral college votes in swing states and then conduct polling and focus groups to see what resonates with those few undecided swing voters in the few swing states, you get campaigns that focus on a small minority of Americans and their dreams and wants. That process ignores the problems of tens of millions of the rest of us - the denizens of the reds and the blues.
     This, it seems to me, is another argument for picking presidents by popular vote rather than using the archaic Electoral College. With a popular vote, swing states remain important but the margin of victory in the reds and the blues is also important - and so are all the left-behind issues like gridlock, sprawl and gas pipeline incentives.