Why Dan Sullivan shouldn't represent Alaska

Interesting read from Wickersham's Conscience


Now that U.S. Senator Wannabe Dan “The Carpetbagger” Sullivan has been caught with his political pants down around his knees by the State of Maryland, it’s a near-perfect time to examine other recent occasions in his senatorial campaign when the Carpetbagger and the truth have gone their separate ways.

• In WC’s distant youth, there was a comedy troupe called Firesign Theater. One of their albums – and the title cut from side one – was How Can You Be in Two Places at Once When You’re Not Anywhere At All? The question applies to The Carpetbagger, who swore under penalty of perjury that he was a resident of Maryland, to get himself a nice, fat tax break on his $1.5 million Maryland home. And yet in his Alaska Senate candidacy petition, also made under penalty of perjury, he swore he was a resident of Alaska for the same period of time. While Sullivan loyalists are saying it doesn’t matter, and the Sullivan campaign is nattering about different kinds of “residency,” for WC this is the equivalent of being photographed on the good ship Monkey Business with
a bimboDonna Rice in your lap. If they lie while you’re watching, what are they doing to do when you aren’t watching?

• In a flyer he mailed to WC, the Carpetbagger earlier claimed to have spearheaded the “Choose Respect” campaign to combat Alaska’s high rates of domestic violence against women. No Republican is standing too close to the wreckage of Governor Sean Parnell’s “Choose Respect” campaign after the Alaska National Guard scandal, but the claim is as dishonest as Captain Zero’s respect. WC suspects Captain Zero thinks he was the spearhead, not some cabinet flunky. The Captain’s got a whole web page devoted to his paper thin accomplishments for women, beyond the slick slogan and marches and staged events that have looked an awful lot like campaign rallies. Sullivan, for a while, was The Quitter’s Attorney General, following the Talis Colberg scandal and the Legislature’s flat rejection of Wayne Anthony Ross. He officially served as AG from April 9 – November 18, 2010. Even for a guy who has job-hopped a lot, in baseball parlance that’s hanging around just long enough for a cup of coffee. So unless he “spearheaded” the Captain’s bid for the female vote while Commissioner of Natural Resources – the next tick mark on his resumé – the Carpetbagger has veered pretty far from the truth in this claim.

• In that same flyer, the Carpetbagger claims to have “overhauled Alaska’s bail system, increased sentences for sexual assault offenders, and put notorious criminals behind bars.” Mr. Sullivan must have been really, really busy the seven months and 19 days he was Attorney General. But even if he was really, really busy, bail schedules are set by the Alaska Supreme Court. Not the Attorney General. As for bail in serious cases, bail is set by the trial judges and magistrates, not the prosecutor. Alaska’s Attorney Generals don’t try cases; they don’t appear in court, unless it’s to steal oral argument in a supreme court case with political juice. At the very most, Temporary AG Sullivan instructed his criminal division to argue for higher bail. Nor does the AG impose criminal sentences; judges do that. Temporary AG Sullivan may have told his criminal division attorneys to argue for stiffer time, but that’s a long ways from “increasing sentences.” Finally, Mr. Sullivan himself didn’t put a single criminal, notorious or otherwise, behind bars. His staff attorneys may have. Look, Temporary AG Sullivan supervised a marginally effective state prosecution system. Everything else is a gross exaggeration.

• The Carpetbagger has repeatedly boasted that he negotiated “a $500 million malpractice settlement against one of Wall Street’s largest financial institutions – the settlement went to fund the retirement pension for Alaska’s teachers.” The State’s pension fund management contractor grossly miscalculated the funding requirements for the state pension funds. The problem is that the funding gap is $11 billion, and Mr. Sullivan sold the state short. Sure, any settlement is a compromise that leaves both sides unhappy, but if WC were Mr. Sullivan, WC wouldn’t be bragging about a lame result amounts to less than 5% of the shortfall. The record is clear that AG Sullivan paid an Outside law firm $91 million while only recovering $410 million out of $2.8 billion in pension fund losses through a settlement.  An ADN claim check showed that Sullivan personally negotiated the weak settlement in which he left $2.3 billion on the table and exacerbated the pension fund shortfall that state legislators have been trying to solve ever since. WC wonders if Candidate Sullivan and the truth have filed paperwork for a legal separation? And don’t even get WC started on the State paying that much dough to an Outside law firm.

• The Carpetbagger claimed he successfully defended and fought for Alaskans’ Second Amendment rights with other Attorney Generals before the U.S. Supreme Court. But in point of fact, at the direction of Captain Zero, he signed onto the amicus curiae – friend of the court – brief. Not precisely an heroic effort on Mr. Sullivan’s part, and more a claim of desperation than substance. Following your boss’s order to join a horde of other state AGs in signing an amicus brief isn’t exactly leadership material. Claiming he “successfully defended” the Second Amendment is a breath-taking exaggeration. Sullivan claimed he “took” the McDonald gun case to the Supreme Court. In fact, his only role was having his name on a “friend of the court” brief supporting the plaintiffs who brought the case.  Senator Mark Begich also signed a “friend of the court” brief in support of McDonald. But he doesn’t claim to have “taken the case to the supreme court.”

•  Mr. Sullivan cut a radio ad in which he claimed to have “passed” Stand Your Ground. The last time WC checked, Attorneys General didn’t “pass” legislation. Nor even Commissioners of Natural Resources. In fact, Sullivan’s Department of Law opposed Stand Your Ground and the law only passed after Sullivan no longer was Attorney General. WC wonders if the Carpetbagger isn’t going to get chapped lips kissing up to all the gun nuts. Not to mention a nose like Pinocchio.

•  Sullivan reportedly said in a radio interview on September 9 on station KOTZ-FM that he supports subsistence. But he’s the guy who filed the failed anti-subsistence lawsuit against Katie John. He’s been trying to cover up that record ever since.

WC takes two general observations away from this string of fibs, lies, exaggerations and distortions. First, Candidate Dan’s repeated exaggeration of his “accomplishments” – characterizing signing an amicus brief as something substantive, for example – demonstrates that Candidate Sullivan really doesn’t have any substantive accomplishments to brag about. And somehow he doesn’t mention the incredible string of lost federal lawsuits that he was involved in on behalf of his boss. He overstates his limited accomplishments because it’s all he has.

Candidate Dan Sullivan’s carelessness with the truth is even more troubling. Repeated lying, even perjury, isn’t a qualification WC looks for in Alaska’s Congressional delegation. You know, honesty? Principles? Scruples?
Something more than a charming man who will do say anything, anything at all, to get himself elected?

Today is the Alaska Senate Primary and Joe Miller is going down thanks to Sarah Palin

Today is Primary Day in Alaska.  And Skanky has endorsed 2010 loser Joe Miller again!

Let’s send in the reinforcements!

To restore liberty, to defend our Constitution, to build American exceptionalism, we must send fighters to the U.S. Senate who will stop Barack Obama’s fundamental transformation of the nation we love. The status quo has got to go, and in Alaska the man who understands this key to our state and country’s future also has the guts, wisdom, experience, and optimism to fight for what is right – and win. We said we'd send the good guys in Washington their reinforcements; so, Alaska, here we go! Vote for Joe Miller on Tuesday and shake off the liberal stranglehold so we can get on the right track.

Thank you, Alaska!

- Sarah Palin




Of course Joe was going to lose anyway because of stupid shit he said earlier in the year.


Why run again?
The country’s facing problems that are similar to what we saw in 2010, but worse… A debt, of course, which is now over $17 trillion. Huge unfunded liabilities…

We now have documentation that our government was involved in the surveillance of our phone calls.

Clandestine agencies have admitted to metadata gathering. You know, there are NSA whistleblowers who have suggested that in fact most digital cell phone calls are recorded. You’ve got all sorts of aggressive action taking place at the federal level which is really, I think, a violation of what the founders intended with the Fourth Amendment – unreasonable search and seizure. And I agree with what some have said, that this is essentially turnkey tyranny. That you’ve got a government with now so much information that’s gathered unconstitutionally, that it does pose a threat to freedom…

The expanse of the federal government in ways that the founders didn’t intend… intruding on states’ rights — another area that gives me great cause for concern.

And when I look at Alaska and how that race is shaping up, and we see two other candidates in the Republican primary that really represent more of the same – we call them establishment candidates, some call them RINOs – we had no choice but to run.

In the struggle over the future of the Republican party, what are the centers of power now?
 The nation to a certain degree faces a duopoly where both parties are effectively doing the same thing, and that’s growing the expanse of power in Washington, D.C.…

There’s an enormous degree of power that’s exerted against both parties by multinational corporations.

You see that with the [Trans-Pacific Partnership]. You see that with respect to, you know, crony regulations and statutes that are embedded in the laws at the behest of lobbyists. You see that even down to the impact that we’re seeing today economically in the country, with middle class having immediate net worth that is lowest in decades…

The people aren’t being properly represented.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act that passed the Senate – would you have voted for it?
No. I would not have. No, I think that private employers should be able to make decisions as to what they do in their private businesses, and I think the people then are entitled to make decisions as to whether or not they use their services.
They can boycott. I think the market can have a proper impact in determining whether or not a business succeeds, based on those decisions that are made. But I mean, right now, what we see is we see this conflict between, you know, the First Amendment and other concerns, where [groups] believe that they have a Free Exercise right – and I think justly so – to decide what they’re going to do in their private business. And I don’t think, for example, somebody that is a traditionalist, that believes in traditional marriage, that runs a bakery for weddings, should necessarily be compelled to do something that’s against their conscience. And I think that’s effectively what the First Amendment was designed against, is someone being forced to violate conscience. So I would’ve voted against it for that reason.

Should a hotel be able to turn away a couple because they’re gay?
I believe that if you’re a private employer, you have the right to do what you want with respect to your business, and that the people of the country then have the right to do as they will, with respect to whether or not they boycott or take other action to financially penalize. I don’t think the government has a role in that.
And you know, what we’re in today, with free enterprise, this is effectively no longer a pure free enterprise system. What we have is a government that’s picking winners and losers. And any time that the government is engaged — whether it be with respect to enforcing the type of protections that you’re talking about, or whether it’s creating regulations to freeze others out of the market, or creating subsidies, or some sort of tax shelter for the big business so that others can’t succeed, where others don’t have those type of benefits — I think it’s an improper role of government. I take more of what you might call a federal libertarian perspective with respect to that.
States, on the other hand, have a wider breadth of action, you know, within the parameters of the Constitution. And if somebody wants something like that — if they want an environment where those types of laws are enforced, then they should be encouraged to move to a state that provides for that. But we’re becoming an increasingly diverse country, and I don’t think anybody – even in your readership – would disagree with that. That the country – I’m not going to call it necessarily “polarized,” but there are different expectations of government, there are different worldviews, there are different values. And the more heterogeneous we become, the more difficult it is to impose a one-size-fits-all solution.
So instead, why don’t we take kind of the direction that our founders intended? And that was, you know, the laboratories of democracy. Different states offering different approaches. And the states that prevail and succeed, obviously that’s a model that can be adopted by other states. But I really do think fundamentally that’s where we’re at. And I think that, at the federal level, the better thing is not to impose the one-size-solution-fits-all, but to reduce the involvement of the federal government, in favor of the people in the states.

So at the federal level, then, should it be legal for that hotel to turn someone away because they’re African-American?
Again, that’s all I’m going to say about it. The state has the right to act. The federal government should be more of a libertarian stance. And that’s all I’m going to talk about on that issue. I’m a state’s right advocate in those areas.

So should a restaurant then be able to turn someone away because they’re African-American?
Again, I’ve said my piece on that.

And so would you repeal the Civil Rights Act?
Again, I’ve said my piece on the issue.

And –
And of course not. I would not. I’ve said my piece on the issue of ENDA. That was your specific question, that’s my response to it. If the states want to act in that area, they certainly have the ability to do it.

Specifically the public accommodation portion of the Civil Rights Act — should that be repealed?
I’ve already made it clear what my position is.

Last year, reportedly you said that “The President of the U.S. and his allies are engaged in a form of systematic spiritual and religious apartheid.” How so?
I think that we’ve seen a president that is more antagonistic and antithetical to free enterprise than any president in the history of the country…
You see that with a complete disrespect, for example, [for] religious institutions to decide whether or not they want to provide certain things under their health plan that they pay for. It’s – if you have a religious organization that’s founded on religious principle, funded by donations, they certainly have the right not do things that they believe violate their doctrine and their conscience. It to me can’t be any clearer.
If the president wants to enforce upon religious groups his version of what should be done, I think that he needs to take into account the fact that he’s got limitations of the Constitution which are designed in the Free Exercise clause to allow those particular religious groups to pursue what they see as appropriate within their particular religious views. When you look at, for example, even internationally what our country is doing in Syria, in the disrespect for what we see going on with the religious minorities there – even Iraq to a certain extent, Afghanistan even. I mean, I think there is almost a degree of, perhaps — internationally — apathy toward those issues [from the administration]. In the United States, almost a degree of hostility in domestic policy.
And so I think that’s a correct assessment of the president. Whether he intends it or not, I mean, I don’t know his heart. But I can certainly see his actions.

What is the apartheid comparison there? Is there one group that you think is being privileged over another group?
Well, we’re talking about different groups, aren’t we?

So who is in what position there?
 I thought we were talking about religious groups and irreligious groups.

So are you suggesting that irreligious groups have more rights than religious groups?
Well, a religious group has a free exercise right to practice their religion. If you’ve got a secular group, there is not a free exercise protection there. But a religious group absolutely has free exercise rights. The people are there, they bind together in community, for the purpose of their worship and their religion. And they have a right to be free of government interference and government mandates that require them to act in a way that violates their very beliefs and, you know, their fundamental worldview.
That’s – I mean, I – I guess maybe I need to take you on a history lesson. I mean, this country was founded on the idea of free exercise. Many of the people that came to this country at its origin – not all, but many of them came here because of the persecution that they were experiencing…
They said…”We want the ability to practice our beliefs as we believe God has directed us, and that’s an area that’s sacrosanct.” And yet this president doesn’t seem to have any respect for it. And that’s what led to that comment…
I think that any time that you show a degree of disrespect for the Constitution, that it should cause all of us to be concerned. Especially – I mean, your magazine… I assume that you’re a civil libertarian, one that embraces the rights that are described in the Bill of Rights. So, what, you’re going to trample the First Amendment free exercise clause… and you don’t think that your other rights are going to be at risk? Any time that you empower the central government and you give way on one of those rights, you’re going to give way on the rest of them…
It really frankly humors me to some extent when I hear those on the left that are out there saying, “Oh you know we ought to mandate the religious groups, go out there and provide for abortions and provide for contraception, even though we know it’s a First Amendment free exercise violation,” but then you scream bloody murder over the fact that the government’s involved in this massive surveillance state, which is clearly a Fourth Amendment violation.
I mean, we have to bind together to protect all those rights. Even though it may feel uncomfortable. You know, I’m a traditionalist; I believe in the traditional family. But I’m also willing to say that the federal government does not have a role in that area – that that’s a state issue…
I think that the unifying concept is the Bill of Rights.
And if someone has a religious objection to serving an African-American at their business, then –
I’m — again, I’m not going there. I already talked to you about the Civil Rights Act.
Are religious objections to interactions with African-Americans equivalent to religious objections to interactions with gay people?
They’re – look – I’m not even going there. I mean, we’ve already talked. We’ve talked about ENDA that was the discussion that you had. The Civil Rights Act is not up to debate. It’s not something that anybody, with any reasonable approach, would ever even consider repealing. So that’s not even – it’s not even a dialogue. I mean, what you’re doing is playing “gotcha” journalism. I’m not gonna play that game with you.
And if someone has a religious objection to paying taxes for foreign wars, that they don’t support, then –
Obviously the courts – no, obviously the courts have established a balancing act. And I assume that you’re knowledgeable enough in the legal area to understand that. I mean, just because somebody claims free exercise doesn’t mean that any moron that claims some sort of free exercise right can do whatever they want. You know that, I know that. And this interview is done.
Well, I appreciate you taking the time…
You know, I’m willing to engage in a dialogue, but we aren’t going to go into the moronic on this, OK?
What was moronic?
What is absolutely moronic is you suggesting that you don’t understand that there are limits to the free exercise clause. And you know there are, and you know that there are balancing tests that are imposed.

What the fuck is a duopoly?  Is that a Sarah Palin term?

I would like Joe to win the primary just so Mark Begich can kick his ass!

Could Sarah Palin run for AZ governor?

This article is from three years ago but worth repeating:

From Biz Journals.

Sarah Palin’s apparent purchase of a home in North Scottsdale has fueled plenty of speculation she will run for president in 2012 and base her campaign out of Arizona. Palin’s also going on bus tour that is almost certain to include a stop in New Hampshire (an early presidential primary battleground). There’s also talk that Palin could come to Arizona and run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by the retiring Jon Kyl.

But Arizona political commentator Anna Johnson has come up with a third option: Palin running for Arizona governor in 2014.

Johnson’s idea has some merit save for the fact Palin would have to live in the state for five years before being able to run. But Palin may be looking for a way to stay relevant nationally while not running for the White House next year.

The main quandary for Palin is whether she’s willing to give up an estimated $20 million a year in pay she gets for books, Fox News analysis, speaking gigs and other appearances, and whether she can win a run for the White House this go around.

Palin has big negatives not only for Democrats, but also some in the Republican Party. There’s a crowded Republican primary field, and right now Obama has a decent enough chance at reelection as long as the economy doesn’t stumble again and voters remember the Pakistan raid that got Osama bin Laden.

Palin would be formidable in a Senate race here in Arizona, and it could show voters a more serious public policy side of her rather than the conservative celebrity side she showcases now.

Palin could want to keep her celebrity status, and set herself up for a 2016 presidential run if Obama wins in 2012 and is then term-limited.

Palin could use an Arizona base also take over from Gov. Jan Brewer as a chief conservative needler of Obama on immigration, Medicaid and mandates. That would keep her in the spotlight -- which is good for Sarah Palin “Inc.” and a 2016 White House run.

Of course, if she really wanted the highest-profile job in the state, she could ask Joe Arpaio if he’s running for sheriff again.

I don't think she will.  Too much baggage and it would give credence to the comment that she told John McCain she didn't want to return to Alaska.

Sarah Palin endorses Mark Begich for Senate (well kind of)

As you all know Sarah and Alaska Senator Mark Begich got into a Facebook/Twitter war and it was hilarious.  During that war Sarah accidently endorsed Mark:

Really, Mark? Really?

Margaret Thatcher used to say, “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.” So, thank you, Mark Begich, for making me and others exceptionally cheery today! Mark, after looking at your voting record I can see why you are looking for a distraction. You have voted FOR Obamacare, FOR massive tax increases, FOR carbon taxes which could cost Alaskans 21,000 jobs, AGAINST pro-life legislation, and there’s so much more. You even flip-flopped to oppose the nation’s balanced budget amendment. You agree with, and vote with, ultra-liberal Senators Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid approximately 90% of the time. Mark, you recently said, “Alaskans pick who they want based on what’s good for Alaska.” Couldn’t agree more, Mark, which is why many hope to see great changes for our great state following the upcoming 2014 election. In the meantime, we suppose we’ll see much more playing of the ol' Washington political game using those inside D.C. reporters each time you have to distract from yet another bad vote for Alaska in the U.S. Senate. It cheers us up and gives us good opportunity to remind Alaskans just how loyal to the Obama agenda you have been.

- Sarah Palin

She even posted a few pics in her support of him:

Sarah in case you have forgotten, people want the rich to be taxed, they believe in a woman's right to choose, the immigration problem needs to be fixed, and health care reform is necessary.  Good job Sarah!