Thursday, July 31, 2008

Looking Back on This Important Month

The month began with things starting to heat up between Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell's backers and Rep. Don Young's backers.

It ended with both of these candidates diminished in the eyes of Alaska voters. They have both engaged surrogates to negatively campaign for them. And, as two more GOP crooks stand indicted, Young has yet to explain his million dollar-plus criminal defense attorney bills.


This month began with John McCain and Barack Obama having no Alaska campaign offices.

It ended with John McCain having no Alaska offices, and Barack Obama having opened four of them, engaging scores of workers, hundreds of volunteers. I'd bet a breakfast at Gwennie's that more Alaska Republicans would show up for a David Duke office opening than for an office for John McCain.

This month began with all of the mainstream Alaska media outlets ignoring Sen. Ted Stevens' creepy press conference with Sarah Palin, in which he recommended we read a racist, eliminationist book; ignore his scam deal with Sen. Phil Gramm that created the "Enron Loophole" that has allowed over a trillion dollars to leave the country, over a billion dollars to leave Alaska; and totally avoided mention of the increasing evidence that Ted Stevens' mental condition is seriously deteriorating.

It ended with Sen. Stevens being indicted for serious felonies, and with the mainstream Alaska press looking for fluff stories about how many Alaskans love the old codger, who has single-handedly kept us afloat for decades. In none of the MSM summaries, were any of the other lurking problems involving Stevens brought out in a comprehensive way. As I wrote elsewhere yesterday, Alaska is beginning to go through PTSD - Post Ted Stress Disorder.

July began with a close Ted Stevens - Mark Begich race.

It ended with Mark Begich up by 13 points in a highly respected Rassmuson poll.

This month began with Sarah Palin still riding her wave of popularity, with national media speculating about her as a major vice presidential possibility on the John McCain ticket.

It ended with her popularity beginning to diminish, as her administration seemed to be pulling one Frank Murkowskiesque press release after another out of a bottomless hat, as she defended her becoming deeply involved as Chief Executive of Alaska, in a personnel issue she had no business in entering. Especially during the most important Special Session of the Alaska Legislature in decades.

Duh.....

This month began with Diane Benson and Ethan Berkowitz looking better and better all the time. Both of them.

It ended
the same way, especially when they're compared to the corrupt, criminally challenged Don Young, and hiding-under-Sarah's-skirts Parnell.

Diane Benson's campaign and its uniqueness is beginning to gain traction, here, and nationally. As the Editor of The Nation noted yesterday, "Congressional Quarterly wrote that the race is too close to call." The article was a full endorsement of Diane Benson.

The two candidates' messages have far more similarities than differences. The major differences have to do with Benson's more progressive approach to our medical care crisis, and with Berkowitz's reliance on funding from people and a PAC closely associated with the war, failing aspects of our economy, and the sliming of Democrats such as Barack Obama. Benson's funding is far more grassroots, even its out-of-state support.

Benson and Berkowitz have had three great forums this month. In Fairbanks, they were there together, in a debate sponsored by the Fairbanks Democrats. In Anchorage, late in the month, they were there with Don Young, at a forum presented by the Alaska Women's Political Caucus, at which the caucus moderators brought up not a single question on women's issues, an area in which Benson excels, to say the least.

And today, on Anchorage's KUDO, Benson and Berkowitz faced off for two hours, taking a large number of questions from listeners. Ethan still makes like he won't be a bought guy - should he be our next Representative. However, based on the performance history of Democratic candidates who fit his PAC funding profile in the past, he's pretty fucking clueless, or is misinforming us.

Maybe he really doesn't get it. After all, Ted Stevens claimed today he doesn't understand how this stuff works, and he's been in DC forever...


I've got to say, though, that listening back to my recordings of the KUDO debate, and to the other two events in July at which Ethan and Diane responded to Alaskans, I'm very proud of them both.

images:

Katie Hurley - Progressive Alaska
Sarah Palin - Alaska Report
Diane and Ethan - Benson campaign

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

ET- could you email me at my gmail addy?

Nothing pressing, nothing urgent, but I lost your email addy and just wanted to touch base.

Valley Girl

Philip Munger said...

VG - sorry - grading paper, writing music, this stuff. I haven't even mowed the lawn yet, and it might rain.

Love ya!

Anonymous said...

Wow, Phil, that's a pretty bold statement to make about "Democratic candidates who fit his PAC funding profile." Not only is Ethan absolutely rock solid ethically and a man of his word, but your broad generalization about Democrats who received donations from Emmanuel's PAC means that you are saying people like Rep. John Yarmuth, Rep. Peter Welch, Rep. Timothy Walz, and Rep. Mark Udall are "fucking clueless."

Philip Munger said...

Look,

Why is it that whenever somebody jumps into the comments to support Mr. Berkowitz, they lack the courage to give a real name?

I'm willing to put my name on everything I write here, bozo. Where did you leave your spine?

Not only is my friend Ethan totally clueless, you're a clueless, gutless shill, unless you're willing to at least create a pseudonym to distinguish yourself from the other Ethan supporters without the guts to say who they really are.

Philip Munger, not anonymous.

Anonymous said...

we be trollz.

Anonymous said...

Your mother, not anonymous.

Anonymous said...

@Phil You fail to address the comment (again.) I understand how important you think it is to leave a real name, but the fact is the internet is an anonymous medium. If you are upset that people want to leave anonymous comments, then stop running a blog or at least turn off anonymous comments. Most other bloggers do.

In the meantime, how do you respond to the comment? Please tell us if you are calling the candidates I mentioned above "fucking clueless."

Anonymous said...

QUESTION: How do you know the Dems and MSM are petrified of Palin?

ANSWER: LA Times promotes story "Palin faces state probe nixing VP rumors" since Palin told police her state trooper ex-brother-in-law threatened to kill her dad.

clark said...

if your point about accepting donations from people and PACs who have an anti-people power, pro-corporate agenda -- and then denying there will be any influence peddled -- is that 'everyone does it', it's not even worth munger's time to try to respond. if berkowitz wants to be taken seriously by progressives he would give that money back. otherwise he's only providing lip service. regardless of how much you anons shriek about it.

Anonymous said...

Your reference to Congressional Quarterly is very misleading. The article they released does NOT call the primary too close to call, they are referring to the general election. There has been no information put out that shows this is a close primary. IF there is, you should provide that to us.

Philip Munger said...

It wasn't my reference, it was Katrina vanden Heuvel's. Please write to her, whoever you are.

Anonymous said...

Under what name do you post on the ADN politics blog, Mr. Munger? Only asking seeing as how you are such a big supporter of putting your name where your mouth is... I'm guessing that it's "Phil Munger," as opposed to some nickname. Surely you wouldn't be so hypocritical...

Brendan Joel Kelley said...

Phil, I think it's a silly argument, as Rahm's PAC gave money to Woolsey's PAC which gave money to Diane. (http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?26930227883 and http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?28991468687)
so does that mean Woolsey's Rahm's tool and hence Diane is Woolsey's tool? does that mean that Diane is profiting from Bill O'Reilly's producer's dirty money? I can appreciate debating campaign issues, but when this is the case and you're calling a smart guy 'fucking clueless' it marginalizes the rest of what you've got to say.

Brendan
(as always, posting with my real name)
bjk@anchoragepress.com

Philip Munger said...

as always, thanks, Brendan.

Ethan says he'll take an oath of office, so it'll be OK. Last I knew, it was the same oath Don Young takes every two years.

Among the people - including myself - who have directly contributed to Ethan's campaign, are the top two executives of the war profiteering Carlyle Group. I knew that the second time I donated to him. Did that make me hesitant? Yes. Did it stop me? No.

What Ethan is fucking clueless about is that he's claiming that unlike every other new legislator who had taken money from Emanuel, he would be independent. Howie Klein has written several times, as he has followed those Freshmen Rahm's PAC helped directly in the past. They have been among the least progressive, most war-supporting of the Democrats.

I see nothing in Ethan's past that would indicate he would be completely different than any of the rest of Rahm's boys.

Woolsey gave a direct donation to Benson, not from a PAC.

If you think the issue of campaign financing is unimportant, or if my emotional response to feeling like I'm being taken diminishes whatever else I have to say, that's fine with me. Apparently not everyone feels the same about this as you do.

How candidates get their money and what is usually expected from them is one of the most important ISSUES in american politics.

Unknown said...

the form linked above clearly states that it was Woolsey's PAC that gave Diane money - the same PAC that Rahm's PAC donated to. it's there in black and white FEC forms. so is Woolsey a tool of Rahm too? does howie klein think so? klein might be a smart guy, but he represents the same divisive accusatory faction of the Democratic Party that you do, driving wedges into your own party to seem more enlightened, smarter, more 'progressive' than what the mainstream of your party is. it's posturing, and your continually calling people 'fucking clueless' or suggesting that i shouldn't be covering politics is exactly that - stone-throwing, holier than thou, i'm-smarter-than-you self-promotion (and diane-promotion). when your worldview is as narrow as it seems to be, i can't place much value in your assertions that everyone Rahm's PAC gave money to is a hawkish Rahm-drone. besides that, your and klein's views of Rahm aren't shared by the majority of people in your party, including the democratic presidential nominee (who consulted with Rahm when preparing his Senate and Presidential runs - see Ryan Lizza's story in the New Yorker from the terrorist-fist-jab issue). is obama fucking clueless as well?

best - Brendan
bjk@anchoragepress.com

Philip Munger said...

Howie Klein has based his assessment of Emanuel as an anti-progressive by doing a lot of hard work and research.

The majority of Democrats who rubber stamp George Bush support Emanuel and his pack. The majority of Democrats who seek a new, more forward-looking Democratic Party do not.

Obama has criticized the kinds of PACs Eamanuel's is such a strong example of. Emanuel is a wily politician. That's why Obama has consulted him. He also marched with Rahm in a couple of parades early this summer.

Anonymous said...

@brendan I like how Phil totally dodges answering your comment, just like he did with mine.

@Phil Look, if you spend two minutes on Google (or the FEC website) you begin to see some serious holes in your argument / logic. I have no problem with the fact that you don't agree with Berk's progressive credentials. The problem I have is that your blanket statement about accepting money from Emmanuel's PAC doesn't hold water, in my opinion, because of all the other candidates that also received money from Emmanuel.

Unless of course you're making the argument that those candidates are equally "fucking clueless" or super evil Republican warlords in disguise.

So Phil, does the fact that those other candidates I listed above took money from Emmanuel make them "fucking clueless"? Yes or no please.

As for posting with a real name or anonymously, who gives a fuck who posts what if the topic is interesting and worth discussing? I'm much more interested in the issues than I am with who says what.

(Although it is cool to see that the Press editor reads / posts comments in your blog...)

Anonymous said...

that poll would have been by Rasmussen, not Rasmuson.

minor point, you guys need to get it right though too if you want to be taken seriously.

haw haw

Philip Munger said...

In the sense that reliance for the funding of American political campaigns from groups, PACs, action groups hurts Americans, especially the middle class and poor, yes, all these candidates are "fucking clueless."

clark said...

"is obama fucking clueless as well?"
absolutely, without a doubt -- as his vote on that awful FISA rewrite proclaims for all to see. as a constitutional scholar, he still votes for that piece of crap -- because he sees it as a delicate political calculus, and he doesn't want the republicans to call him out for being 'weak on terror' or whatever bumper sticker slogan they trot out to try to swift boat him with. i think he'll live to regret his FISA vote, though. not because progressives are going to throw away their vote on a fringe candidate. just because he must realize his action was terribly wrong.
as benson pointed out so emphatically, constitutional rights belong to all americans and congress cannot bargain them away.
why didn't obama just say something similar?

clark said...

"...driving wedges into your own party to seem more enlightened, smarter, more 'progressive' than what the mainstream of your party is..."
the democratic party has had the wedge in there for decades. that shouldn't be the point. sooner or later we all have to stand up for what's right. if that means the party is factionalized, tough luck. the progressive wing will prevail, though -- because progressive values are really mainstream american values, when it comes down to it. if the centerist wing dominates, all we'll have is republican lite, and an opposition party that doesn't oppose anything. not very useful as a tool to find our way out of nearly 30 years of republican domination of debate of essential issues.

Philip Munger said...

Brendan's inability to see the forest through the trees reminds me of a spirited argument I had with my youngest brother last weekend, about how so many things that have happened in the USA over the past 7 and 1/2 years are bringing us so very close to a fascist, authoritarian state.

My brother said, "We've been here before, and we'll be here again."

I replied that there have never been so many elements in play at once, especially in a contrived wartime situation, a cynically destructive executive branch, a corrupt investigative arm, a congress uniformly hapless and universally loathed, and a wholly corporate-friendly Supreme Court.

When one sees, time after time, how Republicans and Democrats alike align their votes so predictably in line with those who have paid and paved their way to DC, one should begin to learn.

As Benson has said, "The Constitution is not a list of suggestions. It is a list of rights that no President and no Congress have the right to take away."

And she has also been saying, "Clearly, we cannot do the same things over and over again and expect different results. We can hardly expect a representative government that's for the people when it's paid for by special interests."

Unknown said...

'inability to see the forest for the trees'? you're the horse with blinders on my friend - and you haven't addressed a single question that i asked you, nor the fact that Diane is benefiting from the same money that you accuse Ethan of being soiled by. intelligent debate requires sticking to the points Phil, not quoting your favorite pols and operatives while dodging the fact that you're insulting a smart, valid candidate in your own party.

ps - i have the results of a poll last week for D v. E, you can read about it in next week's Press.

Philip Munger said...

Brendan,

Ethan is a big boy, in a hard-fought political race. Are you saying he's incapable of dealing with Benson's tough questions?

clark said...

maybe brendan will tell us why the 'everybody does it' argument, in context of the perpetuation of the campaign financing system we are stuck with should translate into ehthusiasm for ethan. because he's 'smart and valid'?

Unknown said...

my argument wasn't 'everybody does it,' it's that Diane's taking money that came from the same source, so Phil's grenades he's lobbing are ridiculous. i'm not trying to work up enthusiasm for ethan, i just think that these attacks are stupid, bad for your party (not mine, i'm not registered with a party), and they distract the discourse from being about policy. i think diane's 'smart and valid' as well - and i listened the KUDO appearance and didn't hear once ethan not answering 'hard questions.' the only awkward moments were when phil called in and brought up bill o'reilly's producer and obama, which was completely fucking irrelevant, especially given that phil's candidate has the same 'dirty money' - yes, from Woolsey's PAC, it says so on the fucking form. you wingnuts should vote for nader, he's not tainted by rahm...

clark said...

this conversation got a little heated and somewhat pointless. i wonder if benson is aware of the donor's connections? let's give her campaign a chance to respond.
and vote for nader? are you crazy? never. i'll go in there and vote a straight democratic ticket, as i've done in every single election since 1978. i'd like the alaska democratic party to receive that message loud and clear -- that some of their strongest supporters, year after year are also the same people who want them to renounce corporate donations.

Philip Munger said...

going back through this thread, I noticed one anonymouse I missed earlier. She said:

"Under what name do you post on the ADN politics blog, Mr. Munger? Only asking seeing as how you are such a big supporter of putting your name where your mouth is... I'm guessing that it's "Phil Munger," as opposed to some nickname. Surely you wouldn't be so hypocritical..."

I post at the ADN under "niklake." The ADN assigned me that nom de blog a long time ago, based on the name they used to register me, based on my e-mail address. IIRC, I wasn't given an option of another name, and I've never bothered to go back in and see if it can be changed.

Sometimes I add my name, or my name and "Progressive Alaska."

Anonymous said...

@Phil It's interesting that going back through this thread, the only thing you noticed was missing a question about your "alias" on the ADN.com blog.

You have yet to address Brendan calling you out on your bullshit.