Lisa Sméagol/Gollum Murkowski: IT'S MY PRECIOUSSSSSS! MINE MINE MINE!

In the general election Tuesday, November 2, there will be two major party candidates for United States Senate on the ballot:

Joe W. Miller, Rebublican, and Scott McAdams, Democrat.

As we grow closer and closer to the election, Joe Miller's candidacy is in the throes of a self-induced melt-down. He has demonstrated that he is a fraudulent, lying, hypocritical grifter with an ethics problem.  See details in my previous post.

Scott McAdams on the other hand, has been steadily more and more impressive.  

Starting out as the sacrificial lamb offered up by the Democrats against Lisa Murkowski, the "assumed" Republican nominee (and we all know what happened there), McAdams has become a viable candidate.  

He's knowledgeable on the issues, and gives a straight answer to a straight question. As of October 19, McAdams has raised over a million dollars - and over 88% of that is from small donors.

Scott's campaign is focused on Alaska, because no matter what Joe Miller might say, this race isn't about building a Berlin Wall around America or getting rid of "unconstitutional" federal programs (most of which Miller's taken advantage of).

It's about having a reasoning, reasonable U.S. Senator who will represent Alaska in Washington DC, not some ring-wing nut-job ideology.

Which brings us to write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski.  

The fly in the ointment, if you will.

The Gollum in the punchbowl.

In J.R.R. Tolkien's middle-earth fantasy works (The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings) a hobbit named Sméagol came into possession of the "One Ring."  Slowly, The Ring's malevolent power transformed Sméagol into Gollum, a pathetic, evil creature totally enslaved by the ring... and when Tolkien's protagonist, hobbit Bilbo Baggins "relieved" Gollum of the ring, Gollum went apeshit.  He was willing to engage in any sort of treachery to regain and keep it... exactly like Lisa Murkowski and the Senate seat she lost.

You can almost hear Lisa screeching, "Thief! Thief, Baggins Miller! We hates it, we hates it, we hates it forever!!"

Refusing to accept her surprising primary defeat to Miller, Murkowski has acted as the spoiler in this race. She has engaged in a slash and burn write-in campaign that distorts her record, utilizes gigantic sums of money from industry and corporate PACs, and attempts to siphon Democrats and rational, thinking voters away from McAdams, the only sane candidate in the race.

The fact of the matter is, in the last couple years, Murkowski's votes are no different than Joe Miller's votes would have been.  Without having Ted Stevens' coattails to ride on, Lisa has marched lock-step with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnel, whose only agenda is to keep President Obama from accomplishing anything.   

She is a stalwart of the "Party of No," and most of her "no" votes were to detrimental to Alaska.

When she's not bashing Miller, or painting herself as a quasi-liberal to seduce Democrats, she's repeating her "McAdams can't win" litany.  She's wrong.

If you're a Democrat like me, there should be no question at all about how to vote.  You have a candidate, and if he wins, a Senator of whom Alaska can be proud.

But if you're a moderate , thinking voter (even a Republican), please don't get sucked into Murkowski's shell game.  Don't allow the "McAdam's can't win" mantra to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

McAdams can win, but rational voters of every party affiliation, or no party affiliation, need to support him.

The Curious Case of Joe Miller

Over the last few weeks I've watched (admittedly, with some glee) the US Senate candidacy of Joe Miller unravel.

Mr. Miller shocked the powers that be in the national GOP, and all the election-watching pundits, when in the August primary election, he wrested the Republican party's nomination from Lisa Murkowski.

Miller's victory also stunned many Alaskans, myself included.

With a huge "gulp," the national GOP accepted him (what else could they do?) and NRSC actually sent him money.

Prior to the Primary Election, not much was really known about Mr. Miller. He was endorsed by self-anointed political power Sarah Palin... and, just like Palin, Miller's rhetoric consisted of Tea Party talking points, espousing the  "cut government spending, go back to the Constitution, no more socialism, blah blah blah."  

With the funding and assistance granted him by the Koch brothers through the Tea Party Express, Miller's campaign launched a series of attack smear ads against incumbent Republican Murkowski, accusing her of being a closet liberal, a RINO (Republican in name only), and cited all her "votes with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi" (whom ALL Republicans, Tea Party or not, love to demonize).

Not that it was exactly true, of course.

It didn't matter that Murkowski has voted consistently with the GOP.

She did the bidding of Senate Minority Lead Mitch McConnell more than 90% of the time (even to the detriment of Alaska).  I'll have a post in the next few days dedicated to Senator Murkowski's candidacy, but in the meantime, if you'd like you can check it out here.

But for Joe, and the Koch brothers, this was not about anything as mundane as the truth.  It was about winning.

Unfortunately for Joe Miller, but fortunately for Alaskans (and America), his general election campaign  peaked just a little too soon.

Between the Primary election and the General election, Mr. Miller's past has caught up with him.

Since his arrival in Alaska, Joe has received medical benefits he's decried as "socialist." He's received free hunting and sportfishing licenses with a questionable claim of "indigence."  As a federal magistrate, he hired his wife... and then had to fire her because it violated nepotism guidelines.  Of course, she immediately collected unemployment, another  "entitlement" program he's repeatedly condemned as "unconstitutional."   So, one thing has become clear in the last couple months: Joe Miller is pretty damned good at gaming the system he publicly condemns.

Then, questions arose about Joe's activity during his employment as a part-time Fairbanks North Star Borough attorney in 2008.  According to what anyone can find out (much of Borough personnel records are sealed, and rightly so), Joe was the leader of an attempt to oust state Republican Party chief Randy Ruedrich.

As part of this effort, Miller used other employees’ computers at the Fairbanks North Star Borough for online polling.  He then cleared the memory cache on the computers he used, figuring that no one would be the wiser.  Of course, as any good IT techie can tell you, with a local area network like most municipal  governments use, that simply doesn't work.  Your tracks aren't erased.  Eventually, Joe was found out.

So Miller left the Fairbanks North Star Borough.  Whether Joe was terminated, asked to resign, or left of his own accord remains unclear, because as I noted - some parts of the personnel records are sealed.

However, Jim Whitaker, former Fairbanks North Star Borough Mayor (and big-time Republican) maintains that Joe was a hairsbreadth away from being fired.

So Miller's response to all this?  Like Republican / Tea Party Express-backed candidates Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell and Jan Brewer, candidates who have been brought to task for their hypocrisy, ignorance, or questionable behavior, Joe has blamed "the media" for his problems.

The facts reveal that Miller is a man severely lacking in ethical standards.  A man who who has repeatedly used the very system he calls corrupt, bad, and unconstitutional. A man who thought his own hypocrisy and engagement in fraudulent, if not illegal, behavior would never come to light.

Joe even went so far as to "draw a line in the sand" and refuse to answer questions about his "background and personal issues."  You know, questions about his hypocrisy and ethical problems.  

By Joe's twisted logic, Alaskan voters have no right to know about any of this before they elect him to an elite group of 100 Senators... one of the most powerful offices in United States.

Now, Joe Miller's campaign saga becomes even more bizarre.  

On Sunday, October 17, Joe sponsored a "town hall" candidate meeting at Central Middle School in Anchorage. The event was open to the public.  

After Joe finished with the audience in attendance, Tony Hopfinger, an editor and reporter for the online publication The Alaska Dispatch attempted to corner Mr. Miller, and persuade him to answer questions about the Fairbanks North Star Borough episode. 

Joe didn't want to be bothered with that, so employees of the security company Joe had hired (Drop Zone Security - which deserves a whole separate posting by itself) detained and handcuffed Mr. Hopfinger, telling  telling him he was trespassing.  At a public event.  In a public building.

Why Mr. Miller needed "security" is beyond me... except to keep reporters away from him.

By the time it was all over, the Anchorage police (who released Mr. Hopfinger) were called, Joe Miller and his campaign called Hopfinger a "left-wing blogger" (he's not - he's a free lance reporter/editor with some very solid journalist credentials), Miller claimed he was "assault" by Hopfinger (he wasn't), and the whole incident hit the national spotlight.

But one thing productive DID come from this event: As a spin-control measure, Joe Miller finally admitted to CNN he was indeed "disciplined" for his breaches of ethics while employed by the North Star Borough.  Of course Miller said this was all in the past and he's "moved on and learned from his mistakes."

I have news for you, Joe:  

So have Alaskans.

"Job Killer" Joe Miller: Let's Abolish The Minimum Wage Law!

We all know that Joe W. Miller believes that Unemployment Insurance is "unconstitutional," because the power to collect for it and pay it is not specifically "delegated to the United States."

Back in the primary election, Carpetbagger Joe also noted in the Project Vote Smart Survey that he opposed "increasing the federal minimum wage."

Pretty standard Republican - keep rich folks rich and poor folks poor.

However, recently, in an interview with ABC News, Miller went a couple steps further.   

Joe believes  the federal minimum wage law should actually be abolished.

Joe refers to (and paraphrases) the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution as the basis for this insanity.

Before I get into the 10th Amendment,  I'm going to refer Joe to the original document itself, starting with the Preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (emphasis mine)

I'm also going to refer Joe to Article 1, Section 8... specifically Clause 18:

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. (again, emphasis mine)

When the first 10 amendments ("The Bill of Rights")  were drafted and eventually ratified, there was much hoopla and argument about the specific wording of the 10th Amendment. 

The upshot of the ruction was that the 10th Amendment as worded and ratified did NOT negate  "necessary and proper" as listed in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18.

So, whatever federal powers that are actually curtailed by the 10th Amendment have been largely decided upon by the U.S. Supreme Court, on pretty much a case-by-case basis.

Using Joe's logic, the U.S. Air Force should be abolished. The US Constitution authorizes the federal government to create an Army and a Navy... but there's no mention of an Air Force.

Of course, even though he is an graduate of the ELITE Yale School of Law , demonstrating whether or not he has an actual understanding of the Constitution is unimportant to Mr. Miller.

Repeating Tea Party Express talking points and keeping Tea Party Express billionaire financiers the Koch brothers happy is what's important. 

The "back to the Constitution" rhetoric plays well to low-information tea-party voters (who are pretty sure they're mad about something), and it keeps those ultra-conservative's campaign bucks coming in.

Just like the evangelist who cherry-picks holy scripture to back his rant against homosexuals, or to "prove" why women should be subject to a man's whim, Carpetbagger Joe cherry-picks the Constitution to support his financer's extremist views.

Based on his history of gaming the system on a number of fronts, Joe Miller should be seen by Alaskans for what he is:

A fraud and a hypocrite.

h/t to Packy for the graphic.

The Municipal Election is Tuesday, October 5. A Few Words About Voting, Candidates and Issues

Voting is a responsibility not enough people take seriously.

There's an old saying - "ALL politics are local.."  And they are.

Well, there's a local election on October 5th, and your participation will help to determine what future course our local governments will take.

In the 2009 municipal elections, the voter turnout was 19.16%. Less than 1 in 5 registered voters bothered.

Now, even if you don't feel civic-minded, think about this: If you don't take part, a small minority will decide for you who represents you on local government bodies, and what ballot propositions may affect you long-term...so looking out for your own interests coincides with executing your civic responsibility.

If you don't care, stay home.

I'll be happy to let my vote make your decisions for you.

With that in mind, I'm making a few candidate and ballot proposition recommendations... and hoping it doesn't jinx who and what I support.  When it comes to candidates, I'll be sticking to Kenai, since I live there.

Kenai Mayor:  Two candidates vying for a 3-year term.

Mike Boyle.  As a 5-year veteran of the Kenai City Council, Mike has demonstrated solid judgment.  His 2+ decades as a vocational education instructor and participating member of KPEA lend him a perspective that's more encompassing and reality-based than the "whatever is good for the Chamber of Commerce is good for Kenai" view that incumbent Mayor Pat Porter seems to hold.

Kenai City Council:  Four candidates, two seats available.  3-year term.

Hal Smalley:  Without question, Mr. Smalley should be re-elected.  Hal has a long and distinguished history of service, from the Kenai City Council to the Alaska Legislature to the Borough Assembly.  The various capacities in which he's served - Kenai Peninsula Economic Development District, the Alaska Municipal League - give him a solid grasp of good long term public policy that few others have. That alone makes him a valuable member of any governing body.

Terry Bookey:  Mr. Bookey was born here, and his family has been active in both political and civic activities since the 1960's.  They helped bring about many of the good things you see in Kenai today.  Steeped in that family spirit, Bookey demonstrates a similar dedication and caring.  Terry will bring an energetic, progressive voice to the council, moderated by his knowledge of Kenai's history and his genuine concern for its future.

Borough Ballot Propositions:

Proposition No. 1:  Education Capital Improvement Bonds.  Shall the Kenai Peninsula Borough borrow up to $16,866,500 through the issuance of general obligation bonds?

Vote "Yes." 

This is sort of a no-brainer.  The Kenai Peninsula Borough schools are a valuable investment, and frankly, many of the structures are getting old.  Over the years, roofs have been diligently maintained, and the Assembly has appropriated funds for limited replacement, but that funding has not matched the need.   There simply comes a time when maintenance is not enough, and major replacement is required to prevent failure and loss of the building and its contents.

Since bonding for each roof project will not occur unless steps are taken to ensure that the project qualifies for 70% debt reimbursement from the state, there is strong reason to believe the Borough indebtedness will be reimbursed if the Alaska Legislature makes funds available.

Under that scenario, the property taxpayer's cost to retire the debt is $5.78 per $100,000 of assessed real or personal property value (in my case, about $8.67) per year.

What happens if the Alaska legislature DOESN'T come through, and the Borough picks up the whole tab to retire the debt?  Then it will cost the property taxpayer $19.28 per $100,000 of assessed property value (in my case, about $28.92) per year.

Realistically, it's a pretty small price to pay to protect Borough educational facilities worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Proposition No 2: Adopting A Manager Plan Of Government To Be Effective After The 2011 Regular Election.  Shall the Kenai Peninsula Borough adopt a manager plan of government, effective upon certification of the regular October 2011 election, where the chief administrative officer is a manager appointed by the assembly instead of the current form where the elected mayor runs the borough administration?

I could easily argue either side of this issue.

Over the years, the Kenai Peninsula Borough has been pretty lucky in that the mayors we've elected have either been pretty damned good municipal managers, or they've been smart enough to hire and/or retain smart, capable people who kept everything running on a pretty even keel.

Unfortunately, the ability to win an election is completely unrelated to the ability to serve.

Bluntly, the fact that this is even on the ballot says more about the management ability (or lack thereof) of the current Borough Mayor than it says about the pros and cons of a Manager vs strong Mayor form of municipal government.

Voting "Yes" will replace the Mayor as the day-to-day manager of the Borough with a professional hired by the Borough Assembly.  A professional manager will be, logically, more responsive to the Assembly than he/she will be to the public at large.

Voting "No" will retain the current system, wherein the Borough is managed by an elected Mayor, who is, logically, responsive to the general public, but who can often be be at odds with the Assembly.

I'm conflicted on this one.

As readers of this blog know, I have no confidence in the current administration. 

On the other hand, I also feel that this is sort of a drastic,  long-term solution to a temporary situation.  

The current mayor has not said whether he's running again, but if he does, based on his performance, I find it impossible to believe he would win re-election.

So frankly, I'm not sure how I will vote on this issue on Tuesday.

Just like you, I'm still thinking it over.