E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom msnbc.com's Vaughn Ververs:
Approximately 99.8 percent of Americans don't live in the state of Alaska. Among national political journalists and pundits that number may be north of 100 percent, if that's possible.
Most of the nation knows next to nothing about our 49th state outside of the long winter nights and summer days, the Deadliest Catch or the Iditarod sled dog race. The political world has recently gotten a crash course on Alaska, thanks to Sarah Palin's sudden emergence onto the scene two years ago.
But the surprised reaction emanating from the East Coast Wednesday morning over the state's Republican Senate primary shows there's a great deal left to be learned about politics in the last frontier. The fact that a totally unknown attorney like Joe Miller could be on the verge of defeating incumbent Lisa Murkowski (who was supposed to win overwhelmingly according to the polls) had heads spinning in Washington today.
What happened? Was it Palin (who backed Miller and has feuded with Murkowski)? Was it the Tea Party (elements of which were in the race early and often -- the Our Country Deserves Better PAC/TeaPartyExpress.org spent over $500,000 on the race in the last month)? Is it part of the anti-Washington, anti-establishment sentiment that seems to have popped up elsewhere this year?
Perhaps it was a little bit of those things, but there are other factors to consider as well, most of them involving the particular nature of Alaskans.
The state is hard to understand not just because it is so far away from the political heartbeat in Washington but because it is so inaccessible. Anyone can drop into Dayton, Ohio or Denver, Colorado for a short period of time and pick up the vibe of the place. They can read the local papers, watch the local news, and talk to the local folks.
Parachuting into Wasilla for days, weeks or even months may give you an idea of what that city is and how it operates but tells you nothing about living in Fairbanks, Juneau, Valdez, Nome, Kotzebue, Kodiak or Ketchikan.
Just fewer than 700,000 people live in the state, about 280,000 of whom reside in Anchorage, the largest city. Yet if you were to superimpose the state over the "lower 48," it would stretch from the Canadian Border to the Gulf of Mexico, or twisted another way, it parts of it would stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans.
So it's a big place, one that can't be easy to poll. It's also a remote part of the world, something we were reminded of by the fatal plane crash that took the life of former Sen. Ted Stevens just weeks ago.
As someone who lived in various parts of the state growing up (including Wasilla) for a total of about five years, and someone who has had family living there for more than 20 years, I'm no expert but think I can bring a little perspective to the situation.
Life is fundamentally different in Alaska, as are many of the customs and some of the language. That's not unique in the U.S. but while other regional differences have become ingrained in our overall national culture, Alaska's remoteness keeps it a mystery.
There were chuckles, laughs and head-shaking when Sarah Palin talked about the "snowmachine" her husband raced after being thrust onto the 2008 stage. It didn't strike me as strange or funny in the least. That's what Alaskans call the vehicle that most Americans know as a snowmobile.
That's a simple example of the sort of unfamiliarity that likely led most campaign observers, including myself, to conclude at the outset of yesterday's primary that Lisa Murkowski would cruise to a win over Joe Miller. She may yet pull out a squeaker but it doesn't appear promising. Had I thought a little deeper and studied up just a little more, I might have picked up on some of the signs of a much closer contest.
The seniority argument: Murkowski made the sell that her eight years in the Senate and lessons learned from Stevens had placed her in a position to bring home the bacon. No doubt, Alaskans have benefited greatly from federal largess for decades and most of them don't want that to end. Stevens just barely lost his re-election bid in 2008 but only after he was convicted on seven felony counts of corruption. Had the trial drug on past the election or the charges thrown out before voters were forced to weigh in rather than after the fact, Stevens almost certainly would have prevailed. Alaskans never forgot what he meant for the state.
But this was a Republican primary and promises of more pork and reliance on Washington was never going to be the winning argument among a group of voters more riled up about what they see as a growing and intrusive federal government.
Palin and the Tea Party: That the Tea Party movement would get a warm reception in Alaska is hardly surprising. In many ways, Palin herself is a product of the libertarian, anti-government, leave-us-alone mentality that is ingrained in many Alaskans and so the attraction is natural between the two.
But it would be a mistake to overplay either Palin's impact or the movement's overall role in the state's politics. Alaskans have long been mostly united by a common goal: The use of the state's natural resources for their betterment. No issue in recent years has played a larger role than the bid to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and natural gas exploration.
But just because the majority may be united on that issue doesn't mean voters agree on all others. The perception of Alaskans is that they dislike government – until it comes time to get the handouts. The reality is more complex than that, just as it is everywhere else. It's just that for some time now, one issue has dominated the state when it comes to sending officials to Washington. A Murkowski loss does not necessarily change that. A Democratic win in November might.
Abortion: Fewer than 100,000 voters participated in the GOP primary, not a terrible number considering the overall size of the state, but a smallish one nonetheless. Missed in much of the commentary and analysis was the contest over a ballot measure that would require parents to be notified before an abortion is provided to girls under 18 years of age. Social conservatives have long been a strong wing of the GOP there. Pat Buchanan won the state in his 1996 bid for the GOP presidential nomination. It is not surprising that such a measure would stir those passions.
The parental notification measure passed with 55 percent of the vote after a fierce campaign that bled over into the Senate contest as Miller forces turned Murkowski's support for abortion rights into an issue, even as she backed the ballot measure. A quick glance at the numbers show that more than three times more voters participated in the GOP Senate primary as the Democratic one, suggesting at least that the issue had some impact on turnout overall.
Frank Murkowski: When then-Senator Frank Murkowski was elected governor in 2002, he found himself in the awkward position of having to appoint his own successor. He picked his daughter.
The move never sat well with Alaskans of either party and voters would later pass an initiative to change the rules for future appointments. Alaska is most certainly not a dynasty state. Still, two years later, buoyed by President Bush's reelection, Lisa Murkowski narrowly won the seat outright over former Democratic Gov. Tony Knowles.
But Frank Murkowski's troubles in the state were then just beginning. After a tumultuous four years in the statehouse, a little-known former Wasilla mayor came from out of nowhere and defeated him in the Republican primary. Just four years later, Palin may get much of the credit (or blame) for the defeat of another Murkowski to a political unknown.
Only in Alaska.
Leave a Comment:
Nate Silver of five thirty eight was just on Rachel's show. He also had a very keen insight. The fact that Murkowski had a lead over Miller changed days ago when Sarah came in with Tea party money helped too. No one knew Miller but Sarah's endorsement and money plus the bad blood there, I'm thinking, could be the 2 main reasons.
I also read Murkowski was to have run ads with Ted Stevens. Since he died Murkowski decided not to out of respect. Perhaps that could have pulled her over the top. At any event, if the Alaskans are so self-reliant then why do they spend more pork that other states?
Thank you, Vaugh Ververs for providing your personal insight into Alaska and Alaska's politics. What puzzles me is IF Alaskans have the "leave us alone" mentality, why do they want so much "pork" from the other states--it is other state taxpayers sending them nearly $6 for every $1 they give the government. Guess it is "leave us alone but send your money because we cannot survive if you really leave us alone".
Seems that bad blood between Murkowski and Palin may have played a role. Watching Sarah Palin the last couple years, I have come to this conclusion among others--she is vindictive.
You betcha'ya.
Palin is absolutely vindictive....she went after Lisa Murkowski with a vengeance, but why not Don Young as well? I wonder why Palin is spending so much time trying to torpedo others, after she abandoned her constituents and the state as a whole. I'm surprised her latest move hasn't left Alaska Republicans scratching their heads....do they really believe Miller is a better choice?
Well Judy from Iowa...be sure you let the people of your state know just what Palin is...if she decides to run for presidency your state will be pivotal to her. God help us all if she does . She incites hatred and bigotry....if she got in this country would be at war with some nation and also she would more than likely produce a civil uprising in this country also.
The republicans will always throw in an "abortion" issue to get people out to vote. Roe v Wade is the republicans "cash cow". A young girl, who does not want to be pregnant will be forced to parental notification and approval. The teens cannot vote and do not have a say. The republicans draw a voting crowd with such ballot measures. Abortion will soon become so restricted with state laws that Roe v Wade will become irrelevant, but still very useful to the republicans.
Thanks Jody, my take is most Alaskans feel they would be fine with not taking the money if only the government would allow them to do things like develop ANWR and use what they see as their natural resources to develop their state. These federal land issues are paramount for people who live there, I should have tried to make that point more plainly but it's really a story unto itself.
If it's federal land it's not Alaska's resource, it's the nation's resource.
You did mention ANWR, and it makes sense that Alaskans feel they should be able to do what they want. As an environmental issue it would seem there should be a middle ground but hard for me to understand why anyone would want to intrude in such a beautiful area. Look at Appalachia's strip mined mountain tops--more than 500 flattened. Perhaps sometime you can tell us that part of the story. It would be helpful in understanding Alaska.
The argument of why Alaska gets so much Federal dollars really comes down to how large and remote the state is. The road, highway system for instance is longer than most states because of the greater distances involved. There is more Federal owned land, BLM, National Parks, Reserves, etc. in Alaska that are larger than many entire States down South. There are costs to managing the land, employees, airfields to access them, etc. If you measured it in Federal dollars to the size of the States, it would be one of the lowest. Alaska is America's Last Frontier and it is a treasure for all the U.S. It also is fantastic to live up here.
I vote we stop funding roads, airfields, and employees of Alaskan parks and use the federal money to develop Maine's off shore wind turbine industry. Maine has natural resources that could benefit the entire country: ocean breezes, smart people trying to harness it, and national politicians who don't annoy people.
Actually, most Alaskans did not support the Bridge to Knowwheres. Paving the Alaska highway or construction of a passing lane is not government pork. Government pork is building a $500 million dollar school with a 618 million annual budget deficit and then asking the Federal govt. for education dollars for free lunches and more schools to educate illegal aliens.
This 0.2 percent of the American population, which behaves like an unusually stupid small town, has a huge presence in the nation's politics and siphons off an obscene amount of our taxpayers' money. I can't think of a better argument for abolishing the Senate -- or for revoking that 1959 statehood thing.
Thanks John.
Good Post John..
phillygirl-2261099: That would be fine with US!!! Then we would not have to listen to bigot's.........
I think I would prefer Alaska over California. By the way, how does Alaska get $6 out of every $1?
For every dollar that Alaska sends the federal government in taxes, the federal government sends Alaska $5 in the form of government aid of one sort or another - money for roads, highways, housing, etc.
Federal income taxes maybe. You're forgetting to count the oil sent to the lower 48 by the largest oil producing state (you know, the lifeblood of the industrialized economy).
What does the oil have to do with the satte of Alaska? Don't privately owned company produce that oil? I'm pretty sure that's the case. Companies, not Alaska, produce that oil and sell it, for profit.
Nothing against AK at all, but don't act like the STATE is doing the lower 48 any favors with the oil....
How many people have enough money to say no thanks to money that's being handed to them? I know I don't. It's not a surprise we take what we can. Human nature. Any state that can get more money from the Fed takes it.
Also, no one ever mentions that Alaska paid into Federal coffers for 40 years as a territory, but wasn't allowed to draw from those funds until statehood. We need decent roads too.
I'm praying that if Miller wins, then maybe a few GOP votes will go elsewhere come election day. In spite of all the conservative noise, there are a few liberals up here.
Bruce -- for every $1 that Alaska (or Alaskans) pay in federal taxes, the state gets $6 from the federal government. It's like if I had to pay $1000 in taxes and then got a $6000 refund.
What many folks don't know is that Alaskan residents get a permanent fund dividend check each and every year. When I was still living there, it topped out at around $1900 per person. And any politician who even *suggests* that instead of giving* it to the residents it could be used to help fund infrastructure like roads or airports or schools or hospitals will be voted out of office faster than your head can spin.
I grew up in Alaska and love the state. But there is a shocking amount of hypocrisy from a large proportion of the residents who say that they dislike and distrust the government and curse entitlement programs and those social programs that give support to the less advantaged, and at the same time take a $1700 check each year from the state government as their 'right' as Alaskans.
(*I don't say 'give back' because it was never generated from income/sales/property tax to begin with. It is instead a portion of the interest from the permanent fund which was, if I recall, established from taxes from the oil companies.)
This one is fairly easy to decipher. As long as " Uncle Ted " Senator Stevens was alive, Lisa Murkowski had a mentor, a phone call away. " Uncle Ted " paid for her election, following her appointment by her father Frank. It would be easier to pull a tusk out of a wooly mamoth with tweezers, than to get Ted Stevens to relinquish his power in Alaska, and Ted Stevens retained his influence with the Senate through Lisa Murkowski. With Stevens' death recently in the airplane crash, Lisa Murkowski had no intellectual guide for her role as Senator for the State of Alaska, as much of the voting public are hardly as fond of Frank Murkowski as they were of " Uncle Ted ". Palin won initially, more out of distaste for Frank Murkowski probably than Palin's personal attributes. Being an Alaskan resident for a couple of decades, " Uncle Ted" was considered one whom you could forgive an occassional transgression. That cannot be said so generally of Frank Murkowski. Ted Stevens fall from political grace pales compared to the numerous other crooks of political office record. Frank's sin was he appointed his own daughter to fill his seat, as if to pretend that there wasn't other intelligent qualified candidates in the state.
As an ex Alaskan resident, ( not of the city, but of the "bush" ( rural ) ), I find that the political pundits of this " Outside " (meaning resident of the 48 states ) area, aren't aware of other political realities, like small town Alaskans don't recognize political parties unless the candidate reaches state office status. A mayor or city council rep, can claim party affilliation, but it doesn't mean squat at election time. In Chicago, they're all crooked. In Seward they aren't.
It seems to me that Alaskans would really rather secede than be a part of the US. They want to destroy their environment and want the rest of the US to have nothing to say about it, except for when there is a catastrophe like the Exxon Valdez mishap. Without the help of the US attorney's office and all that brought to bear on the case it would still be in litigation. They have to learn to accept the good (billions of dollars in US largess) with the bad (a little control over the abuse of land). This drill baby drill mentality has done wonders for the Gulf coast and will likewise spoil the land around these development sites unless properly controlled. Like most underinformed people they just take the short term view of profits over the longer term view of preserving our environment. That's why government should exist. Unfortunately,as with their ex-gov. they are bought off by the oil and mining interests.
What the article even failed to mention is the "savings" account Alaska has: $30+ BILLION dollars just sitting there. So, it rakes in billions from the Feds, but could easily use some of it's own money for improvement and other things. Palin is not thought of too keenly up here, so her endorsement was probably not the tipping point. It was the parental notification initiative that brought out the pro-life crowd, who then punched Joe Miller's name. He's a flake, tho, an hopefully will be exposed. He couldn't even win a state seat in Fairbanks, which is pretty conservative in it's own right. But then again, most Alaskans are not the smartest of voters, witness Palin, so there is a good chance it will be Miller Time. Ugh.
-
The oil in Alaska does not go to the lower 48. It goes to Germany and Japan. If Alaskans are so enthralled with their natural resources (such as ANWAR), why do they not want to protect them? Over 90% of their land is open to drilling. Why would they want to destroy the protected wildlife refuge when it contains less oil than 5% of our needs for 2 years and would take 10 years to pump out of there? Alaskans don't seem to realize that their state could flourish by concentrating on tourism. Apparently it is a great place to mountain climb, ski, whale watch, etc. Promote the natural beauty of the state, use the resources WISELY, preserve the wildlife areas currently protected and enjoy your state. However, the post that states that the resources belong to all of us is correct. Federal lands belong to every citizen and every citizen should have a right to help decide how they are used.
When is Msnbc going to cover the real news. Instead you have headlines that have no value. Tray covering news that actually matter to the American public. How about jobs, unemployment, sales of existing homes, sales of new homes, Iraq,Afghanistan
The Demoncrats can't seem to come to grips with Palin. They fear her political power which lurks in the voter population and her vast popularity. She's a sort of kingmaker. The Demoncrats could never come up with a party like the Tea Party. They are skittish and fearful of outsiders infringing on their social philosophy. They rather have in subjugation groups of ethnic people to rely on in times or election or monolithic blocs. And they acted quite correctly as I suspected when the Tea Party came into focus. They immediately attacked its charismatic spokesperson whom they concluded that's its leader- Sarah Palin. I knew long before that Palin would be in for some rough times but the Tea Party does not have a leader so to speak and that has thrown the Demoncrats and its allies into disarray. The policy of the Tea Party was to search for prospective decent leaders in the community whether they had a political career or not. Ordinary people from all walks of life as candidates for election and this has given the Demoncrats a lot of headaches and you hearing them gasping and wheezing as unexpected candidates come from nowhere to win positions. They are baffled and rattled by these newcomers from nowhere and it seems to them to make no sense. Why? Because the Demoncrats have their work cut out for them. Their plans are well laid with social engineering and what have you , so when the Tea Party comes along with its conservative message , the idea of more conservatism bowled them over. They didn't like it one bit. So what they did is what any Demoncrat would do. They went after Palin from all angles. She represented a present danger to their social engineering with her conservative conservatism. Apart from that, petty jealousies from women especially in the Democratic camp let loose their cannons. Thinking that they had destroyed her, they are now finding out to their dismay that the Tea Party is now a winner in the coming election. But nowhere were the Demoncrats more mortally afraid of Palin than when she was campaigning with McCain. She appeared magically like a shooting star eliminating the trojan horse of the Bama. They considered her a threat. And they still do.
Your comment and thoughts would perhaps be more persuasive if you stopped calling names (demoncrats?). In calling names, you demonstrate that you don't want to participate in an honest dialogue but instead want to simply belittle and demean those you disagree with.
They the Dems, belittle us poor Conservatives so much that I could write a book full of it. The fact is they don't like the truth. For example, why do they belittle Beck? He is doing a magnificient service to the American people by educating them about our history, people who never went to school are learning, those who dropped out are learning, those who are curious and thirst for knowledge are learning new things about our founding fathers and their weaknesses and strengths. No, but instead complimenting him for the good work he is doing, perhaps you can peruse the blogs and see for yourself how they mock him, scorn him, call him names, demean him , degrade him and call his Beckistan. Well, let me tell those whites or those Americans whose fathers and ancestors came to America from Europe.. They came from one of those -kistan from somewhere around north or south of that area in the vast steppes of Russia. So they are mocking their own origins. I can understand when Beck is teaching politics but when he is teaching American history it is a different matter. And I have an increasing understanding that the Demoncrats don't like to hear the truth about American history being taught by Beck. They are trying to squelch his TV appearances. His programs are very effective and is hurting those who are trying to change America for the worse. The present political and economic situation is a classic example. Don't you think so?
I think Alaskans are going to miss "Aunt" Lisa just as they miss "Uncle" Ted. These two seasoned legislators managed to bring home a lot of bacon for their constituents.
The citizens of Alaska can say all they want about keeping the feds out of their business, but it's pretty disingenuous when you know about all of the $$ coming from the lower 48 to them.
north
Sing along Dems:
North to Wasilla , we go south the rush is on
North to Wasilla, we go south the rush is on
Big Sarah left Wasilla a long time ago
With Big John and his partner and Sister Bachmann too
They crossed the Canadian border to the rivers far below
With the northern lights are partying wild
In the land of the midnight sun and
And victories they are finding, south to Wasilla ,we go south
The rush is on
Sarah turn to John with victories in her hand
Enjoy Dems.
She said John, I am so happy , Lets take Washington
So North to Wasilla , we go south the rush is on
Well, if all you Alaska haters are so tired of them taking federal monies, then let them go, I am sure the majority of the residents will go for that.
Only 1% of AK is private land, in one way or another the feds control most of it. If AK became independent and developed their own resources, it would become one of the wealthiest nations on earth. We lived in AK during the 1960-70s and I became a proud member of the Alaska Independence Party. The dislike, no, the hatred of the feds was palpable then, and I expect same is true for today.
We arrive there with two young children, knowing no one, no job, very little money, and it was root wild hog or die, but we persevered (moose meat and Kool-Aid, nearest neighbor six miles) and in the end, did very well. Alaska will do that for some people seeking independency and self sufficiency, it offers the opportunity to do so if one so desires and separates the wheat from the chafe.
Sadly, some people don't realize that for the dogs, the Iditarod is a bottomless pit of suffering. What happens to the dogs during the race includes death, paralysis, frostbite (where it hurts the most!), bleeding ulcers, bloody diarrhea, lung damage, pneumonia, ruptured discs, viral diseases, broken bones, torn muscles and tendons and sprains. At least 142 dogs have died in the Iditarod, including two dogs on a doctor's team who froze to death in the brutally cold winds. FOR IDITAROD FACTS, GO TO WEBSITE: HELPSLEDDOGS.ORG.
Vaughn is right in pointing out that the rest of the country does not grasp Alaskan politics. Not only that, for many Outsiders, their hatred/fear/paranoia regarding Sarah Palin causes them to paint the whole state with a broad brush and make assumptions and comments that are ignorant, insulting, patronizing, and paternalistic all at the same time.
Before being chosen by the McCain campaign, Sarah Palin had approval ratings in the 80-85% range as governor. She was elected as part of a reaction against the kind of politics represented by the Murkowskis, corrupt state legislators, and even Ted Stevens. She had what could, at best, be described as a tense relationship with the state's congressional delegation and clashed publicly with both Stevens and Don Young. Of course, things were never the same after the national campaign.
Palin's resignation still sits very badly with many Alaskans who voted for her and supported her wholeheartedly when she was governor. She lost a lot of credibility here, and the national media overstates, I think, her influence in this race. She has done much more for candidates in other states than she did for Miller (who was not quite as unknown as the media has been portraying him to be). As for the Tea Party, I would say that their influence is also blown out of proportion to some extent. There is no question that the money they put into this race was helpful to Joe Miller, but they are not as prominent in politics up here as in the Lower 48 for the simple reason that Alaskans, on average, tend to distrust and resent Outside involvement/interference.
In my opinion, nobody has yet figured out (on the national level) what this race was really about. There has been (and continues to be) a great divide within the Republican Party here. On one side, you have the wing that supported Sarah Palin for governor and Joe Miller now. On the other side, you have the old guard personified by Ted Stevens and the Murkowskis. It is true that we loved and respected Uncle Ted. He did more for our state than any other individual. Those who resented him in the Lower 48 should educate themselves on what this state was like when he took office and what the money he brought to Alaska actually did. In any other state, these things would be considered vital infrastructure, and, for the most part, already exist. In Alaska, almost all of it had to be built over the last 50 years. Our appreciation for what Ted Stevens meant to the state, however, is tempered by the decades-old desire to have greater control over our own destiny. Palin (as governor) and Joe Miller represent the faction of the Republican Party here that believes we have to get away from our dependence on federal money and gain control of our own land and resources in order to continue our development as a state.
Many who have posted here seem resentful of Alaska's desire to develop its own resources. I fail to understand this. The average federal land ownership in states east of the Rockies is somewhere around 13% (in many it is less than 5%). Here, it is 60%. The state is still waiting for the transfer of land from the federal government which was guaranteed to us in 1959. Outsiders like to accuse us of being hypocritical for resenting the federal government while accepting so much federal money. I won't dispute that argument. It does have some merit. However, they are also hypocritical when they expect us to submit to federal regulations, laws, and restrictions which preclude us from becoming more self sufficient. If you do not want to spend so much money on Alaska, the solution is quite simple. Transfer the land we are still owed from statehood, give back the land Carter took from us in the '70s, and allow us to prove that we can take care of ourselves. This is the driving issue in Alaskan politics. Sarah Palin and Joe Miller are simply the products of it.