Discuss the issues

BLEAH!

I think it's funny (in a sick, twisted, nausiating way) that about 55% of Alaskans voted to change the way Murkowski was appointed to office.. and she feels shes validated because she won with 48% of the votes. Did she miss the point that over 50% of the state did not want her in office?

I'm still holding my breath for the totals to be finalized. In the lesser of evils, I think Knowles was the better choice.

Murkowski has just concluded her news conference. I didn't catch it; we'll have a story up momentarily.

From the ongoing Knowles news conference, which started at 2:30 p.m. in Anchorage:

?I pledged to put Alaska first.... I?ve called Sen. Murkowski and congratulated her on her victory in the Senate race. It is in the best interest of Alaskans that we move forward.? Knowles said he is ?no stranger to come-from-behind narrow victories? and indicated he believed a substantial number of votes remained to be counted. Nonetheless, he was conceding. He indicated the Democratic Party was monitoring the vote counting ?to ensure that every vote is counted.?

Knowles appears to be accompanied by lots of supporters, judging from the applause coming over the phone line.

I plan to listen in on Knowles' 2:30 (Alaska Standard Time) news conference, at which we are told he will make a "short" statement. Will pass along the material as it happens, assuming I can get a good line to Anchorage from the News-Miner's ol' Two Rivers Bureau

This just in from the Knowles campaign at about 12:20 p.m.: Knowles has now decided to make an announcement at 2:30 p.m.

Still unable to get anything from the Knowles campaign about what their plan is today. Murkowski spokesman Elliott Bundy said just minutes ago that he heard the Knowles people will be issuing a statement this afternoon. After that, Bundy said, "we will proceed accordingly."

Murkowski at this point has a lead of about 10,400 votes with three precincts outstanding. Those, Bundy said, total about 700 votes. So the issue seems to be revolving around the number of absentee and questioned ballots remaining to be counted.

The media, including the blog here, have been reporting for several days that the total number of absentee and questioned ballots would be about 60,000. Bundy says, however, that those might be absentee ballot applications, not the number of ballots actually returned. The Murkowski campaign believes the number of actual ballots might be about 15,000 to 30,000. "We are trying to get the division (of elections) to clarify this morning."

Just tried the Knowles campaign again and realized I didn?t listen to the whole message last time. It says this: ?Your call has been forwarded to an automated answering system; the mailbox for the Tony Knowles campaign is full.?

Well, that about sums it up.

Looks like Murkowski has a fairly insurmountable lead this morning at about 10,500 votes with just seven precincts out of 439 yet to report.

And what evidence do we have that the Knowles campaign, which has yet to concede, might be less-than-optimistic even though there are about 60,000 absentee ballots to be counted? Not much, though a couple of calls to Knowles headquarters in Anchorage this morning produced no sign of life. Just the answering machine. Over at Murkowski HQ, a person answered the phone with a cheery voice and reported that really there weren?t too many people in the office yet today. The main spokespeople and ?anyone who would know anything? weren?t even due in until about 10:30 a.m.

Interesting to watch the major networks attempting to call the vote at this time.
Some have "cautiously" added Ohio to the Bush column, some have said Ohio will be the state to watch for days and not added it to their tally.
(Note John Edwards just said on NBC from John Kerry HQ, "we've waited four years, we can wait one more night")
The electoral college tally at this time (all with Bush in the lead) per the networks:

CNN	249-211
MSNBC	269-211
FOX	269-238
NBC	269-207
CBS	249-238
ABC	...airing from Anchorage currently

Don't be surprised that if Knowles loses, some will complain that the nation should have a uniform poll closing time. That's because it became apparent well before the polls closed in Alaska that the Republicans would retain control of the Senate. That means that Alaska voters who were still unsure about who to vote for would, after hearing the news about continued GOP control of the Senate, perhaps find themselves weighing their choice this way: Do I vote for Knowles who now would certainly be in the minority or do I vote for Murkowski since I know she will be in the majority?

Is that how an Alaska race should be decided?

As Dave Barry likes to say, "I am not making this up": I arrived home about an hour ago, hurried out of the truck with diaper bag on shoulder and kid in hand, rushed through the front door about to begin the well-orchestrated feat of plopping the kid in the high chair, tossing her some snacks and running out the door again to feed the 25 dogs. Interrupting all this was a phone call that went something like this, in a recorded voice: "Hi, this is Tony Knowles..."

I spoke with several first time voters at Woodriver and Faith Baptist. Incredibly well informed opinions. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy about the next generation.
They were split between Republican and Democrats.

By 10 a.m. today 500 voters had cast ballots at Farmers Loop precinct. By noon ballots had been distributed to more voters than had voted in the August primary election.

Pollwatchers are out in unprecedented numbers. Election Supervisor Shelly Growden said usually there is just a handful, but this year they are at most polls. Some voters have called to complain about their names being spoken aloud so that a Republican or Democrat volunteer poll watcher can hear. It is perfectly legal according to Alaska statute, Growden said.

A couple of reporters called in to say the polls are extremely busy. At Faith Baptist, the reporter had trouble getting to election workers because the line was so long ... at 4:30 p.m. And at Gene's Chrysler, one election worker told a reporter: "This is the most exciting election since Dewey-Truman."

Despite a brisk day when temperatures hovered just above zero degrees in Fairbanks, dedicated campaign sign holders have took to the streets on Election Day in an effort to generate some last-minute votes for their candidates.
?Maybe if someone is deciding whether to vote, they?ll see us out there and go to the polls,? said Jennifer Flower, who joined a group of Lisa Murkowski supporters on the Cushman Street Bridge Tuesday afternoon.
?Daniel Rice, News-Miner staff writer

A caller said she was upset to see Gov. Frank Murkowski being interviewed by local television (she presumed) reporters after the gov. voted at her polling location.
She said eleciton workers couldn't tell her if it was improper or not, but that at least one agreed it "wasn't good" given that his daughter is running for office.
She was going to complain but the television folks and the governor were gone by the time she finished voting.
The same caller said she heard election workers were not checking identification at the Goldstream precinct.
Reporters will be checking with folks to see if there are perceived voting problems, but I wasn't overly concerned with what this woman said.
I.D. checking is fairly casual at my regular polling place since most of us are on a first-name basis or at least recognize each other from the neighborhood, school, etc. I can't remember the last time I actually pulled out my ID to vote.
The media interviewing the Gov. after he votes isn't unusual, and I suppose they'd rather do it inside the polling place than outside in zero-degree weather. I'd say taht at the point he's casting his ballot, the gov. is an individual doing his civic duty and the media should be able to approach voters to discuss their views near the polls so long as they aren't obstructing the process.

My favorite poll worker told me this morning this is the busiest he's seen the polls at Tanana Middle School in 10 years in our heavily military precinct. The most he's ever seen at that polling location is just over 400, he said. At 10 a.m. I was voter number 380. Wow.

Just got back from voting at the Two Rivers precinct, where workers there said it has been quite busy. As of 10:30 a.m., three and a half hours after the polls opened, the precinct had had 150 people cast ballots. For anyone reading this from Outside (another word for the Lower 48 states, for you Outsiders; don't ask why Hawaii isn't included), Two Rivers is a pretty small berg about 25 miles northeast of Fairbanks. So 150 people really is pretty good. Alaska is solidly for Bush, so folks are likely being drawn by the Knowles-Murkowski race, a pretty good local legislative race, and a couple of controversial ballot measures--liberalization of the state's marijuana laws and a ban on a hunting practice known as bear baiting.

Happy Election Day, at last. Since the national networks are doing a little Election Day weather forecasting this morning, just thought I'd pass on the weather from the non-swing-precinct of Two Rivers, Alaska, part-time home of AKBlog. This morning it's 2 degrees Fahrenheit with light snow falling. Perfect voting weather.

Here?s something interesting to ponder regarding the coattails of a presidential race: National pundits (and they are always to be trusted on matters of such great import) say the presidential race has come down to whoever wins two out of three among Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. Yes, there are the states of second-tier status such as Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan and perhaps Minnesota and New Mexico and a couple others, about eight to 11 overall. Notice, though, that most of them are in time zones of three to four hours ahead of Alaska?s.

So we must wonder about how an early and obvious Bush or Kerry win might affect the Murkowski-Knowles race. Will Democrats respond to an early announcement of a Kerry defeat by staying home and sulking or will they struggle on to the polls for Knowles? Likewise with Murkowski voters and a Bush concession. Or maybe Bush and Kerry will have the foresight to not concede until after the polls have closed, thereby avoiding the grave mistake of Carter, who in 1980 conceded to Reagan while the polls were still open in the West.

Maybe it?s time for uniform poll closings across the nation. Now that?s a topic that Alaskans, who haven?t had to deal with a really close statewide election since Young-Devens in, what was it, 1992 and Knowles-Campbell in 1994.

This provided by the state of Alaska for obtaining results Tuesday night:

The following links are three different locations you can find election results.

ACS http://elect.alaska.net

GCI http://home.gci.net/~elect/

Div. of Elections http://www.gov.state.ak.us/ltgov/elections/04genr/index.shtml

Due to the high volume of web hits on election night, it is recommended that you bookmark all three sites.

More scintillating, revealing information from the Poll Wars department: Late last week the Murkowski campaign issued a news release saying its candidate was leading Knowles by 11 points. Today comes an announcement from the National Republican Senatorial Committee calling reporters' attention to a new poll that shows Murkowski leading by 5 points.

So that would be a 6 point drop, right? No word from anyone about the potential spin possibilities here.

Just goes to show, that with both sides having said many times previously that this race was within a couple of points, that polls and the publicity that comes with them don't do much for the voter.

Here's a nugget from the Knowles campaign: They say they are telling people to expect Knowles to be trailing early in the vote counting since rural areas will probably come in later and that it could be a long night and long Wednesday. They say it's a distinct possibility that the winner won't even be known on Wednesday or until perhaps much later, as 60,000 absentee ballots must be counted.

One other newspaper endorsement to add to the list is from Alaska Newspapers Inc., which came out in favor of Murkowski. It's difficult to say, however, whether the endorsement is reflective of the group's individual papers and their communities--not that it actually needs to reflect the communities, though. ANI owns the Cordova Times, the Bristol Bay Times (Dillingham), the Dutch Harbor Fisherman, the Arctic Sounder (Kotzebue), the Tundra Drums (Bethel), the Seward Phoenix LOG, the Valdez Vanguard and the Anchorage Chronicle.The endorsement, the Murkowski campaign said today, was issued by the board of directors of Alaska Newspapers Inc. and appears to have been published in all ANI papers. Don't know who sits on the ANI board.

I was associate editor at ANI for about a year or so in the early 1990s, after The Anchorage Times folded, and am a little familiar with the company, which is owned by Calista Corp., one of the 13 Alaska Native regional corporations.

Here's an updated list of endorsements made by Alaska newspapers. This list adds the Kenai Peninsula Clarion:

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner: Murkowski

Kenai Peninsula Clarion: Murkowski

Voice of the (Anchorage) Times: Murkowski

Ketchikan Daily News: Murkowski

Anchorage Daily News: Knowles

Sitka Daily Sentinal: Knowles

Juneau Empire: Knowles

For what it's worth from the Poll Wars Department: The Murkowski-Knowles race has generally been described as quite tight, with a recent lead--as reported by a pollster for KTUU in Anchorage--of less than 2 percent in favor of Knowles. That was the finding of Ivan Moore Research, based in Anchorage and not the Moore Communications that works for the Murkowski campaign, which last week issued a news release saying a Moore Communications poll showed a lead of 10 or 11 percent (I can't recall which).

If true, that would be quite a closing-campaign surge. I hadn't heard of Moore Communications before, so I called Ivan Moore Research to see if the companies were one and the same. Ivan Moore himself left a message Sunday saying no, they aren't the same and he didn't do the Murkowski poll. He did say that he and other Alaska pollsters are quite skeptical of the Moore Communications poll. No explanation offered, however.

Addendum on all this, as if to complicate matters: Ivan Moore Research generally does work for Democrats. For what it, too, is worth.

Here's the latest on endorsements made today by Alaska newspapers:

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner: Murkowski

Voice of the (Anchorage) Times: Murkowski

Ketchikan Daily News: Murkowski

Anchorage Daily News: Knowles

Sitka Daily Sentinal: Knowles

Juneau Empire: Knowles

Sunday, Endorsement Day in Alaska:

So far we have the Anchorage Daily News going for Knowles and the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner going for Murkowski.

Haven't heard yet about the Juneau Empire and the Kenai Peninsula Clarion, which are owned by the same company.

Gary,

Glad to see you found the blog since your letter went to the wrong account. (I'm guessing this is the same Gary Newman I spoke to this afternoon, yes?)

The candidates will be making their final Fairbanks push Sunday and Monday.

Knowles' sked: "Vowing to put issues above partisan rhetoric, U.S. Senate candidate Knowles will meet with the local media to discuss his bipartisan support," says a Knowles media advisory. "Joining Knowles will be several longtime Fairbanks Republicans.... Media are invited join Knowles and local Republicans on Sunday, Oct. 31 at 10 a.m." A separate notice from the campaign says that Knowles will also be in Fairbanks, on the southside of town, on Monday at 1 p.m.

Murkowski's sked: Due in Fairbanks at about 8 a.m. Sunday for breakfast at Denny's Restaurant followed by two church services and a rally, Angelina Burney, Murkowski's Fairbanks area campaign manager, tells the newsroom. The candidates are "not even close to bumping into each other. She's coming in very early in the morning. They won't see each other in the airport."

Others have remarked in Letters to the Editor on the overflow of robo-calls from the two major parties for U.S. Senate candidates (more for R's than D's - we've received calls from Barbara Bush and Bob Dole) and the proliferation of illegal campaign signs, both of which are making this campaign season really annoying for residents.

A recent drive around town reveals Dist. 7 house candidate Mike Kelly with far more (even an illuminated sign) illegal signs than any candidate except Lisa Murkowski, who isn't far behind Mike.

Seems like D.O.T., who is responsible for removal, has given up more than they usually do.

Kelly talked about his CPR rule to only obey the spirit, knowing he is violating the letter of the law. I guess if we only have to obey the spirits of laws and not worry about the details, law enforcement and the courts will just have to adjust their perspectives. Makes me wonder how some candidates and their supporters can be so sanctimonious on some issues (e.g. Prop 2 on marijuana) yet turn a blind eye when it suits them.

Wow, sorry for the delay. The blog went down just after 6 p.m. Friday and didn't come up until about 4 p.m. today. We reposted Karen's comment, below. It arrived to our system but just didn't get to the blog.

I've got to catch up on some stuff to post. Meanwhile, take a look at the new interactive map about Senate control in our Resources section.

Former Governor Tony Knowles has said in several venues that as governor, he was successful at working with Republican legislators to get things done in Alaska.

As a legislative aide, I can tell you that the former Governor never left his floor of the Capitol to talk with legislators. Never once did he testify before a committee or meet with a legislator (not even the Democrats) in their offices.

During negotiations with Republican legislators over the budget and other issues, former Governor Knowles was partisan to the extreme, and used the media to distort the facts, scare Alaskans with lies and half-truths, and blame Republican legislators.

That was his true record of "working across the aisle."

His actions for eight years earned him only animosity and distrust among Republican legislators and their staff.

He'll do no good for Alaskans in the U.S. Senate with that kind of attitude.

Found this in the box from 9:13 p.m. last night from the Knowles campaign, moments after the debate concluded. It is a one-paragraph news release that seems to indicate the Exxon matter will be around for the remaining days. The difficult thing to figure out with this charge and many others, by both sides, is whether the campaigns keep beating the drum after such a length of time on an issue because the charge is gaining traction among voters or because it's not sticking and they really want it to stick.

Here's the coment from the Knowles team:

?Sen. Murkowski continues to act as Exxon?s chief apologist. Her last act before returning from Washington, DC was a vote to give Exxon a $6.5 billion tax giveaway. In May of this year, she had a chance to tie that tax giveaway to job creation and voted no. Tonight, Sen. Murkowski continued to put special interests ahead of Alaska families. Alaskans deserve better.?

That news release was followed, at 11:39 p.m., by this forward of a Bloomberg news service story by the Knowles campaign. It begins:

"Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded oil company, said third-quarter profit rose 56 percent as energy prices surged to record highs and chemicals earnings quadrupled."

So, wonder if the charge is sticking or the Knowles campaign is still trying to make it stick.

Well, I've been tied up most of the day reading about 700 column inches of letters to the editor regarding the Nov. 2 election. Not just the Lisa and Tony race, but all items on the ballot. It will take me a bit to get caught up on the blog.

Meanwhile, I found this nugget on the KTUU Web site.

"Why is Channel 2 News director John Tracy backing Lisa Murkowski for Senate? In fact, he isn't. But viewers could get that impression from a Murkowski ad using KTUU-TV news footage. The station wants the ads pulled off the air because they violate copyright laws. But the campaign so far has refused."

I wish the debate format had allowed more back and forth between the candidates. Overall, I thought Gov. Knowles gave more comprehensive, informed answers.

Can you find out more details from Lisa Murkowski on her plan to provide comprehensive health care coverage for less than $8 trillion alluded to in her last question. This seems a little far fetched.

Just finished watching the debate, and it doesn't appear any new ground was broken. Seemed to be the same dominant themes--nepotism, Exxon, ANWR, Senate control, veterans care.

It did seem a little unfair and unfortunate that the moderator and reporters often referred to Sen. Murkowski as Gov. Murkowski. Also didn't seem fair at the end that Murkowski got to ask Knowles two questions but that he only got to ask her one question. It's always a risk in live debates that the format will go awry because of time. Overall, though, seemed to be well done.

Reminder that the final statewide broadcast debate between Murkowski and Knowles is on in 15 minutes, on public radio and television.

Driving home tonight, saw a fair-sized Republican rally (signs for Bush/Cheney, Murkowski and local legislative candidates) on the Steese Highway. Good number of people at about 25 degrees.

Anybody catch the Anchorage Daily News story today about the ad that has Stevens so outraged? I can see how people would laugh, but I can also see how Stevens would get ticked off.

Anyway, the Associated Press didn't cover the Ted-Don-Lisa event Wednesday at which this came up, so that's why the story didn't make it's way up here. We're trying to get it today somehow. Apparently the ad has been pulled.

We don?t have anything on this since the event was in Anchorage, but Stevens and Young held a news conference today to attack Knowles and his campaign, apparently at length about his accusation that the corporate tax bill just approved by Congress--and supported by Murkowski--would give Exxon about $6.5 billion in tax breaks. Stevens, Young, Murkowski and Exxon say it isn?t so; Knowles sticks to the claim.

I did some research on my question about the minimum wage. Democrats have been trying to increase the minimum wage to $7.00/hour, Republicans oppose this.

If Democrats were successful in amending their minimum wae bill to S. 2062, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) planned to offer a watered down alternative to provide political cover(http://www.networklobby.org/issues/livingwage.html).

His bill would only raise the minimum wage to $6.25/hour and would likely have included provisions to decrease workers right, include tax giveaways to business, and remove overtime protection for workers(http://www.hillnews.com/news/041404/wage.aspx). Because the Democrats were not successful in bringing their minimum wage bill to a vote. Sen. McConnell never drafted or introduced his alternative.

For Sen. Murkowski to now claim to support a bill that was never introduced and was only intended as a political ploy is an incredible act of hypocrisy. If Republicans wanted to raise the Minimum Wage they could easily.

Just posted the extended excerpts of the Daily News-Miner's discussion with Murkowski and Knowles. As they say, sort of, in the DVD business: This includes bonus material not found in the Oct. 27 print edition.

Regarding the excerpted transcripts of the Murkowski and Knowles interviews that appeared in today's edition of the Daily News-Miner: We hope to have those, and additional excerpts, posted on this site later this evening or early Wednesday.

I suppose everyone has opinions about which topics are most important.

I feel that canidates tend to pick hot topics to ride on that don't necessarily give an accurate representation of how they really feel or will act when elected. "Do they feel marriage is a sacred doctrine that should be protected? Pro-Life? Enviornment? Are they feeding the greed monster triing to rape more resources from the land rather than pushing more towards alternate energy sources?"

It seems to me you have 2 types of canidates; those who want to be popular and try standing on the popular interests, and those that try to stand for what they feel is right, popular or not, and hope enough people also feel as they do.

If we remember that in a race with 5 canidates, it's not about who most of the people voted for, it's about who got the highest percentage of the votes. (ie you dont need 51% of the votes to win, 21% may do it in a 5 way race.)

I would urge people to know about ALL the canidates and vote thier heart. Who will try to do right by all of us and the future of our nation. vote-smart!

Sorry for the delay in the daily postings, but I had a few other things to contend with. First off, let me empty out the political stuff from the e-mail in box. Here we go, with the Murkowski PR staff seeming to be busier than the Knowles team these last couple of days:


From the Murkowski team today:
Headline: ?Knowles lies again about Exxon tax break; his position on key gas line incentives for Alaska?

?Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski says that Tony Knowles last night not only again attacked gas line incentives vital for an Alaska gas project to proceed, but also opposed a host of tax advantages for Alaskans....?

-----

This, a story from who knows where, also from the Murkowski office:

?Despite what Tony Knowles wants Alaskans to believe,? says the Murkowsk staff:

Headline on the below story provided by Murkowski people. Don?t know its source: Alaska pipeline project is viable without tax credit, industry exec says

AUSTIN, Texas -- Energy companies investing in the much-anticipated Alaska natural gas pipeline do not need a production tax credit on top of billions in congressional loan guarantees to move the project forward, a top industry executive said yesterday. But major challenges
remain before the pipeline linking Alaska's North Slope with markets in the lower 48 states becomes a reality...

-----

Meanwhile, the Knowles team refers us to a National Public Radio broadcast and provides the Web links:

Morning Edition, October 27, 2004 ? Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, is in a tough contest with former Gov. Tony Knowles. Murkowski's biggest obstacle: voter resentment over how she got to the Senate in the first place. Hear NPR's Elizabeth Arnold.

---

A day earlier, from the Murkowski office:



Headline: ?Once again, Knowles wrong, dead wrong about Murkowski?s record?

?Tonight?s third U.S. Senate debate between Sen. Lisa Murkowski and former Gov. Tony Knowles only lasted an hour, but Knowles made so many misrepresentations and distortions it seemed like it would never end....?

I had a few questions on the interview published in the paper today. Can you look into Sen. Murkowski's claim to support Mitch McConnell's minimum wage bill. My understanding is that Mitch McConnell is an ardent opponent of increasing the minimum wage, and if he did introduce a bill (I don't think he did)it was filled with a lot of "poison pills" so it wouldn't pass.

Also can you ask Sen. Murkowski for a list of the $1.4 trillion spending increases she says she voted against. I am very dubious of that claim. Her claim that the president will get the deficit "under control" is not credible. The President's plan only says it will cut the deficit in half in five years, and then it will increase again after that. In addition it doesn't include the cost of Iraq (they are asking for $70 billion more in January) or the costs of making the tax cuts permanent. Contrary to her assessment, very little of this deficit is due to the costs of Homeland Security.

Also her claim that John Kerry's rollback of the tax cuts for the wealthy will affect small businesses has been thoroughly debunked.

Good job on the interviews with the Senate Candidates. Thanks for trying to get a straight answer from Sen. Murkowski on Social Security. I felt her answers were evasive and showed a lack of understanding of the subject. She says "We can't be waking up on January 1 2018 and saying "Gosh, maybe we need to do something about Social Security". She seems to be unaware that we did do something to fix Social Security in 1983. Everybody has paid additional taxes for the last 21 years, but the Bush administration spent that tax money. She seems to support privatization of Social Security but doesn't mention the $2 trillion needed to implement this.

October 25, 2004

Politically Motivated Barrier to Open Debate Sets a Bad Precedent for Alaskan Democracy-Statement by Ralph Nader, Candidate for President, Populist Party of Alaska
For further information contact: Stephen Conn 202-2654000 ext.36

I was disappointed to learn that an exclusionary barrier of a required 5% showing in pre-debate polling has been introduced for a candidate to participate in upcoming US Senatorial debates on both commercial and on public TV and radio. It appears this was done to mollify Democratic challenger and former Governor Tony Knowles who had demanded a 15% barrier comparable to the one placed before me by the Republican and Democratic controlled Commission on Presidential Debates. To import this undemocratic standard, introduced nationally after Ross Perot was allowed into the 1992 debates and, afterwards, drew 19 percent voter support, takes Alaska in a direction entirely inappropriate for a state known for its tolerance of political independence and diversity.
It is especially injurious to residents of rural Alaska since the two debates televised statewide will now exclude Jim Sykes. For public radio and TV to cave into this political pressure is especially outrageous. I am reminded of the difficulty that public station KAKM TV had in showing the interview I had with Anchorage journalists in 2000. Only public pressure caused the station to finally show it. Even so, it may have cost the moderator his job.
This exclusion is completely out of character for Alaska when it comes to the use of public television and radio as each meets the challenge of political involvement by Alaskans statewide . KTOO, the producer of the upcoming debate, offers ?Gavel to Gavel? statewide. It provides a televised look at legislative committee hearings and floor sessions during the entire legislative session to every Alaska community. Alaskans participate telephonically in committee hearings.It is obvious KTOO has a deep appreciation of the special demands created by Alaska?s disbursed population when critical debates on public policy occur. This exclusion is a serious reversal of what has been an exemplary reverence for open political debate.
Governor Knowles? perhaps well-grounded fear of Jim Sykes has been translated into a public policy with far reaching consequences as it sets a precedent and draws a bright line between well-heeled campaigns and those less well funded. Look at opensecrets.org. for a comparative examination of the finances of the Knowles, Murkowski and Sykes campaigns, each of which has met FEC guidelines of disclosure. Knowles and Murkowski have collected and spent upwards of 4 million dollars each, their contributions from multinational corporations and other special interests. Sykes refused outside contributions and spent about $8,000.
What Knowles fears are reminders of his avid support and use of state funds to fight for an even bigger oil monopoly with approval of the purchase of ARCO by BP, a deal thankfully blocked by the FTC after hard work by Sykes and other activists, his dismissal of consumer interests by approving the merger of Safeway and Carr?s supermarkets and his support for so-called tort reform legislation which provides new legal immunities for corporate behavior even as serious as a future Exxon Valdez spill. Since both Murkowski and Knowles approve of the present acquiescence of state government to demands of the natural resources industry, and since both major party candidates favor such drains on other budgetary needs as the missile defense boondoggle, the opposing views on these and many other issues will never be heard in debate before a statewide audience without Jim Sykes. Which candidate will press for a fair share of windfall profits for Alaska oil now at over fifty dollars a barrel? Which will seek appropriate environmental protections for future pipe line accidents? Both the direction and content of the debate has been predetermined to the detriment of Alaskans by this arbitrary rule of exclusion. Sykes speaks to rural Alaska because of his substantial work experience in the bush, including direct involvement in the Berger Commission which held village hearings across Alaska. Rural Alaska?s perspective will be left out of the upcoming debates and rural Alaskans who do not travel to the AFN convention will not see and hear Sykes in their home villages as he engages his already well advertised competition. Murkowski and Knowles have plastered Alaska with media hits and sound bites which Sykes cannot afford or counter.
I hope Alaskans protest this new political censorship by conditioning future contributions to public broadcasting on a change of this new standard before it becomes permanent. Just as it limits robust debate at the national, Presidential level, so, also, does it diminish both the content of debate and limits participation in that debate before Alaska?s far flung populace.

For any non-cable people wondering why the debate isn't on KTVF in Fairbanks like a Murkowski announcement today said it would be: Seems there was some confusion somewhere. KTVF just told me that they told Murkowski's people weeks ago that it could not be aired here. KTVF apparently doesn't have an agreement with KTUU.

For voters without access to the televised debate under way in Anchorage, the AP will be moving a new version of the story I just posted on this site. Will post it when it arrives.

Just posted, on the home page, an AP story about how Alaska is among several states that hasn't applied for federal money to upgrade elections systems, like in buying new machinery. The story doesn't say why Alaska hasn't applied, however, so we'll be trying to find out. It may be that Alaska's system is fine as it is. Don't know.

Anybody hear this new radio by a group calling itself Time for Change? At least I think that's what the name is. The ad was a top-to-bottom ripping of Gov. Murkowski--not the senator but the governor. The ad didn't urge support of any candidate, so it was difficult to say whether it was aimed at legislative races or was intended--by name association--to influence the U.S. Senate race. The ad included a line at the end indicating the group consisted of Alaskans.

Wonder how many other groups will pop up in the final days.

A reminder that a debate between Knowles and Murkowski is scheduled for 7-8 p.m. today from Anchorage, hosted by KTUU-Channel 2 at the University of Alaska Anchorage. In Fairbanks, the debate will be carried live by KTVF-Channel 11.

Another statewide debate is scheduled for Thursday between the two candidates, also from Anchorage. This debate is sponsored by public broadcasting and will be broadcast on public radio and television stations from 8-9 p.m.

Today?s ?headlines? from the e-mail inbox, courtesy of the political campaigns and their supporters:

Media Advisory: Vets call for Tony Knowles "Veterans Governor" to be "Veterans Senator."
Veterans will pledge their support for Tony Knowles for U.S. Senate this Wednesday, October 27, 2004. On November 2nd veterans from across the state will be voting for Tony Knowles because of his commitment as mayor of Anchorage and Governor of Alaska to representing Alaska veterans and their issues.

Plus this brief reminder from the Murkowski campaign: ?Knowles has now twice received letters illustrating that his ads based on Congress passing a $6.5 billion tax break from Exxon are false. The ads are still up and the myth still persists.?

There?s a short story this morning over at www.nytimes.com/politics about Republican allegations of vandalism by Democrats nationwide. The issue came up in Fairbanks not long ago with vandalism at the Republican and Murkowski offices here.

The Times story begins: ?Citing incidents of violence at Bush campaign offices around the country, Republicans are asserting Democratic partisans have deliberately tried to intimidate voters, potentially storing ammunition for future arguments about the fairness of the election.?

Story doesn?t mention Alaska but cites incidents in many other states.

Up early this morning and I notice a new ad on the TV. This one, against Knowles, is by the Cooperative of American Physicians and nails Knowles on topics such as jobs, prescription drugs and taxes and links Murkowski favorably to George Bush.

So now we have physicians advocating for Murkowski and, as previously reported in the News-Miner, heavy financial support for Knowles from attorneys. Looks like the Alaska microcosm of the national slugfest between these two groups.

Alex,

Just checked with our managing editor on the missing explosives in Iraq. Story will, of course, be on page one tomorrow, though by then I imagine you will have all you need to know from news sources via the net. As for asking Murkowski about an inquiry, we could have if we had known this when we were talking to her during the two-hour session earlier this weke. Next time I talk to the campaign, I'd be happy to ask the question.

Gov. Frank Murkowski met with News-Miner editors about two hours ago to discuss progress on the proposed natural gas line. The governor recounted the latest developments, which all seem positive, and then was asked what he thought of the Knowles campaign's claims that the incentives just approved by Congress don't go far enough.

Knowles' claims, the Gov said, are "absolutely contrary" to what Exxon, BP, and ConocoPhillips have said. "He (Knowles) is looking for a place to light." Approval of the incentives, Gov. Murkowski said, "was a significant and unexpected turn of events" in the eye of the Knowles campaign."

Another gas line announcement is expected later this week, when the state will reveal the amount of its proposed equity interest in the gas line. The governor, Murkowski that is, was asked if the date of the announcement, coming as it does just days before the election, was intended to influence the Senate race. He said no, and that the date was set near the beginning of the year by the state's chief adviser, who has a busy international schedule and will not be available the first two weeks of November.

Here's the answer to the point about the University of Alaska Scholars Program, which shows up in a new Knowles ad. In the ad, a supposed voter says to another that Knowles supports issues of concern to them, including the expansion of the Scholars Program, which gives free tuitition to UA to Alaska's top high school students.

It's not a federal issue, though, so a senator wouldn't have much to do with it. But the ad might leave the impression that it's something the Senate can have some say in.

"Last I checked there is no federal money (involved,)" Knowles spokesman Matt McKenna told me today. "I don't think it ever hurts to have a U.S. senator lending a voice."

McKenna said that mentioning the Scholars Program is no different than the National Republican Senatorial Committee mentioning that Knowles will somehow affect the permanent fund if elected. That, presumably, is in reference to the ad saying that Senate Democrats have blocked the opening of ANWR, thereby denying the state some oil revenue, a portion of which would go into the fund and then to the dividend.

On the way to the office this morning I heard the Knowles-Bush ad that the Murkowski campaign mentioned to me (and that I touched on in an earlier post). Bush's name and the Yale connection to Knowles is indeed mentioned several times.

Curious thing about the ad, though, occurs when the two supposed voters in the ad begin to discuss the issues. One of the people mentions that Knowles supports expanding the University of Alaska Scholars Program, the program that provides free tuition to UA to the state's top high school students. How exactly is that an issue for the U.S. Senate? I'll ask and post the answer as soon as I have it.

The big story today is the revelation that 380 tons of powerful HMX and RDX explosives in Iraq are missing and presumably fell into the hands of terrorists (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html). The Bush administration has known about this since at least May, yet just recently informed the IAEA and may have been trying to suppress the information until after the election. These are explosives that were monitored by the IAEA prior to the invasion of Iraq but the Bush Administration failed to protect them after the invasion. This news comes right after the admission that entire nuclear facilities that were being monitored prior to the invasion are now missing. My questions are: Is the News-Miner going to cover this story, and is Lisa Murkowski going to put aside partisanship and call for an investigation into how this was allowed to happen?

I was surprised to see in the News-Miners Sunday election section that Lisa Murkowski expects the Bush tax cuts to increase federal revenue and eliminate the deficit. This theory has been thoroughly discreditied and even Bush's own unrealistic budget estimates don't make that claim. This reminds me of Frank Murkowskis ridiculous claim that the McCovey oil prospect would balance the state budget. In fact instead of increasing revenue, after three years the Bush tax cuts have resulted in the loss of 1.6 million private sector jobs, an annual budget deficit of over $400 billion and one of the weakest economic recoveries on record. I hope you didn't let her get away with this claim in your interview.

Offered for context only: Remember that National Republican Senatorial Campaign committee ad about the unemployment rate under Knowles when he left office in 2002? The ad notes the 8.1 percent rate but doesn't note that December, when a governor's term ends, is the off season up here for the heavy-hiring tourism and fisheries industries. Now comes a U.S. Department of Labor unemployment report, which made the news cycles on Saturday, that says this:

"Overall, unemployment rates fell in 23 states, rose in 22 states and held steady in five. Jobs were added last month in 33 states, lost in 16 states and were unchanged in one.
"Job losses in two battleground states, Michigan and Oregon, have helped Kerry win an edge there. Oregon had the third-highest unemployment rate last month, at 7.3 percent, behind the District of Columbia and Alaska. In Michigan, the rate ticked up to 6.8 percent last month with 14,800 jobs lost.
"But other high-unemployment states are solidly behind Bush, including Alaska and South Carolina. Alaska's jobless rate held at 7.6 percent last month. In South Carolina, the rate climbed to 6.9 percent in September, up from 6.4 percent."

So I finally figured out what Bob King at the Knowles camp meant when he told me earlier today, when speaking about what the Murkowski team will do in the final week of the campaign, that the Knowles people have prepared for ?when this stomp occurs...? Seems I should have put the word ?stomp? in all capital letters, since it?s an acronym for a Republican strategy. King had tried earlier to explain it to me, but he wasn?t clear what the letters stood for, and I didn?t look it up until just a few minutes ago.

STOMP is a strategy of the National Republican Congressional Committee and its letters stand for the Strategic Taskforce to Organize and Mobilize People. A STOMP Web site describes the effort as ?a nationwide network of dedicated volunteers who have committed to assisting Republicans in our most competitive areas. By strengthening our party in the most competitive areas, we will lead all of our Republican candidates to victory.?

It goes on: ?The political stakes were incredibly high in the elections of 2000. This year, the stakes are even higher. As a nation at war amidst a recovering economy, now more than ever, we need the steady hand of Republican leadership at the national, state and local levels.?

There doesn?t seem to be a specific reference to this applying to Senate races, however. Elliott Bundy at the Murkowski HQ in Anchorage said he didn?t know anything about STOMPing.

So, there you have it.

Sorry for the delay; had to take care of a couple of domestic things. Here?s the Murkowski team?s take on what to expect in the final week. It comes as a response to comments the Knowles camp made to me a couple hours ago in which they expect a heavy and negative ad blitz from Murkowski.

?That's interesting because that's all we've been hearing from them,? says Murkowski campaign spokesman Elliott Bundy. ?They know they've been telling half-truths and
lying since they stared the race. They are nervous it might be coming back to them.?

?Let?s see what they?ve done: three TV ads based on lies, paid phone calls to the entire state... based on misrepresentations of Lisa?s records on veterans, the Exxon lies... there?s one where they refer to the gas line as a pipe dream.?

What does the Murkowski campaign think the Knowles strategy will be this final week? ?I think they've telegraphed what they are going to do already.? Bundy says. ?It will be a heavy hit on the appointment factor despite the fact they said they wouldn?t. I think they will try to make people believe the Exxon lie. I think they will try to make the gas line not the accomplishment that it is.?

Bundy also says he?s heard a new Knowles radio ad in Anchorage the last few days in which Knowles ?is trying to make he and George Bush appear they are good friends. It repeats that he and Bush are frat brothers? from Yale.

Of the overall Knowles campaign strategy in the last weeks: ?Increasingly desperate,? Bundy says.

I?m back. Had to migrate to the home office. So, as I mentioned previously, I have words from the Knowles and Murkowski camps about their expectations for the final days. I thought I?d check in with them after seeing that the Knowles Web site has this fairly recent addition: ?You are going to see a lot of TV, or mail and phone calls that are misrepresenting Tony's record. If you have any questions, please call...?

Does the Knowles campaign really expect to see more of this? Yes, Knowles spokesman Bob King said Sunday afternoon. ?A pretty strong and largely negative attack.?

?Generally we do expect this last week to be tough, which is why that disclaimer is on there,? King says. ?It?s been the history, the trend of recent Republican campaigns that they focus a lot of the effort into the final weeks.

?Part of our response to this started a year ago. It?s one of the reasons we?ve had people in the field and talking to voters since springtime... so that when this stomp occurs, people already have background, but, more importantly, they know who to turn to.?

The Murkowski campaign, however, scoffs at the idea and says it?s the Knowles campaign that is responsible for the tone of this campaign that they describe as one of the most negative the state has seen.

I?ll get to the Murkowski team?s thoughts in a minute.

Well, stopped in the office here to take care of a few things. To my surprise, the campaigns are keeping their fax machines and e-mail lines to the media quiet today. Doesn't seem to be much going on, at least on the surface. Both major candidates are in Anchorage today for events and debate prepping since three debates are scheduled in the coming week.

Also, just spoke with people at the Murkowski and Knowles campaigns to ask them about their expectations for the final week. Each side expects it to be, surprise, more negative than it has been so far. Let me sort through my notes and I'll pass on some nuggets from those conversations in a little bit.

Ten days to Election Day.
This nugget from an Anchorage Daily News story today, Sunday, about tomorrow's opening of the Alaska Federation of Natives convention in that city. For the uninitiated, this is the largest gathering of Alaska Natives and draws thousands of people to the big city from all over the state. It's as much a political gathering, maybe even more so, as it is a cultural and social event.
The ADN story notes that U.S. Senate candidates will participate in a Q & A session with delegates on Friday but that the AFN is not expected to endorse any candidate in the race. I don't know if that's long-standing policy. Even so, expect delegates to take their impressions back home with them and maybe do some personal endorsing among neighbors.

A quick update on the campaign finance charts in the middle of this Senate race home page: A few days ago I spoke with one of the executives at politicalmoneyline.org, the nonpartisan group that sorts through the Federal Elections Commission reports and makes sense of them for the rest of us (the reports are enormously huge, running in the hundreds of pages at each filing period). The exec said that there was very little chance they would have the Murkowski and Knowles reports broken down before Election Day, so all we have are the ones on the home page. The group is working on races throughout the nation, and it's a lost cause at this point to think they will all get done before Nov. 2.
At this point in the cycle, if I recall the conversation correctly, the campaigns will be filing 24-hour reports if needed, based on the size of contribution they might bring in.

Alex,

I don't know the answers to your questions about the type of touch-screen voting machines Alaska will use. There haven't been many stories about it, which means it's something we will need to rectify. I'd like answers to your questions, too, so I'll try to remember to ask someone. E-mail me at work sometime and remind me.

By now everyone no doubt has become aware that funding for veterans health care has become a major ping-pong ball between Knowles and Murkowski. And it can be tough to figure out who's telling the truth. Now even Sen. Stevens is getting things not quite correct. Alaska's senior senator appears in a current Murkowski ad saying ads by the opposition claiming Murkowski has done little for veterans "aren't true." He goes on: ?Just this month, the Senate approved a bill with record funding for vets, over $70 billion.?
Well, that's not true, either. The Senate has not approved the bill. It only recently was passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee, of which Stevens is chairman. A Murkowski campaign aide said Saturday that Stevens' comments are essentially correct since the full Senate is expected to approve the funding after the election.
A full story on the latest in the Murkowski-Knowles duel over veterans funding will be posted here within a few hours, maybe sooner.

Sorry for the long absence on the blog today, but I had to deal with some things for the Sunday print edition. I'll be online here through the evening and will have a couple things to pass on.

First off, it seems anyone can try to cozy to McCain. Murkowski has already run an ad in which the popular Arizona GOP senator says Lisa must be returned to the Senate. Lately--and tonight even--the radio has been popping with a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ad critical of Murkowski on several fronts and noting, in one line of attack, that she supported the just-passed and signed corporate tax bill that McCain has been loudly opposed to.

Any word if the Touch Screen voting screens in AK will provide a voter verifiable paper trail, what company is going to make them, what testing will be conducted, etc.?
The Democratic Party Platform has a very strong statement in support of a voter verifiable paper trail. I'm not sure why Republicans oppose this.

Here's a loose end that needs to no longer be loose: An Oct. 17 Associated Press story (it's archived in General News here) about Alaska's vote-tabulation machines said it was unclear whether touch-screen machines would be used in the state in the Nov. 2 elections. It was unclear because the AP couldn't find a Division of Elections source on the weekend and because a column written by Lt. Gov. Loren Leman on the topic was unclear. So, the word from an elections division official on Friday was that there are no plans to use touch-screen voting machines anywhere in Alaska on Nov. 2. The state apparently will be moving toward their use at some point, however.

Some touch-screen machines have become a touchstone for controversy in the Lower 48 primarily because they do not provide the voter with a paper record of the vote.

Ron,

You're correct about Stevens losing his appropriations chairmanship regardless of which party gains Senate control. I noted that here four posts earlier. We'll have a story in the print edition before Election Day. Our Senate race reporter says he's heard a few people complain about a current ad in which Stevens talks about this.

As for your point urging the News-Miner, or I presume any media outlet, to report on distortions by any candidate, I can only say that there seem to be too many for us to keep up with. And that, unfortunately, is no distortion on my part. We've done some "fact check" stories and have archived them on this site in the Ad Wars section, and we aim to do as many as we can in the remaining days.

I would like to see the FDNM point out obvious distortions of facts on the part of any candidate.
For example, a add paid for by the national republican committee states that if Knowles elected, Ted Stevens will lose his committee chairmanship.
Talk about deceit. He will lose chairmanship of appropriations no matter who is elected.

So where are Murkowski and Knowles on the statewide ballot measures? It?s worth noting because three of them, Nos. 2, 3 and 4, have federal connections.

Measure 2, in brief, is a proposal to ?remove civil and criminal penalties under state law for persons 21 years or older who grow, use, sell or give away marijuana or hemp products.? It would allow the state to regulate the products. Even so, possession would remain a crime under federal law, so the matter of enforcement funding could come to Congress.

Measure 3 is a proposal to ban bear baiting. A proposal for a federal ban came up in Congress either last year or earlier this year but failed to advance. It could come up again, so the candidate?s views on this measure could offer insight to how they would handle the measure in the Senate.

Measure 4 is the constitutional amendment regarding the filling of a vacant U.S. Senate seat. The conflict between this measure and a bill approved by the Legislature and signed into law earlier this year is that the ballot measure repeals the provision allowing for a temporary appointment until a special election is held.

Here are the positions:

Measure 2: Knowles, no; Murkowski, no
Measure 3: Knowles, yes; Murkowski, no
Measure 4: Knowles, yes; Murkowski, no

Another indicator of the notoriety of Alaska?s U.S. Senate race comes from The Economist, which included an article about the campaign in its Oct. 21 edition online. You have to subscribe or buy the article, though, at www.economist.com.

The article opens with a little explanation about Alaska for those unfamiliar with our land. In doing so, the magazine refers to this now-famous episode in Alaska politics: ?The state?s single congressman, Don Young, a Republican, once flourished a walrus penis-bone at the federal Fish and Wildlife Service director at a congressional hearing. But Alaska is changing.?

Ah, but why should we want to change? And since when was Don Young single?

Something to ponder: One of the Murkowski and GOP arguments against electing Knowles is that big-time Democrats Daschle, Kennedy and Clinton would control Alaska's future if Knowles is elected. Yet recent stories show it to be, while not a long shot, at least a great difficulty for Democrats to win enough of the eight competitive Senate races to regain control of the chamber.

Here's a paragraph from a story in the Oct. 18 edition of the Washington Post: "In addition to Daschle's all-out battle, Democrats are trying to hold seats left open by retirements in three states that President Bush is virtually certain to carry--North Carolina, South Carolina and Louisiana--and in the toss-up state of Florida. Georgia is considered unwinnable, but Democrats are positioned to grab Illinois's GOP-held seat, so they would offset each other.
With Bush favored to carry seven of the eight states with highly competitive Senate races--and Florida considered a dead heat--Democratic nominees are focusing on local and nonpartisan issues as much as possible."

So the question to the Murkowski camp today was this: Doesn't the favorable GOP prospects in those Outside Senate races undercut the claim that electing Knowles would tip the balance to the Democrats? Murkowski spokesman Elliott Bundy offered this in reply:

"A lot of these races, like South Dakota, are too close to call right now. Should Republicans not pick up those seats, it's essential that Murkowski be elected. She has confidence we (Republican Senate candidates) are doing well, but polling across the country shows it too close to call at this point."

Just something to chew on.

In the name of clarity: The National Republican Senatorial Committee has been running an ad on radio (I don't know about TV) that says a vote for Knowles is a vote to take away Sen. Ted Stevens' chairmanship, which has "done so much for Alaska"--or words exceptionally close to that. The line is presumably in reference to Stevens' chairmanship of the Senate Appropriations Committe, which he has led since 1997, except for the brief period when the defection of Sen. Jim Jeffords gave control to the Democrats. But Stevens will be forced to give up the chairmanship in January anyway, even if the GOP retains control of the Senate, because of the self-imposed limits of the Senate Republican caucus.

Stevens will retain a seat on appropriations and will likely remain chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee. He will probably next take up the chairmanship of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Alex,

We did talk quite a bit today with L. Murkowski about the nepotism issue. I don't have any notes from that here at the home office, so I'll have to check with the others tomorrow to relay her statements on Measure 4.

With Knowles running hard now on the issue of the unpaid damages from Exxon for the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, a few people have asked this question: Why is he doing it? The plausible answer might not seem too clear in the Interior, far from the beaches of Prince William Sound, where the oil glopped ashore 15 years ago. It seems Knowles is trying to appeal to residents of the Sound communities, whose fishing industry suffered mightily and whose voter rolls are stocked with many more Republicans, undeclared and nonpartisan voters than they are with Democrats. He needs to find crossover Republicans and the others wherever and however he can if he is to win.

Here are the combined voter registration numbers, as of Oct. 4, 2004, for Cordova, Valdez and Seward, according to the Division of Elections: Democrats, 950; Republicans, 1,419; undeclared, 2,889; nonpartisan, 1,039.

Knowles no doubt hopes that talking about the stalled Exxon checks works like some tasty bait in those fishing towns.

Look for the latest on the Exxon story on this Web site in about an hour.

This post is actually about the House race. I would like to know why Don Young received a $1592 contribution from Majority Leader Tom Delay's unethical PAC even though he is not facing any serious opposition.

Does Don Young plan to give this money back and does he have any plans to call for Tom Delay to step down following four ethics violations, the felony indictment of three staff members, and his recent subpoena in the Texas redistricting case? Will he vote for Tom Delay as Majority Leader again next session? I think this would make a good story for the News-Miner.

The Anchorage Press has a good story on how all state Republicans are trying to distance themselves from Frank Murkowski and the ethical transgressions of Loren Leman, Greg Renkes, Scott Ogan, and Randy Ruedrich.

State Senator John Cowdery told Murkowski's chief of staff "Just stay out of my campaign. That's how you can help?

This is an under reported aspect of the nepotism issue. I suspect Lisa Murkowski would be trying to distance herself from Frank even if she didn't share 50% of his genes. Murkowski's appointees have been defeated around the state.

You call Peggy Wilcox's statement inaccurate, but can you please ask Sen. Murkowski how she plans to vote on Prop. 4 (the Trust the People Initiative)? She says she doesn't support it, but claims it is inaccurate to say she is voting No.

Which is it, is she going to vote Yes on a proposition she thinks is "the wrong public policy for the state and the nation", or is she going to vote No as most reasonable people would conclude from reading her statement. It is a simple yes or no question.

We just wrapped up our two-hour interview with Murkowski in the companion session to the Knowles meeting we had earlier in the week. Now that both are done, it's OK to mention the topics we discussed with her. Didn't want to bring them until both were done since neither candidate received advance notice of the topics.

Not sure if all the material will fit into the special edition we plan for Wednesday, but here are the topics we discussed with both candidates: assault weapons ban, prescription drug importation, Supreme Court nominees, fixing Social Security, nepotism in the Senate appointment, federal spending in Alaska, ANWR, energy conservation, missile defense, pre-emptive war, paying for college education, Patriot Act, minimum wage, No Child Left Behind Act, and federal funding to Alaska Native tribes.

Other questions have been asked in written surveys given to all candidates earlier by the Daily News-Miner. Candidates' answers can be found on this site in the "On The Issues" section.

OK, just got the Oct. 1-13 FEC summary report for the Murkowski campaign. The report, provided by the campaign, shows monetary contributions of $400,071 for the two-week period and overall net contributions, through Oct. 13, of $4,679,265.
Murkowski had $586,494 on hand as of Oct. 13 but also had outstanding debts of $33,720.

Knowles, as mentioned in an earlier post, raised $339,716 in the same period and had a net total of $4,772,446 with $639,492 on hand as of Oct. 13. The campaign reported no outstanding debts as of that time.

So the overall money race--and it is a race--goes to Knowles by a slim $93,180 through Oct. 13. But don't make too much of this. Everyone knew this would be a close race, and these summary reports reflect that. What they don't say is who is doing the giving, as in how much came from Republican and Democratic parties and committees. The detailed reports are available but are lengthy, and we haven't seen them yet. The Knowles camp says their two-week October report runs about 200 pages.

The folks at www.politicalmoneyline.com, which is referred to on this site's home page, said this morning that it's unlikely they will have the numbers broken down before the election.

Stevens, by the way, has a news conference scheduled in Fairbanks at 1:15 p.m. today. Likely he will be discussing the campaign. Maybe will have something to say about the Knowles news conference in Anchorage.

This is a nice segue: As the Murkowski fund-raising is occurring today in Fairbanks, today is also a Federal Election Commission deadline for reports covering the period Oct. 1 to Oct. 13. Don't have the Murkowski figures just yet, though the campaign may be providing them to us today, but the Knowles numbers are in. Here they are:
Knowles raised $339,716 for the two-week period, bringing his campaign net total to $4,772,446. Knowles had $639,492 on hand as of Oct. 13. As a campaign spokesman put it: No point in keeping any of it around after Nov. 2.

Good morning, on this snowy Thursday in Fairbanks. The day is shaping up to be a busy political one in the Interior, with Sen. Ted and Rep. Don attending two events in town for Sen. Lisa, who is also in town. Those events, along with print and broadcast advertisements by Ted and Don, attest clearly to the strategy of saving the big guns for the end. Don't know how Knowles could possibly counter with actual heavyweight D bodies at this stage, though. Maybe he should bring up Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords, who wears the independent label that Knowles so often says he also aims to wear.

Meanwhile, down in Anchorage, Knowles has an 11 a.m. news conference scheduled to fire back in the running exchange over whether Exxon stands to gain $6.5 million from the recently passed corporate tax bill. Details here after the event.

Looks like it's Alaska's turn in the New York Times senatorial spotlight. The paper has been doing pieces on key races, and the Knowles-Murkowski race is today's featured piece. It's the general overview that we all could recite by memory at this stage of the campaign but nevertheless is well done.

Find the story at www.nytimes.com/politics. The story will likely rotate out in a few hours, so you'll need to search the archive if you arrive late.

I just uploaded the latest batch of candidate surveys to the "On The Issues" area of the Senate site home page. Click on "News-Miner Surveys" to see the candidates' answers to several more questions posed by the News-Miner. The only candidate who didn't respond this time is Jerry Sanders of the Alaskan Independence Party.

The surveys will also appear in the print edition this Sunday in a special section that will also include survey answers from candidates in legislative races. The section will also include information about the four ballot measures as well as some material about national races.

OK, sorry for the delay here, but I've got a copy of the letter that Murkowski sent to Peggy Wilcox. Nowhere in the letter does Murkowski actually say she will be voting no on Measure 4. The closest she comes is in saying "I support Alaskans voting to fill a vacancy in our U.S. Senate delegation... The governor should have the ability to make an interim appointment of from the 60 to 90 days or longer that it might take to hold a special election and fill the vacancy."

She does, indeed, call Measure 4 "the wrong public policy for the state and the nation."

Sure seems like she's going to vote no, but the letter doesn't actually say she plans to vote no. Some will call it a technicality, but it's a distinction worth noting and renders Peggy Wilcox's announcement inaccurate.

Received this just after noon from Peggy Wilcox, campaign manager for Trust the People Yes on 4, the Senate vacancy measure:

"Senator Lisa Murkowski has finally taken a position on Ballot Measure 4, confirming Tuesday she will not support the initiative that would outlaw nepotism and establish a common-sense approach to political appointments."

"In a Tuesday letter to Peggy Wilcox, campaign manager for Trust the People Yes on 4, Murkowski confirmed that she did not sign onto Ballot Measure 4 and that she will be voting NO on it November 2."

"Murkowski called Ballot Measure 4 the 'wrong public policy for the state and the nation.'"


Well, I just checked with the Murkowski campaign after receiving Peggy's mass e-mail. Curious thing here is that the campaign seems to be disputing Peggy's assertion. Spoeksman Elliott Bundy says he doesn't believe the letter to Peggy said anything about how Murkowski intends to vote. Campaign will be sending up a copy of the letter, so we'll see for ourselves.

More from the "Who The Heck Do You Believe Department," also known as the Poll Wars:

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee minutes ago launched the following news release. Remember, though, that the GOP side will probably send out a notice showing their own polling has their candidate in the lead.

From the DSCC news release:

"Former Alaska Governor Tony Knowles has opened up a 4 point over Lisa Murkowski who was given her job by her daddy Frank and Knowles is inching closer to 50 percent as daughter Murkowski remains mired in the mid 40?s. In a poll conducted for the DSCC by the Global Strategy Group between 10/17 and 10/19 Governor Knowles enjoys a lead over daughter Murkowski of 48-44 among definite voters and 47-43 among likely voters. The poll among 600 likely voters has a margin or error of +/- 4 percent."

Yesterday I wondered here how long it would take for one of the campaigns to make use of material from the Fairbanks debate, which had just concluded when I posted the thought.

The rapid-fire response would go to the Murkowski team, who launched a news release at 8:41 p.m. with the following headline:" In 2nd Debate, Tony Says He Would Not Have Supported Passage of Gas Line"

The news release begins:

"Today in Fairbanks, Tony Knowles actually admitted that he would not have supported passage of the gas line. This stunning blow to Knowles' credibility, combined with the new low Tony has reached in his advertising, proves that he is utterly incapable of putting Alaska first as he so often claims.

"The Knowles campaign is engaging in the ugliest form of politics Alaskans have ever seen. With Tony's new TV and radio ads, Tony proves that he either doesn't understand the issues he pretends to defend or he doesn't care that he is knowingly lying to Alaskans."

It goes on.

No spin, or anything at all, from the Knowles camp about the debate, though the candidate himself did make some charges about Murkowski's comments when he met with us just a couple hours after the debate.

Sure am glad the roads were real icy this morning. Kept me on the road a lot longer, which meant I got to hear a few new radio ads--a few times each. Seems there's quite the exchange under way over Exxon, its taxes and what it owes in damages from the 1989 oil spill.

The severest tit for tat, however, comes over federal funding for veterans. It's officially a heavyweight fight now with Sen. Ted entering the ring saying flat out that the latest Knowles ad is wrong when it accuses Murkowski of doing nothing for veterans.

We'll need to be checking ASAP on both these matters to make sense of things. Otherwise, who to believe?

Sure am glad the roads were real icy this morning. Kept me on the road a lot longer, which meant I got to hear a few new radio ads--a few times each. Seems there's quite the exchange under way over Exxon, its taxes and what it owes in damages from the 1989 oil spill.

The severest tit for tat, however, comes over federal funding for veterans. It's officially a heavyweight fight now with Sen. Ted entering the ring saying flat out that the latest Knowles ad is wrong when it accuses Murkowski of doing nothing for veterans.

We'll need to be checking ASAP on both these matters to make sense of things. Otherwise, who to believe?

About the only public polling going on in this race is being presented by KTUU Channel 2 in Anchorage, which uses Anchorage pollster Ivan Moore Research, a company regularly mentioned as being affiliated with Democrats. Make your own interpretation of what that means, I suppose.

Anyway, the latest Moore poll is offered up extensively at www.ktuu.com. It?s dated Tuesday and shows ?Tony Knowles still in the lead with 46.9 percent, Lisa a little closer at 45.3 percent. A lead of just 1.6 percent--about as tight as it has been...?

Lisa?s numbers have been improving in several respects, Moore says. The big question, as both campaigns have stated for some time now, is how the undecideds will break. The campaigns expected the undecideds to account for 4 to 6 percent of the pool, and the Moore poll has it at 4.2.

As for pollsters in use by the campaigns: Knowles is using the same Outside company he used in his 1994 and 1998 gubernatorial campaigns; Murkowski is reportedly using the same Outside pollster her father used in his run for governor in 2002.

OK, here's a bit of nonpartisan humor: Are those actually peace sign-waving Knowles groupies swooning over the former governor in a Web poster promoting an Oct. 26 debate-watching party at the Blue Loon in Fairbanks? The event is billed as the last Fairbanks fund-raiser for the Demo's campaign. The candidate himself is holding a microphone in the poster. It's doubtful he's singing while holding that clipboard, though.

Speaking of fund-raisers: The incumbent has fund-raisers scheduled in Anchorage but apparently doesn't have groupies, at least not any noted on a readily accessible Web site. She does, however, have Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi as the special guest at the home of former Anchorage Mayor George Wuerch.

Well, it appears we won't have a third-party story in our election section (which goes to press tonight). I could come up with nothing from NYTimes, AP or partner newspapers. I even Googled and couldn't come up with something worth asking for permission to reprint.
Most of what pops up are stories that focus on exclusion from debates and don't say much about the individual candidates or their main issues.
Asking our staff for something is out of the question. We're booked.
I contacted MediaNews Group's wire service editor and he agreed a presidential minor-party story is something the group could probably use. He said he would approach editors at the Denver Post and contact editors at some of the other larger papers in the group (LA, Salt Lake, Oakland) and see if anyone has produced or will produced something at least somewhat comprehensive that can be shared among our member papers.
Thanks again Deirdre.

Interesting two-hour interview today with Knowles at the Daily News-Miner following his 90-minute debate at the Chamber of Commerce.

The candidate looked a little weary at our office as his double-header progressed. Talk touched on many topics, which we won't list here since we don't want to give advance notice to Murkowski, who is scheduled to appear here on Thursday.

Some of the topics covered material that has yet to be reported on. Others were topics that have been discussed but only in brief. Only reason for not sharing the topics here just yet is out of fairness to Knowles, since he wasn't give a heads up on the topics before the questioning began.

OK, the Fairbanks debate between Knowles and Murkowski has just concluded. Let's see if the campaigns send forth performance assessments and spin. Bet it doesn't take too long.

The Fairbanks debate is under way, with each side getting periodic applause from the crowd of a few hundred people. So far, the exchange has been civil but pointed.

It's live on KFAR 660 AM.

In reference to Deirdre's comments, best I can say now is we'll give a good look at getting out some information on the third-party candidates. I agree with you, in essence.
Thanks for the comment on that. It helped focused our attention on coming up with that content. I confess it hasn't been top-of-mind for us.
What Rod said about wire content is true. I just did a two-week back search of our AP link on the names of minor presidential candidates and (with the exception of very few Nader items) the only hits came with AP's test files for election results listings.
(well, at least they're making the list). Sad but true.
The search doesn't end there. I'm sure we can come up with something, if not for the election section then we'll have something in the paper prior to the election.
In terms of putting out a local paper we often don't look deep into the wires because most days we're doing our best just to find space to print the top stories of the day. That's not an excuse, but it's one reason those names may not have shown up much even if they did make the wire in the past months. We could print a lot more just sorting out claims and counter-claims of the major-party camps.
We have more real estate than the Ester Republic, but we still have space challenges. They just come daily instead of once a month.

This news release just in from the Murkowski camp:

Headline: Knowles Campaign Accepts llegal Donations

"Publicly available information reveals that the Tony Knowles for U.S. Senate Campaign has accepted excess illegal campaign donations in violation of the federal campaign disclosure laws. The illegal donations have come from the New Democrat Network which has been airing television spots on Alaska stations."

"Under federal law certain groups can make independent expenditures in connection with federal campaigns. However the independent groups cannot coordinate with the affected campaigns in any manner. If they do coordinate, the independent expenditures become in-kind donations. "

"The Lisa Murkowski for U.S. Senate campaign through its attorney today filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission pointing out the violation and asking the FEC to immediately institute a full investigation of this illegal activity. "

Here's the latest from the Knowles campaign on the new ad regarding Murkowski's appointment:

Knowles spokesman Bob King said this morning (Tuesday) the campaign will keep beating the appointment drum through Election Day. "I think the campaign will continue to refer to it as we have," he said. Does that mean through Election Day: "Yes."

King notes that Knowles himself doesn't bring up the issue when giving speeches. "But it frequently comes up in questions from the audience and in conversations."

The campaign sees nothing different with the latest ad, which states more strongly than previous ads the relationship between senator and governor. King says the change in wording was not based on any polling data.

Found the below item in the in-basket Tuesday morning from the Knowles camp. I t raises interesting free-speech questions.

Complaint on Pro-Murkowski Columns Filed

October 19, 2004
By Nicole Duran,
Roll Call Staff

An elderly Anchorage resident, with the help of the Alaska Democratic Party,
has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission charging that a
prominent Anchorage businessman and publisher is illegally contributing to
the election campaign of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).

In the complaint, Jean Paal, a 54-year resident of Anchorage, accuses the
businessman, Bill Allen, and his company of making illegal corporate
contributions to Murkowski's campaign by publishing pro-Murkowski editorials
in the Voice of the Times, an opinion page that appears daily in the
Anchorage Daily News.


The complaint is unlikely to be considered by the election agency until well
after the election.

I would like to hear the candidates discuss how they will balance the federal budget [especially on the expenditure side]

Deirdre,

Glad to see you're here. You may be hearing here at some point from our managing editor, Kelly Bostian, as he and I briefly discussed your post a little while ago. He was quite swamped with daily chores at the office, however, so I don't know when he'll spare a minute. The short of the exchange he and I had, though, was that perhaps we should be doing more on the other people running for president. We have a special election section coming up, and I think he was going to check to see what was planned for presidential content.

As for us having more "real estate" to publish material on third-party Senate candidates, we do indeed have a bit more. I don't think that's the real issue. Staffing is the issue, as I wrote previously.

As for covering third-party presidential candidates, the issue is getting the wire services to cover them. Nader gets some coverage, but the Libertarian ticket, for example, gets essentially no attention from the wire, and we don't subscribe to as many services as some largers papers might. Sure, we could write about those national candidates, but that would take away from coverage of Fairbanks and Alaska campaigns.

Editor
Fairbanks News Miner

Dear Editor:

Your editorial extolling the upcoming debates between Senator Murkowski and would-be Senator Knowles ignores the missing candidate, Green Party Candidate
Jim Sykes. Apparently, motivated by the request of the Knowles campaign director
that a pre-debate barrier of 15 percent in the voter?s polls be employed to exclude Sykes (whom Knowles apparently fears), every major debate venue has magically introduced a 5 % barrier as a "compromise.?

This means that Sykes will not appear in the Fairbanks Chamber event nor in the debates held in Anchorage, but broadcast over public TV and channel 2 throughout the state to the smallest village.

When I spoke with Rose Marie Alexander of KTOO of Juneau, she told me that this 5% standard was used in Minnesota and in other states. But what state has the need for statewide broadcasts like Alaska? The other issue is money. Only Murkowski, Knowles and Sykes have filed with the Federal Elections Commission. Murkowski and Knowles have raised and spent over 3 million dollars each. Sykes has spent $8,000 (see opensecrets.org). Is there any wonder that on name recognition, alone, that Sykes lacks 5 % before the debates which would give him and his points of view exposure in every town and village?

A cynic might suggest that Knowles fears Sykes because Sykes knows Knowles? record only too well and could siphon votes away from him- and the Anchorage Daily News and public and commercial networks favor Knowles. Another cynic might believe that it is all about money and that the days of Dick Randolph or Joe Vogler are gone in the new modern politics of Alaska where political offices are bought and sold.

I am no cynic. I paid my dues and spent two winters in Fairbanks. The Alaska I love is the one where you meet the governor in the Safeway and say,?Hi!? and where debate is part of Alaska life. Don?t let this happen, folks.

Steve Conn
PO Box 1690
Seward, Alaska 99664
steveconn@hotmail.com
Presently with Nader for President 2004
202-265-4000 ext/36

Nice to see this blog. I'm the editor of the Ester paper, The Ester Republic, and made the decision that it was important to provide at least some space to minor parties and their candidates in this election, since other media (with the notable exception of the Anchorage Daily News with regard to the US Senate race) are concentrating heavily on the two major parties.
One of the major (but unpublicized) issues of this election is the narrowing of public debate. I understand acutely the problems of determining how to allocate space to election issues, but I publish a 24-page monthly in magazine format. The News-Miner, the Daily News, and the Juneau Empire are dailies, with much more "real estate" that could be devoted to broadening the dialogue. It is astonishing how close Knowles and Murkowski, say, are in their stances on the issues, and how different the minor candidates are.
Has the News-Miner done any comparisons of the presidential candidates on the ballot in this state (Cobb, Badnarik, Nader, Peroutka, Kerry, Bush...)? Or discussed the issue of candidate control over debates, such as with Knowles? (I vaguely recall something, but forget when it was or if it was a letter to the editor.)

Oct 16, 2004

The boss's daughter
Locked in a close Senate race in Alaska, Republican incumbent Lisa Murkowski is getting a big push from the major industries tied to her powerful father, the governor.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason

Oct. 16, 2004 | In any other election year, Alaska's conservative electorate could be expected to chill Democratic hopes of taking over a United States Senate seat held by a Republican incumbent. Republicans hold every statewide elected office, enjoying a powerful base of support from the dominant energy, fishery and development industries, as well as an
ideological advantage among the state's many gun-toting libertarians and fundamentalist Christians.

But this year is not like any other election year in Alaska, principally because of what may well turn out to be a fateful mistake by Gov. Frank Murkowski when he ascended to his current office from the Senate two years
ago. In an act of hubris that outraged critics across the political spectrum, the new governor appointed his daughter Lisa Murkowski to succeed him in the Senate.

The blatant nepotism behind her appointment -- her father had staged an elaborate charade of "considering" other possible candidates -- inflicted serious damage on the governor's own approval ratings as well as hers.
Rumbles of discontent have scarcely diminished during the past two years, leaving Sen. Murkowski vulnerable to a strong challenge by Tony Knowles, the
former Democratic governor who has maintained a small but consistent lead in most polls.

(Note from Rod at the News-Miner: I cut this submission short since it took up quite a bit of space. Since Frank included the link, people can find the full submission there.)

Just heard a new Knowles ad on the radio. It's an official Knowles ad, not from the DSCC or a 527 group, and has abandoned subtlety on the nepotism issue.

The ad is about Lisa Murkowski's record in the Senate and begins like this (though I might be off on a word or two): "So how did Gov. Frank Murkowski's hand-picked sucessor, Lisa Murkowski" fare in Congress?

Knowles' ads in the past have made oblique references to the appointment and the former-senator-now-governor, saying such things as "She says it's not about how she got the job..."

If there was any doubt this is a central Knowles campaign thrust, and that it is also trying to capitalize on the governor's own less-than-lustrous standing, it must be erased with this latest ad.

Notice the heightened effort by the Murkowski campaign and allies to call attention to the consequences of a Knowles victory on Sen. Ted's power? Seems the Murkowski people might be making that a mainstay through Election Day.

A story last week in the Washington Times had Murkowski spokesman Elliott Bundy saying Alaskans should
"expect an increase" in this argument in the coming weeks."

Here's something from the Third Parties File that is worth noting. I hadn't seen it until now, but there is pretty active Green Party of Alaska discussion board online.

Quite a bit of material there about the Senate race, including good info about what the Greens' candidate, Jim Sykes, is up to.

This is sort of interesting: Arctic Power, the main Alaska-based industry group lobbying to open ANWR to oil drilling, has no position in the Senate race. Rather, its Web site says only this:

"Arctic Power supports and encourages both Democrat and Republican candidate?s help with convincing Congress to open ANWR. Here are the views of both candidates on the ANWR issue." The site then offers links to each candidate's Web site.

Wonder if Arctic Power is silent because A) it receives funding from the state government and therefore might be prohibited from endorsing a candidate, or B) because both Murkowski and Knowles want ANWR opened, or C), well, maybe someone can fill this one in for me. I have a thought that's gelling but isn't ready for prime time yet.

On the lighter side, this campaign finance nugget has never, to my knowledge, made it into print: Count NBA Commissioner David Stern as a contributor to the Knowles campaign. I forget the amount, but I remember printing the FEC report about it a couple months ago.

I'm sitting here Sunday night, with the kid diapered and quiet at last, pondering the Senate race. I'm wondering if the key issues can be boiled down to these:

1. Control of the U.S. Senate.

1A. Ability to open ANWR, which is contingent on Senate control and the White House.

1B. Loss of power for Sen. Ted if control shifts to Democrats.

2. Murkowski's appointment by her father.

For Alaskans, that seems to be the race in a nutshell. All the arguing over veterans funding, prescription drugs and such seem rather to be a means to the end of electing one candidate or the other.

Wonder if I'm missing something, though.

I would say that, if legal, the $100,000 from Frank to Lisa Murkowski, is not a big deal. But I would also point out that Tony Knowles got money from the Democratic National Commitee not from his dad, I don't believe the two are equivalent as implied by Mr. Bundy.

As for the nepotism issue, I don't see why Tony Knowles should be responsible for keeping independent groups from making it an issue. Lisa Murkowski must have expected it would be an issue when she accepted the appointment from her dad. As far as I know no U.S. Senator has ever been appointed by their father.

Happy Sunday from Fairbanks, everyone. Just a reminder that if you have a question you want us to consider asking Murkowski or Knowles, now's the time to get it to us.

Knowles is coming to the News-Miner on Tuesday for a two-hour taped interview. Murkowski will do the same on Thursday. We'll transcribe and run excerpts side-by-side sometime the following week.

We're still working on our topics list for the two sessions, so if you want us to consider something specific, send it to us via the "Question" link at the top right of this page or any page of this Senate race Web site.

Matthew,

Fair points about the presentation of Murkowski and Knowles on the Web site. But what we've presented is also an accurate representation of the reality of the Senate race and the material we've written about it. Most of the stories are about Knowles and Murkowski, after all. Consider, too, the presidential race: You want equal presentation on media Web sites for the many people running for the White House?

What we've found over the years is that the minor-party candidates know the score and are fairly happy with the avenues we afford them to get their message out. In fact, this Web site of ours is yet another such platform and adds to our previous efforts--at no cost to the candidates. And even though we've made most of the minor-party candidates aware of the site, none has bothered to answer one of my first posts, which was asking about how they are presented in the media. Jim Sykes of the Greens is aware of this site (and he left me a message Saturday asking to speak to our editorial board about his views, which we will listen to); Millican is aware and seemed pleased to be presented on the site; Gianoutsos didn't seem to be interested in the site; Sanders, like all the minor-party candidates but Sykes does not seem to even be campaigning; and I'm not sure whether Kohlhaas knows about it.

These minor candidates will receive equal opportunity to speak in the News-Miner's special election section that will be published Oct. 24. They have each been given a list of issue questions, and we will publish their responses--in print and online--just like we did for them heading into the August primary. You can find the August survey answers on this Web site and will be able to read the Oct. 24 answers soon.

Sorry for the delay, but I had a toddler's diaper, bottle and bath to deal with before getting back to the Senate discussion.

From the Murkowski campaign Saturday night on the Citizens For A Strong Senate ad, the one that just began running and that mentions and pictures Gov. Frank Murkowski and Lisa Murkowski while touting Knowles:

"Obviously they (Knowles campaign) are trying to continue to make an issue of Lisa's appointment without making an issue of it.. Knowles had said they were not going to make an issue of it... It is the dominant theme from their campaign and always has been."

That from Lisa campaign spokesman Elliott Bundy, who also ridiculed this new ad (and there has been no call from the Knowles campaign for the group to stop running it) in light of Knowles' "big show" in August regarding a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ad about the appointment. Knowles demanded that that ad be taken down, and it was.

Just got off the phone with the Murkowski campaign on a couple of matters and wanted to post a quick nugget here about the $100,000 contriubtion from the governor that the Dems seem to be in a knot about.

Elliott Bundy, spokesman for the Murkowski campaign, said the money transfer from the governor to the state GOP "says nothing more than he believes it is important that the seat remains in Republican hands." Bundy went on to say that if the Knowles people are going to make an issue of the contribution, which he says complies with election law, the Murkowski campaign "will certainly" make an issue of the money--more than $1 million--given to the Knowles campaign from the Democratic National Committee.

No reply yet from the Knowles people this evening.

On another matter: Matthew, let me ponder your post for a bit and prepare a couple other items for the blog. Be back in a little bit.

Rod,

I understand the limitation of investigative resources.. but that plays little part in equal space on a web page for pictures of the canidates and then a news line/link next to thier names. The way your page shows the canidates now, its as if the news miner is also working to shove the names and pictures of murkowski and knowles at us too. I hope others are as sick of seeing them and hearing thier bickering as I am. Media has great power and as such should act with equal responsibility. The readers deserve to know as much about all the canidates as possible. The canidates deserve to have as equal exposure as possible. Many people will more oftern end up voting for whom they think will win, not necessarily who they want to win.. (it's part of that "I want to be part of a winning team" thing). It would seem the excuse of 'covering those most likely to win' is part of that game. The news miner covers the most exposed canidates (those with the most money to buy all that annoying tv air time) not the canidates who actually would serve the public interest better. I would like to say, it really doesn't take alot of investigative time to make a call or email the third party canidates inviting them "let us know how the status of your campaign is going. Give us any news you feel the readers would like to know about your activities or campaign". Sure, if they submit anything that needs verified, it will take a few calls, but it does offer the appearance of fairness in media. www.vote-smart.org!

Well, seems pretty quiet as far as nuggets today, though the Knowles campaign did send out this item--without explanation and not on the customary campaign letterhead.

"Gov. Frank Murkowski recently transferred $100,000 to the Republican Party of Alaska from his U.S. Senate campaign account, according to the non-partisan Political Money Line. According to Federal Election Commission records, this means Frank Murkowski has approximately $93,000 remaining."

The inference, I suppose, is that this is somehow evil. Am waiting for the Knowles campaign to explain what they mean by
sending this out.

Matthew,

Your point about equal time for the lesser-known candidates is a valid one. See my first post at the bottom of the file.

At the News-Miner, and media outlets in general, it's a tough choice: Do we use our limited reporting resources to do a good job on the candidates who have the best chance of winning or do we do a weaker job reporting on the leading candidates so we can give increased coverage to the other candidates? Ultimately, we have to decide how best to serve our readers, and that means devoting more attention to the candidates at the top.

Joe Conason has an interesting article on our senate race.

"Murkowski's race is among the top priorities for national Republican leaders, with Vice President Dick Cheney and Treasury Secretary John Snow hauling out to the remote tundra to offer their support. It's also a major priority for oil industry chieftains, who have sponsored lucrative fundraisers for Murkowski.

In the Murkowski political clan, the father has become the daughter's weighty albatross, and vice versa. For the past several months, the governor and the senator have assiduously (and somewhat oddly) avoided public appearances together..."

I'm concerned that this site gives top billing to the two finnancially strongest backed canidates. We hear all about Knowles-Murkowski because corporations pay for all the TV spots. News should be unbiased. The other canidates should have just as much space and thier pictures just as big. Come on news miner, equal time, space and size. vote-smart!

It is the rate during the off season. You better check the unemployment rate under Frank Murkowski while you're at it, it is higher than the unemployment rate under Tony Knowles.

Regarding another ad that's airing, and has been airing for some time now, against Knowles by the National Republican Senatorial Committee: The ad claims that when Knowles left office as governor, the unemployment rate was at 8.1 percent. Knowles left office in December 1998, and I wonder if the 8.1 percent is the unemployment rate for that month--the off season in Alaska when the fisheries and tourism jobs are done for the year and the rate usually rises. I'll check.

Still no word, despite a follow-up call, from the Knowles campaign about the new Citizens For A Strong Senate ad and its unstated notice about the senator's appointment. The question asked of the campaign was this: Do you support the overt or subliminal use of the senator's appointment as an issue by this 527 group?

OK, the Knowles campaign promises a comment on the Citizens For A Strong Senate ad and whether the campaign condones this 527 group's suggestion of nepotism as an issue in the race.

Will post the comment when I get it.

OK, the Knowles campaign promises a comment on the Citizens For A Strong Senate ad and whether the campaign condones this 527 group's suggestion of nepotism as an issue in the race.

Will post the comment when I get it.

Today seems to be one of fast-flying news releases. So far we've received these at the Daily News-Miner:

"Hackneyed 'Teddy Bear' ad violates law"--from the Alaska Democratic Party

"Vandalism against Murkowski campaign escalates. Senator calls on Knowles to condemn destruction"--from the Murkowski campaign

"Tony v. Tony: In first debate, Knowles locked in revisionist past"--from the Murkowski campaign

And there's one more, that didn't have a headline other than to say it was a statement from Murkowski, in which the senator complains about a Knowles ad regarding her actions on funding for veterans.

All this and it's only 12:30 p.m.

This just in from our D.C. bureau regarding the Citizens For A Strong Senate. The source for the info is Political Money Line.

Our bureau notes that Citizens For A Strong Senate (DC) was registered by Lora Haggard and Jonathan Prince "to fund independent issue advocacy with regard to issues that come before the United States Senate." The group's Web site indicates it is interested in Alaska, South Carolina, Oklahoma, North Carolina and Colorado.

I believe that Tony Knowles has every right to make nepotism a campaign issue, especially given the negative and misleading ads Sen. Murkowski is running. Sen. Murkowski even had an ad boasting that she was the only candidate to vote for Bush's tax cut even though she was the only candidate in the Senate at the time. And she mocked Knowles for using out of state employees then brought in her own D.C. lobbyists.

I personally would not accept a job that my father gave me, I would prefer to earn my position. I think most Alaskans feel the same way. I don't see why Tony Knowles should unilaterally decide to censor his criticism no matter what Sen. Murkowski said. It seems you hold Democrats to a higher standard of conduct than Republicans. I haven't heard Murkowski denounce any of the misleading Republican ads.

So I'm sitting on the couch at 6:30 this morning, drinking the first cup of coffee, when Gov. Murkowski's face pops on the TV screen accompanied by a voice critical of some action he took regarding prescription drugs. The ad follows with Lisa Murkowski's face and a vote she took regarding prescription drugs. The announcer then touts Knowles' presumably better record on the issue.

This appears to be a new ad by a new third-party group called Citizens for a Strong Senate. Don't know much about them yet, and our D.C. bureau says they don't show up in the FEC files on line, but I'm struck again by the fact that Knowles said earlier he wouldn't make the Murkowski father-daughter link an issue. So I wonder if he'll denounce this ad. I'll call in a few minutes and see what his campaign has to say.

So, Alex, now I have to ask you what you think of Leman's recent actions on the claims about the Democratic Party's absentee ballot application. Who's to blame here: Leman or the Department of Law, which might have given him some bad advice? A separate issue, though, is the appropriateness of what the Democrats did in putting their address on the ballot applications.

The facts on the ballot initiative are clear, Loren Leman put partisan and inaccurate comments in a citizen's initiative to try o block passage of the bill. A judge agreed and ordered him to reprint the ballots at a cost to taxpayer's of $300,000. As for the absentee ballots, those were approved by the division of elections. For the Republican's to use these in attack ads is the height of hypocrisy. Republicans across the country have engaged in all manner of voter suppression (Voter Registration Fraud Clearinghouse).

David,

That's interesting about Ruedrich. When did you receive the letter? I work at the Fairbanks paper, and the GOP has been suggesting another election problem in the last couple of days. We've had two people suggest that the Democrats could be manipulating the absentee ballots by having voters mail their ballot applications back to the Democratic Party. I don't know if there's anything to this, but we certainly need to check. So far, no official complaint has been filed and the GOP has offered no proof of wrongdoing by the Democrats.

I just left Alaska to attend grad school at the University of Minnesota. I've kept up with Alaska news, maintained my Alaska residency, and plan (hopefully) to return to Alaska when I finish here. As a result, I will be voting by absentee ballot on November 2. I'm registered as an undelcared and rarely get mail from political groups but yesterday I recieved a shocking letter from Randy Ruedrich. He claims that the Democrats are stealing the election by forcing a reprint of the ballots. He further warned that Alaska was going to be the Florida for 2004 becuase of the Democrats disenfranchisment of absentee voters (I was completely unaware that Kerry was doing that well back home). How does the Alaska Republican Party get away with unabashed lies? Do they figure that because I'm currently out of state I don't know about Ruedrich's ethics violations or about the reprint?

Anyway, when are these dirty tricks going to stop? When is there going to be a political race in Alaska that focuses on the merits and goals of the candidates and doesn't try to scare us from voting for one candidate or the other? Wouldn't that be nice?

Here's another issue that comes up during congressional elections: media coverage of third-party candidates. The media face the choice of giving equal coverage to all candidates or devoting their limited resources to providing better coverage of the candidates who have a realistic chance of winning.

So the question here is this: Are third-party candidates getting what they deserve from the media during Alaska's U.S. Senate race? The News-Miner and others have made their choice, but was it the correct one?