What the Lower 48 is Missing

"It's just, I don't get it... how can you guys vote for a felon?"

No question is more common than that. Everyone I talk to from out of state comes at me with a mix of incredulity and a good bit of condescension when asking how "we" can possibly be so blind. I mean, have you Alaskans not read the news--he's a felon! I know it for sure! I saw it on CNN!

Alaskans do, in fact, watch the news. The difference is that they don't just see 18-second sound bytes on mainstream media outlets declaring Stevens to be guilty before moving on to a story about a cat in a tree or a teenage mother. They receive the news in context, as a continuous series of stories by local outlets following Stevens from the beginning of the trial to the end. They talk to their neighbors about it. It doesn't happen on a stage, far away and removed, where things are black and white; it happens right here, in their backyards and in their towns where they drive by buildings, roads, and bridges that wouldn't be here without Ted Stevens. When you take the end result of the equation out of context and look at it from the false premise of Alaska as what Edward Said called the Other, the inferior, the exotic, as many people do, then it's easy to see the decisions made by many Alaskans as ridiculous or crazy. It's even hard not to.

But, really, people are people anywhere. We all make the same decisions based on the same mechanisms of collecting and evaluating evidence. However, I'll humor the question for a moment, no matter how loaded its premise, presuppositions, and inherent classism. Let's take a small peek into Alaska, and try to give you some semblance of an answer.

A few days ago, a fellow Alaskan blogger over at Mudflats (the best Alaskan political blog outside of this one) attended the greet-Ted-at-the-airport rally held the night Stevens arrived at his airport from Washington, D.C. It wasn't even 48 hours after his conviction on seven felony counts.

In the airplane hangar where the welcoming party was taking place, over 600 people had gathered, including Senator Lisa Murkowski and a few other GOP dignitaries. The people were raucous:

Our emcee was Rick Rydell, a long-time conservative radio talk show icon. “I don’t know about you, but I don’t like outsiders telling me what to think!”[...] Then he went on to say that there were people that call his radio show all the time and say, “How can you not think Ted is guilty?” and then he says, “Why do you think he IS guilty? And then they tell him, ‘I read it on the internet and the Anchorage Daily News.” Laughter and scorn from the audience. And finally he reminded the crowd that “the prosecutors don’t know Ted…I know Ted, and I choose to believe him.”

That last line is the truly crucial one. It beautifully encapsulates the paradigm that a lot of Alaskans are working from right now, based on these basic assumptions, where 'you' is the Lower 48, from the prosecutors to the media:
1. You don't know us.
2. Ted Stevens is one of us.
3. You don't know Ted Stevens.
4. For that matter, you don't know me either, and you're not telling me how to vote.

Read on:

I snapped a picture of the crowd, and a lady grabbed my arm. “You should take a picture of those t-shirts!” she beamed. “Did you see them?? They’re great! They say ‘Fuck the Feds! Vote for Ted!’”

Indeed.

Stevens Denies (Clarifies?) Conviction at Debate

Ted Stevens and Mark Begich finally got their chance to debate one another in person last night. Because of the timeliness of this post, there are few post-debate analyses available at this point. However, the debate seems to have been relatively straightforward, with the mainstream media most interested in Stevens' handling of questions about his conviction, which came early on.

Stevens handled them well, hammering the prosecution's frequent legal missteps. In responding to the intraparty calls for him to step down, he bluntly echoed my sentiments: "They are trying to get elected."

Uninteresting debate aside, there's a interesting piece over at Politico about the logistics of the next few weeks. Basically, Alaska's large share of absentee ballots are likely to swing the election weeks after the polls have closed. Some numbers to flesh that out:

Alaska has 490,000 registered voters, and traditional turnout in a presidential year is 60 percent, or about 300,000 total votes. According to Alaska’s director of elections, Gail Fenumiai, there have been 44,000 absentee ballots mailed out for this election.

Fenumiai says the state board of elections won’t begin counting mail-in absentee ballots until the day after the election – and that the process could take 10 to 15 days after that.

First, let me correct a quick factual inaccuracy. Alaskan voter turnout is significantly higher than the 60 percent conventional wisdom number thrown out by the author. Alaska's voter turnout in the last election was over 70 percent, the fifth-highest in the nation. That's in an election cycle that was considerably less politically interesting than the rollicking, multi-race, competitive cycle we've had this year; I wouldn't be surprised if real turnout, which runs a few points higher than reported turnout, hits 80 percent.

In any case, the article's point still stands; it's likely Alaskans be waiting much longer than they're used to on election night.

GOP Forms Circular Firing Squad Around Stevens

In a spectacular display of personal abandonment for political reasons, Senator McCain and, even more gracelessly, Governor Palin have thrown Ted Stevens under the bus with such gusto it made some observers wonder how long they'd been waiting to do so. They were joined by a collection of other opportunistic GOP officials who couldn't wait to blast a far more distinguished member of their own party for incremental political gain. It makes one wonder how far in advance they had typed up their statements in anticipation of the day Stevens was convicted.

We can, as an informed electorate, have a genuine discussion over whether or not what Stevens did constitutes a deliberate and malicious misuse of power, or whether the Department of Justice took a big gamble in raiding Stevens' home, didn't find the smoking gun they were hoping for, and settled for some petty charges about not filling out menial Senate forms perfectly. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

However, by using one of their own party as political ballast, Senator Stevens' own colleagues have had this conversation for us. The Alaskan people were, I believe, ready to think hard about what's happened so far this historic election cycle, take this verdict into account, and make an informed decision. However, this delicate cognitive process was bowled over by a comically-amalgamated ball of clowns tripping over each other to denounce and demonize Stevens. Note that the loudest of the Pecksniffian weather vanes are, from Coleman to McCain, losing their respective races, or, in the case of Palin, watching their favorability ratings plummet towards Earth faster than Alaska's oil revenues. Someone should let the Governor know that Ted Stevens will not be her springboard back to legitimacy, and, while we're at it, neither will continually blasting a campaign she did more to ruin than anyone else. I can smell the desperate, manufactured sanctimony from Los Angeles, and it makes me sick.

Would Stevens have lost anyway? Probably. But that decision was Alaska's to make; it was never supposed to lie in the hands of an assemblage of overheated fools standing on each others' shoulders, grasping in vain for power and respect they will never have, but Ted Stevens has for forty years.

BREAKING: Stevens Guilty of all Corruption Charges

AP: Ted Stevens found guilty in corruption case


This broke about 8 minutes ago, it's currently developing.

As of now it seems that Stevens has indeed been found guilty of all charges by a jury of his peers.

More to come...

EDIT 1:

Transcript released:

COUNT ONE: False Statements, Scheme

ACCUSATION: Stevens engaged in a scheme to conceal from his Senate financial disclosure documents home renovations and other gifts he received from Allen and VECO from 2000-2006. Stevens contends he never asked for any freebies and believed he paid for everything he received.

VERDICT: Guilty

COUNT TWO: False Statements

ACCUSATION: Stevens knowingly made false, fictitious or fraudulent statements on his 2001 Senate financial disclosure form regarding gifts from Allen and others. That year, VECO employees dramatic renovated Stevens' mountain cabin, building a new first floor and installing a new electrical system. Allen also filled Stevens' house with furniture, left a tool box in his garage and installed a grill on the porch. Stevens also received from another friend an expensive massage chair, which Stevens said was a loan, and a custom work of stained glass, which Stevens said his wife arranged and he knew nothing about.

VERDICT: Guilty

COUNT THREE: False Statements

ACCUSATION: Stevens knowingly made false, fictitious or fraudulent statements on his 2002 Senate financial disclosure form regarding gifts from Allen and others. That year, VECO employees installed a new roof, wraparound deck and rope lighting system on Stevens' home. An expensive fish statue, donated to his foundation by an Alaska nonprofit group, was also charged as a gift because it ended up on Stevens' front porch.

VERDICT: Guilty

COUNT FOUR: False Statements

ACCUSATION: Stevens knowingly made false, fictitious or fraudulent statements on his 2003 Senate financial disclosure form regarding gifts from Allen and others. That year, Stevens received an Alaskan sled dog puppy from a friend who paid $1,000 for it at a charity auction. Stevens reported the gift's value as $250 and wrote that it was from a charity in honor of his public service.

VERDICT: Guilty

COUNT FIVE: False Statements

ACCUSATION: Stevens knowingly made false, fictitious or fraudulent statements on his 2004 Senate financial disclosure form regarding gifts from Allen and others. That year, VECO employees installed or repaired kitchen appliances and performed maintenance on a rooftop snow-melt system at Stevens' house.

VERDICT: Guilty

COUNT SIX: False Statements

ACCUSATION: Stevens knowingly made false, fictitious or fraudulent statements on his 2005 Senate financial disclosure form regarding gifts from Allen and others. That year, VECO employees performed roof and gutter repairs and electrical wiring.

VERDICT: Guilty

COUNT SEVEN: False Statements

ACCUSATION: Stevens knowingly made false, fictitious or fraudulent statements on his 2006 Senate financial disclosure form regarding gifts from Allen and others. That year, a VECO employee and an outside contractor performed work on the boiler at Stevens' house. VECO's costs were never paid and Allen paid the outside contractor's labor. Stevens says he asked to be billed and didn't consider it a gift.

VERDICT: Guilty

EDIT 2:

It's now above the fold on every major news source and blog:

Alaska Senator Is Convicted of Ethics Breach in Gift Scheme

Senator Convicted on Corruption Charges, Vows to Fight Verdict

Sen. Stevens guilty on all counts, career in peril

Ted Stevens Found Guilty on All Counts

Only Drudge has bumped it to second-story status in deference to the Obama-as-a-socialist narrative he's trying to prime.

The Worst Ad of the Cycle

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which has been acting as a proxy for Mark Begich this campaign by launching negative attack ads, has released a new ad focusing on Stevens' trial and the wiretaps recently played in court. Their latest narrative is summed up by the ubiquitous message which closes up most of their recent ads:

Ted Stevens: it's not about Alaska anymore.

The ads have been mildly effective, but are clearly hampered by narratives and production values that are visibly more Hollywood/Beltway than Fairbanks/Kenai. When I saw their latest ad, I physically recoiled at how oblivious the ad seemed to be; the sheer lack of self-awareness required for one to make a 24-esque dramatization of the FBI supposedly watching Steven from an unmarked van is embarrassing in its blundering kitsch:



And I voted for him.

Begich and Stevens Camps Debate over Debate

Behind every argument is someone's ignorance.
--Everyone's Favorite Supreme Court Justice

People (with too much time on their hands) have been wondering for quite some time if and when a debate between Senator Stevens and Mayor Begich was going to occur. Also, if such a debate were to take place, how would Stevens' legally proscribed presence in Washington, D.C., affect the logistics? Some have theorized that some sort of "series of tubes" could be utilized to connect the two disparate candidates by way of a video debate.

In any event, the Begich camp have released a rather contentious press release claiming that Stevens has repeatedly avoided taking steps to set up a debate between the two candidates. Stevens' people fired back that that is simply untrue, and that Stevens would be delighted to debate Begich, just as soon as the election is over.

I'm only kidding, but the whole affair has been rather turbid, and characterized by both sides' misunderstanding the other side's position. In this case, everyone's ignorance was behind the argument.

The fact is, Begich probably has more to gain from a debate that Stevens. This isn't inconsistent with the conventional wisdom, which generally holds that the challenger will try to force the incumbent to debate as many times as possible. It's exacerbated here by the state of the candidates' respective physical conditions and idiosyncrasies.

When you speak to Stevens, or hear him speak, you get the sense that you're speaking to a very smart man who has to labor through unfortunate stutters and memory lapses to display his own intelligence. He's actually similar to Barack Obama in that he is a very intelligent man who can get wrapped up in the specific language of his own overly-ambitious explanations, which can be taken out of context to notorious effect. Begich has a more direct speaking style, which has the potential to cut through Stevens' aged arguments, regardless of whose arguments are objectively "better."

In the end, I think that Alaskans want to see a debate; I know I do. I'm optimistic that something will be worked out in the end that leaves all parties satisfied.

Stevens Hangs Tough as "One of Us"

There are both anecdotal and statistical signals that, as his trial stutters forward, Sen. Stevens may be seeing tangible gains from the One of Us narrative, in which Alaskans react negatively to the perception of a beloved Alaskan being hounded by a corps of Lower-48 media and lawyers.

Empirically, two new polls by Fairleigh Dickinson and Ivan Moore show Stevens trailing by only 4 and 2 points, respectively. Why are we seeing a reversal of the modest trend back to Begich, who held a 6-point lead in the last poll? Stevens seems to be, against the odds, separating himself from a flailing Palin and re-developing his own identity in the race.

The anecdotal evidence sheds some light on this.

In this strange election season, some here are giving odds that "Uncle Ted" will win reelection even if he loses a pedal-to-the-metal gambit to clear his name before voters go to the polls Nov. 4.

"Even if he gets convicted . . . I don't think the people who have voted for him all these years are going to be swayed," said Gary Wilson, a 61-year-old podiatrist who lives a few blocks from the modest A-frame "chalet" that is at the center of the charges against Stevens.

Stevens is "running against a young do-gooder who's never done anything in his life," said George Dailey, who owns the candle shop on the edge of town. Voters, Dailey said, should not forget "everything Ted Stevens has done for the state of Alaska over the last 40 years."

(Side note to fellow Alaskans: how bizarre is it to see Girdwood carefully described in the LA Times?)

Alaskans aren't seeing Stevens as an extension of the GOP machine they've grown considerably less enamored of over the past few months; they're seeing him as Uncle Ted, a man who has fought for their state in Washington nearly as long as it has existed. There's also evidence that Begich has failed to define himself adequately, despite the relative vacuum he's had to work with. This means that there's a significant danger of this race becoming an up-or-down vote on Stevens. Begich must work to avoid this, and present voters with a lucid choice between Stevens and Begich, not a referendum on the Alaskan of the Century; anti-candidates don't beat 40-year incumbents.

I'll Try to Find an Endorsement of Stevens and Get Back to You

Some commentators have recently made hay over the admittedly-juicy story that Sarah Palin avoided endorsing Sen. Stevens when she was accosted by reporters in New York recently.

When a reporter asked Palin, Alaska's governor, if she supports the re-election of Stevens, she replied: "Ted Stevens' trial started a couple of days ago. We'll see where that goes."

I know this is counter-intuitive, but I think this isn't a particularly big deal. Palin has been tiptoeing on eggshells lately, particularly in the wake of repeated exposures of gaps in her knowlege by the mainstream media. Her decision to not give a ringing endorsement of an indicted senator to a reporter on the street isn't an unwise one, as many will paint it. It's simply a pragmatic decision by a candidate who can't afford any more missteps.

One thing that's certain is that this is not going to fight her plummeting approval ratings in Alaska; it furthers the growing perception she's putting her campaign for Vice President above Alaska. (Which she is, of course: she'd be insane not to.) This narrative really started gaining traction when Alaskans who asked other Alaskans questions about their own Alaskan governor were given the phone number of McCain's Virginia headquarters.

This incident certainly won't fight the idea that Palin is siding with Outsiders (i.e. McCain et al.) over Alaskans (i.e. Stevens--whatever his other flaws, he is universally recognized as One of Us in Alaska) in order to win the Vice Presidency.

Stevens' Trial Gets Underway

The first federal trial of a sitting US Senator in over 20 years has started this week. If you follow this blog, you probably already know the score: Stevens must win this trial to have a serious shot at keeping his seat in November. If he loses, or the trial is in an ambiguous position come November 4th, the only way he could conceivably survive is if he is somehow able to brilliantly advance the witch-hunt frame I discussed Monday. However, the odds are heavily stacked against that (albeit potent) narrative singlehandedly saving him from the likely electoral ruin a conviction would bring.

The only somewhat-new story here is the impressive prominence of the witness list, which includes everyone from Sen. Ted Kennedy to retired Gen. Colin Powell. No word on who will actually show up and who will pull a Todd Palin/Karl Rove maneuver.

Stevens Wants Alaskans to "Have Faith"

Senator Stevens has, in recent days, advanced a relatively interesting counter-narrative aimed at combating--or at least coloring--coverage of his corruption trial.

The Senator is asking Alaskans to have faith.

"Uncle Ted" is asking Alaska to believe in him.

"Alaskans work on the basis of faith. I have faith in them and they have faith in me," said Stevens, the Senate's longest-serving Republican. "If they have faith in me, this is just another bump in the road."

Though pundits and media who observe from the Lower 48 may not fully appreciate this tactic, it's an extremely smart move by Stevens--perhaps the best of his available options. Alaskans have a tendency to hang together, particularly when a threat or intrusion is perceived as originating from Outside. This effect is magnified when the threat seems to come from "elitists and lawyers" in Washington. By identifying himself as One of Us, Stevens may be able to successfully portray his corruption trial as an anti-Alaskan witch hunt designed to take away our things.

If he can do this, and get Alaskans to believe in him one more time, he may just have given himself a real shot at survival.

Speaking of Rangel

Rangel is in the Alaskan news again, so soon after being the subject of yesterday's post.

Just thought you should know.

Begich Returns Tainted Contribution from Rangel

The Begich camp has decided to contribute a $10,000 donation from Democratic New York Representative Charles Rangel to charity. This decision comes on the heels of Rangel's deepening scandal over his alleged tax impropriety--there are questions about how accurately he has paid his federal taxes in recent years. Rangel has a long, rich history of scandal, both financial and otherwise, and it's a smart move by Begich to distance himself from the controversial NY Democrat.

It's extremely important for the Begich campaign to successfully divorce themselves from any hint of impropriety in this campaign. While it's always important to avoid distractions such as this, it's absolutely crucial in this campaign because ethics and corruption have become such looming issues in the electorate's mind; it's likely that Stevens would be cruising to a double-digit victory were it not for the alleged corruption uncovered in his office over the past year. If Begich becomes affiliated at any point with any sort of improper behavior, however nebulously, he loses the ability to wield the corruption-busting sledgehammer that has served him so well. That hammer is the thing that has enabled him to break into this race; losing it now would rob him of a vital weapon in the final stretch of this campaign.

Stevens' Sandwich: The Approval is the Meat

This is somewhat breaking, so I'll be snappy and nimble.

Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules dictate that the ubiquitous "I'm Candidate X and I approve this message" approval clause must come at the beginning or end of televised, campaign-sanctioned ads. A recent ad by Stevens is in clear violation of this rule, as it features Stevens' endorsement in the middle of the ad.

This story is early, so I've no solid indication yet as to whether or not this is just static/minutiae or if it will develop into a significant distractor later in the news cycle. This could easily be used to advance the insofar potent Stevens-as-irreparably-corrupt frame. It's well-known that at this stage, even a pebble (NB: intentions of the author vis-a-vis this pun intentionally left ambiguous) in the wrong place can trip up a runner in a race as close as this.

A direct link to the Democrats' press release is here. Kudos to fellow Alaskan political blogger at I Eat Gravel for hosting.

Palin's Bounce?

Really quick:

Palin's selection has already created a a situation unique to this election in which one party's vice presidential nominee is being directly evaluated vis-a-vis the other party's presidential nominee.

Now, it appears that Palin has done--er, is being credited by the mainstream media as having done--something else which falls far outside what we consider to be a VP nominee's traditional sphere of responsibility and influence. Yes, the Republicans' entire post convention bounce is being characterized by many outlets as the Palin Bounce (here, here, ad nasueam). To my knowledge, such an overwhelming amount of the credit for a boost in the polls attributed mostly to the VP candidate alone, combined with the inordinate amount of coverage and legitimacy lent to Palin by the media thus far, are facets unique to this election. It's not uncommon to see an enthusiasm gap between parties, but we aren't used to seeing it between ticket-mates.