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.

Agitation Amongst the Jury

A trial that's been extremely turbulent so far looks like it's going to experience an appropriately dramatic endgame.

As the jury in Senator Stevens' blockbuster corruption trial entered deliberations late last week, it seemed as though the trial was finally approaching its terminus on relatively smooth ground after being rocked by a never-ending series of legal potholes, including more than one near mistrial.

That calm lasted about two hours.

First, Justice Sullivan (who has undoubtedly earned a vacation after this trial is over) received a note from jurors complaining that a member of the jury was prone to "violent outbursts" and was creating a toxic situation for the other eleven jurors. Sullivan gave the jurors a "pep talk," reminding them of the importance of their duty, and the possible difficulties therein. The jurors then returned to work.

However, progress was halted again after Juror #4 unexpectedly, well, left, citing a family emergency. It took some time, but it was eventually discovered that her father had died, and she had returned to California.

At this point, the promised pre-election finish of this trial is in serious doubt. The jury is set to proceed with a backup juror if necessary, but they will be cutting it very close indeed, especially in a case as contentious and complicated as this one has been.

All in all, every fresh juror trouble is good news for Stevens: it's becoming less and less likely every day that a jury as fractured as this one has become will be able to attain the unanimity needed for a conviction. This could backfire, however, if the delays mount up further and the trial isn't resolved by November 4th, and voters go to the polls with Stevens' innocence or guilt up in the air--and on their minds.

(NB: For some insight as to what Alaskans are thinking at this point, this off-the-cuff editorial in the Miner serves as a decent approximation as any.)

Mutually Assured Destruction

This race has heated up over the past few months, leading to a redoubled advertising effort, much of it from out-of-state groups (many of the ads are, as a result, pretty clumsy). The effects of this unprecedented Outside attention are generally unclear, but it appears that Begich may not being helped as much as he's being hindered by the Lower-48 Left's helping hand.

As the DSCC and others pour negative, anti-Stevens advertising into the state and the Senator's own trial hurtles towards its conclusion, Uncle Ted's approval ratings are holding rock steady. Ivan Moore finds that Begich is still in the lead by a single point, 46% to 45%. However, more significantly, Ted Stevens seems to be winning the negative ad-war of attrition:

Stevens' rating has been very stable over the last six weeks, despite both his ongoing trial in Washington DC and being a target of a barrage of negative media funded by the DSCC. If anything, it is Begich's numbers which are deteriorating, with his positive reaching a low of 55% and his negative up over 30% for the first time.

It's relatively well-supported axiom among political scientists that negative ads drive up the negatives of both the candidate they are attacking and the candidate they're perceived as supporting; we have a ready example of this in the current presidential contest, in which an increasingly negative campaign has hurt both Sens. McCain and Obama's favorability ratings. However, it seems that in this race that Stevens may posses a special resistance to negative attacks (40 years of incredibly high-profile service have to be good for something, right?) that Begich may lack. Begich is a fresher face, yes, but he's also more malleable as a result: he has more potential to move upwards or downwards as a result of something like negative advertising. His public image is more sensitive, a factor which unquestionably played a role in John Kerry's 2004 demise.

As such, we have a scenario in which outside groups firebomb the Alaskan political landscape, and, though they are aiming at Stevens, end up burning a more flammable Begich in the end with the firestorm they've created.

The Importance of Mrs. Stevens

Just as the best mechanics never take their eyes off a single part of an engine, talented lawyers never overlook any piece of a judicial puzzle. The media are not nearly as astute, which is why we're just now hearing about the importance of Catherine Stevens (not to be confused with that Cat Stevens).

Part of the defense's strategy from the beginning of this trial has been quietly but firmly reinforcing the idea that Stevens was preoccupied with being a US Senator in Washington while his wife focused on the now-controversial home renovations performed by VECO. If the defense can convince the jury that Stevens genuinely believed, from the limited information available to him, that everything was financially and morally in order, they've put themselves in a very strong position. Mrs. Stevens' upcoming testimony is crucial to the successful advancement of this argument; this week is the time to flesh out what they've been building up and make it stick in the minds of the jurors.

As a bonus, those of you interested in the way in which a patriarchal legal system interpellates its subjects, there promises to be lots of juicy conceptions of gender being advanced by both sides this week. A taste:

"They have a saying in their house that when it comes to things in and around the teepee, the wife controls," defense attorney Brendan Sullivan told jurors early in the trial.

Mmmmm, domesticity as a legal device.

Will Stevens Testify?

Many of the questions swirling around the Stevens trial have been resolved in the past few weeks. However, other than the obvious question of Stevens' guilt or innocence, one persists:

As Ted Stevens's [sic] criminal trial heads into its final days, defense attorneys have been mum on whether the pugnacious 84-year-old senator will testify.

There's an undeniable set of both lucrative pros and dangerous cons inherent in the prospect of putting Stevens on the stand. Some think that because Stevens is notoriously cantankerous, putting him on the stand would contradict the glowing, noble image his defense has carefully crafted using star character witnesses like Colin Powell and Daniel Inouye. One snappish outburst could do more damage than the prosecution ever could.

I'm not entirely sure I buy the danger advanced by this argument. Stevens can be aggressive and even, yes, cranky, but most of the evidence that has formed this narrative has come from contentious arguments with reporters and fellow Senators. The courtroom is a different environment, even under the scrutiny of cross-examination. Stevens knows this. The man is a 50-year career politician; he can charm. Bill Clinton he is not, but he can give impassioned speeches, he can grip your hand and look you in the eye, and he can tell his story to a jury.

I would put him on the stand. It's not an entirely safe move, but it's a risk worth taking. The alternative makes him look like an aloof, out-of-touch, at-least-marginally-guilty Washington politician. He's not.

Let Ted Stevens tell the Ted Stevens story.

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.

Stevens Pulls Ahead as Trial Moves into New Phase

The prosecution rests in Senator Stevens' trial today, setting the stage for the next phase, in which Stevens' defense team will make their case as to why the Senator is innocent. However, this juicy second act will only get underway if Justice Sullivan allows it to:

Last week, the judge publicly berated prosecutors after they acknowledged not turning over some information to Stevens' lawyers, saying it was withheld accidentally. On Tuesday, the judge cautioned lawyers not to look far beyond the hearing on the dismissal motion.

"There may not be a defense case," Sullivan said before leaving the courtroom for the day.

Yikes. Incredibly strong language from a justice who's clearly tired of the recurrent mishaps which have plagued an overconfident prosecution's case. If the trial does make to the defense's case, expect Stevens' lawyers to call retired Gen. Colin Powell, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), and other prominent Washingtonians to the stand to testify about Stevens' honor and admirable conduct in his 40 years of Senate service. We'll see if these qualitiative appeals can effectively counter the more empirical D.o.J. case.

While we keep our eyes fixed in the legal landscape, the electoral terrain may be shifting beneath our feet. Rasmussen, a reliable pollster (albeit with a mild GOP lean), has Stevens leading Begich for the first time since he was indicted several months ago. While this lead is well within the poll's moderately wide margin of error and can thus be taken as an indication of a tie, not a lead change, this is still a serious reversal of the last available poll numbers, in which Begich seemed to be getting some statistically significant separation. It also indicates that Alaska should really be sampled more, as pollsters and pundits are clearly and consistently missing significant shifts in public opinion and the electoral landscape.

In any case, Stevens seems to be getting some fresh air in both the legal and electoral spheres of his life. Begich--now more than ever--needs to win this race himself; he can no longer rely on the media and legal system to do it for him.

Stevens' Trial Will Proceed, Redux

For not the first time, I am tasked with informing you, loyal readers, that Senator Stevens' Washington corruption trial will continue despite yet another close brush with the prospect of a mistrial.

To be fair, this incident stems less from the efforts of his legal team and more from the blunders of the Department of Justice lawyers. Justice Sullivan was absolutely livid at the D.o.J. lawyers' conduct of late disclosure, in which they seemed to have injected some evidence well after it was appropriate, responsible or fair to do so. Many feared a mistrial, but it appears that Sullivan is content to, for now, leave the prosecution with only a scathing verbal rebuke.

The prosecution seems to be skating on much thinner ice than they'd hoped at this point; it's doubtful their case will survive another serious misstep.

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.

Stevens' Corruption Trial Will Proceed

Since the day the federal indictment of Senator Ted Stevens was handed down, his talented, resourceful legal team have been launching counterattacks designed to score a quick dismissal for their client. Yesterday, a significant portion of those counterattacks were rebuffed.

D.C. District Court Justice Emmet Sullivan shot down several of Stevens' legal motions to dismiss the case, including questions about the charges' statute(s) of limitations. He also made strong statements regarding the direction of the case, saying that he intended to give the defendant the pre-election verdict he has publicly requested, and that it is unlikely Stevens' team's other peremptory attempts to dismiss the case will see any more success than the ones put to rest today.

Speaking as a constitutional law student, my opinion is that Stevens' claim that portions of the prosecution's violate the speech or debate clause of the Constitution (designed to protect legislators from arrest or intimidation by the executive branch) stands on speciously-constructed legs. There's no clear indication that the evidence in question is directly pursuant to Stevens' legislative duties. Since the clause's aim is to protect legislators acting in their official capacity, it is doubtful it will apply to the predominantly extra-congressional dealings addressed in the indictment.

There are also polls to be discussed--among other things--but I'll be in Las Vegas for the weekend and may not be able to get to them before I leave.

Until then.