In a Twist, Begich Outraises Stevens

It's the 16th, which means we've just passed the mandatory mid-month campaign finance reporting deadline. As such, we now have hard numbers on how much the Stevens and Begich campaigns have managed to raise, as well as how much money they have in the bank at this point. In a surprising reversal of a 40-year trend, Mayor Begich has managed to raise nearly triple the amount of money Senator Stevens has. Begich raised roughly $1.3 million in the last fundraising period (Aug. 7 to Sept. 30) to Stevens' half-million. However, despite losing this battle, Stevens is still using his immense war chest to narrowly hold on to the overall financial lead; his campaign has $1.2 million cash-on-hand to Begich's sub-$800,000. However, if these fundraising trends continue or become even more expressed, as they are likely to, Stevens will not be able to count on an overall monetary advantage much longer.

This is the first time in nearly four decades that Stevens has been out-fundraised. Stevens has seen many of his decades-old electoral firewalls breached in this election, from his spotless legal record to his previously unshakable popularity in the Alaskan political establishment. The loss of his financial advantage is one more leak in a boat that seems to be taking on more water each day.

Also, as a brief follow-up to my previous coverage of Mrs. Stevens' importance, she took the stand today. Check it out.

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.

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' 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.