Monthly Archives: September 2013

Situation in Syria will likely allow Begich to avoid wrath of Jewish lobby

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, was all set to storm Congress this week to push for Congress to vote to intervene in Syria. The most powerful pro-Israel group in the country, perhaps the most powerful lobbying group ever, was going to deploy 250 activists and lobbyists to strong arm and to threaten, as only AIPAC can do.

It’s unclear what they will do now. Since Sunday, the situation has changed drastically. Syria has said that it’s prepared to cooperate with the Russians to inspect its chemical arsenal and to sign a chemical weapons ban. And President Obama has called on Congress to delay a vote to authorizing force while diplomacy is pursued.

This is welcome news to most who believe that the end is more important than the means. But U.S. Sen. Mark Begich is likely breathing a huge sigh of relief. AIPAC has deep pockets and huge influence and can make or break a candidate. Begich has paid notable deference to Israel in his speeches on the issue, but AIPAC judges support by votes, not words, and had Begich voted against military authorization, he wouldn’t be in good stead with AIPAC.

It’s unclear how much influence the group has on this issue. It looked like it was going to lose in Congress no matter what, but it wasn’t going to go down easy and politicians were going to pay, if nothing else by withholding campaign money. Had Begich voted against authorizing force, which he appeared prone to do, he likely would have been one of them.

AIPAC has lost in the past, and it’s not been pretty. In 1991, against a heavy lobbying effort by AIPAC, President George H.W. Bush cut off loan guarantees to Israel until it froze West Bank settlement construction. A year later Bush lost to Clinton as did many of his supporters in Congress.

More significant for Begich was what happened in 1981, when Sen. Mike Gravel voted with President Ronald Reagan to sell advanced AWACS aircraft to Saudi Arabia, against AIPAC’s wishes. Reagan won then, but learned his lesson by watching members of Congress who voted for the sale lose election after election. One of those members was Sen. Mike Gravel, who, until Begich, was Alaska’s last Democratic senator.

Contact Amanda Coyne at amandamcoyne@yahoo.com

Quote of the day

“(T)his was a good day for peaceful diplomacy, but a bad day for America and its leadership of the world community.”

Rep. Don Young after news that Syria has agreed to allow Russia to inspect its chemical arsenal and to sign a chemical weapons ban, and after President Obama called on Congress to delay a vote on taking military action against the country, action that Young has been opposed to all along.

The latest on Syria

I know I’ve been Syria-obsessed the last few days. But everything else I’m considering writing about pales in comparison to dropping bombs on a chaotic Middle-Eastern country with an maniacal leader who has chemical and biological weapons and who hasn’t taken off the table the threat of using them against our soldiers in retaliation.

Congress has been expected to take up the issue of a resolution authorizing strikes against Syria this week. As of this writing, whether or not they do so is still up in the air, which is sounding more and more like a good thing.

It was all set to go until Sunday, when, in what was described as a “gaffe,” Secretary of State John Kerry said offhandedly that the U.S. might not strike if Syria agrees to surrender control of its chemical weapons. On Tuesday, pundits are increasingly questioning whether the” gaffe” was wrapped in brilliant diplomacy because it allowed Russia, which has been against the strikes and has veto power at the U.N. Security Council, to find an opening.

As a result, members of the U.N. Security Council are working on a resolution that would authorize the international community, lead by Russia, to take control of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile.

On Tuesday, a bipartisan group of eight senators announced that they also plan a new resolution. This one would authorize an attack on Syria, but only after the introduction of that U.N. resolution, which would set a deadline for the Assad government to hand over its chemical stockpile. If Assad fails to do so, then the U.S. could use military force.

That’s the latest. It’s constantly evolving however and President Obama is scheduled to address the nation on the situation this evening. But the latest doesn’t look so bad. Here’s my favorite blogger Andrew Sullivan’s take:

It is, if it transpires, a huge victory for the US. Yes, it means we have to relinquish ownership of all this and let Russia take the credit – and all the blowback domestically and internationally that might entail. Expect a whole slew of “Munich” stories; a chorus singing the A-word (appeasement); and the usual derision of Obama from the loony right. The great thing about this president is that he doesn’t care how the short-term optics look or how the news cycle plays as long as the result is one he wants. The process toward that goal is inherently messy, but what matters is the result.

Up next: Why U.S. Sen. Mark Begich is breathing a sigh of relief.

This just in from the AP: “Syrian foreign minister says Syria will declare its chemical weapons arsenal, sign chemical weapons convention.”

Contact Amanda Coyne at amandamcoyne@yahoo.com

Quote of the day

“So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot?” – Sarah Palin.

Thank God it’s Friday’s facts: The cost of war edition

U.S. Sen. Mark Begich held a telephonic town hall on Thursday night, where he listened and answered questions about whether or not the country should strike Syria. Many of the questions asked were about the costs of such military strikes. Begich said that he has yet to get a full accounting of those costs.

Congress is expected to vote next week on a resolution to authorize military action in Syria. Begich said that in order to vote for the resolution, among other things, he would need a to know more about the costs, and that they couldn’t come from money already allocated to existing programs.

The country, as well as members of Congress, are increasingly opposing such action, in part because of the money involved. Below is a taste of what we have spent recently in conflicts in the Middle East, and some of the estimates of what we would spend if we were to go to Syria:

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost U.S. taxpayers more than $1.2 trillion, according to the Congressional Research Service. When long-term expenses such as health care for wounded veterans is included, that number is estimated to climb to $2.2 trillion.
In 2002, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget estimated that the cost of invading Iraq was going to be between $50 to $60 billion.
Military operations in Libya in 2011 cost about $1.1 billion, according to the Pentagon.
A single Tomahawk missile costs anywhere from $1 million to $1.5 million.
Operating a carrier strike group and its aircraft during extended operations, at high tempo around the clock, costs about $40 million a week.
The cost of operating guided missile destroyers is about $2 million a week each. There are now four U.S. destroyers operating in the Eastern Mediterranean.
In July, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey estimated that a military intervention in Syria would require hundreds of warplanes, ships and submarines and that “the costs would be in the billions.”
Dempsey also said that establishing a no-fly zone over parts of Syria would cost at least $500 million to begin with and could cost $1 billion per month to maintain.
Securing chemical weapons sites that the US claims the Syrian government has would cost more than $1 billion a month, according to the top general.
Without Syria, the Pentagon is on pace to spend about $574 billion total this year. Of that, about $86 billion was spent on the Afghanistan War.
As of March, more than 190,000 people have been killed in the 10 years since the war in Iraq began, including 4,488 U.S. service members and at least 3,400 U.S. contractors.

Contact Amanda Coyne at amandamcoyne@yahoo.com

Begich appears to be against bombing Syria

It appears that U.S. Sen. Begich is leaning against voting for the use of force in Syria. In an hour-long telephonic town hall on Syria on Thursday evening, Begich listened and answered questions about what, until recently, was the United States’ imminent bombing of Syria in retaliation for using chemical weapons on its own citizens.

President Obama recently decided to bring the issue in front of Congress, which is expected to vote on a resolution next week which would authorize military action in Syria.

Begich’s answers to the wide ranging questions did in no way indicate that he was, as of yet, willing to support military action. He said that Americans and Alaskans weren’t “ready to engage” in another war. “Resources are stretched thin,” he said and Alaskans weren’t ready for more loss of life in the Middle East.

Most of the callers on Thursday appeared to be against military action, reflecting the country’s sentiment. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that six in 10 Americans are opposed to using military action in Syria. A Pew Research Center poll also found that 48 percent of adults are against military strikes while only 29 percent support such strikes.

Begich said that he has not yet heard a good argument for why bombing is in our national interest. He doesn’t know how much it would cost. He wasn’t sure that the resolution, drafted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, satisfies his requirements for no ground combat. He said that the country doesn’t have the international support that would justify such action. And he hasn’t been “100 percent” assured that the strike, as planned, prepares for all contingencies.

If he can be convinced of the above, and more, he might be willing to support such action. It seems unlikely however that all of his concerns are going to be allayed.

Begich said that he was “absolutely” getting pressure from his party to vote for military strikes, but said that he “will make this judgment by what I think is right.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski has been vague about what she’s going to do. Rep. Don Young has not. On his Facebook page he said, “(A)t the current time, I do not support U.S. military intervention in Syria’s civil war. After a dozen years, the American people are sick and tired of sacrificing lives in foreign wars.”

Contact Amanda Coyne at amandamcoyne@yahoo.com

Paging Jerry Prevo: They’re not all like that.

A new project was launched on Thursday, giving voice to Christians who support gay rights. It is inspired by Dan Savage, the editor of Seattle’s Stranger and the creator of the “It Gets Better” project. The name of the new project,“Not All Like That,” comes from an interview where Savage talked about Christians who supported gay rights and who quietly condemned anti-gay Christians by telling him,“we’re not all like that.” Savage’s response: “Don’t tell me, tell the anti-gay Christian leaders who claim to speak for all Christians.”

Now there’s a place for those Christians to do just that. Not All Like That provides a platform for “NALT Christians” to post their videos and demonstrate their support for LGBT people.

From the website:

It’s time for us true NALT Christians—the ones who genuinely aren’t like that—to speak up and be heard, to affirm LGBT people as loudly and clearly as anti-LGBT Christians condemn them. We must stand up for young LGBT people, who are so vulnerable to feeling worthless and shunned. We must eradicate the culturally inculcated moral underpinnings that serves to support such bullying. And we must bring to the fore a renewed Christianity that, instead of standing for anti-gay bigotry, stands for the integrity and love that Jesus Christ himself so radically stood for.

The fertile ground of abortion politics in Alaska

For all the fierce debates on the issue of abortion in Alaska — time spent discussing the ethics of it, various surveys put out by groups on both sides of the issue, legislative debates, political careers lost and found – relatively little is known about what the public thinks about the issue.

We do, however, know generally where our politicians stand. We know, with a few exceptions, that Republican politicians are pro-life. A handful, including our governor, are so extreme that they oppose even in the case of incest and rape. Dems, generally, are pro-choice and a small number are so extreme that they wouldn’t have support restrictions whatever on the procedure.

We also know that come election time, even the moderate Republicans tend to veer right on the issue, and some, Dems, though fewer and fewer, veer left.

So it came as kind of a surprise to me at least that the public was startlingly more pro-choice than their elected state representatives appear to be.

A 2009 poll was the last big one that I could find on the issue. In that poll, Celinda Lake, who is Sen. Mark Begich’s pollster, was hired by Planned Parenthood to poll 675 likely registered voters in the state. The poll found that 58 percent of Alaskans could be categorized as pro-choice, while only 37 percent could be classified as pro-life. (The full findings are below, as are the definitions of pro-life and pro-choice.) These numbers appeared to be in the ballpark according to local pollsters.

That said, you’ll find very few politicians in the state highlighting their pro-choice views. Begich, for instance, is pro-choice and he doesn’t shy away from saying as much, but you’ll likely not find mass mailings or TV commercials touting his stance. Ditto for Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

And until relatively recently, the other side kept relatively silent too. Marc Hellenthal, an Alaska based pollster who works mostly for Republicans, says that the first television commercial that he recalls seeing touching on the issue was one released by Gov. Sean Parnell in 2008, who then was lieutenant governor and was running against Rep. Don Young. That commercial was attacking Young for his support for embryonic stem cell research, which is a pro-life dog whistle.

However, Hellenthal believes that the pro-lifers have been emboldened enough by their recent successes in electing state pro-life state legislators, and with their successes nationally, that they will be more visible in the upcoming election. The pro-lifers believe that being pro-choice in Alaska will likely lose you a lot more votes than you’ll be able to make up, he said.

In other words, the issue, for those who support abortion rights, is a losing one, in Hellenthal’s estimation, anyway. And he thinks that those who are running against Begich will use it effectively against him.

“The pro-choice movement is just not as sophisticated as the other side,” he said.

Here’s the full findings from the Planned Parenthood poll:

1. Abortions should be legal and generally available and subject to only limited regulation: 28%

2. Regulation of abortion is necessary, although it should remain legal in many circumstances: 30%

3. Abortion should be legal only in the most extreme cases, such as to save the life of the woman or in cases of rape and incest: 28%

4. All abortions should be made illegal: 8%

5. Don’t know: 5%

Contact Amanda Coyne at amandamcoyne@yahoo.com

Quote of the day

“While in rural communities, I make a point of visiting the store to see what they pay for basic groceries: eggs and milk (if they even have it), flour, sugar, and laundry detergent. In Napaskiak, a box of Tide sells for $46.94. While laundry detergent may seem like a luxury to some, I see it as one of those basic sanitation items that help keep our families healthy.”

From U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s newsletter about a trip that she took to Napaskiak, in the Bethal area, with Indian Affairs Committee Chair Sen. Maria Cantwell.

Throwing his hat in the ring: Mallott will run for governor as a Democrat

In an interview on Monday evening, businessman and Alaska Native leader Byron Mallott said that he’s “definitely” putting his hat in the race for governor against Gov. Sean Parnell, and that he will run as a Democrat.

Due to the restrictive primary system, Mallott, who is 70 years old and lives in Juneau, has been registered as a nonpartisan for 12 years and has worked and supported Republican, independent and Democratic candidates. However, he’s been a Democrat most of his life, he said.

Mallott declined to give specifics about his platform, but he did say that he was born and raised in Alaska, and feels passionately about the state and the place of Alaska in the union. “It’s literally another country in size and richness of resources, but in many ways it’s a small town. The way we deal with one another should reflect that uniqueness,” he said.

Democratic state Sen. Hollis French has filed papers to run for statewide office and has said that he was considering running for governor. It’s unclear if the news about Mallott will do anything to dissuade him from running. He couldn’t be reached for comment on Monday evening.

Mallott brings a unique understanding and perspective to both government service and the private sector, as well as to the rural/urban divide that plagues Alaska, and he’s got the resume to prove it. At 22, he was the mayor of Yakutat. He was commissioner of the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs under Gov. Bill Egan. He served as mayor of Juneau before becoming the executive director of the Alaska Permanent Fund. He was the CEO of Sealaska Corp, president of the Alaska Federation of Natives, and has served on the board of many corporations, including Alaska Airlines and the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

He’s clan leader of the KwaashKiKwaan clan of the Raven tribe of Yakutat. His wife Toni is a retired elementary school teacher. They have five children.

Polls show that Parnell is popular in the state, but they also show that his popularity is rather shallow. In other words, he’s likable enough, but it’s not clear that there’s real commitment behind his support. Mallott is expected to start his campaign with deep pockets of support in Southeast Alaska, the Alaska Native community, and in some business sectors. He’s known to be passionate, tough, and smart and because no Alaska Native has been governor, the race has the potential to be imbued with history-making excitement.

Contact Amanda Coyne at amandamcoyne@yahoo.com