U.S. Senate candidate Dan Sullivan released a TV ad on Friday morning, claiming he’s the “conservative choice for U.S. Senate,” who has been endorsed by the Club for Growth, fought the EPA, ObamaCare, and for “pro-growth tax reform.” The ad isn’t going to make your heart melt. It’s not going to raise your blood pressure. It might not even capture your attention for 30 seconds. It’s a decidedly unexciting ad, from which Sullivan himself appears detached. However, the campaign has been polling, and maybe the buzz words will stick with some.
That’s a quote from an ADN article, Garand. I’m saying that Dan’s a good guy. That’s what I said. I don’t think you need to attack my intelligence because I believe in moderate republican’s like Dan. I like the fact that he’s willing to be honest despite the corruption of the NRA. They’re a powerful group, and it means a lot that he echoes the thoughts of Alaskans like me. Just because you don’t like that he is against guns isn’t a problem to me. You’ll never agree with any candidate 100% of the time. I think we’re finally moving in the right direction.
By the way, the UK doesn’t have guns and they get a long just fine without them. I don’t think your straw-man argument holds any weight. I’ll reiterate, because logic seems to elude some people here VvVvVvV. I’m glad to know that I can back a candidate (the only one out of four), who isn’t all gun-ho about guns.
Norah, while there seems to be no evidence that Sullivan said that, you are in agreement with Hitler and Stalin with your other points. If you live in Alaska you are out of your element.
Still, a vote for Sullivan, even if from a confused voter, is a vote for Alaska.
“Why would we want to authorize the taking of a life when one could walk away in complete safety?” Sullivan asked.
I like this guy. If Sullivan’s got the gusto to come out against the NRA – he’s got my vote. Only the police should have guns, and at least he’s taking a step in the right direction.
I am not buying it (that Afghan Dan opposed stand your ground). First, the Anchorage Daily News says that the letter – one single letter – was not written by AG Sullivan, or Parnell for that matter, but was written by a subordinate. Time after time, and over many years, I have seen the Dept. of Law attorney dealing with the legislature take positions that are later retracted, redacted, and denied by the administration. That is because the department has lots of liberal attorneys who were at the tops of their game during the Sheffield, Cowper, and Knowles administration but have remained in place during Republican administrations; some might say dishonestly, but then again these people are attorneys. This was best manifested during the concealed carry legislation debates in the early 1990’s, and of course these liberal department attorneys are at the heart of the desire many have to move to an elected AG.
Second, this story is in the Anchorage Daily News – not a friend of conservatives. So I do not think we yet have proof that Sullivan opposed stand your ground. He neither wrote nor signed the one letter. The department has a track record of retaining liberal rogues. And the source is the Anchorage Daily News (or, as Don Young likes to say, The Daily Worker).
If Sullivan today said he opposes stand your ground then I would not believe he should represent Alaska in the US Senate. And where is Mark Begich on stand your ground? I can guess where he was when he signed Anchorage up with the Bloomberg Mayors Against Guns.
Good grief, did L48 Dan just step out of Condi Rice’s limo and start the monotone, near flat campaign speech?
I think you were drunk and posted last night, and are reeling back to you original statement this morning. Let me reel back to mine because it seems to be a little too complex for you to grasp: http:// www. adn .com /2012/04/02/2404268/former-state-ag-once-decried-stand. html
Here’s the evidence. I hope you’re just another one of these campaign imports I keep hearing about, because I would hate the idea of you voting in our elections.
There are any number of people using the name Garand Fellow here. This Garand Fellow has not been able to find any evidence that Sullivan was at any time against stand your ground or any other aspect of the right to keep and bear arms.
Also, this Garand Fellow never heard of Steerin – is that a misspelling of Stevens? Is it some sort of talk show?
When it comes to guns I am a single issue voter but I have found absolutely no instance of Afghan Dan not supporting our rights. Begich on the other hand has been on both sides of the issue, and hiring Celinda Lake to run his campaign shows exactly where he is at the moment.
Well to be honest Josh, I’m voting for Dan no matter what.
He’s got big connections to the Republican Establishment, and I view a Bush endorsement as a good thing. I don’t care about his past. I’m voting his way regardless. Millers a fool. And Treadwell we can’t control. End of story.
Gun rights aren’t the end all, be all. So what if Dan was against the stand your ground laws. We’ve seems what they’ve done to our country and I know people won’t think it’s a big deal. Whatever, throw your vote to Begich. Money always wins.
Well Garand, I’ve been with Dan since the condi add, but to me, that article is bad. I heard another caller on Steerin today too. Now I know that Steerins not one for the second amendment, but that people are finding out that he fought against their right to defend their lives, and rightfully, are getting pretty steamed. If I were to say I’m an issue specific voter – it’s on second amendment rights.
I would want to see anything that shows Sullivan is not very strong on the right to keep and bear arms, including stand your ground. I have not seen anything about that and would be very surprised to do so. Governor Parnell has always been very strong on all Second Amendment issues so I am quite sure Sullivan did nothing to diminish our rights while he was part of the Parnell administration.
Looking forward to Joe Miller’s response on Sullivan’s 2nd amendment flip-flop
Begich’s ads are by far and away much better than Sullivan’s. Begich’s ad makes you feel his message where Sullivan’s feels like a square peg being shoved in a round hole. Don’t know who the production companies are for either campaign. But I suspect that Begich’s production team wins more awards for their creativity and cinematography. At least they should.
Thanks Sarah, I didn’t get a chance to listen to Rydell this morning. I had no idea that this was the same guy. I can’t believe he’s running after in Alaska after they quoted him near the bottom of this story. Unbelievable…
http://www.adn.com/2012/04/02/2404268/former-state-ag-once-decried-stand.html
I learned on Rydell’s show this morning about Dan’s Second Amendment Record. Seems pretty ironic that Dan’s ad starts with ‘people from around Alaska are standing with Dan Sullivan’ when he stood against us on stand your ground.
How dumb is Sullivan’s campaign ? Looks like they’re taking a page out of Treadwell’s campaign plan book to try to attempt to be “conservative”. What a joke, just like Begich is as “independent” as Alaska ( or did he mean to say as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?). Joe Miller is the only candidate with the courage and convictions to actually stand for what he believes. Wondering what I think of the ad ? A waste of money.
I’m for Dan Sullivan because I believe that he is the only candidate in my party’s primary that can beat Begich. But, he’s going to need better ads than this to win. Can someone explaiin to me why a guy who has raised so much money has waited so long to get on the air and when he does it is with a mediocre product at best. This ad is not very imaginative and is much less in quality and message than what Begich has going.