Jon,
Just pointing out the double standard of you Parnell cultural apologists who want detailed responses from Walker but are more than satisfied with slogans like “choose respect” to cover the Governor’s lukewarm efforts regarding the National Guard scandal.
Reflect on how you perceived Amanda’s interview with that Lt. Col. A rational, objective person can see the inconsistencies in this story remain, yet you somehow perceived that to be an exoneration of Sean Parnell. Your boy might just be much more involved in a cover up than you or I know (or will ever know) and that would explain what seems to be Parnell’s focus on “damage control” more than actual resolution. If I understand what you have posted, you can’t understand why there has been no explanation of why there have been no criminal charges or where are the records of the efforts by police and troopers who decided to stop any criminal investigation in 21 of the 29 cases. Of course the Governor’s political allies in the legislature are willing to help him end this with statements like that of Charlie Huggins that legislative oversight would just “muddy the waters”.
Remember in the Dahlstrom hire scandal how she “took one for Parnell” when he was caught violating the state Constitution by creating a job for her as a sitting legislator? She went under the bus then surfaced a few years later as his Anchorage Office Director. Did the Commissioner and deputy commissioner (who were never actually fired by Parnell) “take one for Parnell” and, if he is re-elected, will one or both wind up on their feet somewhere else in a political appointed position after a requisite “cooling off” period.

You can do better than this. Lynn. I’m not a R and I have amd will vote for Ds. The issue is whether Walker can move beyond bumper stickers and crisp one-liners on his two CORE campaign issues: gas and deficits. This isn’t asking for much.

The most apt description I’ve seen of him recently: “Tightrope Walker”

Just like his views on abortion, Walker’s views on the environment and federal overreach are equally confusing since the Unity Ticket. It’s been noted that Walker has changed his stance on the Pebble Mine project, now outright opposing a mine in the Bristol Bay watershed. But take a close look at what Walker has recently said and you’ll find serious his inconsistencies. From Walker’s Unity-ticket approved website, he claims a mine in Bristol Bay requires, “objective, rigorous, scientific and technical analysis.” He further claims that by politicizing Pebble, the Parnell administration has failed to rise to this challenge. According to Walker, as a result of playing Pebble politics, Parnell has caused Alaskans to turn “their back on the State and request the Federal Government to evaluate the mine’s impacts.” Well, Federal intervention is exactly what happened when the EPA issued a preemptive ruling on Pebble’s 404-c permit, but according to Walker in a Dillingham radio interview, he doesn’t like it. Walker said preemptive action by the EPA is “an example of Federal overreach.” On one hand, Walker suggests Alaskans want Federal intervention, then on the other, he cries foul over federal overreach when the EPA circumvents U.S. permitting laws. However, it wouldn’t be wrong if the State had done the same thing first, right? Walker believes so, which is why he will vote “yes” on ballot measure four, an initiative that will place final approval for a mine (i.e. Pebble) located near the waters of Bristol Bay with the Legislature. And Walker says Governor Parnell has “politicized” Pebble Mine? But what about government overreach and circumventing permitting laws? According to Walker, as long as it’s the State not following permitting laws, then it’s A-OK. One more little tidbit on this issue – at the Fairbanks debate, when asked about the delicate balance between the environment and resource development, Walker said the state “needs to look into permitting times.” Good luck with that once the Legislature gets their hands on approving a permit.

To recap: Walker wants Federal intervention, although, doesn’t want Federal intervention, however, supports essentially the same action taken by the Feds, but only if it’s the State taking that action, yet the State needs to look into permitting times, and finally, please no more politicizing of Pebble. Got all that? If not, I’m sure Bill would gladly explain it again, except completely different the second time around.

I don’t think the Port Authority has ever disclosed how much money it has spent. Does anyone know if this information is publically available?