WE have a dilema in this years voting choices on our "Alaskan delegation" of lawmakers.

First- some ADN for ya: http://www.adn.com/politics/story/350601.html

The kinds of questions that so annoyed the incumbent, Don Young, that he canceled a press conference last month -- his relationship to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff or why he's spent nearly $1 million on legal fees -- will be off limits in Kodiak.

This has to do with earmarks and payoffs, do a search on the ADN site under "Veco" and you will find a plethora of problems associated with the "old guard" republican party and bribes, pay offs and down right oil company butt kissing

The former Governer, Frank Murkowski- was the "junior representitive" with over 20 years in his Senate seat, and became so hated while governer, he is not welcome anywhere he goes in the state- literally, people heckle him wherever he walks, which I believe is healthy - so, what did he do along with myriad other things while in office? Appointed his daughter as his senate replacement!

3 republican lawmakers have been indicted in the Veco bribery trials, and Ted Stevens is under the gun.

Murkowski (Lisa) has had several run ins already as well.

You would be hard pressed to find one single Alaskan that doesn't believe 100% of the Alaskan delegation is completely and totally corrupt and making bank doing it/ Seriously hard to find a person.

But here is the deal- they get the job done for us, and don't care about the flak they get from the "lower 48"- which is why we seem to keep them- you see, like with the "bridges to nowhere" charge- we take alot of unfair and just plain wrong crap from both parties "from the lower 48"- in fact, Ted Stevens ® biggest friend in times that Alaska needs some help is Daniel Inouye (D) Hawaii, because we combine our clout to overcome the just plain wrong views of "lower 48" lawmakers.

I have contacted each of them in the past, (with the exception of Lisa Murkowski) on a variety of issues- mostly personal, nothing really politically issue driven- just private constituent stuff you call your lawmaker over.

They are each as responsive as you can get- frequently- you get a PERSONAL call from one of these three when you have a problem- and you pretty much have a standing invitation as an Alaskan when visiting Washington DC, they will make sure and schedule you in for an office visit with the lawmaker.

I joke now "nothing like an ongoing investigation to make a lawmaker responsive eh" -

So- for Alaskans, we have a real quandry-

Do we vote for the guys that are completely in touch with Alaskan needs and wishes, for the most part, and give awesome personal attention when a citizen needs it most- when we all know they are crooked as a dawgs hind leg?


So the question mirrors our question:

Is it morally okay to hold your nose and vote for a guy you personally know for a fact is corrupt, because, the end justifies the means?

If the guy/gal's stance on an issue is personally EVERYTHING to you, such as funding your cause desperately needs, perhaps even lives in the balance- but he is personally corrupt- would You vote for him/her?

Of course it's not "morally okay to hold your nose and vote for a guy you personally know for a fact is corrupt" ! Lookup the word MORALLY.

Do you believe in Karma? Or "What goes around Comes Around"?

Remember in life there is no free lunch ! (It's a law of Physics). If you’re not paying for it someone else is !
And some day you might be paying for other people leeching off of you !!

Well, here is the deal- the corrupt guys, that are not OUR guys, in DC, are out to screw us over, and quite frankly, screw up the whole state. They are corrupt too- the corrupt guys FROM our state have done an outstanding job, overall, of protecting our interests from those corrupt forces.

Getting rid of them only harms us- doesn't harm the other corrupt officials- only alaskans.

Kinda sucks ya know? But what do you do anyway?

Is it morally okay to hold your nose and vote for a guy you personally know for a fact is corrupt, because, the end justifies the means?

Instead of giving the obvious and expected answer -- no, you should always vote against corruption -- I'll try to get more information about the situation. What do we mean by corrupt? Stealing the taxpayer's money, taking bribes (as opposed to legal contributions) in order to influence the law, and so on -- these things are clearly far beyond the pale, and cannot be accepted. But what about lesser sins, that might fall into a gray area? Giving your supporters cushy jobs, accepting legal contributions from folks who clearly want to influence your vote, extramarital affairs without the consent of your spouse -- these things aren't very nice, but should they cause me to avoid voting for somebody who otherwise supports the same things that I do? I would say that, in a very imperfect world, we need to try to find some balance between human failings and the issues we support. Should I vote for the squeaky clean conservative over the liberal who gets drunk now and then, and who takes trips to exotic places, courtesy of lobbyists? I would say not.

If the guy/gal's stance on an issue is personally EVERYTHING to you, such as funding your cause desperately needs, perhaps even lives in the balance- but he is personally corrupt- would You vote for him/her?


Well, if people will literally die if this crook doesn't get into office, it might be necessary to accept some corruption. That's a lousy choice, though, and it would be better to find another candidate if at all possible. The election of one person is rarely, if ever, a matter of life and death, so I doubt this would come up very often. For less serious situations, we can afford to be more fussy about our candidates.

Hmm- the money Don Young and Ted Stevens have obtained for medevac, dental hygiene, emergency and day to day fly in subsidies, roads and bridges built to unite one or two villages together to operate a hospital or rescue station, the entire VSPO (village safety patrol officer- a quasi-cop program) - well, they have saved lives. And they did much of it through the very means we are debating on other threads, earmarks, backroom deals involving vote trading, amendments and committe assignments that allow more influence than a small state (population wise) like ours would normally not have-

ya, it becomes life and death, to a degree. We dont' have seniority and clout- we ARE the frontier in Alaska- and ya, sometimes, it means lives if some legislation doesn't pass.

Folks that can hop in a car and drive across three states in a 24 hour period- well, it can be a five our flight to the next hospital, so we been, you know, trying to build them a bit closer together.

And the state doesn't even have jurisdiction in areas in the state we need to help- as far as being able to controla and use developement resources to help the local population- we literally need "lower 48" permission.

So ya, it is a pretty hard (collective) decision

Look up Don Young, Florida Earmarks
Look up Ted Stevens, Veco.

Look up Vic Kohring, Veco ( for background info)

Look up Ben Stevens, Veco ( more background info)

I am at the wrong computer to privide links tonight- but if you dont' find them, if you wish to search- I will provide some other time, please exuse!