Mike Doogan Ousts AKMuckraker

I hate that after all of this time of inactivity that the inspiration to start up again comes from a DEMOCRAT! I hope that this Democrat will soon be censured and later voted OUT...

In Exposing the Identity of Mudflats, Rep. Mike Doogan Exposes Himself.

Anonymity is an interesting thing. Anyone who has read my "About" page knows that Mudflats popped out of my head and on to my keyboard last May. I, like many of you, get frustrated with my government. There isn't anyone who pays attention, on either side of the political spectrum, who doesn’t at some time feel like they need to get something off their chest.

Here's a link to the full article on Mudflats

Here's the email that we sent to the House Minority (Democrat) Leader, Representative Beth Kerttula.
Email: Representative_Beth_Kerttula@legis.state.ak.us

Please censure Rep. Mike Doogan for his ousting of AKMuckraker’s identity. His actions are despicable and make me ashamed to be associated with the Democratic party. I hope that you can take swift, decisive action and restore my faith and confidence.

Thank you,
Remaining Anonymous

We also suggest contacting Rep. Mike Doogan directly to express your outrage (as carefully and politely as possible). Here is his contact information:
Rep. Mike Doogan "doogans@gci.net"
Rep_Mike_Doogan@legis.state.ak.us
Phone: 907.561.7990

Please email AND call, let him know that is unconscionable and unethical! In case you are wondering, what Doogan did was not only unethical, but also illegal:

Instead of using their true names to communicate, these people choose to speak using pseudonyms (assumed names) or anonymously (no name at all). For these individuals and the organizations that support them, secure anonymity is critical. It may literally save lives.

Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius," and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.

Read the full article here...

You can also register your concern to the Alaska Joint Committee on Legislative Ethics. Their emails are:
Representative_John_Coghill@legis.state.ak.us
Representative_Berta_Gardner@legis.state.ak.us
Senator_Gary_Stevens@legis.state.ak.us
Senator_Thomas_Wagoner@legis.state.ak.us

3/28/2009 Update: A new FaceBook group has been started to call out Doogan http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=82564017994

3/29/2009 Update: Here's another great article from the Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/3/28/714126/-Response-to-Rep.-Mike-Doogan

Battleground State History and Conjecture

Pennsylvania
John McCain has, pretty much, pinned his hopes on Pennsylvania, there is almost no path to 270 for him without it.

Pennsylvania has voted Democrat for the last four elections, but the state's blue-collar Democrats have shown a lack of enthusiasm for Obama in the primary. McCain has fought hard to exploit this weakness but has trailed in the polls by double-digits since mid-September.

Pennsylvania voted Republican only when the entire country was doing so, except when they chose Dewey over Truman in 1948.

McCain's chances of pulling off an upset here are slim to none and, I believe, should be contested and investigated if it happens.

New Hampshire
New Hampshire chose Nixon over Kennedy in 1960 and they voted for G.W. in 2000, but they wanted him out in 2004 ~ hopefully they have learned their lesson and will favor Obama in 2008. Polls were within margin of error until early October, since then Obama has a consistent and wide lead. I am counting on New Hampshire to keep all of New England Blue.

Virginia
Virginia has only gone Democrat once since 1952, when it voted for Lyndon Johnson in 1964. It is another state that chose Nixon over Kennedy. Virginia has voted Republican without interruption in the last ten elections.

However in the "communist ~ not real" Virginia there is a large African-American population and a large suburban Washington, D.C. population. This gives Obama a real chance in Virginia, polling since early October has favored Obama by a wide, but mostly single-digit, margin.

I have a hard time counting on a state that chose Nixon over Kennedy to help put Obama in the White House.

Ohio
Ohio voted for Bush by slim margins in 2000 (+3.5%) and 2004 (+2.1%). The Ohio vote determined the outcome of 2004, if Bush had lost Ohio then Kerry would be President now.

Ohio's Democrats went for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in the primaries, and McCain has led in Ohio polls, but Obama has opened an increasing lead since the recent economic crisis.

Unfortunately, Obama's lead has narrowed in Ohio over the last week, or so. This is, most likely, due to the exploitation of Joe the Plumber, lies about the coal industry, divisive racism and various other Rovian tactics. Is Ohio stupid enough to make their decision based on a non-plumber, turned celebrity?

Ohio has only once failed to elect the winner since the 1944 election when it chose Nixon over Kennedy in 1960. Any state that produces a Joe the Plumber icon and chose Nixon over Kennedy has me a little worried about Obama's chances in that state.

Florida
The last four elections were resolved by narrow margins, the closest being the 2000 race, when George W. Bush (with a little help from his family and friends) beat Al Gore by .1 per cent. Polls have had McCain ahead for just about the entire campaign, although Obama has a narrow lead for most of the time since the beginning of October.

Florida has only once in the last ten elections not voted for the next President. Since Florida chose George H. W. Bush over Bill Clinton in 1992, and Nixon over Kennedy in 1960, it should not surprise or worry you if Obama loses Florida to John McCain.

North Carolina
North Carolina will, most likely, be closer than Ohio and Florida. it voted against Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. But North Carolina has strong Democratic roots and voted Democratic 6 times in a row from 1944 through 1964. The only time that North Carolina has voted Democrat since 1964 is when they voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976. There is a strong progressive population in some parts, large African-American population in others and very large bible belt, fundamentalists in much of the rest of the state. Obama has a very slim lead in the polls but has a shot in North Carolina, they are not one of the states that helped put Nixon in the White house in 1960.

Indiana
Don't pin any of Obama's hopes here, apart from voting for a Democrat in 1964, when only six states voted Republican, Indiana last chose a Democrat in 1936, when only two states voted Republican. Indiana is a very Red state. Obama's chances in Indiana are that, overall, they don't seem to really like either candidate and they are right next to Obama's home state of Illinois. Their proximity to Obama's home state could allow some of the Illinois enthusiasm to spill over and affect the outcome.

McCain has consistently led in the polls, but the margin has narrowed constantly since the beginning of October.

Tennessee and Georgia
Will the Democratic population in Atlanta, Memphis, Chattanooga and Nashville be enough to out-vote rural areas to turn Tennessee and Georgia for Obama, I don't think so but I do hope so.

Arizona
Poll margins are down to an almost imperceptible lead in Arizona, I believe his slimy campaigning has shamed them. John McCain's home state might still vote him into office just to delay his return to Arizona.

Alaska
Palin started out as the most popular governor in the country, but approval has waned significantly in her home state. There are more "-gates" than can be counted and many of her remaining supporters will likely also be voting for convicted felon, Ted Stevens, for the senate. Alaska will probably not swing for Obama, but it will be a lot closer than it should have been.

Final Tally
Look for Obama to win between 273 and 364 electoral votes and John McCain between 128 and 174. What I am really hoping for is Obama 403, McCain 135.

US Senator Stevens (R-AK) found guilty on all counts

Yet another new category today, convicted felon! Wow, I didn't see that one coming. Actually, I did, but I was sure they would hold it off until after the election like they've managed to do with several other investigations.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens was convicted of seven corruption charges in a trial that tainted the 40-year Senate career of Alaska’s political patriarch.

read complete AP release here...

Stevens is running against Mark Begich Donate to Mark Begich here...

Palin Pipeline's Poor Planning Puts Paycheck in Pal's Pocket

Gov. Sarah Palin's signature accomplishment — a contract to build a 1,715-mile pipeline to bring natural gas from Alaska to the Lower 48 — emerged from a flawed bidding process that narrowed the field to a company with ties to her administration, an Associated Press investigation shows.

"Most definitely TransCanada got a sweetheart deal this time," said Republican Sen. Bert Stedman, who voted against the TransCanada license. "Where else could you get a $500 million reimbursement when you don't even have the financing to build the pipeline?"

read full article here...

Donate to Obama Campaign