Good luck, challengers. Don Young, electoral superhero, is back.
Scott Woodham |
Feb 24, 2012
To: U.S. Representative Don Young
CC: Alaska Democrats; Alaska Republicans
Subject: The Sun Rising
Dear Congressman, Well, you've done it again. For the 21st time, you've jumped into the ring and dared all comers for a seat as Alaska's lone congressman. Although there was some speculation last year whether or not your current term would be your last, we haven't been concerned, for a change. We knew that you're in good health and haven't shown any decline in fighting spirit. Just as we know the sun rises in the East, and that your campaign logo will never change, we The Concerned know that as long as you draw breath, you'll keep bidding to represent everyone who votes for you. And probably then some. So far no one knows who's going to climb into the ring with you, but whoever it is had better pack a lunch. Democrats especially, who have only mounted a handful of serious challenges to you in all your years in office. Most recently, Ethan Berkowitz ended up giving you a run for your money. But because all of your Democratic challengers have done worse with each successive run against you, history doesn't look to be on his side for a second try. Democrat Scott McAdams made a good impression on many people when he ran in one of the weirdest Senate races in state history, but so far he hasn't shown any interest. As usual, your biggest challenge will probably be in the Republican primary, which your winning record may have misled some Alaskans into thinking is the actual House election. You're like some sort of electoral superhero, impervious to scandal and all opponents. You shrug off flak from across the political spectrum, from environmentalists to budget hawks. You're simultaneously bulletproof and able to reach long distances around any obstacle. People used to call the late Sen. Ted Stevens “The Hulk” for his legendary debate style, but no one has dared give you such a label, though we're pretty sure your colleagues have a few names for you that no one knows about. Your longevity in the House is well-known in Alaska, and no doubt it's an amazing string of victories. But we're afraid it has gone to your head just a little bit. Last year's propeller beanie incident comes to mind. Perhaps because Alaska's such a, well, young state, it can seem that your string of practically inevitable elections is the stuff of legend. And no doubt you're still standing. But you're only Number 30 on the list of all-time longest-serving House members, and only sixth among those actively serving. The longest-serving House member in history, as well as the longest currently-serving member, is Rep. John Dingell of Michigan. He was first elected to the House four years before Alaska became a state. Rep. Dingell's probably just lucky you didn't fall in love with Michigan. Don't get us wrong here; we don't want to dissuade you from fighting for Alaska however you see fit. But we're concerned that wearing beanies and pounding on tables might not be the best way to argue for Alaska's interests or test the slack given to people of long tenure. We imagine that being from a state known for eccentricity adds a bit of slack to your lead. As much as some people don't want to admit it, you are Alaska and Alaska is you. You've managed to internalize and reflect so much of what many people in Alaska want. If our state isn't your “Fortress of Solitude,” we can't imagine another explanation for how voters can keep overlooking certain recurring things they inevitably grumble about after they re-elect you by comfortable margins. You're one of the most vocal defenders of Alaska's sovereignty, and you rail against “federal over-reach” any chance you get. Yet at the same time, you champion earmarks and pork spending for the folks back home. You even support efforts now and then to expand the size of the federal government. Remember that time you co-sponsored the bill that created the Transportation Safety Administration? It's fair to say the TSA is now the most universally hated arm of the federal government -- even, dare we say, more widely hated than the National Park Service.
by FishinforTuition | February 26, 2012 - 12:08pm
And the Worlds First National Park(R) Grants Village, Yellowstone? Teddy Roosevelt(R) Sent in the Federal Troops...built Ft Yellowstone...to stop a Criminal Enterprise like Don Youngs(D) wet dreams. Coconut Grove Don? Dixie has never been GOP Terrority; TR, Boone and Crockett, hunting democrats his speciality! Seantoer Foraker, Bribed by an Oil Company, the Grand Old Party Don's always attended, we love those who think there Republcan, and know, not one thing of the subject matter forever. When do we get to watch Don swing his wet dream Favorte, Oosik's United! Teddy Roosevelt had a Rough Rider "Hell Roaring" Bill Jones, Don Young coulden't make that gradeif his life depended on it! Look Away Look Away Look Away Dixie Don!
by Wowie | February 28, 2012 - 11:14am
It's always a pleasure to read your comments, Fishin'. Even if we never have any idea what you are saying. Good day...
by Wowie | February 25, 2012 - 11:52pm
It's hard to take a commentary seriously when the author can't even correctly spell the name of agency he tries so failingly to mock. It is the National PARK Service. Get used to it. Repeat it a few times to yourself. It will be still here in this state propping up its economy and protecting the wilderness resource long after our extraction economy has collapsed and Young has been consigned to just a name on a few decrepit public buildings themselves scheduled for eventual demolition. And as for Tulefoths comment:, the only "gravely over-complacent institution" mentioned in this article is Rep. Young.
by thulefoth | February 26, 2012 - 8:35am
I'm sure you will want to correct yourself, Wowie - that's Thulefoth, spelled "Th" (the h is silent, yes, which you evidently know), and you forgot the possessive-apostrophe. You think Parks is a healthy, robust institution? For many years, up into the early 1970s, Yellowstone had bleachers constructed at their garbage dump, and they posted for tourists the times at which trucks made deliveries. Refuse - esp. kitchen waste - was saved & stockpiled, for delivery at times most-convenient & in-demand, for tourist-viewing. Bears knew the delivery times, too, and assembled at the dump, jostling aggressively for position. As the garbage fell out of the dump trucks, bears commonly fell upon each other in savage, destructive brawls. Many miles of home movies recorded these Gladiatorial spectacles. When the public decided this kind of thing was icky, the bleachers disappeared. Truth is, Parks was never a competent institution. It was created flawed & ineffectual, and has been a push-over for passing fads & fancies, all along. Within the intermediate future, we should anticipate that the Guns-in-Parks law will be expanded upon to shift Administration, Enforcement and Management duties - and business opportunity - to the local jurisdictions (States) in which they exist.
by Wowie | February 26, 2012 - 12:30pm
I had the functional disadvantage of typing my comment on a mobile device screen the size of a matchbook cover. A disadvantage that - one would hope - Woodham did not and does not suffer ;) And passing fads cut both ways. Many of us think the recent change in the firearms policy is a passing cynical fad designed more to appeal to votes from the fringe, and soon sanity will be reinstated and the regulation that existed in various forms since the roaring twenties will once again be in effect.
by thulefoth | February 26, 2012 - 2:27pm
You do have my sympathy on the mobile device. Ugh. ;) If the 2nd Amendment could be side-lined, then all sorts of things could come to pass. For a good long stretch, opponents of guns (and the 2nd) did at least 'seem' to be gradually improving their position. However, of late that apparent progress is looking more illusory, and support for guns & the 2nd has shown itself to be more robust than its adversary had hoped.
by Wowie | February 27, 2012 - 1:29pm
The Constitution (barring amendment)should be an institution. But the interpretation of it should rightfully be subject to societal norms of the day - call them fads if you will. That there are some shameful examples of failures to interpret it fairly in our past cannot overshadow this basic simple truth: The Constitution says what people alive today think it means, not what people now dust thought it might say.
by thulefoth | March 3, 2012 - 2:46pm
You are mistaken, Wowie. On multiple counts. The role of the Constitution is not that it will be reinterpreted anew, by each generation ... or shift of politics. What the original authors were thinking, is in fact a matter of importance that gets the highest levels of attention. In some cases, we have decided that the founders were wrong, or we think there are now opportunities they didn't have or know about. There are mechanisms for changing the Constitution ... tho the checkered history of doing so provides considerable additional inhibition against using the option. But we do have other institutions that are there to take account of fad, and give it its due - which it does merit. Fad or shifting politics are not given short-shrift. They are part of the picture. But that's not the role of the Constitution.
by The Billiken | February 26, 2012 - 5:51am
First time reading theconcerned, eh?
by Aapa | February 25, 2012 - 6:13pm
One hopes that Alaska will consign Don to the trash heap along with the Bridge to Nowhere. The only scary thing is if he lost the primary. If you can imagine, say, that the likes of Joe Miller, the "constitutionalist" who hates much of the Constitution (think First, Fourth, Fourteenth, Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments) and whose every other statement is a lie, or 2012's "Captain Zero," who still doesn't realize that he isn't working directly for Big Oil anymore, might get the nomination. After all, Ted only lost by about 3,500 votes after being convicted of seven felonies, and Don didn't even get indicted, though he must have missed same by the thinnest whisker.
by FishinforTuition | February 25, 2012 - 5:10pm
Superhero, always in a comic script! "...In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated...."
by thulefoth | February 25, 2012 - 1:27pm
"We fear government bureaucrats and the people who fund them remember all too well how often Alaska likes to think about secession from the big, bad federal government responsible for a third of the state's economy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession Alaska secession-interest & activity takes the far backseat in crowded van-load of other States ... let alone the far more feasible prospect of major metropolitan secessions, for which there are legal pathways (which cities themselves have ensured remain on the books (indeed, Anchorage itself is structured to leave it favorably-endowed, in the event that an urban secession (from the State, not the Fed) became indicated)). California - and Liberals - are the leading fount of recent-decades state secession talk. Still, Joe Vogel and the honorable heirs to his interest base maintain a credible claim on the attentions of Alaska's representatives. "Directly targeting agencies for cuts, as you did with the Parks Service, must seem very aggressive, especially to an already frightened federal beast." "When the camel falls, the knives come out". Guns-in-Parks was national, as have been other 'shocks' to the gravely over-complacent institution. And we could also quote The Organic Act of 1916. ;)
by ragnarock | February 25, 2012 - 8:47am
Alaskans must consider that it is hard for d.c. to take us seriously when we tell them how we want to be left alone and at the same time take their money, both Don and Ted did great work as we built the state,but at the same time many excessive federal steps were taken on their watch,.Mostly in regards to our access to Alaska's resorces,. had the feds not hamstrung many industries here they would be receving taxes from thoes industries rather than just bills from the state, Alaska's econemy was unfortunatly built around federal money and that trend should now be reversed,as the state becomes more in controll of its resorces and the federal government goes broke,it could be that since Don was there durring the construction stage he should be there for the removal of the federal leg on the tripod, as it will not be easy or quick, A new congressman could figure it out but will face all the trials facing any freshman in D.C. |













Comments