Joe Miller turned in another strong debate performance in his hometown of Fairbanks today. The debate, sponsored by the Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce, was the first and only debate among the Republican primary opponents in the community. Many of the topics focused on business issues; however, the candidates were also afforded the opportunity to ask one question of each other.

Miller’s first question went to Dan Sullivan and concerned the subject of impeachment. Given President Obama’s lawless acts regarding ObamaCare, Fast and Furious, and amnesty among others, Miller asked, “Would you support the impeachment of the President?” Sullivan declined to answer, responding if the House voted on the matter, as a senator he would be required to “adjudicate that impeachment.” Miller followed, “Do you not agree those are the types of things for which the House should pursue articles of impeachment?” Sullivan responded that his focus would be on reducing regulations and improving the economy.

Miller’s question to Mead Treadwell focused on international taxes Treadwell supported as a consequence of his backing of the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty (“LOST.”) He also worked with the World Wildlife Fund to enact what is essentially a federal environmental tax on oil production: the World Wildlife Fund was one of the plaintiffs that sued to shut down offshore drilling in Alaska earlier this year. LOST gives the United Nations the authority to directly tax and regulate the American people for the first time ever. Miller asked, “How does your backing of these taxes square with your ATR [“Americans for Tax Reform”] Pledge to vote for no new taxes?” Treadwell responded that he had been educated by Miller and others about LOST, and that he does not now support those provisions of the treaty. But Miller made it clear, with LOST already ratified by dozens of nations around the world, that the Treaty could only be supported in its entirety or not. Treadwell did not respond to this point.

A question came from the audience concerning whether all the candidates could work with Lisa Murkowski as part of the Alaska delegation. Treadwell said that he and Lisa Murkowski have been “lifelong friends,” and though they may have differences sometimes, they will be able to “work together for the benefit of Alaska.” Sullivan said, “I will be able to work very well with Senator Murkowski.” Miller responded, “Senator Murkowski voted with Obama 72 percent of the time, it is one of the weaknesses of Mr. Treadwell and Mr. Sullivan’s campaigns that they were supporters of hers in 2010.” It makes it harder to argue Mark Begich should be replaced, given he votes 80 percent of the time with Murkowski. Miller added, “On the 28 percent of the areas we agree, you bet, I will be hand-in-hand with her to make sure the interests of this state are advanced.”

I just watched the July 15th Alaska Republican U.S. senate debate that was in Homer.

I am still a firm Joe miller supporter.

As a middle aged guy who has some life experience, I listen to my gut as I listen to words.

My gut says, and this is just my impression from seeing one debate:

Dan Sullivan is probably an effective administrator and skilled executive type. I believe he has good experience working in government, and can effectively play the game. I think that he would be able to work in the political arena and get things done, but what things? His dedication to the constitution and founding principals did not come across as an overriding mindset. At first glance it seems as though he would be another luke warm politician willing to play the game of compromise. —–More of the same, but certainly better than Begich.

Mead Treadwell also said what is probably compulsory rhetoric in this election, about standing against government overreach etc. But again these came across as an “also ran” philosophy. Oddly considering his disdain for outside control, he supports the law of the sea treaty. He touts economic benefits to justify the forfeiture of our sovereignty, passing off control to some far off and unfriendly unelected central authority. This is the short sightedness we need to be rid of. —–More of the same, but certainly better than Begich.

Joe Miller by contrast seems to have the constitution and founding principles as core beliefs. The anchor that his positions are tethered to. Joe seems willing to win or lose standing on those principles (as evidenced by the 2010 campaign). Joe is not a perfect human. Joe is not a polished politician. I like that he is not a polished politician though.—-Unique willingness to take stands both constitutionally and fiscally. We need more like him.

We as Americans are at a crossroads. Do we deliberately steer right and adhere to what made us a nation and a people? Or do we just lazily keep on keepin on, electing more of the same who will gently and comfortably compromise us further into fundamental transformation? Do we send (and re-send) politicians who promise us free stuff, or short-term economic benefits for our state while dismantling who we are and thus ruining our future well being?

There are times of specific need in which we seek out leaders with specific skills or traits to meet those needs, and right now is no exception. Right here right now, at this critical crossroads in American history, I think we need to elect leaders with an authentic constitutional conservative core as their foremost trait. To me, that appears to be Joe Miller.

Go Joe!