In an interview with the Associated Press on Friday, US Senate candidates Dan Sullivan and Mead Treadwell tried to deceive Alaskans about their support for one of the most liberal “Republicans” in the United States Senate during Alaska’s 2010 US Senate race.
 
According to the AP, “Sullivan, who was Alaska’s attorney general during the 2010 elections, told a reporter he didn’t publicly take sides in that race. He said he was neutral, as someone in his position at the time should be.”
 
Yet, just a few months back, Sullivan himself reportedly claimed in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner that, acting as Attorney General, he spearheaded the effort to assist the write-in candidate by arguing – in clear violation of State Administrative Code – that write-in candidates’ information would be allowed in polling places.
 
His double-speak becomes even more outrageous when one considers the fact that the move was unprecedented in Alaska and opposed by both the state Democrat and Republican Parties. Sullivan was obviously under no legal obligation to support Murkowski’s write-in candidacy and argue the case from the same side her campaign did.
 
According to District Court Judge Frank Pfiffner, Sullivan’s argument was “illogical” and in clear violation of at least four separate laws: the relevant Administrative Code, the Administrative Procedures Act, electioneering Statutes, and the Voter Rights Act which required pre-clearance from the Department of Justice.
 
While the Alaska Supreme Court overturned the lower court decision, it is noteworthy that they chose not to address Judge Pfiffner’s concerns. The High Court issued no written opinion offering the legal justification why Pfiffner’s lengthy decision and interpretation of the clear requirements of the law was in error. This has led many to believe the Supreme Court’s decision was a purely political, and has only fed popular discontent with its activist proclivities.
 
United Press International also reported that the non-statutory standards deployed during the 2010 vote-count in Juneau, in direct violation of Alaska Statute, came at the advice of then-Attorney General Dan Sullivan.
 
Sullivan’s breaking with historic precedent to circumvent the plain text of the law in order to provide an advantage to one candidate is anything but remaining neutral. There is little doubt, if the shoe were on the other foot and Senator Murkowski was the party nominee facing a write-in challenger, the law would have been interpreted as it always had been.
 
Treadwell’s claim of neutrality is equally troubling. Not only did Treadwell make public statements in 2010 meant to convey the message that he supported the write-in campaign, he was reportedly pressuring Governor Parnell behind the scenes to endorse Murkowski over Miller, a charge he has declined to challenge in private conversation.
 
Further, Treadwell presided over a white-washing of the 2010 election, refusing to allow an independent investigation, despite serious allegations of fraud levied by eye-witnesses in sworn affidavits, under penalty of perjury.
 
Treadwell now travels the state peddling his wares as a Constitutional Conservative. Yet somehow he wants to forget that Lisa Murkowski went back to Washington and offered Barack Obama bi-partisan legitimacy by voting for every piece of his 2010 “lame duck” agenda immediately following the election (which included the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ the new START Treaty, the DREAM Act, and a partial repeal of the Bush era tax cuts), fought for funding for Planned Parenthood, accused Republicans of a “war on women,” came out in support of Anchorage Prop. 5 (ENDA), voted multiple times to raise the debt ceiling, helped confirm numerous activist judges . . . and the list goes on.
 
How did Mead Treadwell respond to all this? When asked by Politico Magazine last spring, Treadwell said, “I voted for Lisa Murkowski in the primary and in the general, and I think Alaskans made the right decision.”
 
Since then, Murkowski has come out in support of gay marriage, and continued her trajectory as a big spending, big government politician. It was reported in Roll Call earlier this year that Senator Murkowski voted with Barack Obama over 72 percent of the time, making her the second most likely Republican Senator to do so, falling only slightly behind Susan Collins of Maine. Indeed her support for the President’s agenda is far closer to Democrat Mark Begich than to most of the Republican caucus. Pretty hard to run against a Democrat whose voting record is similar to your Republican mentor.

Perhaps Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Treadwell need a civics lesson. We have a representative form of government. The folks we send to Washington represent us. If you vote to send someone to Washington to represent you, you are responsible for what they do. In a very real sense, you did it.
 
Forgive the Editorial team at Restoring Liberty if we don’t buy the claims of neutrality and high sounding rhetoric about Party loyalty coming from folks who selectively choose when it applies. From where we sit, it sounds a lot like the same political double-speak we’re used to hearing from big government politicians.