Focus on Alaska Politics, Part II: Ted and Don

I am not going to lie here: despite the fact that I do not agree with their politics, and I find both of their personalities and temperaments fairly repulsive, I am fascinated by the life stories of Sen. Stevens and Rep. Young. This is in part why I wanted to write about Alaska's politics. I am amazed at how two men from very humble origins were able to rise from far-away Alaska to become two of the most powerful members of Congress. Hopefully you will kind of see what I am getting at as you read. First, let's look at the life and career of Ted Stevens.

Ted Stevens. Ted Stevens has led an interesting life. He is one of the most powerful men in Congress, and at one point may have been the most powerful member of the U.S. Senate. First put into office in 1968 when he was appointed to fill Bob Bartlett's seat after the latter's sudden and untimely death, Stevens is the longest-serving Republican Senator in U.S. history. Ted Stevens was born in 1923 and spent some of his earliest years in Indianapolis. However, after his parents divorced, he moved around Chicago, Indiana (where he was raised by his grandparents), and Manhattan Beach, California after his father died and his mother had moved there. He went to high school there, and was apparently a big surfer for several years. In 1943, Stevens joined the Army Air Corps, and in 1944 and 1945 he flew cargo transports over Asia, winning several decorations. After the war Stevens graduated from UCLA and then Harvard Law School. He went to Washington, D.C. and briefly worked for a law firm there with hopes of getting a position in the Department of the Interior. After a position with Interior did not materialize, Stevens moved back west, accepting a job with a Fairbanks law firm in 1953. Stevens and his new wife took out a loan, piled their belongings into a 1947 Buick, and actually drove from Washington to Alaska. Once there, Stevens fell in love with the land and began to establish himself in Republican circles. After the United States Attorney for Alaska resigned, Stevens was appointed to become the next U.S. Attorney by President Eisenhower, with the support of several prominent Republicans. Three years later, Stevens' contacts finally paid off, and he was made legal counsel at the Interior Department, and he moved back to Washington in 1956. At Interior, Stevens became the point-man on the Alaska statehood issue, as Stevens had become a strong proponent of statehood during his time in Fairbanks.

As discussed a little bit in the first post, statehood had been an issue for some time by the time Stevens entered the Interior Department. General opposition to statewide was based on pragmatic as well as political reasons. Many national leaders, including Eisenhower himself, questioned whether the vast Alaska could be economically self-sustaining, and wondered if it would not just be propped up by the rest of the country in order to survive. There were also political reasons for the opposition: many Republicans in Congress felt that Alaska would inevitably be a strongly Democratic state, and thus send over two Democrats to the Senate in perpetuity.

Still, Alaskans made a big push to achieve statehood, and they found a big ally in Stevens. In 1956, Alaska held a Constitutional Convention in Fairbanks, and it voted to send two unofficial Senators, William Egan and Ernest Gruening, and one unofficial Representative to Congress, Ralph Rivers; they were all Democrats. At Interior, Stevens worked hard on statewide, and even coordinated lobbying activities to convince Congress, the President, and the public to support granting Alaska statehood. Ultimately, resistance in Washington dissipated, and the Alaska Statehood Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Eisenhower on July 7, 1958. It officially became a state the next year.

Having played a key and enormous role in Alaska's statehood, Stevens eventually returned to Alaska to practice law, this time in Anchorage. The pursuit of a political career was probably inevitable. In 1962, Stevens challenged Sen. Ernest Gruening, but was solidly beaten, 58-42. Stevens was elected to the State House, and not long thereafter became its majority leader in his second term. In 1968, he unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination for Senate, but was defeated in the primary (his opponent ultimately lost to Mike Gravel, who had ousted Gruening in the Democratic primary). However, Stevens would get his shot very soon. After Sen. Bob Bartlett died on December 11, 1968, the Republican Gov. Walter Hickel appointed him to fill the final two years of Bartlett's term. Stevens has been in the seat ever since, never facing a serious challenge. He won his first election outright by receiving 60 percent in 1970. In his re-elections since then, he has racked up 77 percent in 1972, 76 percent in 1978, 71 percent in 1985, 66 percent in 1990, 77 percent again in 1976, and 78 percent in 2002. Naturally, he has no serious primary opposition either.

Stevens' Senate career has been fairly impressive, if but moderately successful legislatively in areas he cares about. Stevens was Republican Minority Whip for two sessions, serving from 1977 to 1981, and Majority Whip from 1981 to 1985. As the most senior member in the majority party, Stevens served as President Pro Tempore -- the man third in line for the presidency after the Vice President and Speaker of the House -- from 2003 until the GOP lost their Senate majority at the start of 2007. But perhaps the most important position Stevens has held and from where he has derived the greatest base of his power, is as an appropriator. Soon after he was appointed to the Senate, Stevens was placed on the Appropriations Committee, arguably the most powerful body in Congress. Building up seniority over the years, Stevens has been chair or ranking minority member of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee for over 20 years (he is currently ranking member of the body), controlling and dispersing immense amounts of money to Alaska (which relies heavily on the military with its large veteran populations and the presence of Fort Richardson and Elmendorf Air Force base near Anchorage, and Fort Wainwright and Eielson Air Force Base in the Interior).

In 1997, and nearly thirty years of waiting, Stevens became chair of the Appropriations Committee. He held the gavel until Sen. Jim Jeffords switched from the Republican Party to become an Independent caucusing with the Democrats, thereby swinging control of the closely-divided Senate until January 3, 2003. After the GOP took back the Senate in the 2002 midterm elections, Stevens again held the Appropriations chairmanship from that point until the start of 2005, when he was term-limited. He then moved over to become chairman of the Commerce Committee, and became ranking member of that body after the Democrats took back the Senate following the 2006 midterm elections. He is also currently the ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations.

While we will discuss in greater detail Stevens' work in his capacity as the top appropriator in the Senate (it will be relevant when we are discussing the ethics issues that are playing a big role in the 2008 elections), I will not take the time to go over Stevens' legislative accomplishments. Needless to say that Stevens earned the title "King of Pork" for delivering billions upon billions of dollars into Alaska's coffers. Also, despite his failure to open up ANWR and stop the passage of the Alaska Lands Act, Stevens was instrumental in achieving the razor-close passage of a bill allowing the building the Alaska oil pipeline which has helped carry the life-blood of the state into the marketplace. Politically, while Stevens leans to the right on many issues, he has some centrist economic and social positions: for example, he is pro-life and he did support federal funding for stem cell research. Additionally, he was one of only ten Republican Senators out of 55 to vote to acquit President Clinton at his impeachment trial (he voted for acquittal on one count, and guilt on the other).

Stevens has thus been one of, if not the pivotal state figure for Alaska since his appointment to the Senate nearly 40 years ago. Stevens has been (and may still be), electorally unassailable, and has been beloved back home, often referred to affectionately as "Uncle Ted." He was named Alaskan of the Century, and he even had the Anchorage airport named after him (though, one could argue that this was done, at least in part because Stevens survived a plane crash there in 1978 that killed five people including his first wife). Indeed, one learned political commentator was not completely posturing when she said that in Alaska, Stevens is viewed as one rung below God. While, as will be seen, there are now emerging cracks in Stevens' aura of invincibility, it is correct to say that Stevens has been politically untouchable in the years leading up to 2007.

This is all not to say that Stevens is somehow perfect; he is not. He has been fairly characterized as a bully and a terribly cantankerous individual. Reflecting on himself in 1997, Stevens said half-jokingly that he was a "mean, miserable SOB." Stevens has always been known for volcanic temper, even going back to his early days in Fairbanks. This side of him has not changed, as he is never that hesitant to direct his ire on colleagues, particularly when he does not get his way. This was particularly evident during the 2005 ANWR debates. After he lost, he called it the "saddest day of my life", intimated that he might resign from the Senate (he obviously did not follow through on this), and then threatened those had worked to block ANWR drilling, most notably Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell, saying that he "would not forget" those who voted against him.

Stevens has attempted to soften his public persona on some occasions, granting a rare interview to show his softer side. It is worth a quick look, though the interviewer probably went way too soft on the curmudgeon Senator.

In closing on this personal and professional look at Stevens, I guess my conclusion is simply that he has a very cherished position in Alaska's history; indeed, love him or hate him he is one of the key historical figures of the young state. This is important to keep in mind for when we assess his own election this year against Mark Begich.

Don Young. Ten years younger than the 84-year old Stevens, Don Young too has led an interesting life, perhaps even more interesting than Stevens' in some respects. Young is originally from California, and went to school there before joining the Army. After he left the Army, he made his way to Alaska, and settled in a small town in the Interior region, Fort Yukon, which lies just south of the Arctic Circle. He made a career as a tugboat captain and school teacher. Today, he is the only licensed mariner in Congress. Young's political rise is perhaps even more impressive than Stevens', who had a more impressive pedigree and great political connections with which to build his career. Young was elected to the Fort Yukon City Council in 1960, and served there for several years before being elected mayor in 1964, a position he held until 1968. Young served in the Alaska State House from 1966 to 1970, and from there moved into the State Senate in 1970. Young was the Republican candidate for Congress in 1972 against Rep. Nick Begich. Even though Begich was killed in a plane crash in October, his name remained on the ballot, and he beat Young. When a special election was held the next year to fill the remainder of the term, Young narrowly won with 51 percent of the vote.

Like Sen. Stevens, Rep. Young fought tooth and nail against the passage of the Alaska Lands Act in 1980, and also in favor of drilling in ANWR. With Stevens, he succeeded in 1974 by helping spearhead the passage of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System.

After sitting in the minority from 1973 until 1995, Young became the chairman of the Resources Committee, serving in the position until 2001, when he became chairman of the immense and powerful Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (T & I). In his capacity as head of the Resources Committee, he tried hard to roll back many environmental protections which he felt greatly restricted Alaska's ability to develop and reap profits from its lands; for the most part, he was not terribly successful with President Clinton wielding his veto pen. Bills authorizing ANWR development which he shepherded through the House in 1995, 2001, and 2006 all died in the Senate. It is important to note that like Stevens, Young is one of the more politically moderate members of his caucus, particularly on social issues. Young is fairly pro-labor for a modern congressional Republican, he voted against extending the USA PATRIOT Act and constructing a border fence, and he supports federal funding for stem cell research, Still, he is pro-life.

As chairman of the T & I Committee, Young worked to cultivate bipartisanship with the Democratic minority members. This was in the tradition of the Committee, which has been one of the most bipartisan committees on Capitol Hill. Unfortunately for Young, he was able to find numerous spats of trouble for himself. As chair, Young earned a reputation as the biggest pork barrel spender in all of Congress, a label which he accepted with glee and even attempted to cultivate. Young took (and continues to take) enormous pride in delivering large federal funds to Alaska, believing that they are necessary to help the state grow and that Alaska is entitled to its fair share. "This is the time to take advantage of the position I'm in.... If I hadn't done fairly well for our state, I'd be ashamed of myself," he said. Speaking about the highway bill his committee was in charge of, Young said happily that the bill was "stuffed like a turkey" full of pork barrel projects, and called himself Congress's "chief porker." In the last few years, Young's record heading the T & I Committee and quotes like these have heavily damaged his reputation. This is all to say nothing for the infamous "bridges to nowhere" which Young and Stevens engineered, and which is examined in greater detail below.

As alluded to above, Young has has a controversial tenure as Alaska's Congressman At-Large (or as Young likes to call himself "Congressman for all Alaskans), in great part because of sour temperament and acerbic demeanor. Like Stevens, he is known to throw a tirade when he does not get his way. In describing his nemeses environmentalists, Young famously called them "a self-centered bunch, the waffle-stomping, Harvard-graduating intellectual idiots." When he was criticized for not moving money that was earmarked for Alaska to help rebuild New Orleans after it had been hit be Hurricane Katrina, he roared that his critics could "kiss my ear" and called the suggestion "the dumbest thing I ever heard." When fellow congressional members criticized out-of-control spending in earmarks, Young hollered that critics wanted to take "my money, my money," and responding to a GOP colleague on the House floor, Young said that "[t]hose who bite me, will be bitten back." He later apologized to the GOP House caucus for this latter outburst.

It is my own personal sense that while Stevens is rightly known as a nasty guy himself, Young's personality has generally be seen as even meaner. As a result, while he has been pretty well-liked in Alaska -- I am not sure how any one could be elected statewide 18 times without being liked by the state's people -- I do think that he has ever been as beloved as Uncle Ted Stevens. I acknowledge I am not expert on the pulse and spirit of the Alaska electorate, nor have I ever lived there. This is just my own opinion from what I have read and what I know. This is important because it could (and arguably has) made Young far more threatened.

This conclusion is easier to make when one looks at Young's own electoral history. Unlike Sen. Stevens, who, as discussed earlier, has never faced a real challenge from the left or the right, Young has had several closer calls in the staunchly Republican state. Aside from his squeaker victory in 1973, Young was held to 55 percent in both 1978 and 1984, and he won 57 percent in 1986. He faced his toughest tests in 1990 and 1992, when he faced Democrat John Devens, the mayor of Valdez. Devens had gained statewide and even national notoriety for running the response to the 1989 Exxon-Valdez oil spill. In 1990, Young survived 52-48 despite out-spending Devens over 3-to-1. In 1992, Young faced a tough primary challenge for a pro-choice candidate, and only won 53-42, while Devens received more total votes in the Democratic primary. In the rematch, Young trailed in most polls through a good part of the campaign. In both contests, Young was criticized by Devens for his explosive temperament, and he actually cut an ad apologizing for his past outbursts, but touting his work on behalf of Alaska. In return, he blasted Devens for being too pro-environment, and countered Devens' position that he could help open ANWR by tying the Democrat to the anti-ANWR position of President Clinton. In the end, Young survived 47-43. He carried Anchorage 47-44, ran even in the Panhandle, and won rural Alaska and the Bush by 48-39. Most recently in 2006, Young won 57-40 against a heavily out-spent Democratic opponent. While many have argued that his narrow margin was indicative of greater problems, and I agree to a large extent, a 17-point win is still a 17-point win, particularly in a mid-term election that went very poorly for Republicans nationally.

Even if my theory is accurate, Young has remained popular in Alaska over all these years in part because of his unique individuality, hard-scrabble background, and even his profanity. In many ways, as I mentioned near the beginning, he is the embodiment of Alaska: a man who did not come from a privileged background or possesses an ivy league pedigree, but he succeeded in politics and worked his way all the way to the top of the entire Federal Government because of hard work, patience and weathered toughness in the face of Washington insiders. Perhaps this is a bit of a stretch, but I believe that there is no way that this characterization is not at least in part true considering that Young has been elected every two years since when the "The Sting" won best picture at the Academy Awards and the Watergate scandal was first beginning to break through into the public consciousness. It is tough ignore that record of success, or to chalk it up to luck or the state's conservatism.

Furthermore, there is the possibility that if Alaska's voters decide they cannot do away with the influence of both men, and they move to oust one of them, Young could more likely be that person. This hypothesis will be examined a bit more in Part IV of this series, and once we look in better detail at the intertwined ethics problems that have ensnared Sen. Stevens and Rep. Young.

Ethics problems. Two key sets of controversies have beset Stevens and Young over the last several years, both of which have formed the basis of many of the ethics problems that are threatened their 2008 re-election campaigns. Additionally, Young faces other problems relating to an on-going congressional ethics inquiry and ties to a disgraced lobbyist.

First, the famous (or infamous) "bridges to nowhere" which Stevens and Young created. In a massive 2005 bill, the duo inserted two earmarks to build bridges in Alaska. The first one would have been between Anchorage and barren land at Knik Arm, and had a price tag of $230 million. Ironically, Stevens had insisted that it be called Don Young's Way. The second proposed bridge, with a price tag of $220 million would have connected Ketchikan to Gravina, an island with around 50 people. This latter bridge appeared unnecessary because Gravina and its airport were already accessible by short ferry ride. In total, the 2005 bill contained just under $1 billion dollars in earmarks for Alaska, more than all but three states -- California, New York, and Illinois. When the bridges and broader earmarks came to light, they were widely panned by Democrats and Republicans alike. The criticism stung even more because of the damage wrought to Louisiana by Hurricane Katrina. Fairly quickly, the issue became a national symbol for high congressional spending, with Stevens and Young bearing an enormous public relations hit, as well as the state of Alaska itself for the huge amount of subsidies it gets from the Federal Government every year. The issue has remained a big one for the two men, and continues to dog them. (As an aside, ultimately, Congress gave Alaska the earmark money, but without the stipulation that it be used for the bridges.)

While both men remained largely unrepentant about the bridges and earmarks, with Stevens even threatening to resign if the money was taken out of the bill from the state, Alaska also looked very bad in the whole episode, and many Alaskans were ashamed of the negative attention focused on their state. There is no question that the bridges and the larger earmark issue has hurt the national and probably to a lesser extent, the state standing of both men. Both men, particularly Young because of his loud responses to criticisms, became poster boys for government waste, certainly injuring their political standing in an election year.

Second, both Stevens and Young have been ensnared in Federal investigations dealing with the widespread bribery and public corruption scandals that have hit Alaska's state government over the last couple of years, stunning citizens in the Last Frontier both for its breadth and scope. Having first come to light in August of 2006, the scandal centers around a Federal Government investigation of bribery and various improprieties by VECO, an Alaska oil services company. So far, the Federal government has obtained convictions of three former Republican members of the Alaska State House, including the former Speaker, as well as the former head of VECO, Bill Allen, and other lobbyists implicated in the corruption, one of whom had been former Gov. Frank Murkowski's chief of staff. One other former State Rep. awaits trial, and just last week, a sitting Republican State Senator was indicted for conspiring with VECO executives to bribe other state legislators.

Unfortunately for Sen. Stevens and Rep. Young, this wide-ranging scandal has implicated them, and they currently face tremendous jeopardy. The scandal first touched Stevens when the office of his son, Ben Stevens, the former State Senate Majority leader, was searched by federal agents in August of 2006. In June of 2007, it was first reported that a federal grand jury was looking at remodeling work that had been done one Stevens' home in Girdwood (a suburb of Anchorage), pursuing allegations that the work had been paid in whole or in part by VECO. Just one month later, Stevens' home was raided by agents of the FBI and the IRS. The former head of VECO, Allen, has alleged that the remodeling had been overseen by VECO. Prior to the VECO scandal being exposed, Lee and VECO had been large benefactors of Stevens in the past. The Government is also apparently investigating whether fisheries legislation pushed by Sen. Ted Stevens favored his son, who owned an interest in a seafood company at the time of the legislation's passage. Since federal agents raided his house, Stevens has refused to give any comment on the investigation, arguing that any statements by him could prejudice the investigation and subject him to charges of obstruction of justice. He has also retained perhaps the top criminal defense attorney in Washington, D.C., Brendan Sullivan of Williams and Connolly, a man most famous for his defense of Col. Oliver North of Iran-Contra fame. Up to this point, his legal bills have been exorbitant, perhaps topping $50,000 to Sullivan's law firm.

Young is deeply enmeshed in the Federal Government's broad investigation. Like Sen. Stevens, Young had been close to VECO in the past, receiving over $200,000 from the company, easily their largest campaign beneficiary. First breaking the Young-VECO connection, the Wall Street Journal reported that Young was under federal investigation for possibly doing favors for VECO in exchange for bribes. In February of this year, it was reported that Young's legal fees were over $800,000, and they have probably grown since then. Like Stevens, Young has refused to substantively address the federal probe, and has denied any wrong-doing.

In addition to these probes, Young faces serious charges relating to two other scandals. First, Young is being investigated for ties to disgraced and convicted former super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Numerous reports have revealed that Young granted Abramoff tremendous access to his office, and may have done work that benefited Abramoff and his clients. In a bombshell report -- at least to me -- the Anchorage Daily News reported that Young may have scuttled legislation which sought to address terrible worker conditions in the Northern Mariana Islands, a key client of Abramoff. One of Young's former top aides at the T & I Committee has pleaded guilty in the Abramoff investigation, and is cooperating with federal investigators.

Young is also being looked at by the feds in another ongoing investigation of whether he accepted large campaign contributions in return for helping secure the building of a highway interchange on Coconut Road in Fort Myers, which would have benefited a Florida developer. First reported by the New York Times, the earmark was placed into a 2005 transportation bill after it had already been passed by the House and Senate, raising a lot of legal and ethical questions. In a very rare move, the U.S. Senate formally requested the Justice Department to investigate the earmark and if it was placed into the bill by Young or his staff. Young has said he welcomes a full investigation into the matter.

Taken together, it is not difficult to see that these serious issues have impacted Stevens' and Young's current and future political careers. Both men face scrutiny for their exorbitant pork barrel spending in the aftermath of the bridges to nowhere, as well as the ongoing VECO investigation. Additionally, Young faces scrutiny for his role in the perhaps even-broader Jack Abramoff government corruption scandal and for his possible illegal inclusion of the Coconut Road earmark into an already-passed transportation bill. These are immensely serious charges facing both men, charges that would have probably forced many other politicians in a similar position to quietly retire. However, as I hope this posting has demonstrated, Ted Stevens and Don Young are no ordinary politicians. Both are proud and long-serving members, and it is probably fair to say, profane, defiant and even arrogant. (When asked about the stiff re-election challenge Mark Begich posed for him, Stevens said, "I'm not worried about this campaign. Not in the least.") Even if one or both of them goes down to defeat this year, they both still have a shot to retain their seats; this is not something that could be said for just about any other leader in the country facing similar problems. This, in itself, says a lot about the place Stevens and Young hold in Alaska and with Alaskans. Only time, the quality of their opponents, and the voters themselves will help make the final determination.

Their opponents. As to that second prong, both men are looking at the toughest opponents they have faced in many, many years. Because of the national anti-Republican environment as well the ethics problems swirling around the Alaska Republican Party, the national Democrats were able to recruit probably the strongest nominees available to wage competitive campaigns for the Senate and House seats.

For the Senate race, DSCC chair Chuck Schumer worked for months to recruit Alaska's most bankable Democratic politician, Anchorage mayor Mark Begich. Begich was elected mayor of Anchorage in 2003, winning 45-37, and was re-elected in 2006 by an even stronger 56-41 margin. Prior to being elected, Begich had run for mayor twice before in 1994 and 2000, losing both times (22-19 in 1994, and then 58-42 in the run-off, and 52-47 in 2000).

Begich was the Democrats' prize nominee for several reasons. First, he is the mayor of Alaska's largest municipality by far. As I noted in the beginning, 61 percent of the state lives in and around Anchorage, so it is certainly helpful for a candidate running for statewide office to have that base to build upon, particularly if he is facing an entrenched and well known incumbent. Second, Begich has a terrific name, as he is the son of the late Rep. Nick Begich, the man whose seat Don Young took after the former died in a 1972 plane crash en route to Juneau. While the senior Begich has been gone for over 35 years, the Begich name is still well liked and thought of in the state, and Mark Begich can certainly capitalize on that. Finally, Begich is the best nominee for the Democrats to take on Stevens because, as we have noted several times, there is basically no one else (excepting Berkowitz). Republicans occupy all of the statewide offices -- Governor, Lt. Governor, both U.S. Senate seats, and the U.S. House seat -- and Democrats have few prospects who could even dream of running against an institution in Ted Stevens. Begich, and to a lesser extent Berkowitz, was arguably the best, and maybe only game in town. Had he ultimately refused Schumer's entreaties after that long political courtship, the seat would have been likely written off by the DSCC, and Stevens would have coasted to victory despite his plethora of ethical problems. Thus is politics: sometimes, as I have said in this space before, success comes down to the simplest things like who your opponent is, and broader issues that the pundits like to expound on mean little to nothing. That is an entirely other issue, but one I will touch on when appraising Stevens-Begich contest in Part IV.

Don Young's opponent too was one of the few strong contenders the Democrats had. Ethan Berkowitz had been a legislator in the Alaska State House for several terms, eventually rising to the position of House Minority Leader, which he served as from 1999 to 2006. Berkowitz has also run for statewide office before, as he was the Democratic candidate for LG in 2006. He lost to the current Lt. Gov. and GOP candidate for the House, Sean Parnell in that contest. However, his loss -- and Parnell's win -- spoke more to Palin's popularity and magnetism than any strengths of Parnell or weaknesses of Berkowitz.

Parnell's candidacy against Young in the Republican primary is one of the more interesting storylines in the Alaska elections this year. Parnell's father Pat was Young's Democratic opponent in 1980, losing badly to the congressman. The younger Parnell was elected to the State House in 1992, and served two terms before being elected to the State Senate. Parnell was tapped as Sarah Palin's running mate in 2006, and running on a banner of reform, the two of them won a big victory.

Yet, while Parnell is relatively popular in the state, make no mistake about it: his greatest, if not only strength is his patron, Gov. Palin. Palin, who has been riding on a strong pro-ethics, anti-corruption platform since before she became governor, and is a bitter critic of Don Young. Parnell is a proxy of Palin put into the race to topple the longtime congressman. This is not meant to downplay or criticize Parnell, it is just fact. If he were not Palin's deputy and on her ticket, he probably not have run at all, much less had a chance, even against a tarnished Young. He ran with Palin less than two years ago on a promise to reform the state, and yet he is running for Congress today. This race represents a power struggle between the Old Guard (Don Young) and the New Guard (Sarah Palin) over control of the Alaska Republican Party, and Alaska's political structure in general. Given Palin's enormous popularity -- polls have consistently placed her approval ratings in the 70s and even the 80s -- Parnell is trying to tie himself to her star in order to achieve victory.

Polls. The handful of polls that have been released on the AK-Senate and AK-AL races have not been encouraging for either Stevens or Young. Let's first look at the polls for Young.

--Hays Research (a Democratic firm) conducted a series of polls in 2007 measuring Young's ratings. Their April 2007 poll found that 51 percent of respondents had a somewhat or very positive view of Young, and 38 percent had a somewhat or very negative opinion of Young. The June poll found the split to be 40/41 (with 42% (likely) and 54% (unlikely) to vote to re-elect), the September poll set it at 33/46, and the November poll had it at 34/48. The downward spiral in Young's popularity is unmistakable, and these polls just describe 2007 before the Abramoff and Coconut Road scandals came to light.

--Ivan Moore, a prominent Democratic pollster based in Alaska released a poll in mid-October 2007, shortly after Ethan Berkowitz announced his intention to challenge Young, showing Berkowtiz ahead of Young 51-46. The poll found that Young had a 43 percent positive-50 negative rating from the voters of Alaska. Another Moore poll of the House race primaries released two weeks later found Berkowitz leading over his likely opponents, and it found Young leading State Rep. Gabrielli LeDoux -- a totally unknown figure, but at that time his only announced GOP opponent -- 61-33, a solid but still somewhat concerning number considering LeDoux's lack of any name recognition.

--Just so you do not think I am relying solely on Democratic polls, a Research 2000 poll (albeit, commissioned by Dailykos, but yes, I still buy it) conducted in December 2007, found Young losing to Berkowitz 49-42. The poll pegged Young's favorable/unfavorable ratings at 40/54, and Berkowitz's at 35/18.

--Another Hays research poll taken in March 2008 for Jake Metcalfe (who was running in the Democratic primary at that time) found Young losing to an unnamed Democratic nominee 41-34. The poll also measured his favorability rating, finding that 40 percent of respondents had a somewhat or very favorable opinion of Young, while 55 percent had a somewhat or very unfavorable position of the U.S. Representative. (Let the record show that a poll commissioned by Diane Benson, Young's 2006 opponent and one of the Democrats running, found Young losing, but because I had never heard of the pollster, I am not included it in my thought calculus. If you are interested in seeing it, here is a link.)

--A Hays poll taken in May, this time of the GOP primary (after Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell officially jumped in to challenge Young), found Young barely ahead of the young LG, leading Parnell 45-42, hardly a good showing for a longtime incumbent months away from the primary election. This poll found 59 percent of respondents saying they had an unfavorable opinion of Young, while just 37 percent had a somewhat or very favorable view of the Representative.

--Another Research 2000 poll take for Dailykos in May found Young losing to Berkowitz 50-40, a slight improvement from the December poll showing Berkowitz up seven. The poll found 38 percent had a very or somewhat favorable position of Young, and 58 percent very or somewhat unfavorable. The numbers for Berkowitz were 49/23.

--The most recent poll conducted on this race showed easily the most staggering results. A poll conducted for the Fairbanks Daily News Miner found Young losing his primary to Parnell, 37-34. It also showed Berkowitz crushing Young 58-38, but losing to Parnell 43-38. It set Berkowitz's own numbers at 41/13 (positive/negative), and Parnell's at 46/8.

Even though several of the released polls were conducted by Democratic firms (this does not count the Research 2000 polls, which despite being commissioned by a liberal blog, were still done by a respected national firm, one which would not bias its results to benefit a client and risk destroying its reputation), the results are very uniform: Don Young is down in his re-election fight, and by a considerable margin. Young is likely losing his primary to Parnell by a handful of points right now, but he is being trounced in the general election by Berkowitz. Most salient is that his approval numbers are terrible as people have soured on the congressman for all of his alleged ethics lapses. When multiple polls find a 30+ year incumbent badly losing a general election match-up and narrowly down in a primary, it is not hyperbole to say that said candidte has high negatives and considerable problems. Needless to say, he is in enormous trouble which he may not be able to get out of.

There are fewer polls right now on the Senate race, but the results are better for Stevens, but still not great.

--A June 2007 Hays poll taken for the Alaska Democratic Party found Stevens' re-elect numbers as follows: 50 percent somewhat or very likely to support re-election and 43 somewhat or very unikely to support re-election. The poll also found that 46 percent had a very or somewhat favorable view of Stevens, and 36 percent had a very or somewhat negative view of the Senator. The split for Begich was 47/18 -- very high approval numbers for Begich even before he got into the race. Interestingly, the poll found that 49 percent were unfavorably influenced by Stevens' alleged ties to VECO, but 45 percent were not influenced -- demonstrating a solid base of voters loyal to Stevens. Further, whereas 39 percent said that they would be somewhat or a lot more unlikely to vote for Stevens because of the VECO investigations, 40 percent said the investigation would make no difference in whether they voted for Stevens.

--A September 2007 follow-up for Hays found that 43 percent of respondents were somewhat or very likely to support re-election, and 45 percent were somewhat or very unlikely to support re-election. Hays also found that Stevens had a 40/38 positive/negative rating. In a November poll, the ratio was up to 44/38, in March 2008, it was 49/46, and by May it was at 53/43. If correct, these polls show that Stevens' favorability ratings have gone steadily up from a low point in 2007, up past 50 percent in 2008.

--The Research 2000 poll from December 2007 also polled the Senate race, finding Stevens losing to Mark Begich 47-41. It also found that Stevens' favorable/unfavorable rating was a terrible 39 percent approve/58 percent disapprove.

--Rasmussen's first poll of the race, released on April 10, showed a dead-heat, with Stevens leading Begich 46-45.

--Research 2000's May poll found Begich again beating Stevens, this time 48-43.

--A Rasmussen poll released May 17 found another dead-heat, this time with Begich leading 47-45.

--The Fairbanks News Miner Poll referenced above gave Begich his largest lead over Stevens, 51-44. The poll also found that Stevens had a 49-40 positive-negative rating, while Begich's ratio was a much better 58-16.

--Finally, the latest poll, this one again by Rasmussen, gave Stevens a narrow 46-44 lead.

Taken in total, the polls are better for Sen. Stevens than they are for Rep. Young. While he is down in many of the polls, the three Rasmussen polls taken over April, May, and June found that the longtime Senator and Mayor Begich are more or less absolutely tied up. The Research 2000 polls and the News Miner poll show Begich with a solid mid-digit lead. The Hays polls showed that Stevens recovered from a low period, and that his favorable numbers are back up, perhaps past the magical 50% threshold for incumbents. Assuming all of them are accurate, it would probably be fair to say that the race is extremely tight, with Begich holding a narrow lead over the last 2-3 months, and probably at this moment.

Analysis and predictions. Not just yet. While I am really looking forward to breaking down these races and what I think will ultimately happen in November, I am going to hold off on my substantive discussion and analysis until the fourth and final post in our series on Alaska. The reason for this is that in the next post, I will spend time looking at some past Alaska elections that may shine some light on figuring out the 2008 races. Specifically, I am going to look at the tight 2004 Alaska Senate race between Lisa Murkowski and Tony Knowles, and the 2006 Alaska Governor's race between Knowles and Sarah Palin. I am also going to spend some time on the famous 1994 Governor's race between Knowles and Jim Campbell, which Knowles won by less than one percent. Finally, even though I do not have the hard data for the contests, I will talk a little about Don Young's close calls in his races with John Devens in 1990 and 1992. I am also going to look at the regional voting breakdown in the 2004 and 2006. I believe that looking at the handful of actually close Alaska statewide elections will provide invaluable insights and guidance into how the two big races this fall will turn out.