Global Warming concern troll Senator Lisa Murkowski has fallen in the Republican primary to a anti-science syndrome suffering hater of a livable economic system, who despises government, and represents fringe extreme views that simply don’t meet basic American ideals or the understanding/beliefs of most Americans. If Murkowski had prevailed in the primary, she almost certainly would have won in the general election.
And, now … ????
With Lisa’s defeat, however, one has to wonder whether Republican Joe Miller will prevail against the Alaska Democratic Party Senate candidate Scott McAdams. After all, in wake of the surprise Miller victory, the first poll has the Republican with less than a ten-point lead: 47 to 39%.
And, looking at the details, Alaskans seem to know Miller … and not like what they see, as Miller’s favorable/unfavorable rating is 36 / 52. And, we have to suspect that the numbers won’t be getting that much better. After all, Miller hasn’t started well with his ‘prostitution’ tweet and other actions since the primary. Miller is, well, an extremist — in his views on Government’s role in being able to interfere in people’s lives (e.g., abortion) and tirades against government assistance (considering Alaska’s status as the top recipient, per capita, of Federal funds, this might not play well). And, in the state seeing the greatest change in temperatures (warming), with towns lost to global warming already, Miller is an outright global warming denier — spouting false truthiness talking points to demonstrate his anti-science syndrome condition.
And,Adams? 23 / 24. In other words, Alaskans have yet to get to know McAdams. McAdams is a mayor, with real achievements, and a history of community involvement.
The question going into November, in Alaska, will be whether Alaskans like the McAdams that they will get to know in the coming months. If so, Alaska could be a surprise flip from Red to Blue in what is looking to be a dismal election year for the Democratic Party.
Now, on seeing Miller’s victory, my very first reaction was this thought train:
Alaska is a cheap media market — basically the cheapest in the U.S. relative to the importance of a U.S. Senate seat.
My second thought, where is McAdams on energy and climate. For this, well, the information is rather spotty. But, in comparison with Miller’s climate denial talking points, here is McAdams:
As a former deckhand in Alaska’s commercial fishing sector, I will fight to ensure that Alaska’s natural resources remain the green choice in a global marketplace. As years of wrong headed policy has shipped too many American jobs overseas, it is important to remember that the natural resources that fuel foreign produced goods and services are often extracted under the worst environmental conditions. While American’s have stood to to protect our environment nationally, we have not decreased our demand on the environment globally. As your next US Senator, I will work to ensure that Alaska’s natural resources are developed using the highest environmental standards in the world and are promoted as the green choice in the American marketplace while creating new jobs for Alaskans.
This is not a strong statement of climate change science and the need to move — quickly — to a low-carbon future. It is, as with most Alaskan politicians, a call for exploitation of Alaska’s resources — including, without doubt, its oil. And there are talking point items of ‘better to drill for oil here, then there, because we do it cleaner’ (cough, Gulf of Mexico, etc …). Thus, hard for me to argue that Scott McAdams is presenting himself as an Energy Smart candidate. There are serious words indicating concerns over how we are stressing our own environment and how we are exporting our environmental challenges to other societies and countries (along with exported jobs). Thus, in the choice between an outright global warming denier and someone who is seeking — within his perspectives — a policy balancing near-term and long-term interest, I know who I’d like to sit at the table with to discuss policy issues and options.
An ad series to come?
I return to my counter-factual question: could the resources wasted on Blanche have been put to better use with Scott?
Consider the candidates. Miller, born in Kansas, “A little coastline challenged”. McAdams — Alaskan born with fishing boat deckhand his first major job, serious dedication to improving public education, small town mayor, …
Considering McAdams strong bio, the resources need to be flowing to McAdams (Act Blue) for a serious of “Get to know Scott” ads. Perhaps something quite basic like the following (with appropriate music and images):
Fisherman Parent School Board Member Small Town Mayor
Scott McAdams: For Alaskans, First and Foremost
|Get the eKos widget embed code!|
Did Murkowski’s efforts to undermine climate change policy progress lead to her defeat?:
Lisa Murkowski has taken real heat from environmentalists for the “Dirty Air Act” and, interestingly, that heat might well have led to her defeat by global warming denier Miller. Alaska is a cheap media environment and environmental organizations took advantage of that in running advertisements seeking to pressure (to twit) Lisa re her efforts to undermine the Clean Air Act. Miller’s margin of victory was tight. It is not plausible that environmentally friendly voters picked Miller over Murkowski in sizable numbers. However, did advertisements attacking Murkowski for attack ads portraying her as a tool of Washington special interests lessen enthusiasm for her among some voters who subsequently may have been more open to supporting Miller or may have just decided to sit the primary out. Enough to sway the election? This is an interesting question, for which I don’t know the answer, but there is a quite viable chance that Linda Murkowski might have been the most significant U.S. politician to lose an election due to her actions to inhibit action to address climate change.