Alaska Primary: Don’t Forget the Dems

Photo courtesy of Scott McAdams.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The Republican Senate primary in Alaska today may turn out to be more competitive than most observers, and incumbent Lisa Murkowski, expected. But even if she escapes unscathed, Murkowski will face yet another challenge in a few months, with Scott McAdams likely to be the Democrat on the ballot come November.

McAdams is the mayor of Sitka, an island off the southeastern leg of Alaska, which at just 8,600 people qualifies as the fifth-largest municipality in the state. Those residents are spread over 600 square miles, with just 14 miles of roads.

Some might be weary of smalltown Alaska mayors at this point, but McAdams says it’s also the “most progressive town in Alaska…a blue island in a red sea.” Sarah Palin didn’t win there in the governor’s race, and the McCain-Palin presidential ticket didn’t win there, either. McAdams is expected to come out ahead in a three-way race for the Democratic primary tomorrow, in a race that has drawn very little national attention so far. He faces Frank Vondersaar and Jacob Seth Kern in today’s primary.

McAdams, a 39-year-old whose day job is director of community schools in Sitka, announced his candidacy in June, after some initial hesitation. What pushed him “over the edge” to running, he said, was Murkowski’s objection to a bill to raise the liability cap on oil spills in the wake of the Gulf disaster. “I was outraged,” he tells Mother Jones, recalling the Exxon Valdez disaster in his home state, which happened when he was a senior in high school. McAdams chokes up as he talks about the residents of his area “who still have not been made whole” now 21 years later. “To say that $75 million is enough to cover the claims, cover the cost of lives that cannot be valued or monetized is outrageous.”

The destruction those two disasters brought to the fishing, tourism, and maritime culture of both regions is something, he says, that didn’t seem to phase Murkowski’s support for the oil and gas industry. He plans to make energy issues central to his campaign. He points to Murkowski’s solid backing by dirty energy interests as evidence that she’s no longer working for the people of Alaska.

Of course, Murkowski plays an interesting role in the Senate these days, especially hailing from one of the country’s most resource-rich states. She’s the top-ranking Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and as such has played a major role in energy legislation over the past years. She’s also one of the few Republicans who has acknowledged that climate change threatens her state, but has arguably done more than any other Senator to undermine action on the issue since Obama took office. She’s so-far shown no sign of stopping her crusade against EPA regulation of greenhouse gases.

“Lisa Murkowski has become the face of resource recklessness,” says McAdams, accusing the senior senator of using Alaska’s oil and gas resources for the “benefit of multinational corporations” rather than for Alaskans. Alaska is, of course, home to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the chunk of land that has been a battleground for environmentalists and Republicans for years now, and Murkowski’s suggestion that opening the refuge for oil and gas drilling would be the price for her vote on climate legislation tipped off a new battle on that earlier this year. That’s not to say McAdams objects to new oil and gas development in Alaska, but he argues that the proceeds of any new development should be used to create a fund for renewable energy sources. (I asked his position on ANWR, which he didn’t answer directly; you’re hard-pressed to find even Democratic candidates in the state who will reject drilling there outright.) But ANWR is just part of the story, he said—and Republicans like Murkowski have compromised their ability to shape policy on the issue.

“Many Alaskans believe they need to elect Lisa Murkowski because they don’t think a Democrat, or that Democrats in general, have any interest in developing Alaska and making it a mature state, with the same kind of economy and development as other sates,” said McAdams. Rather, he said, it’s Republicans in general and Murkowski in particular who have lost the trust of the public when it comes to responsible development of natural resources. The senior senator “does not have the political currency in Washington, DC to open one more Alaska natural resource project.”

McAdams says the favored daughter of the state, tapped to fill her father’s Senate seat in 2002 when he became governor of the state, has lost sight of what Alaskans need and has become too close to partisan politics in Congress. “Politics in Washington, D.C. is about shaming, blaming, scape-goating, and grandstanding to position yourself to take over chairmanship in the next election cycle,” he said.

McAdams knows defeating her is an uphill battle. While his state is often seen as decidedly red, he asserts that Democrats can still put up a fight. After all, the junior senator from the state, Mark Begich, was also seen as the underdog when he took on Ted Stevens in 2008. But whether McAdams can win by focusing on Murkowski’s ties to dirty energy in a state that relies on it might be another story.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate