CE Week #12: “Ted Stevens Loses Battle For Alaska Senate Seat”
By Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 19, 2008; A01
Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) defeated Sen. Ted Stevens, ending the tenure of the longest-serving Republican in Senate history, after the counting of more ballots yesterday gave him a larger lead than the number of votes still untallied, Alaska elections officials said.
Begich’s win gives Democrats control of 58 seats in the Senate, including two independents who caucus with them. That is two shy of the number needed to prevent Republicans from filibustering, with two races still undecided. Democrats have not controlled 60 seats since 1978.
Begich leads Stevens by more than 3,700 votes, according to the Alaska secretary of state. Gail Fenumiai, the head of the state’s election division, said about 2,500 absentee votes from overseas and Alaska’s most remote regions remain to be counted.
The Democrat’s lead thus far — 47.8 percent to 46.6 percent — puts him beyond the margin of victory that would allow Stevens to call for a state-funded recount of the ballots.
“I am humbled and honored to serve Alaska in the United States Senate,” Begich said in a statement declaring victory. “It’s been an incredible journey getting to this point.”
Alaska voters “wanted to see change,” he told reporters in Anchorage. “Alaska has been in the midst of a generational shift — you could see it.”
The race was closely watched, in part because Alaska had not sent a Democrat to Congress in nearly three decades, while Stevens was vying to become the first convicted felon to win election to the Senate. He was convicted last month on seven felony counts of failing to disclose more than $250,000 in gifts.
Begich is the son of Nick Begich, the House member from Alaska who disappeared in 1972 on a flight with House Majority Leader Hale Boggs (D-La.). Both were presumed dead. No Democrat has represented Alaska in its two Senate seats and one House seat since Sen. Mike Gravel was defeated by Republican Frank Murkowski in 1980.
Begich ran as a conservative Democrat, supporting gun owners’ rights and additional domestic drilling for oil production, including in wildlife areas where most Democrats have opposed drilling.
However, the race always focused on Stevens, with the campaign virtually stopping during his four-week trial. The candidates debated once, just days before the election. Begich sought to pay respect to Stevens’s long service to the state, contrasting that with the recent allegations against him.
“He’s done a lot for our state, and I’ve shared Alaska’s respect for him. The past year has been a difficult one for Alaska. With the verdict, we can put this behind us,” Begich said in an advertisement that aired the final weekend before Election Day.
Stevens, who is in Washington for this week’s lame-duck session, said yesterday that either his campaign or the Alaska Republican Party would definitely ask for a recount if the final margin fell within the needed 0.5 percent of the votes cast.
Still to be settled are races are in Minnesota and Georgia. Minnesota officials formally began a recount yesterday in the race between Sen. Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken; the Republican finished 206 votes ahead of the onetime comedian out of 2.9 million ballots cast. In Georgia, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R) faces a Dec. 2 runoff against former state representative Jim Martin. Chambliss held a 110,000-vote margin on election night, but his share of the vote did not reach 50 percent, as required by state law.
Stevens, who turned 85 yesterday and was appointed to the Senate in 1968, told reporters yesterday that he was exhausted and had not slept well since his indictment in late July. He added that he had led “three lives”: as a senator, a criminal defendant and a candidate for office.
“I wouldn’t wish what I’ve been through on anyone, [not] my worst enemy,” said Stevens, who says he is considering appealing his convictions.
Stevens, an iconic figure who helped lead Alaska to statehood in the 1950s, served as chairman of the appropriations, commerce and ethics committees in his 40-year tenure in the Senate. He was known for steering hundreds of billions of dollars to his home state for projects.
But the earmarked projects also drew the scrutiny of federal investigators.
Bill Allen Jr., the former chief executive of an oil services company, Veco, pleaded guilty in May 2007 to bribing a host of Alaskan officials. He testified at Stevens’s trial that his company oversaw a massive reconstruction of the senator’s home outside Anchorage, raising the A-frame house on stilts and building an entire new floor and wrap-around deck beneath it.
Stevens was charged with not reporting the home rebuilding and other assorted gifts from Allen and other powerful friends on his Senate financial disclosure forms.
A federal jury in the District convicted Stevens on Oct. 27, eight days before most voters would go to the polls in Alaska. He faces a potential jail term, but sentencing has not been set.
Stevens said yesterday that he could not talk about his legal battle, neither with reporters nor even in a closed-door meeting of Senate Republicans.
Outside the GOP meeting, he said he planned to tell his colleagues, “It’s a nice day. It’s a really nice day.”
“The race always focused on Stevens, with the campaign virtually stopping during his four-week trial” (Paul Kane). It would seem that this type of media bias would result in more votes for Stevens since Mark Begich offered an official pardon of Stevens’ action despite the recent allegations against him. However, this isn’t exactly the same sort of media bias that propelled Obama ahead of McCain in the polls. Stevens received this great amount of attention because of the bad things he had done, not for any good deeds he had accomplished. I don’t personally know very much about either of these two candidates, but, for some odd reason, I find myself disgusted by the name Ted Stevens. Perhaps the past and current news stories regarding Stevens’ failure to report his home rebuilding and other assorted gifts on his Senate financial disclosure form are the source of my prejudice. It was interesting to learn that Stevens, 85 years old, admitted to running three lives: as a senator, a criminal defendant and a candidate for office. That just seems like too much for one single person to handle. It’s very hard for someone like Stevens, with a criminal record, to maintain a fresh and positive image, which is why many voters simply choose to support Begich even if they don’t know much about this particular candidate.
Connection: Coat-tail effect – Alaska voters “wanted to see change,” so they’re throwing their support more towards Begich than Stevens. Ever since Barack Obama was nominated as the president-elect, it only seemed logical that Congress would retain a blue-ish tint with respect to the seats. Theoretically, the coat-tail effect can take place during any presidential election, but this race was especially significant because the majority of American people really do desire change, and they had felt like John McCain and the Republicans were otherwise incapable of instituting such change.
Wow, America might really be in a time of change. Ted Stevens is out of the Alaskan senate spot; he has been in there forever. Now that Begich has won the senate seat does Alaska have two democratic senators or just the one? I thought that Alaska was a really conservative state. This also means that Begich beat an incumbant, a powerful incumbant, which is rare. I have never heard of Begich but the article makes him out to be a pretty good guy. He is a conservative-democrat so he is probably pretty middle of the road. He also congratulated Ted Stevens on his long service to Alaska. I don’t know much about Stevens convictions so I don’t really want to talk about it. But perhaps it is good he did not win the senate case because if he receives jail time it would be hard to make it to congressional sessions. Besides steering money that we don’t have to benefit Alaska is kind of a rotton thing to do, in my opinion. Maybe he is no longer qualified for the job.
Connections: First of all, in class we were talking about the amount of senators democrats would need to prevent republicans from filibustering (I don’t remember exactly what that was). But the article mentions this as well saying that the democrats are only two short for this to happen. It could still happen couldn’t it? Arne’t there a couple of close races left? I would also like to mention that Kautzman’s scenario with Stevens winning, being convicted, and Palin stepping down and becomeing senator can no longer happen.
To start with, I thought this quote was rather humorous…”Stevens told reporters yesterday that he was exhausted and had not slept well since his indictment in late July. He added that he had led “three lives”: as a senator, a criminal defendant and a candidate for office.” Wow, well if I was 85 years old, was running for the senate for the 40th time, and was on trial for 7 felony counts, I would be pretty tired myself. I think his loss of the Senate seat will be a good break for him, letting him enjoy his refurbished house on stilts! Woo hoo! However, tis the season for change and I was surprised that Begich will be the first Alaskan Democrat in Congress in nearly 3 decades! However, Begich is an extremely conservative Democrat and I was further surprised on his go-ahead for “additional domestic drilling for oil production” especially when drilling in Alaskan’s wild life reserve has been such a touchy topic. We’ll see how far this gets. However, Begich sounds like a pretty nice guy, giving Stevens a lot of credit and hopefully he can turn some of these bad-tasting affairs around and be the young fresh guy that Alaska so desparately needs. Furthermore, if you don’t count 58 Decomcratic seats as a landslide, I don’t know what else qualifies. However, what is filibustering? I’m confused; help me out.
Connection: I wonder if Ted Stevens had laid out all of his finances like Nixon and replayed the “checkers speech” saying how he really just wanted a nice home for his kids to come home to for the holidays and for his grandkids to play in…if the Alaskan people would have voted differently.
I am relieved that Alaskans did not reelect Stevens to the Senate. I do not think that he should have even been allowed to run for office again. How is it that felons in the rest of the country can barely get hired anywhere, lose their right to vote, and cannot travel to other states, and yet this guy was very nearly elected to the United States Senate to represent an entire state in Congress?
By looking at the changes that were made even in states as consistently conservative as Alaska, it is evident that our government has just gone through a massive change in its members, and probably will go through even more noteable changes in its policies. Having a democratic majority I think will help the country turn around and fix its problems. So many bad things happened with the republicans in charge; maybe this change in leadership will give Americans faith in the near future, and enough confidence that things will start going the right way.
One other thing that this article brought up was that there are still two states who have not finalized their elections. It has been almost a month since election day, and I find it very interesting that there are still undecided regions out there.
Connection: The end of the republican era in the presidential office is also being reflected in the other branches of government. Ted Stevens is a very good example of this. He has been a republican senator for the state of Alaska since 1968, and Alaskans generally have very conservative ideals. And now, he has not been reelected to office for the first time in 40 years. I think that is a perfect example of the ending of the most recent republican era.
Honestly I’m not sure Ted Stevens deserved to be re-elected. He was convicted of a federal crime and should have to deal with the consequences. It really bothers me how people in power believe they can get away with anything and keep on living their glorious lives at the expense of others. I did notice that the author of this article seemed to put out a little sympathy for Steven especially considering he has been in the Alaskan Senate for 40 years which shows true dedication and led Alaska to statehood in the 1950s; we got to give the guy some credit for that. At this point it would be ridiculous if Stevens insisted on doing another recount. Begich is clearly ahead and has seemed to won, far and square. One thing the article didn’t mention is how Sarah Palin may have benefited from the whole situation. If Stevens would have won, he may have had to resign his seat and then Palin may have appointed herself to the position. I think that is a load of crap. While I have nothing against Palin I think she should have to work to be a Senator (campaign and let the people elect her).
Connection: This article could possibly be linked to split-ticket voting. Alaska is know for being a Republican state, republican governor, voted McCain in the election and has kept Republican senators in Congress for three decades. The people of Alaska wanted change, so it is possible they decided to split their votes, Republican president and Democratic senator, switching it up a bit.
Although Ted Stevens is 85 years old and has held a seat for the longest duration of time as a Republican, he should have quit while he was ahead. I also congratulate Mark Begich on beating the incumbent Stevens. It is surprising that Begich won, if you don’t count the fact that Stevens has been accepting gifts of $250,000, because he is an incumbent. Incumbents as we know usually win. If you look at the incumbency factor in congressional elections, between 55 to almost 100 percent of the time Senate incumbents will win. This is different for those in the House because their percentage is from about 85 to about 100 percent of being reelected. So it would have been a little more difficult for Stevens to win even though he is an incumbent because they do win by narrower margins. One of the reasons is because they represent a whole state so they have less one on one time with the people and also have more media coverage which keeps them on their toes. So in this case the media really covered Stevens “gifts” which lost him the election. Even though he lost and is now a felon, he did make history.
I as well am glad to hear that Begich beat Stevens for senate. Although Stevens was the longest seated Republican senator in history, that record would have quickly ended once he was sent to jail. Seven documented felony counts for failing to disclose $250,000 and having been found guilty is not exactly the kind of representation we want for our country. While re-counts in Georgia and Minnesota are taking place, I don’t think the outcome of a recount in Alaska would make much change. I think Stevens would still lose. He doesn’t exactly have the best reputation going for him currently, and the newly elected Begich is not that much different from the typical republican or from Stevens himself. Begich claims Alaska wanted a change, but the “change” they endorsed in with Begich still involves drilling, gun ownership, and other similar policies indifferent to that of Stevens’s republican policies. The change Alaska made was a better name and reputation by the guy that will be represented by. Instead of being run by a felon, Alaska can proudly say that they kept all their same previous policies and got a respectable representative.
Connection:
This article did not greatly expand the importance of filibustering, but it was taught to us in Hardball and is currently a very wide concern among all republicans. In Hardball we learned about the patience that was needed in filibustering. If a representative could wait it out long enough, then they could usually eliminate their competition so long as the continuously talked about their new policy (being challenged or advanced). The example Matthews used was Senator Byrd; currently, the Democrats represent 58 seats in the senate. With 2 more Democrats, it would be possible to eliminate the ability for filibustering altogether. Without filibustering any policy could be passed by un-argued and would not give the republicans a fair chance to represent those in the country that disagree with that policy. They need to be able to put all other methods and managements at a complete halt to thoroughly argue for or against a policy-a form of gridlock, but the kind of gridlock we usually need. Without filibustering there would be no competition, no long process to new policies, and no effective opposition.
Let me just say that I don’t think convicted felon’s should be allowed to be in public office, while they may be repentant, they’ve proven themselves to be capable of betraying public trust at least once and could easily do it again. This is true for Democrats and Republicans, in my book. This could be a change of pace for Alaska, maybe Begich will open a way for more Democratic leadership in Alaska. This doesn’t seem likely though, Alaska has gone Republican for nearly 30 years, and with the race being this close even with the republican being a convicted felon, Senator Begich will likely be a blip on the radar in the long term. It feels sad that Senator Stevens, who did so much for Alaska since it’s beginnings, has fallen so far in the public eye. It’s quite unfortunate that the only attention he seems to be getting these days is schadenfreude. It seems that there is such a thing as bad press, it’s quite possible that Steven’s would have carried Alaska if he hadn’t gotten the media attention he had when convicted. That would have been an interesting legal scramble to fill his post after he’d be forced to step down.
Connection: Orchestra Pit Theory-when two candidates for office appear together, and while one will provide solutions to future problems in office, the other will fall into the orchestra pit, and be the one discussed by the media outlets. This relates to Senator Steven’s case because there was no talk at all of what either candidate would do for Alaska, all attention was devoted strictly to Stevens’ conviction for the gifts he took in additions to his home. Steven’s was the one who fell, and all attention came his way and only his way.
Well, Alaska finally did something right. They screwed up with Palin, but at least they got rid of Stevens. Yeah he was a good at getting money over to Alaska, but the amount that he would get was just too much. The government had money to spend elsewhere. There was absolutely no need for the Bridge to Nowhere. The fact that Stevens had been charged with seven accounts of not disclosing gifts of $250,000, yet he could still run a close campaign is just wrong. Alaska just needs to move on and just accept that they won’t be getting as much money as they normally would. Plus with the promises that President-Elect Obama has made about the decline of pork barrel spending, seems like it would limit that amount that Alaska could gather to a minimum. Even if Representative Stevens was elected, there is still the question of if the House of Representatives will even let him come back. They obviously know that he has been indicted, and probably look down on that, which they should. I personally don’t think that Congress would allow him back with such a record riding his tail. And honestly, he is just getting too old. Like John McCain he should just give up.
Connection: This event would be connected to FECA. Politicians are supposed to submit campaign donations and gifts. These lists are to be submitted to FEC. Such a falter as Steven’s could also be connected to the Clintons’ tax problem that is currently limiting Hillary’s political progression.
Alternate Connection: (If Orchestra Pit theory isn’t valid.) Party Realignment: Party realignment is the displacement of the majority party by the minority party in terms of holding political office. This isn’t a complete party realignment of Alaska’s representative or senator, just one democrat replacing a republican. However, this could be indicative of a trend toward a party realignment in the future, where the one Democratic Senator is joined by another, a like-minded representative and govenor, and other powerful state positions. Not entirely likely though.
Of course Alaskans wanted to show some change in this election, they have all had to deal with Sarah Palin representing them. That had to be incredibly humiliating. Also, Ted Stevens winning after being indicted would be disgusting. Some might think that I’m not being fair by allowing all people to run and be elected no matter what their background. But criminals should not be elected. They have committed crimes! Someone who passes laws should not be breaking them. Sounds like a direct conflict of interests. But wait, the article mentions that poor Senator Stevens has had trouble sleeping since the trial began. Poor Senator Stevens, his life has been hectic. Or he couldn’t have committed felonies. His quote, though possibly out of context, shows him trying to display himself as a victim. But he’s definitely not a victim here. He’s the rogue. I think that it’s about time that the American people started to act a little on their morals by not letting a felon represent in the Congress. Although I guess I’d be hard pressed not to find flaws in most politicians. Too bad it comes down to human nature: those who seek power should never have it.
Connections: Senator Stevens should have disclosed the financial information. Then he wouldn’t be in this mess. The McCain-Feingold Act was trying to keep this kind of lying from occurring, and it is obviously having an effect. It’s the same concept as covering stuff up. If the politicians would just come clean in the first place, they wouldn’t have a Watergate on their hands.
The fact that Stevens is out of the Senate gives me more faith in the American people. He has committed a felony and acted in a way unfit for a leader. Given the fact that he would probably not have served out his term anyway, voting for him would have given Sarah Palin a free ticket to place whomever she chose in the senate. Alaska, a state that has leaned Republican since 1980, chose to elect a Democrat rather than a convicted felon. Even the most hardcore Republican can probably see the logic in that. The fact that Begich is a fairly conservative Democrat probably worked to his advantage. Had he been too far to the left, he most likely would still have faced defeat. Although electing Begich has added to the asymmetry of our current political system, making Congress even more heavily Democratic, I think that voting Stevens out of office set the proper precedent.
Connection: Sarah Palin 2012- As we discussed in class, the reelection of Stevens could have opened up the door to the Oval Office, allowing Palin to strut right in. It is likely that, had Stevens been elected, Palin would have stepped down from her gubernatorial position, allowing herself to be appointed to the Senate. This experience and opportunity would have made her appear much more prepared to serve as our national leader come the next election.
It is a shame that Ted Stevens lost his senate seat, but it was expected that he would. After all he did commit a felon. I would have thought that the people of Alaska wouldn’t have voted for him because of what happened with his crimes but to my surprise the race was pretty close. Then again, what he did wasn’t horribly bad, I mean, he didn’t kill anybody because that would have been just terrible and he would have gone to jail for a very long time. All he did was take money and spend it on his house repairs, no big deal, right? In my opinion it’s not, but I could see how some people might find it wrong. It is too bad that he ruined his record for the longest serving senator in the United States. I guess this gives the chance for someone else to break the record.
The new senator of Alaska, Begich, seems like he will be a good replacement for Stevens. If he supports gun rights and drilling for oil then I’m okay with him. Alaska is going through a big change right now. I’ve always thought about Alaska was a strong republican state because of Sarah Palin and all that jazz and now I’m kind of surprised that a democrat was elected. It seems like everything in America is changing.
Connection: This article could connect to political parties, more specifically, party competition. The republican incumbent senator, Ted Stevens, was competing against democrat Begich. The definition of party competition is the battle of parties for public offices and the republicans were competing against the democrats. Rational choice theory is also connected to this article because the voters had to make a rational choice by considering what Ted Stevens did and weighing the costs and benefits of having him back in the senate seat.
I don’t find it particularly surprising that Alaska hasn’t voted democrat in 30 years, but it IS amazing to me that they elected the same guy for that long! I think that this shows how the nature of this presidential election really was historical – this aspect is reflected in other elections around the country. The fact that Senator Ted Stevens, a well-experienced incumbent, was defeated by a Democrat in the state of Alaska really exemplifies how this election year is truly historic. Like we have discussed in class, this might signify the beginning of an “Undivided Era”. I do not think, however, that the Alaskan people necessarily wanted “change”. Ted Stevens had held the Senatorial seat since 1968. The man is 85 years old! In addition to this, he was an incumbent. He is obviously an experienced, qualified man whom the Alaskan public trusts. I think that one of the reasons Alaska instead voted for Begich is simply because of the media’s portrayal of Stevens. The article states that the media always gave Stevens the attention. If this is so, why would Alaska vote for Begich if they didn’t know anything about him? Perhaps they got sucked into the media’s superficial, “If it bleeds it leads” tendencies. Though they didn’t know much about Begich, they saw that the media had marked Stevens as a bad man, and so they didn’t vote for him.
Connection: Coattail Affect
The election in Alaska is a good example of the coattail affect. Obama was voted president; it is only logical that on such a wave of popularity, more democrats would be elected into Congress. This could also be a link to the end of “divided govt. and the beginning of a whole new era.
As the article stated, this is a gigantic victory for Democrats, in a sense. Their nominee seems kind of like a “blue-dog” Democrat on some issues, and may vote with the minority Republican Party. Also, I think Ted Stevens served many great terms representing Alaska in the Senate, coming very close in an election where he was convicted. I think that when the Republicans choose a new nominee in six years, it will go back Republican. Also, I do not think that both of the undecided Senatorial races will go Democrat, so there goes the “filibuster-buster”. And all this goes back to the classic perception of the old, corrupt politician auctioning off his votes to the highest bidder. I think that the people in the great state of Alaska were showing gratitude rather than bribing him for votes. The best thing about this article is that it hopefully will bring closure to the long, noble run of Ted Stevens, and will let our political system move on.
Connection: Coat-Tails: President-elect Barack Obama won the presidential election with a majority, and the people that he brought out thought to vote Democrat throughout the ticket. Also, the “throw out the rascals” mentality is enormous here. Ted Stevens, in many ways, could be called the “father of Alaska”, but lately, he has not been the most upstanding citizen. People see the hole that the media portrays the Republicans have dug, and they see a felon running for office on the Republican ticket… it all but shouts; vote Democrat.
I am not so convinced that our high office holders are free from corruption. The earmarks that are made, or the pork barrel bills that they pass do not seem to be a good way for democracy to thrive. This does not completely undermine capitalism as the various companies must compete to get the government contracts, but I believe that the companies that have a cozy relationship with a politician have a better chance than others. It cannot be proven that the Senator’s vote was bought, but as Bill Allen plead guilty to BRIBERY, I believe that it is true. I believe that it is good that he was voted out, no man who accepted a bribe should even be allowed to hold office. I know that it would not be a good omen for America if the voters elected a criminal. Due to the narrow margin that the Democrat won by I believe that it is the fact that he was a conservative Democrat won if for him. If he tacked on the liberal label he would have lost the race. I also believe that many of those who voted for the incumbent may have just voted for the party and not the man, which in this case should not have been the case.
Connection: Lobbying/Campaign Finance
Lobbyists are probably a large contribution to earmarks and pork barrel spending, without them I believe the problem would decrease. While this was a case of illegal bribery, the legal kind is more likely to contribute to everyday government spending. The corporations that contribute to a candidates campaign are more likely to be remembered and getting the government contract than they would have been otherwise.
In response to Annika: I also thought that it was very interesting that Begich supports the domestic drilling of oil, especially since he ran on the democratic ticket. It seems to me that all politicians are liars. They all tell the people that will be voting for them what they want to hear so that they can get elected. What good would it be if you were running for office and you only got elected for making promises that you don’t agree with or want to follow through with? You would have to spend your entire stay with the government either doing things that you disagree with and don’t want to do, or you would do a bunch of things that the people didn’t want you to do, and then you would never get reelected because you would be the candidate who made a bunch of great promises but turned out to be just a big fat liar. So coming back to the issue of Begich being elected as the Alaskan senator, it seems very plausible that although he did say that he supports domestic drilling he will never actually do anything about it. And, luckily for him, he probably will not be in office anymore by the time our government actually decides what to do about the drilling issue because I highly doubt that there will be a decision made about it in either direction in the next decade. That’s what gridlock is all about.