I am always surprised at the rhetoric of political process. This season, as always, one candidate bashes the other regarding their affiliation with one political group or the other and the odd vote "against" Alaskan interests.
If you are not a part of a political organization, such as the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, you hold no power. Similarly, if you don't "trade votes" i.e. give your support to other people's ideas (read legislation) then they don't support your legislation. Surprise, surprise! If you and those you vote with don't constitute a majority, you get nothing for your state (or other political subdivision), period.
Any politician who wishes to be effective must decide what is attainable and what is not and sometimes give up one desirable goal to achieve a greater goal that is more profitable for his or her constituents. That's life; surely your mommy never told you life was fair.
It's great that a politician aspires to a new political system free of trading support for the other guy's legislation in exchange for legislation in the best interest in Alaska. The only system that I've heard of that would work that way is a system with one person at the head of the organization with no one else having a say in the matter.
Personally, I think such a system is contrary to my best interest or that of the United States. It's usually referred to as a dictatorship or if religious in nature a theocracy. Personally, I like the American separation of religion and state; you don't force your religious ideas, which may in my view be too conservative or liberal, on me and I don't force my religious ideas on you.
This political rhetoric always seems so demeaning that one politician (or party) would assume that you and I as voters are so nażve as to accept this necessary reality as somehow innately wrong.
So, would you political newbies please quit insulting me and all my friends?
Kenneth H. Lea