Do words match deeds?
If you just listen to the campaign rhetoric of Fran Ulmer and Kim Elton, you will probably vote for them. If, however, your vote represents an informed, honest and realistic evaluation of that rhetoric, you will not. For many, their vote will be a robotic response, along with the party faithful (Democrat, Republican, et al.), without any effort to determine the accuracy of their candidate's words or the efficacy of their candidate's actions. How, then, does the concerned voter fairly and accurately decide who deserves their vote?
It's a fact that one of the best ways of determining a person's future is by making an honest and accurate examination of their past. Though a candidate's voting record, especially as it's interpreted by their opponent, is not always an absolutely accurate reflection of the candidate as a person, it's still one of the best and most accurate ways we have of defining the individual. Consider that every successful con artist knows how to use the correct words. It's the past that the con artist does not want examined! Both Ms. Ulmer and Mr. Elton have records that don't match their rhetoric (have they really been successfully bi-partisan) and they're counting on you to ignore that fact and bring them back for more of the same.
Please examine what these two candidates have said in the past with regard to the environment, the road, taxes, subsistence, development, etc. and make an honest comparison with what they're saying today. While you're at it, do the same research and make the same comparisons with regard to Mr. Murkowski and Ms. Muñoz. We have!
Bill and Eva Suss
Juneau