The duality of Alaska’s U.S. Senate race

"I voted" stickers at the Alaska Division of Elections office. (Mark Sabbatini / Juneau Independent)

By Brian Hove

Alaskans have high expectations of our congressional delegation. We understand the weight of our state’s potential cannot be managed by the faint of heart. The job requires drive, conviction, courage and resolve. All qualities Sen. Sullivan exemplifies.

Meanwhile, his opponent has proven to be consistently underwhelming. Don’t get me wrong. Mary Peltola is a delightful lady, always quick with a smile. But Alaskans expect our congressional delegation to deliver results. Performance matters. Clearly, Sen. Sullivan’s record of genuine accomplishment stands in stark contrast to his opponent’s record of mystery achievement.

So, why do Alaskans place such high value on proficiency?

Simply put, our congressional delegation is a small team of just three members. For Alaska to prosper, all three must show up and pull their share of the weight. Obviously, Mary did not meet these expectations. Consequently, her stint in the U.S. House was, indeed, brief as Alaska voters sensibly changed course in 2024 electing Nick Begich to replace her. 

By the way, Nick is absolutely crushing it in Congress. Like Sen. Sullivan, he is highly respected by his colleagues and has proven to be remarkably adept at passing legislation important to Alaskans.

But this commentary is not so much about Dan and Nick. Their qualifications are well proven. Rather, it is about voter deception as well as Mary’s capacity to resist her party’s wish list of horrible policies.

Recall that Mary Peltola was pushed into the U.S. Senate race at the insistence of her friend, Sen. Chuck Schumer. But clearly, Schumer and his cohorts have a problem. Not only do they support an unremarkable candidate, they also promote horrible policies deeply harmful to Alaskans. This is not a winning strategy for wresting a U.S. Senate seat away from a strong incumbent in Dan S. Sullivan.

But what if there is a second Dan Sullivan on the ballot? Would a decoy create sufficient obfuscation to peel votes away from the incumbent? No doubt a Hail Mary! But subterfuge will not score points with voters. Alana Goodman and Collin Anderson, of the Free Beacon, wrote a brilliant piece detailing this deception and connecting the ruse back to Mary’s friend, Sen. Schumer. It’s worth a quick read.

Tellingly, even the Anchorage Daily News editorial board skips pretense by characterizing Decoy Dan’s candidacy as “look[ing] suspicious” and “smell[ing] like political mischief . . . clearly designed to confuse voters”. Ironically, the decoy scheme reveals a crisis of confidence in Mary’s campaign. Her benefactors seem to acknowledge that without trickery, she’s toast.

But now a word or three about horrible policies. Alaskans know socialism is the pathway to ruin. We know open borders are nonsensical. Taking cops off the street is a fool’s errand. Distorting Title IX’s true intent robs girls of athletic opportunity. Gutting the armed forces is reckless. And we know locking up America’s energy resources is not just egregious, but disastrous for Alaska families.

Yet, these are just a few of the atrocious objectives endorsed by progressive elites and even some in the mainstream of Mary’s party. So the question is, does she have the strength, confidence and inclination to push back on such nonsense? After all, how do these policies advance opportunity and freedom?

Of course, “freedom” must have meaning beyond that offered by a convenient slogan. Right? So, what does it mean to Mary? What is her vision for America? For Alaska? These are reasonable considerations, particularly in light of her party’s allergy to free enterprise. Clearly, we know socialism is not free nor does it advance freedom. Instead, as Friedrich Hayek famously said, it is the road to serfdom.

So, it’s fair to ask our U.S. Senate candidates where they stand on fundamental matters such as policy, performance and presence. And, since freedom was invoked in this race, what does this word mean to those who, for instance, served in the U.S. Marine Corps such as Sen. Dan S. Sullivan? Likewise, what does it mean to those who would align themselves in such close proximity to serfdom?

These questions are not abstract or irrelevant. They go to the heart of who is most qualified and best able to serve Alaska and America in the U.S. Senate. Especially during a time when progressive elites insist they, alone, know what is best for us all. My vote goes to the incumbent, Senator Dan S. Sullivan.

Brian Hove is a UAF business graduate and a 46-year resident of Alaska. He worked as a community banker and staffed a state senator back in the day. He lives in Anchorage and volunteers on behalf of the Alaska Republican Party serving as national committeeman. Opinions expressed here are his own.