It is time for some different TLC in D.C.

I think it can happen. I think it should happen.
     But I suspect intramural Alaska relationships are easier to rebuild than establishing a working relationship with a new federal administration and a new Congress. After weeks of extremely sharp verbal elbows--"palling around with terrorists", and "absolutely atrocious", and "faux feminist", and "far leftist with roots in socialist philosophy"--this administration also must build new relationships with Washington, D.C. movers and shakers. I suspect that re-establishing working relationships in the village of Alaska is far less challenging than doing it in the jungle of the nation's capital.
     Like it or not, the taproot of Alaska's future is D.C. The feds apply subsistence rules, issue gas pipeline certificates, manage offshore fisheries, develop EPA recipes, determine endangered species, protect marine mammals, run the National Parks/Tongass/BLM lands, fund the Denali Commission, allow and regulate offshore drilling, change No Child Left Behind rules, reform health care, decide on (military) base realignments, and have their finger-thumb-fist on a host of other issues. Our economic future is more tightly tied up by the feds than Gulliver was by the Lilliputians.
     Not only was the governor's 'campaign speak' harsh, during this election season we drifted back into the 'bridges to nowhere' whitewater. Our federal relationships also are changing as Sen. Ted Stevens' role is being redefined. If re-elected, Ted Stevens' policy coattails may look more like Joe the Plumber's t-shirt hanging out the back of his Carhartts than an emperor's cloak. Uncle Ted, if the election results stand, returns to a much smaller Senate minority. If it's Sen. Begich, the clout he is imbued with by being in the majority is tempered by the Senate's tenure system.
     I'm scared. I'm scared by Sen. Stevens' changed circumstances and I'm scared some members of the new administration will find it difficult to remove some of the filters that arose because of campaign rhetoric by our governor.
     Much as I hate to suggest this, it's time for a change in the governor's Washington, D.C. office. John Katz is a remarkable public servant who has served each and every governor since Jay Hammond. He's gracious, he's kind, he's smart, he's hardworking. His partnership with Sen. Stevens, Sen. Murkowski, and Rep. Young during their majority years has been especially productive and extremely beneficial for each and every Alaskan.
     Circumstances, though, have changed dramatically. We need partnerships with senators and representatives on the other side of the aisle and we need partnerships with new cabinet and subcabinet policy makers. That's more easily done with a new, different, voice for two reasons: it's a clear sign the governor is serious about building bridges to somewhere with the new power brokers; and a person with better Democratic credentials gets better access (wish it weren't so but that's the Washington reality and we need a reality-based approach to protect our future).
     This suggestion is not easy for me because of my profound respect for Mr. Katz and admiration for what he's accomplished. Given all the changes in D.C., however, it's the future and not the past that absolutely must be our focus. There are folks who can open more of the doors behind which all these new administration and congressional policy makers sit. I'd hope the new person would use Mr. Katz as an emeritus contractor to use his institutional knowledge.
     The governor did work in a bi-partisan way with Alaska legislators on ethics reform, oil taxes, and AGIA so we already know she has the flexibility to work outside the bounds of partisanship. By sending someone back to her D.C. office who can more quickly knock on more Democratic House, Senate and agency doors, she sends a strong signal she is out of the campaign mode and focused in a bi-partisan way on what is good for Alaska.
     There are some talented Alaskans who can help open those doors with new folks behind them. (In my first draft of this newsletter I actually listed some of them but decided I shouldn't embarrass any of them publicly by mentioning names.) They can balance the politics of a Republican Alaska governor with the reality of a Democratic congress and White House. And they'd do it because it is best for Alaska.
     And best for Alaska must be our only goal.