Another Gross lie? Candidate Al tells two versions of his views about Puerto Rico, D.C. statehood



Another day, another story from Alan Gross, who is running for U.S. Senate against U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan.

This time, it came during a video debate between the two on Tuesday, when Sen. Sullivan asked the Democrat nominee if he thinks Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico should be granted statehood.

Gross said no, he did not think that was best for Alaska.

“I would not support expanding that. I think that’s a bad idea. I support 50 states in our country,” Gross said.

That’s when Sullivan called him out for lying to the Alaska people, and said it has been Gross’ modus operandi for his entire campaign — telling Alaskans one thing, but then telling Outside liberal groups something else.

The Sullivan campaign had the video of the previous position that Gross had taken, when speaking to an Outside group and they shared it with the public, comparing them side by side:

Gross has also been caught speaking in favor of Medicare for all, and has boasted of his conversations with Sen. Chuck Schumer, and how the two spoke about optimism for passing the Green New Deal.

Gross has come under scrutiny for fluffing up his Alaska resume by saying he purchased a fishing boat when he was just 14 years old by getting a loan, and that he killed a bear once — a tale that has been strongly challenged by Alaska Department of Fish and Game reports. His campaign is heavily financed by Outside liberal groups and the political action committee controlled by Sen. Chuck Schumer.


  1. Gross is getting more disgusting by the hour. How do these loon Democrats even stomach his bullsh*t? He comes across as a rookie debater and a pathological liar.

  2. In the 1950’s Alaska was heavily Democrat, admitting her into the Union with two more Democrat Senators was political suicide for Republicans. So, the compromise was to admit Hawaii, a Republican stronghold at that time to even the score. Is D.C. a Republican leaning ten miles square? Ridiculous to even consider.

  3. Of course he’s a liberal, they always have big eyes and wear glasses. I don’t know what it is…it appears when you become Liberal your eyesight goes bad. Perhaps its because your brain is being squished.

  4. If you find Gross disturbing, try taking a hard, long, look at the Democrat ticket for the Presidential election. That this is even close should disturb the hell out of all of us. These people have ZERO shame and lie as soon as breath.

    • The media has been pounding Trump and brainwashing the feeble-minded for the past four years. That’s why we’re fighting this crap today.

  5. He is banking on, as so many, if not most liberals do, that no one will question what he says. And sadly too many don’t. With the left, the goal is what is important regardless of the means. There are no absolutes of right and wrong. Hence, lying, exaggerating, disseminating false information, deflecting, all are fine if you get what you want.

  6. “His campaign is heavily financed by Outside liberal groups and the political action committee controlled by Sen. Chuck Schumer.”

    The above statement is absolutely the truth! I’ve been getting a multitude of out of State mailers. Just received one today from Olympia, Washington and the Center for Voter Information (sounds ominous). Sounds kin of like the Communist Party telling you how to vote. This is the kind of crap that an elderly widow would get and just follow it thinking it’s good. I’m sick an tired of leftists trying to buy this election. The DOJ needs to go after George Soros and the foreign money that interferes in our election and misleads the people. Keep fighting Alaska!

  7. Oh, don’t forget to vote NO on measure 1 & 2. Measure 2 is an attempt by liberals to steal your vote and is being backed by the same Dark Money!

  8. It seems like most of you have overlooked Dan Sullivan’s big lies. For instance, in 2016, he called Trump a reprehensible individual. Trump’s behavior has not changed, yet Sullivan now supports him. In 2016, Sullivan said the Senate should never consider a Supreme nominee during an election year. The fact that he and most other conservative Republicans have served 180 degrees proves that not only are they incredible hypocrites, but they are morally lacking.

    I was taught as a kid by my parents, that it doesn’t matter if you win or lose, but how you play the game. Apparently conservatives no longer believe in this sound principle. Conservative Republicans have proven by their actions that winning is the only thing. They have convincing demonstrated by their behavior that promises mean nothing to them (see Lindsey Graham regarding Supreme Court nominees). Conservative Republicans have shown that the only thing that matters is power. Power shifts. It might not shift in 2020, but it will shift at some point. And now, due to the extreme ugliness of divisive politics, no one should be surprised at what will occur.

    • Thomas,

      You know that it was the Democrats that shifted their SCOTUS election year appointment position 180 degrees since 2016 don’t you? Democrats said then that the Senate must vote on an appointment, even though that isn’t what past precedent showed was done. Whereas now Democrats are saying the Senate must not vote, once again going against past precedent. There really is no debate about the matter, the historical record speaks for itself. When opposing parties hold the Whitehouse and the Senate election year appointments are not typically seated on SCOTUS, when the same party holds both the Whitehouse and the Senate they are appointed and confirmed even during lameduck sessions.

      • Steve-O,

        I am only reacting to what Sullivan, Murkowski, and Graham stated in the past 4 years.

        Prove me wrong.

        • And I am only reacting to what you said with your misinformation. I don’t need to prove you wrong, history does that.
          There have been ten vacancies resulting in a presidential election-year or post-election nomination when the president and Senate were from opposite parties. In six of the ten cases, a nomination was made before Election Day. Only one of those, Chief Justice Melville Fuller’s nomination by Grover Cleveland in 1888, was confirmed before the election. Four nominations were made in lame-duck sessions after the election; three of those were left open for the winner of the election.
          Nineteen times between 1796 and 1968, presidents have sought to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential-election year while their party controlled the Senate. Ten of those nominations came before the election; nine of the ten were successful, the only failure being the bipartisan filibuster of the ethically challenged Abe Fortas as chief justice in 1968.
          Nine times, presidents have made nominations after the election in a lame-duck session. These include some storied nominations, such as John Adams picking Chief Justice John Marshall in 1801 and Abraham Lincoln selecting Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase in 1864. Of the nine, the only one that did not succeed was Washington’s 1793 nomination of William Paterson, which was withdrawn for technical reasons and resubmitted and confirmed the first day of the next Congress (Paterson had helped draft the Judiciary Act of 1789 creating the Court, and the Constitution thus required his term as a senator to end before he could be appointed to the Court). Two of Andrew Jackson’s nominees on the last day of his term were confirmed a few days later, without quibbles.

    • Mr. Brooks, I’m beginning to wonder about your own ability to analyze objectively. Where are Dan Sullivan’s lies? If an individual shifts his or her ideas based on changed circumstances, that doesn’t logically conclude that the person is a liar. Dan Sullivan is being assaulted by people like yourself, who have a purely political agenda. You have little objectivity, sir. You bring only your own surveys to the table and boldly call them facts. You need more.
      Anyone with half a brain, will be able to opine on Dr. Gross’s remarkable campaign statements. His arguments are based on scare tactics, political diatribes and bold-faced lies about himself..
      Hopefully, your insights and assessments will improve as you continue to place comments here at MRAK.

      • Dr Dan,
        I forgot to specify my particular bias. I am proudly a Social Democrat. The Social Democracies, most exemplified by the Nordic Counties, are routinely surveyed as the happiest people on earth. They have a much lower income and wealth gap and, they have the lowest amount of social ills, evidenced by about 15 different categories, such as life expectancy and infant mortality. What is your particular bias and what is the bases of your bias?

      • Dr Dan,

        We can quibble about the difference between lying and changing one’s promises due to changing circumstances. I’m sure Bush 41 would agree with you in regards to his statement, “Read my lips lips. No new taxes.” that he was simply responding to changing circumstances. Yet that was undoubtedly a factor in his 1992 defeat.

        I’m sure you will agree that if a spouse cheats, there would be little discussion on whether the cheated-upon spouse felt they were lied to or simply the result of a broken promise, due to changing circumstances. The result is the same.

        If Sullivan is correct that the circumstances have significantly changed and that is how he justifies his change of position, then you must agree that when the same situation occurs, but only with different political parties,it will will be equally justifiable.

        I would also hope that you agree that since McConnell has stacked the Supreme Court under his Senatorial rules, that it will be equally justifiable if Sumner stacked the Court under Constitutional rules.

        • Mr. Brooks:
          Thank you for your considerate response. You loaded the plate but I can provide some bullet points that may give further insight to my point of view. I am not a brain surgeon, but rather a mind surgeon, with some talent in extracting unwanted malignancies and other assorted intrusions that don’t usually appear in MRI’s or scans.
          You have identified yourself as a social Democrat, a modification of terms which leaves some level of ambiguity, but I get your point. I used to be a Democrat in my youth, but have since changed to Republican. My bias, which you have requested, is based on my experiences both academically and in practice. I am more interested in the driving forces which spawn human action and personal development. I have found that people who are held back from development, or the expectation of success, become less inclined to produce and slothful in life. So, a more conservative value, in my opinion, gives a basis for a desire to produce. When one is promised something as an entitlement, whether real or perceived, the desire to achieve through self-action diminishes.
          You have cited the Nordic countries as models of happiness because incomes are controlled. I’m unaware of a correlation between happiness/success and government controlled wealth. Many Europeans in these regimes live oppressively, in their states of mind, and turn to alcohol to induce happiness. Many of the people you speak highly of are actually depressed.
          The US is a constitutional republic. Our bedrock is in fact the Constitution, from which our democracy is rooted. Elections have consequences and Trump
          has produced an endless supply.
          What I find fascinating about the Trump era is that so many Americans have become unhappy because Trump is changing the dynamic. We Americans were being conditioned to be functional non-producers and reliant on the Nordic model you have cited. Inter alia, we were lowering the bar on ourselves to become complacent and acceptant of mediocracy. Human action has been replaced with a form of human containment. This becomes a social conscript which creates unhappiness. My experience in the field shows that humans don’t desire this condition. But if it is thrust upon them through political control they have little alternative but to accept it and adapt to it. This is a contraindication to traditional American thinking. Trump is trying to restore that mentality to the traditional American value system…..hence MAGA.
          As for “court packing,” that is another feature designed to gain control of the judicial branch of government and secure a political agenda for the long term. FDR tried it in the 1930’s, but the idea was shelved, ironically, by his own Democratic Party. Court packing is another method at human containment in order to counter force future political consequences from the other two branches of government.
          It was a pleasure interacting with you through MRAK. Stay happy!
          Dr. Dan.

    • Wow. No offense, but that is a petty argument considering the harsh reality and gravity of this whole situation.

      This political warfare has gone deeper and further than any childish notion of “playing fair”.

      We can be Republicans or Democrats, hate Trump or love him, but the fact remains that we are fighting for the life of America and all of our freedoms again, and anyone opposing or denying it is happening are the useful idiots of the Far Left leaning Democrats, Marxists, Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Satanists, Luciferians, et al, who are trying their damndest to put a wooden stake straight into the heart of this Nation, once and for all. This is a corruption issue; a good vs evil issue.

      This battle won’t end with this one election. We still have to pass the torch of freedom to our children or we can all kiss our arrogant a**es, and our precious freedoms, goodbye. That is not an exaggeration and this is not a game.

      China is literally waiting at Canada’s border, ready to invade USA, RIGHT NOW, once the demonrats regain control of our Country. Donald J Trump and his team of Patriots are the only ones trying to stop it.

      We are in a war of which most people don’t even have knowledge exists, let alone the intricacies and depths involved. And Thank God for that bit of ignorant bliss or none of us would be able to sleep peacefully ever again.

      So, let’s cease and desist regurgitating the same liberal puke that the MSM and filthy, greedy, lying politicians are spewing.

      This is a genuine cold civil war and it is a serious matter that won’t be resolved with this one election. The enemy within our Gates (primary education system) will never stop trying to conquer America.

  9. Dr Dan,

    This is one of the one logical, critical-thinking responses I have read in MustReadAk. And I thank you for that. Most MustReadAK have nothing to offer other than unsubstantiated hyperbole.

    Like you, and like all people, I obviously have a bias. Will you acknowledge yours? How greatly has the circumstances changed since 2016, other than the power of the White House and the Senate? Is that all it takes in a democracy? ( I understand that we are not a complete democracy, but a republic). The changing circumstances that you indicate, and that Steve-O alludes, has only occurred very rarely number in the 230 years of the Constitution, and does not constitute tradition. It is not about tradition. It is about power.

    When the power shifts, please do not complain about the results.

    • According to Wikipedia Since 1789, there have been 163 formal nominations (of 144 persons) to the Supreme Court; through 2018, 126 have been confirmed. Out of those 163 nominations 29 were made in election years 19 while the Whitehouse and Senate were held by the same party, 10 when they were held by different parties, and another 9 times they were made in lame duck session. 38 out of 163 is hardly rare and certainly is not very rare…it’s almost 25% of the time.

Comments are closed.