Who’s doing the vetting?



Two recent flubs are beginning to make us wonder: Who is doing the vetting of Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s political appointments for jobs in his administration?

A member of Dunleavy’s Cabinet, Department of Administration Commissioner Jonathan Quick, resigned Thursday amid accusations he lied about his business background.

Then, Art Chance, a tough labor negotiator who came under fire for Facebook comments described as racially charged and misogynistic, declined a job with the Department of Administration.

These kinds of things must be embarrassing for a new administration and easily could be avoided – and kept out of the headlines – by serious vetting. The Left and its pals in the media, it must be remembered, will pull out the stops to give this administration, any Republican administration, a black eye.

Just sayin’.

The Anchorage Daily Planet


  1. What you’re really saying, Paul, is that a Republican appointee must be acceptable to the lefties. Racist, misogynist, and homophobe are just meaningless, all-purpose words for things lefties don’t like. I have a long way to go to catch up to the lefties in the name-calling and insults, but it’s OK when lefties do it because they’re “good people.” Republicans are their own worst enemy.

    • You don’t get it still Art, and probably never will: Govt. must serve the people (even lefties). This is not taking your freedom of speech as you are entitled to your opinions still, however your opinions got in your way in this case.
      I do salute you for using your real name rather than hiding behind a handle.

      • No, Bill, I do get it; government has to serve lefties and parasites with whatever it takes to keep them at least sullen but not mutinous. It doesn’t have to agree with them and it doesn’t have to do anything that doesn’t have the consent of the governed. There are few places in Alaska that the left qua left can get 50% +1, downtown Juneau, downtown Anchorage, the University District in Fairbanks, and that’s about it for anybody who actually talks and acts like a leftist. Everywhere else they have to follow the Tony Knowles paradigm and sound more like a Republican than do most Republicans or they just run up a false flag altogether.

        Lefties have a lapdog media, the entertainment racket, and the education racket, and they use that booming voice to cow the majority into silence. I’ve never said my freedom of speech was taken. Unlike most lefties I know and fairly thoroughly understand and respect the Constitution. At least there are no pictures of me in a Speedo with a girl’s hand on my crotch.

        • Good for you, with this reply, Art. It’s one of very few I’ve seen you make, where you disagree, that didn’t have some serious name-calling, etc..
          I know that you haven’t said your freedom of speech was taken but this situation has clearly occurred because you’ve taken too many liberties with that amendment IMO. Live by the sword, etc..

    • Ummmm, Art, did you note who the author of this piece was before popping off?
      Wasn’t Paul, as you suggested.
      The author makes an excellent point.
      Paying attention before reacting is required if you want to engage in adult discourse

  2. And now the ADN’s latest hit piece, this time targeting Tammy Randolph, hit their website just a little while ago.

    • What makes it a hit piece? Shouldn’t Alaskans be in a position to evaluate public statements Ms. Randolph has made that bear on her character and fitness for her appointment?

      • Where was Pravda, excuse me, the Daily News or KTUU when an Assistant Attorney General proudly wearing her position posted aggressively insulting, profanity laced blogs expressly dedicated to leftist partisan politics? The lefties won’t stop mau-mauing Republicans as long as it works. This isn’t about “fitness for her appointment;” this is about making sure than anybody appointed to the Board of Regents is acceptable to the leftist vipers’ nest that is the UA, and no Republican could ever be acceptable to that lot. If they can stop the Democrat resist movement in the House of Representatives and get organized, there are enough Republican votes to confirm any appointee, and that’s all that counts.

        • Don’t forget the foul mouthed Assembyman from Fairview who called Suzanne the ‘C’ word and not a single mainstream news agency reported it. Where were the liberal female journalists sticking up for one of their colleagues? Talk about a double standard!

  3. Standard whataboutism. My question is about why Randolph’s public statements on Twitter aren’t relevant to an evaluation of her fitness for the position and, thus, newsworthy. Conservatives used to care about moral leadership. Why aren’t public statements that reflect on her character and beliefs relevant to the evaluation of her fitness as a university regent? You’d rather people were in the dark about her sympathy for an extreme conspiracy theory such as QAnon? She didn’t just post about it on occasion. She posted about it regularly and often and even included their rallying cry in her public profile. Should such a person set policy for an institution of higher learning?

    • The “whataboutism” is lefty hypocrisy. I and most other vocal conservatives have been called every name in the book and you dirtbags have made up new names. You claim the right to yourselves and whine or scream that you’re offended if somebody replies to you at all and you go into paroxysms of rage if someone replies in kind. Frankly, I don’t care what you think.

      The left believes that anyone who doesn’t accept their dogma is subhuman, the German word is untermenchen, but if I said you thought like the Nazis, you’d be offended.

      • Whataboutism is not a name that you call someone; it’s a type of informal fallacy. When I suggest that Randolph’s public tweets are newsworthy because they are relevant to the evaluation of her character and you reply by by saying “but what about similar things that the news media didn’t cover,” you’re just changing the subject and not making an counterargument. That’s whataboutism.

        Even if I concede you’re point about media bias, what’s your point? Is it that until the news media equitably covers such things (on the left and the right) that a given person’s social media posts are irrelevant and not newsworthy? That doesn’t make sense. If it’s relevant and newsworthy, it’s relevant and newsworthy, regardless of other media coverage.

        Call me what you like. I am not easily offended and I don’t think people like you are subhuman–just making painfully weak arguments.

        • Well, actually, genius, the whataboutism is a derivative of ad hominem argument called tu quoque, or “you too.” But then I suspect you never had a formal logic class. The issue here is not logic, but rather hypocrisy, and the lefty has an absolute monopoly on hypocrisy. If it weren’t for double standards, you would have no standards at all.

  4. I am not a leftist by any stretch of the imagination. And it wasn’t ADN or the Democratic Party that first took screen shots and began raising concerns about Randolph; it was ordinary people like me. I don’t find anyone opposing the other Republican appointee. The Right needs to abandon its assault on higher education. If there’s a problem with university culture, you have to do the hard work of changing it from the inside. Burning it down is not an option.

    • The ADN posted a story about an hour ago stating that she has withdrawn her name from consideration. From all the discussion generated by these stories and accusations that Dunleavy and Babcock are asleep at the wheel, there’s still the issue of the health of our mainstream media that’s gone largely undiscussed. I recently pointed out a story in last Friday’s ADN, where they reported that a dead musician is coming to Anchorage to perform next month. They only removed his name from the web version of the story last evening. Also in last Friday’s ADN, there was a death notice from a funeral home. Five days later they run a news item, based on an AST press release, identifying this same person as the victim of a pedestrian hit-and-run in the Valley. Then in the case of Chance, Quick and Randolph, instead of original reporting, they merely repeated material reported originally by the likes of Dermot Cole and Jeff Landfield. Why do they keep bombarding me with requests to subscribe if they’re so far behind the ball in this 21st-century age of instant information?

Comments are closed.