The Homer Chamber of Commerce recently held a candidate forum for the three individuals running to represent District 6 in the Alaska State House. The forum was well attended by local community members, with more than 100 people in attendance. I took notes during the debate and will summarize my impressions.

The three candidates in the debate were Republican Dawson Slaughter, incumbent Republican Sarah Vance, and so-called Non-Partisan Brent Johnson. The chamber of commerce selected the questions, along with a few questions from the audience. The forum for the debate was for each candidate to answer the same question with 90 seconds to respond. The following are the important notes for each candidate.

Dawson Slaughter

The first thing that comes to mind is, what is this guy doing on the debate stage? He is a young man with obvious political ambitions but was soundly defeated in the August primary election. The voters do not want him as our Representative at this time. He could only remain in this race because of the odd ranked-choice voting system our state uses, for now. Mr. Slaughter should have taken a hint after the primary.

That being said, Slaughter seems like a nice young man with big dreams, but he was woefully unprepared for the night’s debate stage. If Mr. Slaughter desires a future in Alaska politics, he needs to school himself on the issues and formulate plans for how to address the problems facing our state

Regarding his debate performance, his only noteworthy position is that he is a Republican, but not Sarah Vance. Slaughter answered every question with a platitude, something like “Freedom is Good,” which nobody would disagree with, but it isn’t an answer that means anything. When asked questions about fisheries bycatch, taxation, school funding, and other issues of importance to District 6, Slaughter appeared unprepared to answer. Several times, he said he didn’t know the answer, but if elected, he would consult experts. This is not a good way to demonstrate competence for the job, but he had to give that answer several times. In one embarrassing moment, Slaughter said he was drawing a blank and could not provide an answer for about 30 seconds. I felt bad for the guy.

Dawson Slaughter should be commended for having political ambitions and running for office. As a young man, he has lots of time to hone his skills on the debate stage. Someday, he might be a viable candidate for higher office, but today is not that day.

Brent Johnson

Mr. Johnson is a personable man and an easy, natural speaker. He gave cogent answers to all the questions he was asked, and his supporters in the audience probably think he did pretty well in the debate. There is only one problem with Brent Johnson. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and is trying to present himself as someone he is not.

Mr. Johnson is smart enough to realize that although his political beliefs lay firmly in the Democrat camp, it is political suicide to run in House District 6 as a Democrat. District 6 only has 2,059 registered Democrats, while there are 2.5 times that number of Republicans at 5,242. For any candidate to have a chance when running against Republican Sarah Vance, they need to steal the political middle of the road, while trying to paint Representative Vance as an extremist. Johnson attempted to do precisely that with a series of ungentlemanly slights at Vance by blaming problems on “our current representative” when answering questions during the debate. Instead of coming across as strong, he came across as petty.

This debate format was a great help in illustrating Mr. Johnson’s political inclination. He answered several questions highlighting his position on issues that will not play well with District 6 voters. He supported marijuana legalization, and thinks that stores selling weed are a good thing in District 6. He supports Ranked Choice Voting. He wants to increase state spending and pay for it by raising taxes on the oil industry. He believes that citizens are not entitled to the PFD and that funding the state government is the best use for those funds.

As bad as those positions are, the answer that most clarified his leftist belief system was when he was asked about energy and the shortage of natural gas in Southcentral Alaska. Johnson bragged that he was a big proponent of the solar farm planned for Nikiski and thought that it was the key to future power in Southcentral Alaska. He also said he did not support using North Slope natural gas, and we might have to import natural gas from somewhere else for a short time until we can swap to a green energy system for our energy needs.

This answer alone should disqualify Mr. Johnson from political office. Solar power is the most expensive energy source in this country and is only viable if the federal government massively subsidizes it.  Without the federal government’s financial support, no solar facility in Alaska will ever be economically feasible. It is insane to propose relying on solar power facilities in Alaska to provide power in a state where it is dark for most of the winter when power is needed the most.

Importing natural gas is also an insane proposition, sort of like Hawaiians importing sand or palm trees. Alaska is home to a vast world-class natural gas reserve in Prudhoe Bay. That gas is sitting there waiting for the right political leadership to develop it and bring it to our part of the state to be used. Once a gas line is put in, Alaskans will have a clean, reliable energy source for a very long time. Natural gas is plentiful in Alaska and is the right energy source for our future. My grandchildren’s grandchildren will still be heating their homes in Alaska with natural gas from Prudhoe Bay. That is, as long as we don’t let politicians like Brent Johnson muck it up. For this reason alone, Mr. Johnson should never be allowed to hold higher political office.

Sarah Vance

Is a known quantity. She is the incumbent and has done a great job representing our district in Juneau. Vance believes in strong conservative governance, demonstrated by her command of the debate stage. Vance gave excellent, knowledgeable answers to all the questions and highlighted her ability to interface with the governor regarding vital issues such as King Salmon bycatch in federally managed fisheries, school funding, the PFD, and Ranked Choice Voting.

The biggest takeaway for me was that Dawson Slaughter and Brent Johnson both indicated they favored Ranked Choice Voting, while Representative Vance said she strongly opposed it and hoped the voters would repeal it on November 5th. As a voter in District 6, if you are going to vote to repeal the worthless RCV voting system, then you need to also vote for Sarah Vance.

The question of who won the debate in a small-town candidate forum is a matter of opinion. Supporters of each candidate probably heard what they wanted to hear and believed their candidate won the debate. However, based on my reading of the debate audience, I will take a shot at calling the winner.

If Homer voters wear a face mask out in public, they are typically very hardcore liberals and vote for the most left-wing candidate on the ballot. In this case, that would be Brent Johnson. If Homer citizens aren’t wearing a face mask, they are probably either a conservative or a rational Democrat who can be reasoned with. There were more than 100 people in attendance last night, and only three were wearing face masks. That tells me an overwhelming majority of people in attendance were conservative voters, or Democrats who hid it well. Based on this fact and her knowledgeable answers to the questions in the debate, I am calling this debate a win for Sarah Vance, which should reflect well on her chances on the November 5th election day.

The views expressed here are those of Greg Sarber. Read more Sarber posts at his Seward’s Folly substack.

Click here to support the Alaska Watchman.