Dana Bash calls Alaska’s two-Dan trick legal — then warns Trump is undermining the election

THE DAILY BS: HOW MUCH CAN YOU HANDLE?

SPARE ME THE BS (I’ve got things to do)

CNN’s Dana Bash referred to the Alaska second-Sullivan maneuver as ‘legal dirty tricks.’
Bash argued that both major parties have used spoiler-candidate tactics while also warning about Trump undermining confidence in the election.
Megyn Kelly criticized Bash’s treatment of the allegations as investigators expanded their inquiries.

LAY IT ON ME (I’ve got time)

Alaska has two Dan Sullivans on its Senate ballot, a federal inquiry into how the second got there, and now a cable-news argument about what to call the whole thing.

On CNN’s October 28 ‘Inside Politics,’ Dana Bash examined the New York Times reporting on people associated with Democrat Mary Peltola’s political operation and their alleged attempts to recruit a candidate sharing Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan’s name.

‘I use the term dirty tricks intentionally because it’s not illegal,’ Bash told viewers. ‘They are legal dirty tricks.’ She noted that both parties have encouraged spoiler candidates in other elections, citing previous Alaska and Ohio races.

That leaves an intriguing question. If the move is just routine electoral gamesmanship, why has it prompted federal subpoenas, a separate state investigation and civil litigation? Those investigations don’t establish criminal wrongdoing, but they do make the particular facts worth examining.

Peltola denies knowledge of the recruitment effort, while the second Sullivan insists he is a legitimate candidate. The Alaska Supreme Court allowed his name on the ballot. Recruiting a qualifying candidate is not automatically unlawful, even if an opponent hopes to gain votes from the resulting choice.

Bash then warned that President Trump and supporters with large platforms were ‘trying to undermine the election.’ Trump had called for Peltola’s prosecution and removal from the ballot.

Former Fox host Megyn Kelly criticized Bash after the Times reported communications connected with the recruitment effort. Kelly questioned why organizers apparently wanted secrecy if the conduct was ordinary politics.

There are two separate issues: whether any specific acts violated election law and whether the media coverage applies consistent scrutiny to partisan tricks. The first belongs to investigators and courts; the second belongs to everyone who watches cable news.

Bash sees familiar partisan gamesmanship alongside damaging rhetoric about elections. Critics see an effort to confuse voters that merits sharper examination. Meanwhile, Alaska voters must decipher the ballot before anybody wins the argument on television.