admin
Senator Cory Booker waved off an explosive New York Times report about Democrats allegedly recruiting a same‑name “Dan Sullivan” to run in Alaska as “much ado about nothing.” That short answer came during a CNN segment where Booker leaned on Senator Lisa Murkowski’s comments and dismissed a story that has already prompted a Department of Justice civil filing and federal scrutiny. If you think this is small potatoes, the dozens of pages of reporting, subpoenas, and a DOJ lawsuit disagree.
Booker’s Defense: Dismiss, Deflect, Repeat
On air, Senator Booker insisted the ballot clearly names Senator Dan Sullivan as the Republican and suggested critics — including President Trump — are trying to cast doubt on what could be a bad result for his side in the Alaska election. Cute line. But calling a major investigation “much ado about nothing” doesn’t erase the documents and witness accounts the New York Times says it found. Saying Alaska voters aren’t confused doesn’t answer why operatives allegedly spent months on a “ballot composition” plan or why federal investigators are looking into how a namesake candidate got on the ballot.
The New York Times Report and the DOJ Response
The New York Times says aides tied to Mary Peltola’s campaign and staff at the DSCC worked on a project to influence who would appear on Alaska’s ballot, including recruiting people with the same name as Sen. Dan Sullivan. The Peltola campaign and the DSCC deny it. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has filed a civil suit that asks a federal judge to block certification under certain circumstances, and reporters say prosecutors have sought documents and communications. This is not gossip over coffee — it’s legal filings and investigative activity.
Why the Namesake Matter: Alaska’s System and the Stakes
Alaska’s top‑four primary and ranked‑choice voting make the so‑called “ballot composition” strategy more than a theoretical trick. A same‑name candidate could change second‑choice dynamics or siphon just enough votes to alter the outcome in a race that could tip Senate control. Republicans have every right to complain about manipulation; Democrats have every reason to demand transparency if they are innocent. Either way, voters deserve answers — not glib dismissals.
Booker’s blithe shrug looks more like political damage control than leadership. If the New York Times’ documents are accurate, someone broke ethical lines — maybe legal ones — and the DSCC and Peltola campaign should open their files and let the public see what actually happened. If nothing improper occurred, the denials need to be backed up with records, not talking points. For the sake of Alaska voters and the integrity of the Senate, don’t let “much ado” become cover for a real problem. Politics isn’t a magic trick; it’s supposed to be a public process, and the public ought to get the proof.
