Alaska and Montana are not in the south but they definitely form part of the crimson tide of red states where Republicans are dominant.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Let's not get caught up in the D.C. trap of Democrats versus Republicans. When you're in Alaska it's about what's important for Alaska.
If you care to define the South as a poor, rural region with lousy race relations, that South survives only in geographical shreds and patches and most Southerners don't live there any more.
The Republican party is not inflamed, as some would fain have the country believe, against the South. Its borders are wide enough for all truly loyal men to find within them peace and repose from the din and discord of angry faction.
Alaska itself is an unusual state.
It's the South that maintains the idea that they're different, which is interesting because nobody else really cares.
It is the maintenance of slavery by law in a state, not parallels of latitude, that makes its a southern state; and the absence of this, that makes it a northern state.
I don't fit neatly into anybody's political boxes, and I think that sometimes disturbs people. But I don't think most Alaskans fit neatly into the Republican box or the Democratic box. They don't think of themselves that way.
In California, there is a strong tension between north and south.
If there is one belief that unifies most Alaskans - our true north - it is less government and more freedom. We don't want the government in our pockets or our bedrooms; we certainly don't need it in our families.
I missed that question on Alaska. I hear they want to make it a state now.
No opposing quotes found.