Now that the back story on the recent Extreme Makeover episode filmed in Hawaii it out in the open, the red flags are very much in evidence.
The grapevine has it that reporters at KITV, the local ABC affiliate, knew that this extreme makeover wasn’t really the cinderella tale that the corporate PR wanted us all to believe, but they weren’t free to pursue the story because the program airs on their station. A more blatant example of entertainment being put ahead of news by news editors themselves would be hard to find! Meanwhile, everyone else in town was printing pretty much the same stuff fed by the same network press releases. Read a bunch of those fluff pieces and you’ll see the same anecdotes repeated again and again. None of this speaks well for the independence of news from corporate control, direct or via big time spin.
Richard Borreca keeps the governor’s refusal to deal with the Awana situation on the front burner with another story today.
Lingle says that because of a criminal court case and a possible federal investigation involving Awana, she will not say why her former campaign manager, political adviser and the state’s administrative director abruptly resigned Thursday.
But that’s just an obvious smokescreen. The criminal case focuses on an alleged act of blackmail. Interesting, but not the main event as far as public policy goes. The real policy issues and political issues are really independent of the criminal case and will not be resolved by whatever happens in that criminal case.
The policy question is whether there is any truth to the reports that the second most powerful person in state government was arranging sexual entertainment for members of one or more official state delegations to foreign countries with famous but much-criticized sex trades, and whether this was part of the reward for corporate donors who put up big bucks to take part. This suggests questions that Governor Lingle needs to address: Have you ordered an investigation into whether this did or could have happened? Will you order such an investigation?
Is there a code of conduct for members of our delegations? Are members of official state delegations and trade missions asked not to partake of the “adult entertainment” as long as they are ambassadors of the state? Lingle can easily answer yes or no to these questions. Will she?
I’m thinking about Lingle’s continued “no comment” while reading about a reporter who got whacked for trying to ask President Bush a question.
Okay, let’s do a test.
I’ll e-mail the key questions to the governor’s office, and we’ll see what, if any, response comes back from her finely tuned spin machine.
You are of course right that Lingle is trying to avoid the central issue as to whether the members of her “team” practice the good morals that her administration lackies often preach. The problem with your very pointed questions is that she probably already knows the answers and she cannot answer your questions without admitting the utter failure of her administration. Let’s be honest, she was already a lame duck on the day she started this second term due to the lopsided majority the Democrats have in the legislature. Losing key cabinet appointees Iwalani and Peter, demonstrated her lack of power. The looming overrides of her vetos will only confirm what most already know. One day we will look back at this administration and it will be clear that Awana’s departure under less than honorable conditions was the final straw. Her administration is now beyond “Lame Duck” and has entered a phase that can only be characterized as “Dead Woman Walking”. Best thing she can do now is to resign (for health or some other reason) and let Aiona take over. That way he can run as an incumbent in 2010. That is probably the only way he will ever become governor.
I’m not about to convict Awana until the investigation/courts are done. Innocent until proven guilty is a somewhat antiquated notion in politics, I realize, but I’m an old-fashioned guy.
That said, Lingle’s m.o. whenever she is faced with something that is not vetted and scripted and spun is to simply keep quiet and eventually the issue dies.
If you recall, when her C.A.R.E. group was found to be in violation of the ethics code, she first said it was a “distraction” brought about by Democrats. But as soon as the ethics commission weighed in and said that there was an ethics violation, she paid up and shut up. The issue went away.
After the 2004 election when she aggressively tried to take out Democrats in the House, ran candidates for the Board of Education, and campaigned for Bush, what did she say after her utter lack of coattails resulted in losses on all fronts?
She said that she looks forward not backwards and would have no comment about what happened because that was yesterday’s news.
Now with Awana it’s a one-page press release and dead silence.
Oh, and don’t hold your breath waiting for a reply to your e-mail. Wouldn’t want you to pass out for lack of oxygen.
To Charles, Bob Awana will not be convicted of any crime in any US court. Whether he committed a criminal offense is really besides the point and that is not the point of this exercise. The real question is if Lingle became aware of the extortion attempt one year ago, why did she not dismiss Awana at that time? What additional information came to her attention last week that weren’t available to her one year ago. Did Awana admitted having sexual relations with a woman during an official visit to a foreign county last year or only last week? As a taxpayer and constituent I would like to know, did any other members of her entourage request or participate in the solicitation of women for immoral purposes while part of an official state sponsored group? If Lingle was aware that Awana acted inappropriately while on a state sponsored visit she should have terminated him a year ago and not waited until last week Friday. It is also relevant to address the question as to whether or not others on her entourage also participated in inappropriate conduct while on official state business. If so, those officials should also be ferreted out and appropriately disciplined now and not only when it becomes politically necessary to do so. Or maybe you think otherwise?
I think I need to read the stuff here on a regular basis! The news is much better here. Shocking as it may seem, it’s honest!
Thank you, Mr. Lind, for dropping by my blog and leaving an address to yours!
I just wanted to make one comment about the Extreme Makever thing… even though I may be wrong, and probably am. I have a feeling that KITV was kept in the dark as much as the rest of us. That is one of the things that really rubs me the wrong way.
I don’t know much about the Awana thing, but I guess the best place to read up on it is here! The comments are great too — wow, intelligent conversation!
Mighty, you are probably far more aware of the case than I am. I merely know what I’ve read in the papers and on blogs like this one. But let me respond to your ‘real question’.
I don’t know if I agree that even if Lingle knew about the extortion case a year ago (which seems to be the case), she should have dismissed Awana. That’s almost akin to saying that Lingle should have urged Galen Fox to resign his office once he was arrested for his wandering hand incident. I don’t know if we want to go down a road that ends up that every public official (elected or appointed) has to resign at the moment they are accused of any illegal, ethical or moral lapse.
As far as soliciting women while on official state business, you are raising a number of disparate points. First, about Awana having sexual relations with a woman. If the criterion is that once you have an affair, you have to resign; well, be prepared for a lot of resignations. Heck, if you applied that to every sphere in our society – business, religious, non-profit, government—I suspect it would be a decent number of people getting caught by the morality police, if you will.
I mean, (somewhat facetiously), should Lingle ask each appointed member of her cabinet, commissions, boards, etc., if they ever had an affair? And if they did, should they leave immediately?
Second, about the question of others in state delegations engaging in ‘inappropriate’ conduct while on state business. I suppose we need to come up with a laundry list of what this is. Remember when then-Senator Milton Holt was arrested for disorderly conduct when he got drunk and acted out (in New Orleans if I recall correctly)? Would this be inappropriate conduct? Should he have resigned at that time?
Some examples are obvious. Say you go to a state-paid conference. Instead of going to the workshops, you go shopping. (Now I’m sure no state employee has ever done that but just play along with me.
) Should you resign your position since you engaged in clearly what is inappropriate behavior?
But what if you go to a strip club in Manila after your work is done, that’s inappropriate? I mean, watching girls take off their clothes clearly is more repugnant than getting a few bargains at the outlet store, no? So does that mean it’s inappropriate to go to a strip club in Honolulu after work? Or is it only on state trips out-of-state that you must ‘behave’ 24-7?
If anyone on state business (or any business) engages in activity that is illegal or unethical, then, surely they should be dealt with accordingly. And for all I know what Awana did crossed that line. At this point, I don’t know.
Ian,
Mahalo for being a watchdog.
If you think Momi Akana got a sweet deal, check out the real estate taxes that Jeremy Harris and his family pays. They live on a a street nearby the Akanas; I heard it was about $100 annually for the 14 acres.
L.
In response to Charles, and Bob Awana’s dismissal. The problem is that we haven’t heard what the reason for the dismissal was, still yet. Was it for soliciting an 18 year old “woman” to provide sexual “entertainment” for local businessmen travelling abroad on so-called State business. And, how is it that they get to be anonymous. Surely, the main stream media would have that information and have seen fit not to report it. Could they not find their own “entertainment” after work while on the trip, as you say? Did we taxpayers somehow pay for it? Has this become an expected perk of travelling abroad on state business (I never get invited, just so you know).
Or is it for something else entirely. Or a pattern of behavior. Guess we’ll never know.