I’m just not at all sure what to think about Governor Abercrombie’s speech last week which was billed as a progress report on his “New Day” campaign plan.
It was an artificial event, with lawmakers, department heads, and apparently miscellaneous employees serving as props for the gov’s oratory. The GOP’s subliminal messaging in the background was absent, but apart from that, it appeared as carefully controlled an occasion as any from the Lingle years. From the news coverage of the event, it appears no questions were taken, although apparently the governor did later sit down with the Star-Advertiser’s Richard Borreca. Perhaps there were others one-on-one interviews granted as well.
Dereck DePledge caught perhaps the most important point.
The address, which was streamed live on the Internet, was meant to give Abercrombie an opportunity to plot a course after a legislative session and a few public-relations mistakes left his administration a little shaken.
Abercrombie will bring in Kate Stanley, a former state lawmaker with good relationships at the state Capitol, as a senior adviser to help the administration connect with lawmakers on policy. His communications advisers have sought to bring more discipline to the administration’s message.
Aha. Kate Stanley will take over the inside game. As for the rest, more “discipline” is the answer! That explains the contrived speech with no questioning to divert attention from “the message.”
And what message are we talking about? What audience? Clearly, if you want to move your bills next session, lecturing legislators sitting in the audience isn’t the way to get it done. The intended audience here was clearly the public, hence the live streaming, although I wonder just how many people would have stopped what they were doing to wade into the stream. The news media did their assigned job of regurgitating key points without much in the way of critical interpretation.
I think what the public needs is a regular press conference where the governor can get the hard questions, not fake events with canned and disciplined messages.
To date, probably the most memorable Abercrombie press conference was the fake one back when he announced a tentative deal with the HSTA. The fake news conference setting was admitted in response to questions from Civil Beat. They don’t get much more disciplined than that!
The governor has held a few other press conferences to announce specific initiatives, such as his 90-day homeless plan, but none seem to be the wide-ranging affairs that used to provide sharp-shooting political reporters an opportunity to compete to ask the most telling question. And do we have enough experienced reporters covering state issues to give the governor and his staff a serious workout? I don’t know.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I love Kate Stanley.
Kate singlehandedly has the energy of a group of teen-agers on Starbucks lattes. I very much do admire her for her boundless passion.
Will she be enough to get things passed this year?
I think the Abercrombie administration needs to recognize a fundamental shift that has occurred in the Legislature from the Lingle administration days. As a Republican, Governor Lingle was their natural enemy. The Legislature went out of their way to try to be as independent of her as they could muster. They knew she was after every one of their seats, if she could (she couldnt).
As a Democrat, for sure Governor Abercrombie enjoys a less adversarial Legislature. However, that love only goes so far with the Legislature. Ultimately, they want this Governor to protect them all with the power of his office.
Thats the new role- and the challenge – for this Governor and his entire team that they must master, if he hopes to realize some of the more controversial and difficult changes he wants implemented. The public’s bullseye must be planted firmly on his okole, for each proposal he floats and throughout the legislative process. He must learn to own each proposal, learn to maximize the cabinet he has surrounded himself with, and back each proposal up with their expertise and credibility.
I know, as fact, that the qualified personnel, the knowledge, and the dedication to the State of Hawaii exist within this new administration. They just need to figure out how to work the process to their best advantage in this New Day.
Bringing in Kate Stanley was a smart move. In addition to helping Abercrombie get his proposals through the Lege, she has enough heft to help Neil amend his ideas in response to their concerns.
Every time I disagree, even slightly, with Hipoli, it turns out she is smarter (and better looking) than I am. Nonetheless, I do not share her optimism over the ability of the administration to stop stumbling. (I HOPE she is, once again, right).
Neil is Neil. To what extent are the administrations current problems a reflection of the way Neil operates? I when we speak of “Neil,” exactly who do we mean? If we mean Neil writ large, meaning his innermost circle of advisers, exactly who are they and who influences him how? We think of the administration as being those with official cabinet or executive office positions, but doesn’t the real power reside in Neil’s “kitchen cabinet”?
A lot of these guys, including ones I personally like, are longtime lobbyists. To what extent is their judgment encumbered by the interest of their paying clients? To what extent is “Neil” anything more than the combined interests of his campaign contributors and the client base of his closest advisers?
His paid staff would have to disclose any conflict of interest, but not his informal advisers, who may exercise the greater influence.
Having said that, I expect Kate Stanley to be a positive influence. Not only is she smart in dealing with legislators, she is also something of a “policy wonk,” capable of understanding the likely effect of the proposed policies. And maybe, she can help the administration find its footing, along with more sensible policies.
(I figure I have only added to my “persona non grata” quotient with the administration by raising these concerns on such a well-read and highly regarded blog. So it goes….)
Sir Charles might get a bit jealous of ya’, Kolea, as he knows compliments work wonders on me. 🙂 BTW- where in the world is Sir Charles? I sure do miss that old-fart’s wisdom.
My point is Neil, short as he may be, better get up on a double ladder because thats how big a shadow he needs to cast over the Legislature if he expects them to feel comfortable and safe enough to move his initiatives. Kate, or not.
Still, the beautiful thing about bringing Kate in is that they finally have someone who has lived and breathed the departments – AND the legislature. I love that. Its a rare qualification in administrators. Most just know one-or the other. Kate knows both beasts intimately – I have no doubt she’ll aptly bridge both – and soon will have us all moving (more) in the New Day direction.
1. Only 48% of Hawai’i’s eligible voters vote.
2. X% of the 48% keep voting for these clowns.
3. = The community gets what the community wants.
Peter Carlisle is not much better than Neil Abercrombie. I’ve not heard him answer any policy questions for a while. And all Civic Beat does is report his itinerary schedule. Is the media community giving up or what.
So what are you planning to do, Carol? Force people to the polls to vote like they used to do in the Balkans – even if there’s only one set of candidates on the ballot?
Until the last couple of years, most people didn t vote because they were comfortable with what “The Government” did for them.
Now they’re concerned about losing benefits and having their taxes raised. Will that impact the turnout? I doubt it – teapartytypes are not going to gain much ground here in Hawai`i.
Although I am a Democrat – third generation – I rarely vote for more than one candidate on my ballot. Although there are Democrats I cannot stand, much as I like some of the GOPPERS with whom I’ve worked over the years, I cannot bring myself to support them, let alone consider the possibilility of actually voting for them.
Why? We don’t share the same values on core issues.
(My grandfather would rise up out of his grave and come haunt me in the middle of the night for even considering the possibility of considering an elephant)
That’s why I created a button after the 1996 election with the initials NOTA which I wear proudly every even-numbered year as a way of stating that I haven’t totally lost my mind.
On paper about 95% of the time and about 75% of the time in the real world, elected Democrats here in Hawai`i do Do The Right Thing.
Unfortunately, the ones who “represent” me are way at the other end of the political spectrum even with the initial (D) after their names.
Anyhow, watch the reports coming out of the Democratic Party State Central Committee’s bi-monthly meeting this Saturday. There is a HUGE split internally about what needs to be done to repair the “damage” done by Da Gov in his official capacity to the kazillion Dems who supported him in 2010. It will definitely be an interesting meeting.
With respect to Kate Stanley, I agree with Kolea and Hipoli – she’s got the street creds to bring people together.
You might have read the Disappeared News entry, The Faster Times: “Why the New York Times Paywall is Working”.
http://www.disappearednews.com/2011/08/faster-times-why-new-york-times-paywall.html
In a sense, the NY Times has instituted a voluntary paywall, and while anyone can view the articles, the paper is making money through what are essentially donations.
That reminded me of what happened at the Cincinnatti Art Museum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Art_Museum
The above wikipedia entry states that “on May 17, 2003, the Art Museum eliminated its general admission fee forever, made possible by The Lois and Richard Rosenthal Foundation.”
The wikipedia foundation link — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lois_and_Richard_Rosenthal_Foundation#Major_Philanthropy — states that “The Rosenthal Foundation made a $2.15 million grant to the Cincinnati Art Museum to make admission to the Eden Park art museum permanently free to all.”
What is not stated is that with free admission, the number of visitors rose dramatically at the museum — and the number of memberships at the museum actually rose (or at least this is what I have been told). That’s a stunning success: eliminating admission and then having the number of people paying for admission actually rise, and on a purely voluntary basis.
When Civil Beat first emerged, my understanding of its policy was that anyone could view it, but to post a comment, one would need to pay for membership to confirm one’s identity to the general public. I don’t know if that was the actual policy, but I like the idea. Advertising could supplement any shortfall in revenues; but I think that CB is just too proud to do that. So I get a sense that CB has a rather arbitrary, unclear and idiosyncratic membership policy, whereas the SA has a conventional, simplistic and draconian pay wall policy.
The voluntary pay wall, despite its success, just does not fit the preconceived notions of rational economic behavior, and I expect this is why it is dismissed. But it may yet become the dominant model. After all, economists struggle to explain wikipedia, since it does not conform to the most simple notions of contributors toiling for financial compensation. Yet wikipedia flourishes. (It takes social psychology to explain wikipedia’s success at attracting free authorship.)