As residents of Kaaawa, on the windward side of Oahu, we’re firmly in Congressional District 2. That’s the district where Mufi Hannemann is trying to resuscitate his political career, while Tulsi Gabbard, Esther Kiaaina, Bob Marx, and Rafael des Castillo are all trying to emerge as serious challengers to Hannemann in the Democratic primary.
Kiaaina, who I don’t believe I’ve met, turns out to be a cousin, descended from my great grandfather, Robert William Cathcart.
But it’s probably Gabbard, with both legislative and city council experience along with lots of name recognition, who appears to have the best shot at competing with Hannemann.
So I was interested in an article appearing on the Daily Koz back in January, “Tulsi Gabbard: The Curiously Conservative and Nepotistic Network of a Democratic Candidate.”
The article traces the Gabbard family’s decades-long track record as champions of socially conservative political positions. And while Tulsi Gabbard is certainly young enough to break away from that family history, the article finds many disturbing ties back into the Gabbards’ old political network.
Gabbard’s current congressional campaign, though, promotes her as a progressive, a pro-choice supporter of women’s rights, and a proponent of a quick U.S. departure from Afghanistan.
Civil Beat’s Adrienne LaFrance did an interesting profile, “Tulsi Gabbard’s Leftward Journey,” back in January which is probably must reading as well.
According to LaFrance:
In recent years, Tulsi has undergone what she describes as a “gradual metamorphosis” on social issues. She says her transformation was spurred by spending time in countries governed by oppressive regimes during deployments to the Middle East as a member of the Hawaii Army National Guard.
“Some of these experiences living and working in oppressive countries, not only witnessing firsthand but actually experiencing myself what happens when a government basically attempts to act as a moral arbiter,” Gabbard said. “It really caused me to take a look at myself and the way we’re doing things here at home, locally, and nationally.”
Today, she says she is pro-choice and would fight to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. (Read a related article that outlines Tulsi’s and four other 2nd Congressional District candidates’ views on social issues.)
That’s an incredibly dramatic political shift. The question: Is it real or is it Memorex?
I certainly don’t know, and I’m interested in the experience of others.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I brought this up on FB. Her website doesn’t even touch the subject of civil unions or same-sex marriage. Don’t ask, don’t tell? She needs to disclose what side of the fence she is on. And on another note, one would think she and Lingle would be members of the same party. Hawaii is a strange political animal.
Paula,
Actually, Tulsi has posted information on social issues to her website in several places. I agree that it is difficult to find and we’re working to rectify that. You can find Tulsi’s position on gay marriage and abortion at the following link:
http://votetulsi.com/updates/2011-12/social-issues
Well, between Tulsi and Mufi, at least on the issue of same-sex couples’ legal rights, both have a similar track record, but Tulsi claims to have reformed, whereas Mufi is unrepentantly anti-gay. For those favor of equality, at least on this issue the choice seems clear.
I’d like to find out more about the other candidates before the election.
This election is an opportunity to hammer the final nail into Hannemann’s political coffin. If we fail to take this opportunity, we and our children will be paying for it for decades to come.
Neil put Hannemann down—but not out. Mufi is poised for a comeback and we will all be sorry when he succeeds. He will be in Congress and then the U.S. Senate for the next 20 years.
JJ,
For those of us who like neither Mufi nor Tulsi, if Mufi intends to run for the Senate ASAP, what is the damage in letting him win the House seat, then voting him out when he runs for the Senate?
You want Mufi’s career to end. So do I. But I do not want Tulsi’s career to start. If she were to win the congressional seat, she would be a major player on Hawaii’s political scene for another 30-40 years! Why not nip her career in the bud now? So what if Mufi is in Congress for a couple of years? What harm can he do? Sure, on a particular bill or two, he will vote to the right of where I want. I take seriously the threats to reproductive and gay rights, but I trust Tulsi to be Tulsi. If she really changed her views on gay and women’s equality as a result of her experiences in Kuwait, why did she not speak up upon her return? She could have helped civil unions pass had she shown even a small amount of courage to explain the “evolution of her thinking” at a time when it might have helped advance equality instead of waiting for when it can advance her ambitions.
Tulsi should never be allowed to have any office higher than the state legislature. If I am wrong, she can demonstrate real leadership and courage at the local level, through real actions, rather than through political expedient rhetoric. Then, and only then, am I willing to take a chance on her new “sincerity.”
Even if Tulsi Gabbard still harbors a far-right political philosophy, I think that the idea that she would reject all the commitments she has publicly made to women’s rights — which brings in endorsements and money — is extremely unlikely. It’s not that she has had a last minute battlefield conversion and seen the light and become Mazie Hirono 2.0. It’s that it would be political suicide to backpedal once in office. That’s why Hannemann cannot back away from his conservative stances on cultural issues like same-sex marriage: at this point he would look inconsistent, especially being a Mormon minister, and he would lose his financial base (the Mormon church is a major supporter of his, and is supposedly responsible for getting him his current job as a PR man for tourism in Waikiki). So even when it comes to Hannemann, it’s not that he is being more open and sincere about his reactionary beliefs in contrast to Gabbard. (He might not have any such beliefs, or no real beliefs at all.) It’s that his public persona is set in stone and he has to stick by it.
These people are professional politicians, and they are willing to say anything in general to get elected, whether or not they believe in it. But there comes a point when a candidate is so deeply associated with a point of view that they cannot afford to change their stance on it. Gabbard has the advantage of being relatively unkown in that the public can overlook her earlier stances (which they generally don’t know about anyway, in her case). Also, because she is relatively young and is surrounding herself with young people in her campaign (according to CB), she fits the image of a progressive. Smart, smart, smart.
I don’t know anything about Tulsi Gabbard other than she is a captain in the Hawaii National Guard. However, I try to follow energy policy, where her father has positioned himself in the legislature as a leader in that field (shrewdly, I guess, because it puts him out front in a growing field and makes him look progressive). Mike Gabbard has pushed for home generation of energy, in things like net energy metering. That would make him seem progressive, since progressives push for distributed generation. But Mike Gabbard’s mentality is probably rooted in a conservative’s suspicion of grand projects like the Big Wind and the inter-island cable. But when Mike Gabbard’s “fact-finding” trip to Molokai and Lanai was reported in CB, it was noted that the politicians who accompanied him were mum on their thoughts on the Big Wind — and Mike Gabbard was especially really, really mum. He carefully neither seems to support nor oppose the big projects. Perhaps he works quietly on the inside to undermine such projects; or maybe not. But this might be the kind of political survival strategy one would expect from his daughter.
What would be an example of Tulsi Gabbard’s emulation of her father’s political strategy? One would suspect that she would harbor a conservative’s distrust of grand projects when it comes to the rail project. But she seems to go along with that rail project without any real enthusiasm. One would have to look at areas where she has taken the lead. I only know of one such policy area, and that is forcing homeless people — and Occupy protesters — from the parks. This might reflect a conservatives loathing of disorder.
So this also might reflect a good political strategy for a politician with a divergent political agenda from the majority: do and say what it takes to get into office, then subtly take initiatives in other areas. And that’s okay, I guess. On booting out homeless people from the parks, Tulsi Gabbard managed to form a consensus. One might not agree with the policy, but it was done democratically.
So there will be no dramatic, traitorous backpedaling once in office on hot-button issues like women’s rights to be expected from a shrewd politician who has adopted such a strategy. It would be more insidious than that in some ways because such a politician would consistently and solidly affirm the party line on such issues (especially once that becomes the status quo), while working quietly on “marginal” issues very effectively (e.g., foreign policy, Medicare, tort reform, etc.). But then again, that’s kosher (at least in my book) as long as it’s done democratically.
Mufi’s supporters are doing everything they can to try to convince progressives not to vote for Tulsi because she’s a “Republican in disguise.” This is coming from Mufi “Republican” Hannemann.
Ian, you draw a fantastic bunch of people.
I have heard Tulsi speak here on Maui twice.
She is very good, touches issues and answers all the questions which have been brought out in this thread.
There is a real danger in splitting the vote so Mufi dances in. Then again, come November I will vote for the Democratic candidate for every office in the running. No Republicans for me.
It’s still early. There’s plenty of time for us to learn more about where the two main candidates stand on progressive issues and get behind one.
Forgive me, Rachel. But why should we limit this examination to “the two main candidates”? If Tulsi wants support from progressives and environmentalists, she must be willing to appear alongside Esther Kiaaina, Bob Marx and Rafael del Castillo. Her refusal to do so, shows she is only willing to share her views when it is convenient for her and appears to be driven by the same logic driving Mufi’s refusal to appear alongside his competitors.
Mufi has LOTSA money behind him and a lead in the polls, so why should he lower himself to appear alongside Tulsi? Tulsi, while not having quite as much money, still has LOTSA money and is a distant second in the polls, but enough ahead of the others she wants us to treat her like Mufi’s “only viable alternative.” And refuses to appear alongside the candidates with less money and name recognition. Same, same.
As you say, “it’s still early. There’s plenty of time for us to learn more about where…” ALL the… “candidates stand on progressive issues and get behind one.” Here’s an idea! The Progressive Democrats ran some very successful candidate forums in the past. In the Second Congressional race in 2006(?), there were ten or 11 Democratic candidates and they held that political “speed dating” event that got lots of good press. Maybe they should be asked to host a debate or forum with ALL the candidates and invite all the progressive Democrats to attend and decide for themselves where each candidate “Stands on progressive issues.” It would certainly help progressive determine which, if any candidate, deserves their unified support.
Put it on Olelo, Akaku, etc. so all voters can see where these folks stand, not just those with big money backing them.
Olelo and Akaku are old school. Put it on YouTube.
I have no idea who Chris Butler is, so last night I did a Google search on him. I immediately found an old photograph of him on his “Science of Identity Foundation” website. I remember that guy! He used to have a TV show I used to watch as a teenager.
I remember one lecture in particular, where he described a human relationship as being analogous to two sticks floating down a stream. Sometimes one can see debris floating on a body of water, stuck together from surface tension. If it is going down a river or stream, sometimes the collected debris — a pair of small sticks, e.g. — will become unstuck and part ways. Sometimes one will see the sticks later coming back together. A human relationship is like that, too.
At the time, I thought this was the most profound lecture, a very hard-nosed, realistic, stoic philosophy, not the usual ameliorative fairy tales one gets from religion.
Looking back, however, I recall the video actually showed two sticks going down a stream together and breaking apart later. I remember that the stream did not look like a stream in Hawaii. This probably means that it was stock footage, and that the lecture itself was probably “borrowed” from some other source. If this is the case, then Chris Butler is kind of mediocre.
So I clicked on one of the videos.
http://www.scienceofidentityfoundation.org/brain-is-not-mind
One gets a sense of middle-class mediocrity from both the speaker and the audience. One gets a sense of middle class people who are untalented and unintelligent, but they are hardworking, organized and relatively educated. That’s kind of what the middle class is.
However, one does not get a sense of small-town incompetence. In Hawaii, or in most places, that’s the difference between the minority who go to private school versus the majority who go to public school: mediocrity versus incompetence.
Anyway, after all these years and decades, the only two things that I can remember from local public access cable television or local public TV is 1) Terrence Knapp’s excellent portrayal of Father Damien, and 2) Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa (Chris Butler).
Ouch.
I already know that Tulsi has committed to repealing DOMA and Hannemann has committed to keeping it. Tulsi has committed to co-sponsoring the Respect for Marriage Act, Hannemann obviously opposes it. Tulsi not only supported the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, but she has been actively implementing it in her unit in the National Guard. Tulsi is pro-choice (which Emily’s List has made clear). And of course we know Tulsi has always been a staunch environmentalist (and vegan). We know, of course, that Mufi seems to consider the environment the enemy of mankind. I also know that Tulsi has taken a strong stance for immediately withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan. I’m looking forward to hearing more of her positions on important issues.
Vegan vs meateater? Really, are we going there?
I don’t care where the person changed their view. All I care about is that their views have changed.
Limo – I’m not sure what you have to back up this statement: “We know, of course, that Mufi seems to consider the environment the enemy of mankind. ”
Hannemann’s actual record doesn’t square with your statement.
He was among the first to sign the Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement (equivalent to Kyoto). He had the first documented city sustainability plan (for all city departments) drafted. Got Honolulu rated the #2 best city for use of alternative fuels (and hybrid technology), was instrumental in getting several large parcels of land set aside as conservation, set in motion a plan to reach an 80% diversion rate for our landfill (best in the country), and instituted curbside recycling throughout the Island.
Tulsi may be a “staunch environmentalist,” but what has she actually done?