We tuned in to Wednesday night’s mayoral debate just a few minutes late. This was what I saw on the screen, complete with what looked like a caption, “Dogs in the City.”
To tell the truth, in was actually pretty apt. The debaters, and the debate, lacked much feeling. The three contenders portrayed themselves, but the performances were somewhat pale. I don’t know what was missing.
Last night’s televised debate featuring candidates in the 2nd Congressional District primary race was different. We watched with interest as Tulsi Gabbard clearly outshined the field. She was extremely well prepped, and was the image of confidence. She handled questions extremely well, turning critical questions right around to her favor. Former Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann appeared worn and lackluster, and never really found the intensity he showed during the gubernatorial campaign two years ago. Esther Kiaaina started well, but as she got increasingly assertive, her raised voice would have been more appropriate standing in front of a crowd on the traditional soapbox, while on television it came across as too loud and strident. I couldn’t shake the image of a stern schoolteacher. It’s unfortunate because she has the most solid Washington experience. And Bob Marx really just left me interested in why he left Oregon after, by his telling, being a young star in the state legislature there in the 1970s.
I don’t know how big an audience this debate had, but I would be very surprised if it didn’t result in a chunk of voters gravitating to Gabbard. She presented as a very attractive and well versed candidate taking some very strong positions, including calling for a quick withdrawal from Afghanistan and openly rejecting her own prior views on same sex marriage and related issues. She was asked directly about that change of heart, and responded directly to it with reference to her experience in Iraq.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As for the mayoral debate – nobody had prepared.
This article seems to cover that well:
http://honolulunotes.com/2012/07/12/the-sad-mayoral-debate/
I thought that Tulsi took the high road with Mufi, never calling him on his current campaign problems (I.e. Collecting a full time salary from a nonprofit while actually spending his time in full-time campaign mode. It’s a clear campaign violation, but then with Mufi what else can we expect?
I found Esther to be shrill and whiny. I also thought that she was so deferential to Mufi, I just wanted them to get a room already.
Very impressed by Tulsi and happy to see that she does not share her parents’ political views.
I MISSED both debates. Ian’s summary is helpful.
Surprised to learn Mufi gave a poor debate performance. It’s my impression that Mufi has always been a pretty strong public speaker–minus the occasional weird comments–“I went to Harvard, Neil went to UH.”
Likewise, surprised to learn Tulsi did so well. I guess she has really grown up on the job.
PS: Don’t ask Stevie Wonder what the UH scam artist looks like 🙂
I was surprised by Mufi’s lackluster performance as well. It looked like when he was called about by Tulsi Gabbard for his “pay to play” he lost his confidence. He tried to deny it but there’s been too much documentation even in the mainstream news.
Ian’s analysis of the debate is right on the money. Tulsi was calm, collected and poised.
Was I watching the same congressional debate? I thought it was ranked like this.
Esther – 1st
Tulsi – 2nd
Mufi – 3rd
Max – 4th
Esther is the most experienced candidate in the ways of DC. She’s also the most progressive. Please vote for her– remember it’s Patsy’s seat we’re assigning!
We clearly watched different debates last night. Tulsi began nearly every answer (no matter what the question) with her song and dance regarding her military service. AND her most significant accomplishment while on City Council when asked was this: I stopped the food truck vendors from going to jail. Huh? I think she meant getting parking tickets but hey…..Ian, I know you are anti Mufi and pro Tulsi and the chances of this post making it out of “awaiting moderation” is slim but I think even you have to agree with my observation on these points. Not to mention her 100% flip flop on gay rights and women’s issues.
I thought Tulsi was very skillful in focusing her answers on what she has defined as strong points. I understand that you may not like this “song and dance,” but getting control of the setting in that way is a tried and true campaign technique that takes a good degree of skill to pull off. It was my impression that she managed it very well, and to good effect. “Flip flop on gay rights and women’s issues?” I’m happy she has grown and taken a new direction. Why would I be unhappy that she now embraces these issues? I wish she had found herself earlier, but I certainly welcome the change and her willingness to be very blunt about it.
In real life “flip flopping” can be a good thing. We should be open to new information and be willing to change our thinking based on the evidence. Don’t ever blink, don’t ever change? That’s called getting stuck in a rut, and to require it of our politicians is expecting them to be either super-humans or dinosaurs.
But then there is another kind of flip flopping — the kind that Mitt Romey does. That is what I worry about with Tulsi, but it might be worth giving her a chance to prove me wrong. I haven’t decided yet.
Agreed.
One of the biggest problems today, both on the absolute Left, and on the absolute Right, is an inability to change the mind, regardless of major developments and reality.
Meanwhile, politicians flip-flop all the time to get more votes for themselves. This is not changing the mind. This is lying.
I agree. I’m sure she knew she’d get a lot of flack for her embrace of these issues (including from her own family) so I think it shows a lot of strength and conviction to come out so strongly.
Actually, the food vendors faced up to 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.
Regarding Tulsi Gabbard’s shift on gay rights, her father’s views (“sins” as it were) are not vested on her. Why do people criticize politicians so much when they change their opinions in the right direction, especially when they move in the direction of greater freedom and compassion? Tulsi Gabbard is a complete surprise to me and an exciting contrast to Hirono’s and Hanabusa’s less-than-compelling, pallid imitations of the great and deeply missed Patsy Mink. As for Mufi, I can’t think of another politician so deserving of vanquishment. He is worthy only of literary recreation in a novel about the corrosive effect of insincerity in politicians.
I find all debates lacking most likely because of the formats that limit the time available for a true dialog on any given topic. Participants are forced to come up with “short answers” while leaving time to push the hot buttons that will resonate with the electorate.
Having said that, They are useful for getting an overall feel for the candidate.
I personally applaud Tulsi for her willingness to reassess her positions based upon her experiences. I worry when someone takes a position on a topic as a teenager or young adult and then refuses to ever reevaluate it as they become more exposed to the real world.
“I worry when someone takes a position on a topic and then refuses to ever reevaluate it” So if that someone does reevaluate their position and their position is unchanged….then what? Are they just plain wrong because they don’t agree with your position?? Seriously folks, in two years on City Council the best thing I’ve done is prevent the food trucks from getting parking tickets?? What am I missing? Is that Wash DC material?? I don’t understand the love affair.
I thought Tulsi came accross very polished and confident. I previously expressed concerns about her to one of her canvassers and she called me personally at home to speak to and address each of my concerns. I was left impressed by her.
I found Tulsi’s performance to be surface, pure show-woman stuff. We got that shes a soldier. We all respect her service and have heard her message on this (100 times over, already). After that, I thought she was robotic in her responses. And frankly, I cant help but feel like shes lying to us. Want to change that – tell me about your dad and how incredibly hateful and vile an influence he has been in Hawaii — and the conversation she must have had with him, such that she says she now support equality. She had a choice not to use the Gabbard name, but she chose her family’s name. As such, to me, she lives with the hateful, evil history and stigma that accompanies it.
Mufi’s body language, to me, exuded ‘why am i standing here with all these amateurs?’ And, really, I dont blame the guy for feeling that way. Hes been in public service forever — this should be getting easier, not harder.
To me, the night went to Esther. She was clear, intelligent, thoughtful, and even gentle to her fellow candidates – I found her to be magnanimous when she defended Mufi, when certainly she didnt have to do that. I hadnt even looked twice at Esther before this – but I am now.
In Tulsi’s defense: I’m not sure how much choice Tulsi has had in choosing her name. She was married, then was divorced. Her last name was hyphenated, so she always had the Gabbard name. Not sure why she would keep her old married name. I guess that’s a choice to keep the married name, but it’s not a very appealing one.
Lastly, she was born a Gabbard. I didn’t get to choose the surname Park, it just so happened that I was born to two Parks. ^_^
But I do agree w/ u hipoli: Esther was the breakout star of last night. She’s had such low visibility, that even me, once a member of Hawaii’s mainstream media, knew very, very little about her. I walked away from last night’s debate very impressed with the specifics of her resume, her passion and her focus.
Bob seems like a very amiable fellow, the fabled “guy I’d like to have a beer with” political type. Heck I’d even sit down and do business with him. It’s just too bad about his delivery. The fast and furious TV debate styles didn’t suit him well.
Wait till you get to hear what Rafael Del Castillo has to say. It’s a shame he wasn’t included in the debate.
Agreed! Voters should be able to hear all of the candidates, not just the ones who are pulling high ranks in opinion polls.
Wow Hipoli.
You’re entitled to your opinion that Tulsi’s dad has been an “incredibly hateful and vile” influence, but your post makes it sound like you are equally hateful to him… to the point where you take it out on his daughter.
I don’t expect anyone in this world to justify the behavior of their parents. I’m happy enough when people take responsibility for their own actions.
Hipoli, it wouldn’t be the first time a superficial thing blocked my view but I found Esther’s delivery just plain irritating: as the “debate” wore on, her voice and cadence became more and more shrill to the point that she left me with that fingernails on chalkboard feeling. However, because of you, I’m gonna look again more closely because I think you one akamai wahine.
aaaaw. sweet! i feel da love, ohia!
But hey, Im not all-about-Esther. I just think she did a better job than I think Ian’s giving her credit for. Like, a surprisingly better job than I think anyone expected from her. She held her own – and thats significant. And, that touch of class she showed – defending the big guy – that showed me a glimpse of her character. I can see what you mean about her voice. She should work on that – and getting a better picture up on those billboards.
Before the debate, I was suggesting to people that they vote for Tulsi on the basis that it was a choice between the most dangerous rock Hawaii’s got and your more typical hard place. But after the debate I was left with the feeling that supporting Tulsi is, while not ideal, a more comfortable place to be than I’d first thought.
However, there is a question that was not asked in last night’s debate. Perhaps Tulsi or another candidate or moderator or journalist might feel inclined to ask it in the future. Here is the two-part question:
“The news media treated your infamous ‘I look like you, you look like me’ attempt to wrangle votes by appealing to some of the electorate’s baser instincts as a singular, one-time event. But was it a one-time only utterance? Or had you actually given that speech before at select gatherings while managing to slip below the notice of the larger public?”
“And, did you, perhaps depending on audience composition, sometimes used to give a different version of the ‘when I look in the audience, I look like you, you look like me’ speech that did not include the part about ‘and even for our Caucasian brothers in the audience, I’m local to the max. My last name is Hannemann. That’s German. My middle name is Francis. English. . . so I’ve got it all in my household, baby, I can relate to each and every one of you.’?”
Very good points hipoli! Tulsi seems to be getting a pass and I don’t understand why. Her robotic answers as you say….very much reminded me of Charles Djou. The friends I have in the military serve their country without constantly bringing up how proud they are to do it. I get why she is touting it….she has nothing else to run on. The big question is: Can she win solely on I don’t like Mufi so it doesn’t matter how weak a candidate I am? I totally agree with you regarding Esther. She was a pleasant surprise.
For me, I cant believe a) there are people even considering sending a Gabbard up to represent us. Her House voting record shows what we all know is the truth behind the words shes telling us that we want to hear — shes really a Gabbard! b) and that she has, what, less than 4 years of experience? Our politicians politely and diligently ‘wait their turn’ and ‘gain experience’ — and then this pretty-faced-no-one-with-a-very-mean-daddy shows up on the scene, puts up uku-billion-HUGE signs all over the place…and suddenly she get-chance?? What are people (not) thinking??? To me, Mufi’s not THIS much of an A-hole to deserve to lose to this b.s.
What matters to me is the economy. Tulsi Gabbard is ready to go after the corporate cronyism that is ripping off the rest of America. She’s also for getting troops out of Afghanistan and investing that money at home. Bottom line is, nearly everyone is struggling in this economy and that’s what we need our leaders to focus on the most. Mufi’s main experience in this area is helping his rich friends get richer with city contracts and favors so I don’t see any help coming from him in that area.
I am nervous about any of this being a ‘debate” — more like a common forum.
As for Marx, he is a local boy who came home. Though many may it see it, he is of part Puerto Rican ancestry and has Hispanics helping him along with Filipinos and native Hawaiians. He been a stellar trial attorney here last 30 plus years. His clients swear by him. He is only candidate speaking about restoring our middle class.
Bob Marx lost my vote. His performance was disturbing. Im glad Kiaaina stood up to him. He deserved what he got.
yes yes yes Yoko…..on one hand Tulsi told us last night that Mufi couldn’t be effective because he was a CEO type and there will be 435 other members to work through and now on the other hand we are supposed to believe that a 31 year old freshman congress person is going to “clean up corporate cronyism”, stop the Afghansistan war AND get the economy moving again…..through those same 435 people that Mufi can’t budge. See how silly all this sounds? Is Tulsi running for a seat to represent Hawaii or running with Obama and Romney?
All 4 candidates are way too far left for me. But hey, this is Hawaii! I’ll be voting for Tulsi for the reasons Ian mentioned. She’s very good at thinking on her feet, she speaks well, she’s not afraid to change her position after getting more experience and thinking carefully about the issues; and she’s remarkably unencumbered by institutional affiliations and political debts. Maybe I can persuade her to oppose the Akaka bill!
One thing about the organization of the debate bothers me. At the beginning the moderator announced the names of the 4 other candidates who were not invited, but did not offer any explanation at all about why those 4 were left out. It seems pretty clear that the 4 left out are the 4 most unlikely to succeed, so keep them out in order to give the 4 most popular candidates more time to slug it out. But the people running the show should have taken a moment to explain why half the candidates were excluded from the debate, and what method they used to decide which 4 have greatest support. Actually, it seems to me that Bob Marx really has no chance and should have been added to the 4 leftouts, thereby giving even more time to the 3 top candidates.
Esther Kia’aina has the best qualifications and experience in working in Congress, considering her staff work for many years for Akaka, Case, and Underwood. But she is such an obvious shill for OHA and for racial entitlements, that I could never vote for her regardless of her qualifications. Who knows: maybe someday she’ll run for Governor — that’s the ho’ailona of what her name clearly portends!
I enjoyed the debate but am sufficiently cynical to be amused that some folks think them significant.