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.
I thought Esther did well in terms of specifics and substance. Ian’s right about her voice – that may be trainable. Tulsi’s I’m-an-Iraq-vet mantra is beginning to sound like Mazie’s my-mom-is-my-idol drill, but I must admit, she did better than I thought she would. Mufi did, indeed, appear to be tired and subdued – but part of that may be campaign exhaustion and part not wanting to come on too strong and appear like a bully. Bob – thanks for adding your perspective. May not want to stray too far from the law firm or the book store. Good try.
I agree Kimo, I feel like these people were watching a different debate. I really thought Esther Kiaaina out-shined the rest. Tulsi seemed superficial, Bob Marx was all over the place, Mufi was Mufi and Esther, although she seemed uncomfortable, she commanded the debate. I especially liked how she fired back at Marx (He’s an idiot for saying Hawaiians are a state of mind).
Happened to be channel surfing and caught the mayoral debate and then Boylan’s show with Wooley/Chong and Taniguchi/Fukunaga.
I usually don’t watch debates since I find them to be relatively poor barometers of how someone will actually be in office.
Politics is (or should be) a deliberative, thoughtful, discerning process. Debates tend to favor those with the quick quip and witty repartees. Not irrelevant skills, mind you, but not the end all, be all that some make it out to be.
It’s amusing when people pontificate who “won” or “lost” a debate, in my opinion.
How do you lay out your thoughts about improving education, for example, in 30 seconds?
It gets reduced to slogans, hoary cliches, and mom and apple pie banalities.
Lastly, when it comes to the U.S. Congress, does anyone really think any one member, much less a freshman in the minority, will make a big splash trying to elbow 434 other members off the soapbox?
Just want to post thanks to ilind.net (Ian) and all posters for a rich discussion. Don’t know where my vote will go, but the forum here gives a great place to learn much and think about it all.
Channel-surfing?? Yeah right, Sir Charles! You’re a junkie like the rest of us! I turned right over to that right after the CD debate, like more than half the people who read this blog did as well. I thought Pono kicked okole. He kept dinging her with legislative reality, and she just kept on smiling. The constant smiling was weird. As for BT and CF, I say draw. They both came across as the seasoned legislators that they are.
Yes, hard as it is to believe, I rarely watch debates. Granted, there is some entertainment value but if I’m interested in being entertained, the Big Bang Theory works better.
Although I am a third-generation politcal Democratic Partyactivist, I am voting NOTA in the Second Congressional District Primary.
If Mufi wins, then I’ll be doing the same and will be working with Hanabusa on national issues because I don’t vote for Republicans.
NOTE: I did one time for the late Senator Mary George because she was pro-choice and her Dem opponent was not.
Actually, I am seriously considering voting for Miles Shiratori because the nutburgers in our country need to have someone represent their interests.
Although I was seriously considering voting for Tulsi, she never returned my phone calls and e-mails – which I started sending last fall – to get her take on a number of national/international issues.
I was sort of still willing to consider her until she voted for Bill 11 CD1 on Wednesday – and that killed any chance of her getting my support.
However, SigOth intends to vote for her.
Four weeks to go.
I too feel like Ian was watching a different debate. Didn’t anyone else think Tulsi seemed superficial. She mentioned that she was a veteran 2 dozen times, even opened with it. It’s clear she’s been coached and told what to say. I don’t remember anything about Bob Marx, other than his attack on Native Hawaiians being a state of mind. Mufi was being like himself. I was most impressed by Esther Kiaaina, whom I didn’t even know prior to watching the debate. I will be cast my vote for her this election.
I am far more interested in
a) what a politician will actually do
than
b) the pack of lies they spew.
Based on these disappointing candidates, Stevie Wonder gets my vote.
When you go into an election widely unknown, you repeat yourself often so people will know who you are & what your experiences in life are that make you a solid choice for candidacy. Once you’re known, then you start to hear criticism: ‘sounding like a parrot’ (or ‘sounding like Mazie’). I think it could be seen as a milestone for an unknown candidate that they’ve finally achieved recognition over a broad swath of their constituents.
However, since this is the first televised debate of the 4 main candidates (including Hannemann, who has ‘star-power’ name recognition), repeating one’s experience is prudent because of the potential to reach new people who haven’t been paying attention to the ads or hasn’t had time to find out about the candidates for one reason or another.
I usually toss flyers in the rubbish, but I like debates for the following reason: I’m busy, so I don’t feel I have time to research every candidate to the Nth degree. Seeing them together, hearing them speak of their experience & seeing how they handle themselves when under pressure shows a lot. I try not to read too much into note referral, etc. – even the President uses notes (aka Teleprompter) And I’m sure there are many people like me who would rather have a ‘visual & auditory experience’ with the candidates themselves rather than read words on paper.
So yes, we’ve heard it before… but we’re not the only ones listening.
RE: the so-called ‘flip-flopping’ on social issues… To say someone cannot (or should not?) change their views as life goes on is disingenuous. Have you not done this in your own life? Politicians are people, too, believe it or not.
I am torn between Kiaaina and Gabbard after the debates.
It’s like my mom said, ” May the best story teller get in!”
Any links to this debate on the web for those of us who missed it?
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/18974945/2nd-congressional-district-debate-thursda
I meant a link to the whole debate. However, I watched for 30 seconds and had enough. Nausea.
Mahalo, Ian!
The story had a link to the full debate, or appeared to.
I think the discussion over Tulsi’s “change of mind” on social issues is missing the point. Of course, people change their positions on issues. There is nothing inherently wrong in changing your mind. That is what we hope for. But the “evolution” of Tulsi’s thinking on same sex marriage, abortion rights ands the current wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, etc.) does not ring true for several reasons.
First, the timing is completely self-serving. If Tulsi experienced a conversion on the Road to Damascus (or Baghdad), that was a few years ago. So why, when she returned, did she continue to say she opposed civil unions? In 2010, while running for the City Council, she told Local 5 she opposed civil unions. When it was first rumored Tulsi was considering a run for Congress, her mother was asked Tulsi’s views on civil unions and her mother–who was her campaign manager at the time, said Tusli opposed them.
Tulsi could have demonstrated her “change of heart” at a time inconvenient to her ambitions. She could have joined the effort to PASS civil unions when they were being debated in the Lege. That occured after her alleged “conversion.” It would have been powerful testimony had she explained why she had earlier promoted hatred of gays and lesbians but had come to see the error of her ways and encouraged her supporters to also change their views. But she remained silent.
Finally, when she starts plotting her campaign strategy for the congressional seat, she realizes that she would have NO CHANCE defeating Mufi unless she can emerge as THE anti-Mufi candidate. And that there was no way for that to happen if the liberal/progressive portion of the Democratic voter base were to remain hostile to her and to coalesce around another candidate, either Hooser (at the time), Kiaaina or Marx. It was only then that she announced her conversion. Very convenient timing.
Another reason her “conversion” rings false is that the core of her campaign is filled with other members of the same Chris Butler political-religious-economic network which had for years passed out leaflets, turned out at public hearings in full-throated opposition to gay equality. Some people try to limit the focus to Miek Gabbard and say Tulsi should not be held accountable for the “sins” of her father. But that is a superficial portrayal of what has occurred. Mike was only the most visible activist in a team of activists, followers of Chris Butler, who have been the most vociferous demonizers of gays in lesbians in Hawaii for decades. Are we to believe that ALL the Butler camp-followers helping Tulsi’s campaign have also, like a school of fish, abruptly turned direction and are swimming towards equality? Maybe the Guru/Dictator snapped his fingers and issued whatever the Hindu equivalent of a fatwah might be. More likely, it is the crassest form of opportunism by the entire group, determined to help one of their members gain political power. I do NOT believe the members of the cult have abandoned their homo-phobic, anti-women viewsand I do believe they think the election of Tulsi will help advance the cult’s agenda.
Those people who have talked to Tusli and find her “sincere” are assuming she is an individual, stripped from context. If it is pleasing to Krishna, as directed by Chris, for Tulsi to be elected to higher office and if that requires her to “change her views” on these issues, she can SINCERELY do so as an obedient devotee.
As I wrote elsewhere, I have no problem with Tulsi worshipping Krishna. I do not consider a belief in Krishna any disqualifying than a belief in Jehovah or Allah or Zeus or Pele. What I object most to is her belief that Chris Butler is the most spiritual advanced person in the Universe, God’s most perfect representative on the Material Plane.
Just because a lot of us dislike Mufi Hannemann and recognize him to be a tool for corporate and development interests does not mean we should suppress our doubts about Tulsi. I support Esther Kiaaina and consider her the best qualified–by far– of all the candidates running.
I wish Ian had a ‘like’ button, Bart. Well-said (as usual).
Again, just so Im clear, I very much appreciate and honor her service to Country. She went over there, she served, and the rest of us say thank you to her, and all Soldiers. As a candidate, Tulsi seems to be skirting by on her looks, her indisputable sweet charm, very rehearsed responses, very big banners (TOO MANY!!) all over the State, and a very convenient change of heart.
But then Im seriously torn. Theres Mufi. I really, really do not like his ‘personal’ positions on same-sex and apparently abortion too. I find these two areas to be incredible disappointments and concerning to me, as a woman and as a huge proponent of equality. I cant remember, did anyone in the debate ask him specifically if he would vote up or down on the repeal of DOMA?
As hard as it really is for me to put these two issues aside as I look at this candidate, I know Washington DC is not for lightweights. Its not for newbies. Its not for people who are intending to go in there and fake it till they make it. We all know that Mufi would walk in there and he will know what the heck he is doing, Day 1. And we all know that DC is filled with real okoleholes (Im TRYING to be PG-rated here, but you get what Im saying). Dont we want our very own okolehole to get in there and fight for us? Plus, everyone who says hes an okolehole, well, I know some of the best managers of government are okoleholes. They get that reputation because they have to deal with so much b.s. that sometimes they just have to be to get poop actually accomplished. So, again, Im certain Mufi will go to DC and get ‘er done.
Then theres Esther. I really did not look twice at her (except to bemoan her bad pic on her posters), until the debate. But shes on the right side of those two key social issues and again, there was that moment that I saw just a good woman with a spine. I place a lot of value in politicians who are smart and also sincere human beings. Can she handle the job? Can she navigate the place, negotiate policy adeptly, grow to become the powerhouse Im quite certain Mufi will become, and ultimately bring home the bacon for us? I dunno. I just dont know.
hipoli, vote your values and you’ll do fine.
This “hit the ground running” axiom is way overrated, in my opinion. First, newbies tend to follow the leadership/party line. Second, you can throw dozens of bills into the hopper and they go from there into the dead file. Third, at least for the foreseeable future, anyone getting elected will just follow Inouye’s lead when it comes to Hawaii issues.
Keep in mind even when the often imitated but never duplicated Dan Inouye was elected in 1959 to the U.S. Congress, he didn’t do a whole lot in the two-plus years he was there.
Oh, and keep this in mind: if any candidate runs for the first time, s/he would cite her/his creds as “fresh,” “new ideas,” “not a career politician,” etc.
But if that candidate has been around the block a few times, it’s “experience,” “can hit the ground running,” etc.
The playbook in this respect hasn’t changed at all.
Lastly, I would think for someone like Kia’aina, the “growth” factor is certainly there but for someone like Mufi, he’s already “grown” and so if you like the present Mufi, you will like the future Mufi.
Bart-I just re-re-read your entry here. Who is Chris Butler? And that army of young kids Tulsi has working on her campaign-they’re CB-followers?!?! Ian- Do you know about this?
http://www.honolulumagazine.com/Honolulu-Magazine/August-2004/Who-is-Mike-Gabbard/
A quote from the article: When HONOLULU asked Gabbard in an e-mail to clarify his former relationship with Butler’s Krishna group, Gabbard’s daughter, state Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Tamayo, sent us an angry e-mail in response. “I smell a skunk,” Tamayo wrote. “It’s clear to me that you’re acting as a conduit for The Honolulu Weekly and other homosexual extremist supporters of Ed Case.”
http://my.firedoglake.com/heathen07/2010/10/17/politics-tulsi-gabbard-tamayo-stealth-candidate-in-hawaii/
http://www.chrisbutlerspeaks.com/about/page2.html
HolyCrapoly, Sir Charles! Chris Butler’s a NUTBAG! All those kids helping Tulsi – they’re sucked into this crap, too? Ian? Youre seriously supporting Tulsi?! After this, I hope youre rethinking that.
Spot on Bart! I wish there was a like button too.
This part is laughable: “When it was first rumored Tulsi was considering a run for Congress, her mother was asked Tulsi’s views on civil unions and her mother–who was her campaign manager at the time, said Tusli opposed them.”
So her mommy is tell us what her views are??? how old is Tulsi, 12?? This is like living in Utah. I don’t care of Tulsi claims she changed her mind — if she’s lived a life with this much domination by nutjob parents, voting for her is stupid. She is likely spewing all sorts of lies about her personal beliefs. Once in office, the real politician will come out. This kind of person deserves much further review on what they actually believe and do. Yes, it is great that she changed her public position —- but is Tulsi really any different from how she was raised by these people. omg
Wow. You put it all out there, Bart. Well done.
Wish there was more media scrutiny to the Chris Butler connection and all his minions that flood the internet with pro-Tulsi propaganda. Personally, I find it frightening how many logical people are considering voting for Tulsi, going into denial mode about her true stand on the social issues she voted and worked against for years.
Thanks – it was great to read a post from someone who is not afraid to speak out honestly about this opportunist running for Congress.
The following video clip, of the televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon in the 1960 Presidential election, is germane, I think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QazmVHAO0os
It was the first televised debate in history.
One parallel is the freshness and preparedness, or lack thereof, of the candidates.
In a very brief period of time, Tulsi Gabbard has become both very prepared in terms of the issues and quite slick. It’s astonishing. She seems to have the military discipline to memorize large amounts of text.
It has been pointed out in the comments that she keeps mentioning her military service. But she also keeps mentioning the Wall Street meltdown, which completely counteracts the image of herself as conservative. That’s very, very smart, and it goes beyond her own political smarts. This means that she is being coached by real pros, people of national-grade quality, and not from the right-wing. Elite Democrats, locally and perhaps nationally, seem to want her in office.
The most important thing for a politician is to enjoy politics and the issues. Al Gore loves the issues, but hates politics. George W. Bush loves (loved?) politics and people, but had no real interest in or knowledge of the issues. Bill Clinton both loves to schmooze and give speeches, and is obsessed with the issues. Clinton is still at it, and still has a real zest and energy.
But some politicians have no real interest in either politics or the issues. They want to get elected for the sake of getting elected. As they get older, their overall lack of interest and energy tend to show through. The grind of running for office (and being in office) takes a toll on them, but without the compensatory “zing” of being around people, debating issues and solving problems. As time goes by, they can only really trade on their name recognition and their connections. But their alliances are purely those of mutual convenience, and when it becomes obvious that they are damaged goods, their benefactors politely abandon them.
In that 1960 debate, those who saw it thought JFK won, those who heard it on the radio thought Nixon won.
Interesting.
Here’s a Civil Beat story “Hannemann and Gabbard Race for the Cash”.
http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2012/07/16/16383-hannemann-and-gabbard-race-for-the-cash/
The article shows where much of their campaign contributions come from.
For Gabbard, it’s Law, Energy, Finance/Construction/Development, and Military.
For Hannemann, it’s Tourism, Construction/Development, Finance, Utilities, and Law.
First, I am not sure why finance and construction and development are lumped together for Gabbard, but finance is made distinct for Hannemann.
Second, the “military” seem to be personal contacts that Gabbard has with certain persons. There does not seem to be an institutional commitment by the US military to Gabbard (although these friendships might reveal her alignment with the military and the conservatism of her way of thinking).
The energy sector might be people connected with her father, who is in the Legislature.
On the whole, the two candidates don’t seem so different in terms of their contributors.
Still there might be more subtle differences, and the writers of the article seem to note this.
Perhaps, there are intimations here of a new emerging economic order.
But the difference that I am intuiting here, rightly or wrongly, is not ideological. The differences that may exist here are between monopolies versus small business, and between old tech versus new tech. But that is not the difference between left and right politically.
So by this measure, Tulsi Gabbard does not necessarily represent what is “progressive” politically.
What her candidacy might reflect is economic and technological change. But that kind of change does not necessarily mean “progress” in terms of improvement, or in terms of social change.
Modern people like to imagine that change represents “progress” and happens inevitably and predictably and in one direction and for the best — and that they themselves represent this future.
But it does not work that way. In the 1950s, it was widely thought that computers would get bigger and bigger, and that someday everything would be run on nuclear power (even cars), and everyone would move into the suburbs.
But the direction of change is less predictable. Nothing is strictly inevitable or inherently good. It’s mythology.
Also, there might be a tendency for political movements that do represent change to get crushed by the status quo. (The status quo does, after all, own most of the marbles.)
Perhaps the real change happens later, and it happens on its own, without conscious political change, for economic and sociological reasons. Then the status quo falls under its own weight.
In the 1960s, political movements all over the world — in Prague and Hungary and in Paris and in the United States — were effectively crushed. Resistance is futile.
But later, in the Soviet Union, economic stagnation destroys the society. In the United States, it’s the value system that transformed, unconsciously.
So, perhaps the Old Guard will prevail in the coming elections. Hannemann and Caldwell may win. But one gets the sense that 1) the nature of the economy and technology are changing, and 2) educated people do not necessarily believe in the old paradigm any more.
But this supposed coming New Order — with energy independence, and distributed generation, and innovative high-tech small business — is not necessarily “progress” or an improvement. It would be different, but not necessarily better. People call it “progress” when it is in their self-interest and it shifts the power structure to their own control. Talk of progress is just their own propaganda that they themselves believe. Also, people refer to those changes that they have grown accustomed to as forms of “progress” (that is, it is the conservative impulse to sanctify the status quo that consecrates established changes as “progress”).
After all, the Old Guard of today were the rebellious Young Turks of the 1950s. For them, the status quo does represent progress. After all, it gave them control of society. And they’ve grown used to it.