16 thoughts on “Ed Case survey seeking reasons for primary loss”

1. aikea808 August 19, 2012 at 3:56 pm

   I suppose “I don’t like you” would fall into the category “other.”

   Reply ↓
2. ohiaforest3400 August 19, 2012 at 5:08 pm

   Altho’ I’m not a huge fan of Richard Borreca, I think he got it right in his recent column: the fact is that, at least for the time being, people do not like Ed Case or Mufi Hanneman. I give Case credit for asking people why, altho I’m not sure he will do anything different in the future or if the voters will change their opinion even if he does.

   Reply ↓
3. charles August 19, 2012 at 9:17 pm

   A novel approach for a candidate to do a post-mortem with voters.

   As far as Borreca, I don’t think coming to the conclusion that voters don’t like Case or Hanneman is in the same category as the Nash equilibrium.

   Reply ↓
   1. ohiaforest3400 August 20, 2012 at 10:27 am

      Can’t say I disagree regarding the obviousness of Borreca’s thesis. My point was that, rather than using the column to grind a personal axe in his typically snide, haughty, caustic way, he spoke to what OTHER people obviously think of the two candidates.

      Reply ↓
4. makikiboy August 19, 2012 at 11:59 pm

   It seems everytime Case has lost an election he has had one of this ‘what did I do wrong’ polls/surveys, so this is nothing new. At this point I’ve lost track on how many elections he and Mufi have lost.

   Reply ↓
5. Wailau August 20, 2012 at 7:51 am

   I like Ed Case for his honesty and independence, but I am local enough to understand why his inclination to vault ahead over his elders caused so much unhappiness. On the other hand, I don’t understand why Mufi inspires such visceral disdain from such a broad spectrum of opinion. With Case, the level of dislike is more pro forma; with Hannemann it seems to be more personal. I wonder if it puzzles him.

   Reply ↓
   1. ohiaforest3400 August 20, 2012 at 10:30 am

      I think he is utterly disheartened and just as clueless. Friends who saw him around town doing pdestrian, everyday things after the 2010 promary said he looked like a lost little boy, a pale shadow of his former self.

      Reply ↓
      1. ohiaforest3400 August 21, 2012 at 11:03 am

         Referring to Mufi in the comment above.

         As for Ed, absent irrefutable evidence that his positions in this race turned out to be “right” or that the Republicans get so much more control that we need a more centrist delegation to have a chance at getting any DC largesse, I think we have seen the last of his runs for public office.

         Look for Ed to throw more rhetorical bombs in the general campaign, like those he dropped on Mufi in 2010. I think he was right on the money with those and saying things that need saying may be the best contribution he can make going forward.

         Reply ↓
6. Old Native August 20, 2012 at 8:01 am

   Because of Mazie’s mother?

   Reply ↓
7. Bart Dame August 20, 2012 at 1:25 pm

   Ed was gracious at the Unity Breakfast the morning after the election. He congratulated Mazie and said she had earned it.

   If he pitches in and helps campaign for Mazie, that should help him earn credibility with more rank and file party members.

   This poll, like his many “Talk Story” gatherings over the years, show Ed recognizes citizens want to be listened to by our leaders.

   But I continue to think Ed’s big problem has been interpreting what he hears from us. One of his themes was that he would help “fix Washington.” But I do not think his “fix” was in sync with what Hawaii Democratic voters want. We are not looking for someone to stake out a position midway between Democrats and Republicans. Most Hawaii Democrats, in my experience, think the Republicans in Congress are not looking for compromise. They seek to obstruct Obama, even to the detriment of the country. We want a Senator who is going to strongly advocate for traditional Democratic programs and against Republican proposals, not someone who half-agrees with the Republicans.

   Even those who may not share my “progressive” Democratic politics have to take note that Ed Case was unique among the self-proclaimed Blue Dog Democrats in congress. Overwhelmingly, the others all came from Southern states or from rural districts in non-Southern stats. Their congressional districts have historically voted for Bush, McCain and other Republican presidential candidates in recent years. For them to vote more liberal than their districts would be foolish. But the Second Congressional District Ed represented has been consistently liberal. And that is true of the State as a whole. While Ed’s social views are more progressive than many voters, and his environmental positions are a good fit with our commitment to the environment, his economic policies and his foreign policy positions, have been significantly to the right of Hawaii public opinion. That is especially true when speaking of the smaller universe of Democratic primary voters.

   If Ed concludes he lost this time because voters still “resent” him running against Akaka, or because we are toadies to the whims of Senator Inouye or because he was outspent, he will miss the lesson in his defeat.

   Can Ed shift to positions more in sync with the views of Hawaii Democratic primary voters on national issues? I sincerely doubt it.

   If Tulsi screws up, he might consider running for his old congressional seat in two years. But I doubt she is going to provide that sort of opening for him.

   Reply ↓
8. Lary August 20, 2012 at 9:46 pm

   Ed ran for and served in Congress once. I recall being part of a small group that put together some information on health care to discuss with candidate Case. We broght a small file of information. After meeting with him at his campaign HQ, though, we were pretty angry. The group included several experts and advocates, but he did not listen to us, instead talked about his views. Essentially, we wasted our time and effort as well as our hopes.

   While in Congress, Case introduced an infamous special ed amendment (to the re-authorization of the IDEA) that became knon as the “Case Amendment.” It was a strongly anti-child pro-DOE amendment that was fought by parents and advocates across the country and very nearly became law.

   I know that many people are swayed by campaign promises, but actions speak loader than words. Keeping Case away from Washington was important to many parents of special needs children whom I spoke with. He does have a track record and a voting record, and it can give anyone who cares to check into it an idea of how he would vote again, given the chance.

   Reply ↓
9. Dean August 22, 2012 at 8:50 pm

   When the Northwest Hawaiian Islands were going to be turned into a “monument” and be closed off to all fishing, a delegation of Hawaii fisheries representatives went to visit Ed Case in Washington DC.

   When told that half the bottomfish eaten by Hawaii residents came from the NWHI, Case told the delegation that maybe they should find something else to eat.

   That wiped out any support from many members of the fishing community . . . and according to statistics there are about 200,000 of us.

   Reply ↓
   1. Nancy August 23, 2012 at 10:42 pm

      I applaud Case for standing up to special interests like the fisheries. Sure, I eat fish, but it doesn’t have to come from an ecologically delicate area like the NWHI.

      How selfish of the fishing lobby to turn against Congressman Case. Selfish, but not surprising.

      Reply ↓
      1. Dean August 24, 2012 at 8:08 pm

         Nine boats were permitted to fish the NWHI. An area the size of the three West Coast states. I personally know one of them.

         Each boat drops two lines at a time, with six hooks on each line. The impact over the years was negligible. Less than the impact made by the larger research vessels, one of which ran aground and did a lot of damage to a reef at Pearl and Hermes.

         The point is that Case has no regard for fishing and no respect for the people he’s supposed to represent.

         For many here fishing is a way of life. It’s how people here get their food, including people like yourself, Nancy. That’s where the fish comes from.

         Most fishermen aren’t rich. Many live very humble lives. They do what they do because for them that’s how they grew up. It’s what matters.

         Sadly, people take them for granted and sign off on thoughless closures. Then head over to a sushi restaurant for dinner.

         There are things that can be done to make our fisheries a lot more productive. But the people who create MPA’s and reserves won’t back those plans — because it means giving up a lot of shoreline properties and changing how we do things all the way up to the peaks of our mountains.

         I’ve learned a lot about this over the past several years. I’m hoping a lot more people will start asking about it and thinking about solutions.

         Reply ↓
10. Curious once again August 23, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    This is from the wiki on Ed Case.

    Case sought to change the current way state government operated and repeatedly warned that Hawaii was not addressing long-term fiscal challenges. On the last legislative day of 2000, Case said in a floor speech:“If you cannot make those choices, please get out of the way, because you are just making it harder for the rest of us.”

    On January 21, 1997, in the House Judiciary Committee, Case cast the lone nay vote against advancing HB117, the bill that would allow a referendum to effectively, constitutionally ban gay marriage. He and six others opposed the bill again in the full house vote. When he was up for re-election in November 1998, he publicly opposed the referendum. His reasoning: “changing the Constitution would go against its intended purpose — protecting the rights of the minority against the will of the majority.” Leading up to the November election, polls consistently predicted that the measure would pass by 70–75%, a prediction that was accurate. Due to the measure’s popularity, only three other politicians or candidates in Hawaii joined his position.

    Glancing over the comments here and with a quick glance at Case’s wiki, I am quickly reevaluating my prior impression of Case.

    Case at first seemed to be brash, brusque, ambitious outsider. This is one of the stereotypes of a certain kind of American, an impression commonly held not just in Hawaii, but all over the world. (“Out of my way, Bozo….”)

    But the impression I am getting now is not that of the ambitious individualist. In fact, Case was never really interested in popularity or power or wealth (unlike insider politicians, who don’t rock the boat).

    Case is a believer. Ed Case is a classic self-righteous moralist.

    My earlier impression is that Ed Case naturally assumed that he could beat Hirono despite what the numbers stated because he held himself in high esteem.

    My impression now is that Case might have assumed – naively, perhaps – that good always wins out in the end, and that he was on the side of virtue.

    This means that Ed Case might reflect a different kind of stereotype of Americans – that of the Protestant crusader. (This would also explain his vote to invade Iraq.)

    Roman Catholicism has a pessimistic view of the world and of human nature. The world is inherently corrupt, and the best we can do is to withdraw from it, monastically. One can still see this attitude in southern Europe. French and Italian movies usually express a deep sympathy and understanding of the poor, a suspicion of wealth and power, and a certain tolerance of corruption.

    The Protestant attitude, especially the Puritan variant, is quite different. One is morally obliged to engage with the world in order to purify it. Any monastic withdrawal from the world (e.g., pursuing an education that is more than mere technical training) is dismissed as a form of idleness or sloth. Worldly success is seen as a sign of virtue. America has typically been seen as the paradigmatic land of the Protestant ethos.

    So Ed Case is imperfect. But his tragic flaw might not be hubris, but self-righteousness.

    Ed Case is a missionary.

    Reply ↓
11. skeptical once again August 24, 2012 at 11:14 am

    From Ed Case’s wiki:

    In 1970, Case graduated from Hawaii Preparatory Academy in Kamuela. After high school, Case traveled for a year in Australia, where he worked as a jackaroo on a New South Wales sheep station, and in New Zealand.

    Here is the wiki on President Theodore Roosevelt:

    He [Roosevelt] is noted for his exuberant personality, range of interests and achievements, and his leadership of the Progressive Movement, as well as his “cowboy” persona and robust masculinity.

    Born into a wealthy family in New York City, Roosevelt was a sickly child who suffered from asthma and stayed at home studying natural history. To compensate for his physical weakness, he embraced a strenuous life. Home-schooled, he became an eager student of nature. He attended Harvard University, where he studied biology, boxed and developed an interest in naval affairs.

    Some time ago I stated that Ed Case was Hawaii’s Newt Gingrich, kind of an eccentric upstart.

    On second glance, Ed Case is more like Hawaii’s miniature version of Teddy Roosevelt.

    In Teddy Roosevelt, one finds the encapsulation of tendencies that one might not intuitively associate with one another: religious puritanism, social reform, rationality and science, westward expansionism and imperialism.

    Here is the wiki on the “Progressive Era”:

    The Progressive Era in the United States was a period of social activism and political reform that flourished from the 1890s to the 1920s.[1] During this period activist Jane Addams and steel magnate Clayton Mark worked with to address the social and political problems.[2] Clayton Mark built a planned worker community for the employees of the Mark Manufacturing Company, named Marktown.[2] One main goal of the Progressive movement was purification of government, as Progressives tried to eliminate corruption by exposing and undercutting political machines and bosses. Many (but not all) Progressives supported prohibition in order to destroy the political power of local bosses based in saloons.[3] At the same time, women’s suffrage was promoted to bring a “purer” female vote into the arena.[4] A second theme was achieving efficiency in every sector by identifying old ways that needed modernizing, and emphasizing scientific, medical and engineering solutions.

    The imperialistic potential of this progressivism is the belief that the US is going to purify and reform the world (in its image).

    Ed Case is typically understood as a social liberal, economic conservative — a kind of moderate libertarian.

    Superficially, perhaps. But what might underpin this policy stance is the rationalistic, reformist impulse.

    As a legislator he openly challenged Hawaii’s supposed tendency toward ‘big government’. But that was not an embrace of fiscal conservatism if one looks at the rhetoric. It was a self-righteous advocacy of rationalism. Here is the quote from the wiki on Case:

    Case sought to change the current way state government operated and repeatedly warned that Hawaii was not addressing long-term fiscal challenges. On the last legislative day of 2000, Case said in a floor speech:“If you cannot make those choices, please get out of the way, because you are just making it harder for the rest of us.”

    Case seems not to be a typical conservative. He is a reformist and a rationalist — in other words, a crusading progressive in the original sense of the word, out to tear down the corrupt status quo. He’s similar to Tom Gill.

    And that probably does not go down too well with the Burns faction of the local Democratic Party. That is to say, it would not go down to well with any entrenched faction of the status quo in any society.

    Ed Case’s problem is that he assumes that the ‘evil’ status quo is a tiny, parasitic faction within the governing elite — and that society in general is brimming with the same righteous anger that motivates Ed Case. This makes him similar to the romantic idealist Neil Abercrombie (they are good friends).

    But the reality is that almost all of us to some degree comprise the status quo: you, me, our family, our friends, our co-workers, our neighbors. Everybody wants some type of change — at least that tiny piece of change that would benefit us. But nobody really wants a revolution (at least, nobody but Neil Abercrombie).

    There is a comment above that states that Ed Case is ideologically out of whack with Hawaii, and this is why he lost.

    But if Ed Case is a progressive of the old school, that means that he is, in a sense, out of sync with any sort of ideology. He is a rationalist.

    This is also true of Barack Obama. Obama is a ‘progressive’ in the old school sense of being a problem-solving rationalist disdainful of ideology, be it of the Left or Right.

    But Obama differs from Case in that Obama takes this rationalism to heart in his political campaigns. Obama will say anything to get elected. It’s the consequences that count for Obama. Obama is a politician. Case is a preacher.

    There is also this widespread misconception that Hawaii is politically ‘progressive’ in the liberal sense.

    This misconception might be rooted deeply in the population’s conception of itself because of the history of labor relations in Hawaii. There might be a huge gulf between the local political culture and the local political identity.

    For example, I know of a professor who asked his local students what their politics are. They answered, “We are hardcore Democrats.” He then asked them what their highest political values are, and they said, “Family and tradition.”

    So the ethos of the Democratic Party in Hawaii might be closer to a traditionalist conservatism that one might find in Europe or Asia. The free market conservatism of the Republican Party would be anathema to the spirit of the local political culture, which might be rather resonant with an old strain in British conservatism.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Tory

    High Tories prefer the values of the historical landed gentry and aristocracy, with their noblesse oblige and their self-imposed sense of duty and responsibility, to those of the modern commercial business class. Their focus is on maintaining a traditional, rooted society and way of life, which is often as much threatened by modern capitalism as by socialism or the Welfare State. A High Tory also favours a strong community, in contrast to Whig, liberal and neoconservative individualism. One Nation Conservatism, as influenced by Disraeli and epitomised in leaders such as Baldwin, favoured social cohesion, and its adherents support social institutions that maintain harmony between different interest groups, classes, and—more recently—different races or religions.

    This sounds consonant with the actual concerns and values of the local Democratic Party, despite the liberal window dressing.

    And this might be one more reason why the Republic Party might be poison in Hawaii.

    Reply ↓

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.