“Calculated irony” was a friend’s reference to a quote from Rep. Colleen Hanabusa in a Washington Post story published January 1 (“Hawaii Senate primary is dividing Democrats along ethnic and generational lines“):
Over lunch at Zippy’s, a local casual-dining chain, Hanabusa sounded angry and at times bitter that Abercrombie passed her over for Schatz, whose résumé in state government she believes does not stack up to hers.
“By saying that he’s putting somebody in so they can get seniority, it’s like saying to the voters, ‘You’re not relevant. Here’s somebody who’s going to be there forever,’?” Hanabusa said. “No one — no one — should feel that level of entitlement.”
What the….??
I’m not sure how to take that statement, coming from a woman who has been the poster child for that sense of entitlement.
Hanabusa’s campaign from Day One has been based on a simple idea: “I deserve this seat because Senator said so in a letter he wrote on the very day he died.”
Or, more correctly, supposedly wrote, although that’s a point to dig into later in the campaign.
Hanabusa expanded on the theme during the same WP interview.
Hanabusa spoke of Inouye in complete reverence, calling her mentor simply “Senator.” She recalled Inouye recruiting her, then the president of the state Senate, to run for Congress in 2010.
“Senator told me then, ‘I think that you should consider this position because I’ve watched a lot of people and I believe that you’re someone who can really succeed in Washington and I’d like to see someone like you eventually take my place,’?” Hanabusa said. “That was when it all started.”
Actually, Hanabusa’s statement that “no one — should feel that level of entitlement” sounds an awful lot like Governor Abercrombie did when announcing his appointment of Brian Schatz to fill the vacant Senate seat back in December 2012.
Abercrombie said that he considered Inouye’s deathbed wishes for Hanabusa to succeed Inouye but that “No one and nothing is preordained.”
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
And were those”deathbed wishes” ever confirmed??When? and by whom?
Hanabusa long wanted to run for Congress and especially the Senate, but internal politics in the local Democratic Party kept her from doing so. Inouye at one point asked her not to run against a fellow Democrat in Congress, and she complied. His “deathbed endorsement” was a political payback for her self-sacrificing teamwork (contrast this with the much lamented Ed Case). Nothing wrong with that, in fact, it’s admirable. But it’s being sold to the public (or a certain segment of the public) as the great man wisely anointing the most qualified successor. No, it was not like that.
Also, Inouye was a nice man, and one of the hardest working men in the Washington, DC. He never took a vacation, and he spent his evenings schmoozing other politicians for the sake of Hawaii. But he was not one of the legendary legislators of American history. He was fairly knowledgeable about Asian affairs, but his much vaunted “expertise” is exaggerated. He was all about bringing home the pork. Again, nothing wrong with that. But Hawaii has never produced a statesman (certainly not in the person of Obama). So let’s not pretend it has. ‘Nuff with the shibai.
BTW, what are Hanabusa and Schatz’s stances on Israel? Inouye seemed like a Cold War dinosaur.
http://hawaii.news.blogs.civilbeat.com/post/71987194149/israel-to-name-missile-defense-site-after-dan-inouye
Hawaii did produce a “statesman” of national influence and importance: Patsy Mink. Her integrity remains the standard against which all Hawaii politicians should be measured.
And, Sparky Matsunaga? Department of Peace proposal.
Tobe, can you let us know when Colleen was asked not to run against a fellow Democrat for Congress? I do not remember that.
I do remember when both Colleen Hanabusa and Mazie Hirono were considering a run for the US Senate. Since Ed Case was also running, if the two of them were to jump in, they were likely to split the more traditional Democratic vote, leading to A Case victory. This was no secret and did not require any intervention from Inouye.
But Mazie jumped in first, which created a context in which Colleen could NOT run. It is my strong impression it was Mazie’s fast action which precluded Colleen’s entry into that races. Not any request from on high.
On Israel, I think their two positions are difficult to distinguish. Brian grew up in a Jewish family for whom support for Israel was deeply woven into what was taught in the temple. That does not mean he is a hardline “Likudist,” but let’s say I am much more critical of Israel than I believe Brian to be. To be clear, I know a lot of American Jews who are extremely critical of Israel’s policies and do not feel the hardline serves the interests of Israel’s people. Look at the J Street project, for example.
That said, Colleen appears to have adopted the AIPAC agenda hook, line and sinker. Not being Jewish herself, may make her less confident in standing up to them.
Just before the Christmas congressional break, there was an effort in the US Senate to sabotage the small, but significant trust-building exercises which the Obama administration is engaging in with Iran. AIPAC has mobilized its forces and is trying to sabotage these efforts, strongly opposing any move towards “normalization” of relations with Iran.
As someone who watched as the Bush administration rejected the real opportunity to start normalizing relations when Iran aided the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and when the internal Iranian movement towards democracy was growing very strong, I was stunned to see Bush denounce them as part of the “Axis of Evil,” a move which greatly weakened the democratic Iranian forces and made them look like allies of the United States against their own government.
So I am cautiously optimistic about the recent re-engagement with Iran. But AIPAC wants to shut it down. The pre-Christmas effort failed, but the fight will be rejoined in January and Senators like Schatz will be subject to extreme pressure to go along, particularly with Collleen Hanabusa telling Steny Hoyer she is onboard,w willing to help.
So while I wish both candidates would put the interests of the United States, the people of the world and the people of Israel first, the political circumstances will make this difficult for both candidates. The more we can do to tell them our desire for a reasonable, verifiable peace, the better the chance they might resist AIPAC. But Brian’s Jewishness” does not make him more a pawn of AIPAC than Colleen’s ambitions and commitment to the military-industrial complex. In fact, I think he has a bit more freedom.
Not many 89 year old’s on their deathbed can be so articulate as the letter that was written. Most of their last few days they don’t even really recognize anyone let alone still be so aware of the pending political situation that death will bring. I’m thinking it was more a “here’s what we think you want to say and if you agree, wiggle your toes” situation. Then someone in the room swears they saw something move and the letter is on it’s way to the Guv.
Well, I think it’s been acknowledged that the letter was “signed” by auto-pen and delivered to the Gov thereafter. That doesn’t mean it’s not accurate and it’s certainly consistent with everything else he said and did in the last years of his life.
Well, I’m not a fan of either candidate, Ian, but you seem to want to interpret Hanabusa’s words in a way that supports your apparent support of Schatz, when they could also contradict it.
More specifically, Hanabusa’s point may have been that you’re not “entitled” to the position just because you’re younger, will likely live longer, and therefore end your career with more seniority. It takes more to be a US Senator and to represent Hawaii and Hanabusa has an argument that she’s achieved more in her life and political career than has Schatz and that THAT is why she was favored by DKI over others: because of her ability and experience.
Unfortunately — or not — the DKI crowd (esp. Jennifer Sabas) made pilikia about the Schatz appointment before Hanabusa had said anything of her own about running for the seat. That has been translated to HER feeling “entitled” (including by you?) without her having to say it.
I suppose the question will be whether she can have her cake and eat it, too: campaign on her own abilities and accomplishments AND win the votes of those who agree with DKI’s blessing, be it earned or a bestowed “entitlement.”
Bad form for Colleen to moan and groan about other people’s supposed sense of entitlement, while taking every opportunity to remind everyone about being Inouye’s protege and hand-picked choice to be his successor.
And while it may rankle Colleen’s supporters, it has to be said: It is vital for states with small delegations in the House to have senators in a position to accumulate seniority. Alaska has figured that out, having elected or appointed freshman senators ranging between the ages of 38 to 47 since 1968.
I don’t at all see Colleen Hanabusa as having Dan Inouye’s endorsement in this contest.
The purported letter from Senator Inouye to Governor Abercrombie states “While I understand that selecting someone to serve out the remainder of my term is fully your responsibility, I respectfully request that U.S. Representative Colleen Hanabusa succeed me…”
But the Senator’s request was not granted, and Colleen Hanabusa did not “serve out the remainder of [his] term.” We are now in a situation that was not addressed in the letter.
We know that the Senator did not publicly name Colleen Hanabusa his preferred successor before the hospitalization from which he was unable to recover, so we have no reason to conclude that she was his heads and shoulders above all others choice to one day hold the seat she is now seeking.
If the late Senator did dictate that letter, at some point before doing so he probably undertook some sort of mental process to decide who he would endorse as his successor. We don’t know the details of that process. We have no way to know whether he favored Hanabusa two times as much as the runner-up choice to succeed him, or two percent more.
As firm as Senator Inouye’s support for Colleen Hanabusa appears in that letter, one may want to keep in mind that, until Kirk Caldwell became the runoff candidate against former Gov. Cayetano in the 2012 mayor’s race, the late Senator did not publicly support Caldwell over public workers’ champion Peter Carlisle. Only after the field was narrowed did Kirk Caldwell become the late Senator’s singular choice for mayor. If Peter Carlisle had not for a time been a participant in that race the public would have had no clue that he and Kirk Caldwell measured up so closely in Senator Inouye’s eyes — just as the public has no clue as to how far ahead the Senator’s preference in his letter stood of other unmentioned possible choices to succeed him.
But, again, the Governor exercised the power that was his and we are now in a situation Senator Inouye apparently failed to foresee as he did not address it in that letter. Now we have current Senator Brian Schatz wielding the seniority he already possesses by virtue of being sworn in days ahead of other Senators. In addition to that, if re-elected he will have seniority over a new group of incoming freshman Senators; a new group of freshman who would be Colleen Hanabusa’s peers with regard to seniority.
To be sure, Brian Schatz is no longer the same Brian Schatz from calculations performed before Senator Inouye’s passing. He is now Senior United States Senator Brian Schatz. He is now a larger quantity than he was before that letter was written.
At this point, who is to say whether Daniel K. Inouye would still favor a starting fresh in 2014 Colleen Hanabusa over a Brian Schatz in possession of the influence and power Colleen Hanabusa failed to gain when she was not selected by Hawaii’s Governor. Who is to say what Senator would have done in this situation, since he himself didn’t?
I’m not too sure that any credence can be given to this comment given it’s apparent assertion that Peter Carlisle was a “public worker’s champion.” Unless that was tongue-in-cheek, it was clearly out of touch.
Carlisle couldn’t be bothered to seek the endorsement of public worker unions (who themselves may not be public worker’s champions) but more to the point he took no time to ever visit public workers on the job or associate with them other than as his immediate subordinates.
No mayor has been more out of touch with public worker’s interests than Carlisle, which is part of the reason that none of them voted for him. The other is that he was MIA, just as he was as Prosecutor, delegating everything to Doug Chin while he kissed babies and visited sister cities in foreign countries.
Ohiaforest3400, I will agree with you about Carlisle’s relations with public sector workers. But I think you go too far when you use that to reject Undecided’s central point, which I think has validity. To say that Senator Inouye preferred Hanabusa be appointed to the vacant senate seat is NOT the same thing as saying Senator Inouye would therefore support her running against Schatz once he was the sitting senator.
Senator Inouye often said he was neutral in contested Democratic primaries. In fact, on those few occasions when he did make his preference known, he would point out how this was a break from his normal practice.
He supported Senator Akaka against Ed Case, and supported Hanabusa when she ran against Case. But he had a particular dislike for Ed Case. Brian Schatz has never, to the best of my knowledge, provoked the same sort of anger in Inouye that Ed had.
When he was dying and vacating the seat–in THAT context, he asked that Hanabusa be appointed. Would he have actively supported Hanabusa running against a sitting US Senator and threaten the seniority Schatz has acquired, as well as give up her seat on the Armed Services committee?
That is a different question on which we can speculate. But, as Undecided has pointed out, it IS a different sort of calculation than the earlier recommendation.
Thanks, Undecided. I had not thought about it that way. Good insight!
If thanks are owed in appreciation of good insight, I am very much in your debt.
As president of the Peter Carlisle fan club,I’m slightly offended. And besides, if there were any truth to what you are saying, what would that say about Senator Inouye for supporting Peter Carlisle?
My opinion is that Senators Inouye and Akaka did Hawaii the ultimate dis-service by leaving the state with zero seniority in the senate because of the (apparent) belief that they were going to live forever. If they had the interests of the people of Hawaii at heart they would have had a succession plan in place years ago. But… that would have required that one of them give up their seat, a difficult thing for men of large ego to do. Now in the same kind of ego trip Hanabusa is wanting to squander what little seniority has been gained by trying to claim “her seat” even though she must know that as a 60 something she can never accumulate the kind of seniority that Inouye had.
R Ferdun,
I think your criticism of Inouye and Akaka is unfair, given the nature of seniority in the Senate. Acquired seniority becomes a trap, not just for the politician, but for the state which elects them.
Yes, on the one hand, developing a “succession pal” (a troublesome term which merits some “unpacking”), makes sense, in order to avoid being caught with zero seniority when a state loses both senators in short order as Hawaii did.
OTOH, and we need to be ruthlessly honest about this, at no point did it make sense that Inouye give up his MASSIVE seniority and the attendant power to get things done, in favor of a newly elected replacement. Such an assessment is not just in terms of the senator’s interests (or “ego’) but those of the state of Hawaii. Even if Senator Inouye had privately wanted to retire, his sense of duty to the state, given his view of “bringing home the pork” as central to his duty, would not have allowed him to do so.
Since you clearly see the value of seniority to the state, I am surprised you have not faced up to the trap he was in.
The case of Akaka is somewhat different. He obviously did not have the influence of an Inouye, though the weight of his vote, enhanced by his seniority, strengthened the hand of Senator Inouye. But, given the value of having a Junior Senator building up seniority to avoid the zero seniority problem, perhaps it would have made sense for Akaka, but not Inouye, to have retired earlier?
Which brings us back to the troublesome phrase, “succession plan.” This was Ed Case’s argument. And, in his hands, we can see some of the problems with it. He pointed to Alaska as his model for a “succession plan” which was smart. But anyone who spent two minutes looking into the Alaskan succession plan, should have been very bothered by it. US Senator Frank Murkowski was elected Governor in 2002. He then appointed his daughter, Lisa, to his vacant seat. Nice succession plan. Quite a model to inspire Hawaii, where some people are upset Inouye even dared to SUGGEST his own replacement.
For awhile, it appeared Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens was trying to make a similar succession plan for his son, Ben Stevens. But the careers of both Stevens crashed and burned in corruption scandals before the hand-off could take place.
I bring this up because it is extremely troubling that Ed Case could have looked at Alaskan politics and argued their approach made sense. Yes, the Alaskan GOP elite are particularly corrupt, but isn’t any such “succession plan” reliant upon undemocratic machinations?
OK, so maybe not a “succession plan,” per se. But shouldn’t Akaka have been willing to step aside and allow the VOTERS of Hawaii the freedom to ELECT a younger successor, capable of building up valuable seniority? I think that is a fair question. But I don’t think “large ego” is a very helpful explanation for why it did not happen.
Here are 3 factors explaining why it did not happen:
1) His acquired seniority was helpful to the state. Allowing a new junior senator to acquire their own seniority, while Inouye was still around, would trump this, if not for other factors.
2) At the time, there was optimism for the Akaka Bill to be able to pass. Without getting into a full debate on the merits of the bill, it was a longtime ambition of many Hawaii Democrats to win federal recognition of native Hawaiians as a defined people, legally allowed some degree of self-governance. This was not merely an Akaka “vanity” project.
3) The only (semi) prominent Democrat willing to ignore Akaka’s desire to stay on was Ed Case, a man viewed by many Democrats as a Republican. Had a “real Democrat” been available and willing to run, perhaps there would have been more openness to pressing Akaka into seeing the wisdom of retiring. But, even there, we are confronted with a “Catch-22.” And “real Democrat” willing to run against Akaka would be demonstrating they were NOT a “real Democrat,” as all “real Democrats,” love and respect Senator Akaka.
The way that Schatz was appointed and sworn in, ahead of the newly elected senators, may be the best way –well, at least a “not so bad” way–of mitigating the seniority problem. But, once again, the logic of acquired seniority fashions a trap for us. Schatz, as the younger person, as well has the holder of that special bump in seniority, almost NEEDS to be elected, for the good of the state.
I had meant to write “succession plan.”
My typing skills produced “succession pal.” Sorry.