Earlier this week, Rep. Colleen Hanabusa’s campaign sent out an email blast attacking her primary opponent, U.S. Senator Brian Schatz, for lining up endorsements from senators and others “from the mainland (who) have asked Hawaii’s people for money while telling them who should represent our state in the U.S. Senate.”
I don’t agree with that sentiment, but that was the position taken by the Hanabusa campaign. Fair enough.
But at the same time, Hanabusa is circulating her own invite to a Washington D.C. fundraiser hosted by retired U.S. Army lieutenant general and former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry. Yes, Eikenberry is also a mainlander, now in a post at Stanford University, but apparently Hanabusa welcomes his assistance in telling Hawaii people (and others) who to support in this race.
Hello? Do they catch the irony here?
Hanabusa’s March 26th fundraiser at the Sonoma Restaurant in D.C. suggests donations of $2,600 for the “sponsor” level, $1,000 for supporters, $500 for “friends,” and down to $150 for Kama’aina and young professionals.
It’s unfortunate. In other contexts, Hanabusa would be considered a moderate Democrat, and I have real trouble with campaign portrayals of her as the antithesis of progressive politics. But there’s more than a little hypocrisy in attacking Schatz for successfully playing the endorsement game at the same time that she’s using the same tactic for her own benefit.
Check out GovTrack.us to see how they place Hanabusa and Schatz on a scale measuring ideology and leadership scores in House and Senate. Both rank about the same on “leadership”, while Schatz is placed quite a ways to the progressive side of the Senate, compared to Hanabusa’s position in the House.
You can click through to an explanation of the methodology used for this analysis.
Oh, and by the way. Hanabusa has consistently touted her own ability to hit the ground running if she is elected to the Senate. But Senator Schatz has already proven quite adept at hitting the ground running. He already heads two subcommittees with jurisdiction over issues directly relevant to Hawaii, and has successfully made alliances within the Senate that have served him (and Hawaii) quite well. So in truth, it’s become pretty hard to argue that Hanabusa has an edge on this “effectiveness” criteria, if she ever did.
And so it goes in the primary election campaign for Hawaii’s U.S. Senate seat.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Earlier this week Hanabusa sent a mass email saying:
“The minimum wage is not enough to keep a Hawaii family from living in poverty.
However, by raising the minimum wage in Hawaii to at least $9.25, we can lift a mother of two above the federal poverty line.
Raising the minimum wage helps Hawaii families. Stand with me today: call on our Congress and Hawaii to raise the minimum wage.”
When I objected that $9.25 was below anything even being considered by the Hawaii legislature and would not take a family of 3 out of poverty, I got this reply:
“Colleen strongly supports a $10.10 federal minimum wage and has voted for it in Congress. The “at least $9.25″ line was citing a report from the National Women’s Law Center.”
It seems clear to me that her mass email was designed for mainland consumption, not for Hawaii, despite specifically mentioning Hawaii.
Interesting article from the Washington Examiner re: Colleen tackling the age issue.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/hawaii-rep.-colleen-hanabusa-age-should-not-be-part-of-senate-race/article/2545974
“The age comments are especially insulting toward women, Hanabusa said, because women often make choices to delay portions of their careers as they balance other demands in life.
“Imagine if you had children, on top of everything else, and you’re trying to establish a profession, plus do well in politics and so forth,” Hanabusa said. “Something gives, you know? I’d love to think that I’m a super human being, but I’m not. We make choices, and those are the choices that we make.”
Neat how she ties the age issue to her gender, huh?
So here we have someone who paints herself as the disenfranchised, disadvantaged candidate due to more advanced age brought on by the challenges of womanhood (never mind that women now make up 3/4 of Hawaii’s congressional delegation) and facing an opponent who was unfairly anointed by the Governor (never mind that Inouye’s deathbed wish was all that she seemed to be talking about when her campaign kicked off). And now, she thinks that Hawaii voters will buy into her portrayal of Schatz being a candidate for Mainland special interest groups while she is the true-blue local free of that same taint?
Even if Colleen can successfully pull off that snow job, one has to wonder how long that tactic will be viable for her campaign. We might already be well past the point of diminishing returns on that theme and that there’s precious few votes left to be squeezed from out of that sympathy plea.
In the meantime, Schatz would do well to continue networking in the Beltway, shake as many hands as he can whenever he comes home, and campaign with a “best person for the job is already on the job” type of theme.
She’s not quite the antithesis of progressive politics, but she is very cynical and her overly close relationship with certain West Oahu resort and aquarium development types has been very troubling.
indeed.
Jim Dooley, Honolulu Advertiser, 2004:
“The relationship between Souza and Stone goes back to 2001, when Souza’s Pueo Trucking firm went to work for Armstrong Builders in 2001 on the Kai Lani development.
Pueo Trucking began work last month on a “verbal contract” Souza said he holds with Royal Construction to do hauling at the new Centex Homes residential development at Ko Olina, single-family homes priced at $1 million or more. Souza said Stone introduced him to Centex personnel, but he won the job through competitive bidding.
Hanabusa represented Pueo Trucking in its successful efforts to win a trucking license from the state Public Utilities Commission in 2002-2003. But the senator neglected to disclose that work on her 2002 financial disclosure form filed with the Ethics Commission.
She did disclose that she represented Souza in a disability claim he filed with the state Labor Department in 2002.
Hanabusa said her failure to include the PUC work on her disclosure form was “an oversight,” and that she would file an amendment with the Ethics Commission disclosing her PUC work for Pueo.”
Ten years later, I do *not* expect much reporting of this level. sigh.
(Souza married Hanabusa in August 2008.)
I got to be careful in my comments here. Last time I commented on Hanabusa I got slapped around by Ian for name calling and not contributing to a reasoned discussion, or something like that. Let’s just say that you could not pay me enough money vote for the woman for many of the reasons discussed in the post and subsequent comments. A B C (you figure it out)
One view could be irony, another is utter hypocrisy.
I was on the State Central Committee of the Democratic Party when we were considering which names to nominate to the Governor from which he would pick the next senator. We were being told by Hanabusa’s top people that Senator Inouye had introduced Hanabusa to the top leaders in the Senate and they had pledged, out of respect for Inouye as well as their appreciation of Colleen’s talents, that they would take her under their wing and get her appointed to powerful committees.
That representation has been proven false. The Senate leaders we were told would embrace Hanabusa are committed to Schatz. So for Colleen to now grumble about “Washington insiders” shows how slippery and opportunistic her arguments are. It doesn’t matter if her statements are true. It only matters if the “spin” is effective for the needs of the moment. That is one of the most degrading aspects of modern politics.
Politicians are message manipulators and liars. If it makes you feel good, you can dig your heads in the sand and feel the hate for the other party, or the other campaign and fight hard for your liar team to win the game. I will just stand back and watch and save my personal sovereignty and dignity.
My feeling is that, like crimes, not all lies are the same, and treating them as if they are tends to reward those who tell the most and the biggest.
If anyone wants to avoid taking a position in a partisan contest and to let others know it, that is their right. But throwing words around like “hate” as it relates to discussion about the Senate race taking place in this forum,… I just don’t see it. Folks might display a level of passion and conviction when stating their preference for one candidate over another. But to characterize any comment made on this blog entry as an expression of hatred is a stretch, to say the least. Exalting oneself by painting others with a broad brush,…. well, no further comment from me on that.
Progressive must mean to vote along party lines to vote against our military retirees, than when he gets caught he has an “Oh Sh.. moment and says he will back a bill to correct the mistake.