Playing to the Crowd
Maka Fox wrote an article in the Honolulu Weekly August 23-29, “Playing to the Crowd,” about the Case-Akaka debate. (I can’t find the article on the Honoweekly’s website to refer to.) The article basically takes Case to task for whining after having gotten Akaka to agree to a debate. Case also comes in for criticism for wanting the negotiations public, rather than allowing AARP to conduct the negotiations in private, which is usual. The point is that Case is playing to the crowd with a bit of political theater. Will he score points, or only come across as a whiner?
But the best observation was in the opening paragraph:
Political campaigns are a form of theater. Each camp works to create a series of moments, a collection of impressions that casts its candidate as the better choice. The goal is to make each moment appear authentic, to lend a patina of reality to the artifice. Rumor has it that occasionally, in that search for realism, a candidate will say something that is actually true. Somehow, the assumption goes, the voters will mine enough of those nuggets to cast a vote.
The first three sentences are astute, but the last sentences are rather limp. I think the Case campaign is all about impression-management, which is what Rovian Republicanism says to do if the issues are against you. After all, it has been clear for some time that Case will not campaign on the issues. He encourages the impression that Akaka is an old codger on his last legs, and that he, Ed Case, is pretty, young, strong, young, and photogenic (and, by the way, youthful and full of vim and vigor).
So I fear that Case will try to make the “debate” not about issues, but about who makes the better impression. My hope is that the AARP-managed questions will be more revealing on the issues, and that the audience will get the impression(!) that Sen. Akaka is more to be trusted on the issues.
Bob Schacht
![[PDA - Heathcare NOT Warfare - Sign the Petition.]](http://pdamerica.org/images/ads/HealthNotWar_final.jpg)
Bob, you seem confused about your arguments. You say that Dan Akaka is the one who is really pushing the issues that matter to voters but then why is he the one who is dodging debating? And why is he the one who is trying to arrange the fomat behind closed doors to avoid truly discussing the controversial issues that ed case wants to bring to the public? The person who is pushing for the debates is the one who wants to talk about the issues. dan akaka has shown the public that he does not want to have his record and qualifications challenged in the public arena.
Ed Case has been pushing from day one to talk about the issues. Not only on his campaign for senate but during his tenure in the house of representatives. ed case has hosted scores of “talk stories” to talk to voters about the issues and what is important to them. beacuse of this, ed case is in tune with the majority of hawaii and dan akaka is trying to avoid showing hawaii his incompetence as a senator.
Comment by Trojanraider — August 28, 2006 @ 5:58 pm
Dear Trojanraider,
I think you are the one who is confused in your argument. Did you read Fox’s comment? You seem to feel that debate = issues. But Fox makes a compelling point that debates are really political theater. In political theater, your ideas on the issues are not as important as the impression you make.
This has been true since the Nixon - Kennedy debate in which Nixon looked like he hadn’t shaved for a day. On camera, Kennedy made a better *impression*, but people who listened on the radio thought that Nixon won the debate.
If you really want to know who is campaigning on the issues, look at the website for both campaigns. Sen. Akaka has far more pages on issues than Case does. Akaka has a whole section of his campaign website devoted to issues (http://akaka2006.org/issues). He has statements on
* ANWR: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
* Consumer Protection
* Education
* Energy
* Environment
* Health & Social Services
* Immigration
* Jones Act
* Labor
* Seniors
* The Akaka Bill
* The Patriot Act
* Veterans Affairs, and
* the War in Iraq
Case has pages on exactly two issues: the environment, and Native Hawaiians. Sen. Akaka provided answers to PDH’s questions on the issues; Case has not done so.
So I’d say you’re somewhat misinformed about who’s running on the issues.
Bob
Comment by BobSchacht — August 28, 2006 @ 9:22 pm
You are way off base. Case is the one who is pushing for a debate about the issues. YOU said “My hope is that the AARP-managed questions will be more revealing on the issues”. So clearly you believe that the AARP debate can bring out the issues.
You and akaka seem to think that a candidate’s website is sufficient discussion about issues. As a voter I want to hear a candidate speak in person and debate with the other candidate. So I say to you and dan akaka, STOP HIDING FROM THE PUBLIC BEHIND YOUR WEBSITE AND YOUR TV ADS. The people of hawaii deserve to hear the candidates talk about the issues in an open and non scripted forum.
We need more debates. I am not an AARP member!
Comment by Trojanraider — August 29, 2006 @ 7:30 am
trojanraider, you seem to be under the illusion that televised candidate debates are nothing more than an opportunity for candidates to showboat and grandstand. a televised debate is NOT, i repeat NOT, a proper forum for candidates to provide the public with real valuable information. a televised debate provides sounds bites and photo ops for the media, but does little to inform the public about the candidates and their positions.
case, while pretty much a liar and a jerk, is a smart guy. he knows that debates don’t provide truly useful information to the public. the media uses them for soundbites and campigns use them for spin and THAT’S what case was after. while i think the senator did a fine job, there is little room for argument about who ‘won’ the image contest. case wanted, and still wants, as many opportunities and he can get to stand next to the senator before the primary on september 23. he thinks if he can ‘win’ enough image contests, maybe he’ll win the election. for my park, i don’t really care how well-spoken and slick someone is so much as for what that person stands.
here’s some information for you: case votes with this administration more than he votes against them. case says would have voted for, and supports the ILLEGAL war in iraq. case voted for tax cuts for the wealthy, pretty much screwing the rest of us. case talks about ‘transition,’ but clearly doesn’t think the guy at the back of the line should wait his turn and pay his due (and maybe learn something). if it is time for ‘transition,’ which i don’t necessarily agree with, then congressman abercrombie should be the one to step up, NOT CASE.
you seem to be completely enthrawled with case, and you call yourself a liberal, but i have yet to hear what about case you think is so great, other than the words ‘debate’ and ‘transition’. you say issues are SOOO important, then tell us all which of case’s positions (aside from ‘debate’ and ‘transition’) you support.
Comment by frosty — September 1, 2006 @ 9:37 am
Issues:
Jones Act, it costs us more for everything that we buy because Dan Akaka is supporting a monopoly for hawaii shipping lines.
ANWR, Case is pro environment and against drilling in the arctic. Akaka is for destroying out wilderness
NW Hawaiian Islands National Monument, because Case can work with both sides of the aisle he got the president to support his idea of protecting the NW hawaiian islands. Akaka was against Case’s legislation.
Alternative Minimum Tax, Case voted to save middle class working families from the burden of the AMT. Akaka voted to keep burdening hawaii families.
Immigration, Case supports defending out borders while allowing exceptions such as the children oh filipino WW2 vets to come to the US.
Winning the War, Case knows it was a mistake to go to Iraq but he also knows it is a bigger mistake to let the region get out of control. If we cut and run like Dan Akaka wants to, then we will ahve a bigger war to fight very soon as the middle east situation deteriorates.
Balancing the Budget, Case supports balancing the budget and he is against raising the debt ceiling for the president and congress to continue putting us into trilions of dollars into debt.
Just a few of the many issues Ed Case has supported that Dan Akaka can’t even understand . . .
Comment by Trojanraider — September 1, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
Issues Response:
“Jones Act, it costs us more for everything that we buy because Dan Akaka is supporting a monopoly for hawaii shipping lines.”
~Does that mean you understand the Jones Act, or do you simply understand what Case has told you? I’ve spent a bit of time looking for information about the Jones Act and have, as of yet, been mostly unsuccessful with regards to the notion that it supports a monopoly in Hawaii. If you have sources aside from Case, please share.
“ANWR, Case is pro environment and against drilling in the arctic. Akaka is for destroying out wilderness.”
~ Seriously? “Akaka is for destroying our wilderness”? How about Akaka is for providing the indigenous people with some income from their land. I happen to disagree with the senator on this point, however, I am under no illusions that he wants to destroy the wilderness.
“NW Hawaiian Islands National Monument, because Case can work with both sides of the aisle he got the president to support his idea of protecting the NW hawaiian islands. Akaka was against Case’s legislation.”
~ This was a good thing Case did, there is no doubt about it. Do you know the Bill number? I’d be surprised is Akaka actually voted against this, but if you’ve checked how he voted on this measure, please send the link so I can see for myself.
“Alternative Minimum Tax, Case voted to save middle class working families from the burden of the AMT. Akaka voted to keep burdening hawaii families.”
~ Again, do you know the bill number? Can you show me the vote on this? Also, Case has voted in favor of the tax cuts for the richest Americans. If Case did indeed vote in yes on the AMT, then as far as I’m concerned, his vote on Bush’s tax cuts canceled out this vote. The of course there’s the bankruptcy bill, which only benefits banks and credit card companies.
“Immigration, Case supports defending out borders while allowing exceptions such as the children oh filipino WW2 vets to come to the US.”
~ http://www.akaka2006.org/issues/immigration
“Winning the War, Case knows it was a mistake to go to Iraq but he also knows it is a bigger mistake to let the region get out of control. If we cut and run like Dan Akaka wants to, then we will ahve a bigger war to fight very soon as the middle east situation deteriorates.”
~ I don’t even know where to begin….
“Balancing the Budget, Case supports balancing the budget and he is against raising the debt ceiling for the president and congress to continue putting us into trilions of dollars into debt.”
~ Balancing the budget is a good thing, I agree. But how does Case suggest we balance the budget while vote for tax cuts and supporting a war with no foreseeable end?
“Just a few of the many issues Ed Case has supported that Dan Akaka can’t even understand . . .”
~ I’m not completely sure you understand either.
Comment by frosty — September 1, 2006 @ 5:27 pm
My biggest problem with Case is that he said he would have voted for the war if he was in office. Akaka had the brains to see through the propaganda of the administration and just say no to illegal war. So the question to me what future mistatkes will Case make? Will he support going to war with Iran?
I want a representative who will stand up to the president and demand answeres. Case has not done this and he has gone along with GW way too often. Today we are flushing tons of money down the Iraq toilet and the only thing to show for it is pot holes in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Case calls this fiscal responsibility? I just don’t think so.
Comment by Peter Ehrhorn — September 2, 2006 @ 8:15 am
frosty. It appears that you don’t understand the concept of monopoy power . . . Ed Case believes that if we encourage competitiion between shipping lines prices will fall to ship our goods to the islands and we will all pay less for everything. Lets use the air transportation industry as an analogy. If Dan Akaka supported a Jonesa Act for the airline industry, we would only have Hawaiian airlines serving hawaii and it would probably cost us $1000 to fly to the mainland because Aloha and Go! airlines aren’t allowed to enter the market. If Senator Ed Case voted to repeal the Jones Act, many airlines could compete fairly in Hawaii and bring the cost of air transportation down to competitive market prices. This holds true for the shipping industry. Monopolies have pricing power and can raise prices arbitrarily.
If you don’t believe in competitive markets then you and Dan Akaka are communists.
Comment by Trojanraider — September 3, 2006 @ 8:15 am
frosty, After reviewing your statements again, you don’t know how the Jones Act creates a monopoly.
ECON 101 for frosty. Government regulations that stipulate that only American ships with American crews can port in Hawaii/US creates a barrier to entry for competitive firms. Typically, American ships are more expensive to purchase and American crews are more expensive to hire. Dan Akaka’s support of the Jones Act is making it more expensive for new/foreign companies to compete with the likes of Matson shipping. Less competition means higher costs which gets passed on to Hawaii consumers.
Comment by Trojanraider — September 3, 2006 @ 8:45 am
Trojanraider,
We understand well about the arguments for competition, but you apparently don’t realize that even Rep. Case admits that we do not have an *actual* monopoly in shipping– in the debate last week he just said that it amounts to a monopoly. So you’re actually misrepresenting Case’s position.
Besides, the Jones Act doesn’t sanction monopoly; what it actually does is protect competition among American shippers from competition from foreign shippers. So your position (and Case’s) is that you want to open up competition in shipping to foreign shippers from Asia, Africa, etc. who are less well regulated by their home countries?
Bob Schacht
Comment by BobSchacht — September 3, 2006 @ 9:23 am
YES! Protectionism is bad for business and even worse for consumers. We want foreign shippers coming into Hawaii to help us lower our shipping costs. The money we save from foreign competition goes directly to working families.
Frosty, you seem to be advocating trade barriers and protectionism. Another example . . . according to your logic, you would like to keep foreign automobile makers out of Hawaii because we do not directly regulate them. If that happened we would all be driving gas guzzling low quality american cars. Because of foreign competition from Japanese and German automakers (who were once our enemies in WW2) consumers have better selection and access to cars and it fores american manufacturers to produce higher quality cars for a lower cost.
Ed Case wants to make sure that American shipping lines are forced by foreign competition to provide Hawaii consumers with higher quality shipping services for a lower cost. If you believe like Ed Case does that American workers and businesss are the best in the world, then you would also believe the American shipping companies would be able to effectively compete against foreign shippers on an equal playing field without government protectionism that ends up costing Hawaii consumers more.
The Jones Act is bad for Hawaii and so is Dan Akaka who supports it!
Comment by Trojanraider — September 3, 2006 @ 11:46 am
I would hope the level of discussion on this blog would be a bit more civil than it is. I wonder if you should not have policy on “trolls”?
I don’t see the point in having discussions where trojanraider calls Frosty and Senator Akaka communists. Maybe these posts should be moderated? Or, if visitors know that they might be banned, perhaps they will make a bit more effort to be civil?
It’s up to you folks as to what kind of climate you want to foster here, but I do fear that the delicate balance necessary for human dialogue is threatened by the uncontrollable urge of the troll to play the provocateur. Surely political debate should rise to a higher level?
Your choice.
Comment by Ferd — September 3, 2006 @ 8:58 pm
Ferd — Thanks for your comment. I am afraid you are right and we may have to moderate comments more closely. I had hoped that we wouldn’t have to.
Rachel
Comment by rachel — September 5, 2006 @ 8:02 am
I watched the Akaka-Case Debate last week. I hoped to glean more insight into the issues and the two men
that want to represent Hawaii for the next six years. I believe that Ed Case came across as the stronger candidate. Dan Akaka showed that his most effective days are behind him. It is time for Senator Akaka to retire gracefully. Rather than tackle the details of various issues Senator Akaka made broad generalizations. Ed Case showed he has a good command of the details. I consider myself a Liberal and am proud to call myself such. While I do not agree with Ed Case on all issues (most notably Iraq - I believe we need to get out…..very soon), he is connected to the real world and I believe (hope) he will be a leader instead of a follower.
Comment by Bill South — September 5, 2006 @ 11:58 am
Watching Case and Akaka on television last Thursday, I listened with much amusement as Akaka thanked everyone for the opportunity to participate in the event and expressed his delight at being able to take part in the debate. It seemed ironic that the man who had been pulled into this public forum almost kicking and screaming was thanking people so graciously for the chance to attend.
Although I agree with you to an extent that debates are about ‘theater’, I respectfully disagree with you that Ed Case tried to make the debate about age, image, good looks, vigor, etc. If Case’s answers had been muddled and obscure, lacking substance and full of false information, then you could possibly contend that Case felt he needed to rely primarily on his good looks and great vocabulary to debate Akaka. Yet, not only does Ed Case look good on camera, he was well-prepared, he understood each question and answered each question directly and with conviction. He showed himself to be a sharp, quick thinker and also someone who has given a great deal of thought to a diversity of issues, local, national and international.
If anything, Akaka and his campaign staff are the ones who are guilty of putting on political theater, not only in this debate but during this entire campaign. This is why I think so:
First, campaign spokeswoman Elisa Yadao and others dramatically played down expectations before the debate — casting Akaka in the role of a quiet teacher, not an arguer or great orator. Our expectations for Akaka’s performance were so low, he could have just stood there and smiled and people would have thought he did just great. (If Akaka is, in fact, a teacher, then he should have been much savvier at conveying his answers during the debate.)
Second is the whole issue of Akaka’s campaign in general — how it isn’t really Akaka’s campaign. Case has done almost 200 Talk Stories, getting into the neighborhoods and talking with and listening to constituents. When you see the Case campaign make statements to the press, it is Ed himself doing it. When do we every see Akaka himself on the news?
Finally, I would argue that it has been much, much more difficult for Ed Case to put on any kind of illusion about himself at all. Akaka is outspending Case, what, four to one? Akaka’s TV ads are professional, very well-done — perhaps the best-known one shows Akaka as a fervent, passionate orator. By contrast, Case has had to work much, much harder than Akaka to present any kind of image at all to the public. Plus, he’s been handicapped from the start by the fact that if he comes off TOO aggressive, people will automatically dislike him. If he comes off too meek, he’ll lose. Furthermore, Case has relied mostly on personal appearances on camera, while you see Akaka strictly through commercials. Think you’ll ever see Akaka signwaving or doing Talk Story’s? Watch TV. The Akaka camp are the ones who are really using the smoke and mirrors.
That’s my two cents.
Comment by Kim — September 5, 2006 @ 8:18 pm