PDHblog
This is a place for members of Progressive Democrats of Hawai‘i to express their thoughts
and exasperations about political happenings. The opinions and views are not necessarily
those of PDH's steering committee or membership as a whole.

As I was perusing the Hawaii tag on DailyKos, I came across this excellent commentary in response to one of the pro-Case members of the site. It starts off with this:

you say something like this:

I’m an environmentalist; Ed supports the environment; Akaka doesn’t.

That’s just nonsense. You want to reduce ANWR down to this silly superficial baby harp seal kind of ideal thing, but it’s not. You cannot just dismiss the indigenous mineral rights angle simply because it complicates your black or white narrative. You are smarter than that.

I particularly like this passages:

You care about “the environment”? What kind of friggin’ environment are the people, or let me get cheap here– what kind of “environment” are the “women and children” of Iraq facing? Do you give a damn about the massive poisoning of THEIR environment by depleted uranium that your boy is enthusiastically supporting? How’s about unexploded cluster bombs strewn across the countryside? Does that fit in your narrow definition of an “environmental issue”?

I am very familiar with the notion that Arab lives are not worth paying attention to, so I can understand that the war in Iraq might be a low priority for you, but why are you such a stereotyped yuppie liberal, supporting the right of first world professionals to party however their “lifestyle” leads them, but not getting upset by the current Bush (and Case) plans to militarily dominate the world and mow down those that oppose them? And, then, mow down those who want to avenge their family members killed in the first round?

Yes, it gets vitriolic… but that is how the dialog has been in this race. People are very emotional about the WAR, so are equally emotional when they defend the anti-war candidate.

Kossaks have been arguing back and forth on the merits and records of Akaka & Case… it makes an interesting read if you find time.

in today’s honolulu advertiser, there is an article about the severe shortage of polling place workings for the primary election on september 23, just ten days away.

With the primary election just 10 days away, the state Office of Elections said it is “substantially short” of the 2,400 temporary workers needed to run polling places on O’ahu.

As of yesterday, the office needed nearly 900 more people to staff O’ahu’s 217 precincts for the Sept. 23 election. If these workers aren’t found, voters at polling sites across the island can expect longer waits, said Rex Quidilla, state voter services coordinator.

my first thought was ‘i can’t believe there aren’t more people who want to participate in the election process beyond the ballot box and the voting booth.’ then i remembered in which country i live. i could go on and on regarding my thoughts on people who don’t vote, or even people who ONLY vote, but i’ll save that for another time.

for my part, i will be serving as the precinct chairperson at a polling place near where i live (not my own, so i need to vote early) for the primary and i’m guessing for the general, as well. i signed up because i’m committed to learning as much as i can about the american political system and i wanted to help. when i was told workers (i guess i can’t call them volunteers) actually get a stipend, was really surprised. a little extra money is always good, but i would have done this for free.

i want to call on everyone to call the office of elections and ask if workers are needed in your district. it is so important that all the pollings places are well staffed. if voters have a smooth, easy, glitch-free voting experience, they will be more likely to vote again in the future. these days, it seems like people need just the slightest excuse not to vote.

sure, 530am to 7pm is a VERY long day and i’m not particularly excited about waking up and heading out before the sun, but i think its important. you should too.

here’s the number for the office of elections: 453-8683

To get a “balanced” story in the media all you need to do is interview people on two different “sides” of an issue. Right? Shouldn’t it be part of a journalist’s job to help readers distinguish which “side” has facts to back them up? I could go on and on… but I only bring this up now because I was reminded how terrible so many news stories are when I read this one about Hawaii voters’ response to electronic voting machines.

Voters are interviewed for their response to the new electronic voting machines with the following conclusion:

The new computer voting machines available at the four Oahu absentee polling centers were getting high marks yesterday as absentee voting opened across the state.

Michelle Smith, a representative for Hart Intercivic Inc., said the eSlate voting machine provides a printed copy of the vote, which pleased several voters.

No mention that the only reason why there was a printed copy of the vote was due to a bill that was passed in large part due to pressure put on by Safe Vote Hawaii.

A voter at Pearlridge, Bernie Nii, said she had no problems with the electronic voting machines.

“It was easier than paper. It was easier than I thought it would be, but I wanted to try it because everything is electronic now,” Nii said.

No mention that objections to electronic voting machines generally are not based on their difficulty of use but on their reliability. I don’t have the references handy at the moment… may edit with more later… but major problems have resulted in elections where electronic voting machines were used for significant proportions of the total votes cast. NOW on PBS covered the problems that have come up in primaries across the country already this year the other night.

The article concludes with what appear to be the main complaints:

Other voters complained that they did not like the Hawaii electronic system because they could not vote in more than one political party’s primary election. (Under Hawaii’s system, voters must choose only one party.)

Wallace Lee, a city facility maintenance worker, said he voted in more than one primary race and had his paper ballot kicked back.

“I had to redo the ballot, but this is a problem — they don’t let you jump around,” Lee said.

No mention that the ballot would be considered spoiled no matter how it was turned in. You can only vote in one party at a time!! Of course they don’t let you jump around… don’t people know what a primary election is meant to be?! This is where political parties choose the candidates they want to face the other parties’ candidates in the general election. Even though we have an “open” primary in Hawaii, the assumption still remains that you will only claim to be in one political party at a given time (e.g. the 5 mins that you ponder your ballot in the voting booth).

This article was an example of journalism at its weakest. A few scattered quotes showing differing opinions but no facts to ground it.

An excellent commentary about impeachment was printed in the SB today.

One point I would add, in terms of why we should encourage our representatives to pursue impeachment if a Democratic majority is achieved is: we cannot let the executive branch break laws with impunity. We need to set a precedent showing that there is accountability in government. If Democrats at the national level continue to let the Bush administration get away with lying to the American public without so much as an oversight hearing, that would show future Presidents that they could get away with just about anything as long as they have the right PR.

Anyone want to buy an impeach button or bumper sticker ?

It’s truely frightening that in an election year, 911 and partisan politics are so closely intertwined. It’s even more so as we understand how this all has come about.

Historically the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of course used the Fairness Doctrine and two corollary rules, the personal attack rule and the political editorial rule to “manage” political commentary over radio and television. The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The President designates one of the Commissioners to serve as Chairman. Only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them can have a financial interest in any Commission-related business.

So low and behold, under Republican leadership, in 1987 the Fairness Doctrine was repealed. Then again during Reagan’s presidency in 2000, regulations against monopolies were relaxed to the point of being nonexistant and the personal attack and political editorial rules were a appealed. So now we have unregulated partisan control of television, radio, cable networks, etc. and this year the Rebublicans are going after the Internet by oposition of Net Neutrality legislation.

One should wonder how Ed Case would vote on such an issue? One could argue that his hidden agenda for obtaining public office is to influence the outcome of all these issues.

For now, the Internet belongs to all of us equally. Imagine a world where it does not. Unfortunately, Net Neutrality is an very difficult concept to understand. We all need to work hard to learn about it and in turn teach others how it can work for the average citizen.

So while it’s still free … I’ll provide one more link, this time on what Keith Olbermann has to say about 911… He speaks to me, I hope you all agree.

Steven

Ann Oshiro-Kauwe forwards this from Ian Lind’s blog:

http://www.ilind.net/2006/september/sept10-16.html

September 11, 2006 - Monday

The political action committee formed by a national trade association spent more than $600,000 last month to directly benefit the campaign of an island candidate. That was more than the total amount raised by the candidate through June 30, 2006.

What was the PAC and who was the candidate?

Well, last week Ed Case’s campaign sent out an email urging supporters to “follow the money”. So I did.

The campaign’s email presented data to show that Akaka has received a greater share of his campaign funds from political action committees and from mainland residents than case.

But the figures were carefully selected. Looked at differently, the same data show Akaka raised 80% more money from Hawaii residents than Case.

And Case points the finger at “special interests” supporting Akaka, who has drawn his share of support from PACs, which are each limited to a $5,000 contribution per election.

But Case has a huge special interest hiding in his closet, according to Federal Election Commission records. And the money from this PAC doesn’t show up in lists of contributions received because it was spent “independently” of the candidate and is reported elsewhere.

FEC data shows the National Association of Realtors Political Action Committee spent a whopping $602,017 in August for television ads and direct mail in direct support of Case’s campaign. This included $385,000 paid to the Fenn Communications Group for television ads, and $216,417 paid to Terris Barnes & Walters for a direct mail campaign in favor of Case.

That’s more than the entire $597,575 raised by the Case campaign through the end of June 2006. This one PAC, in essence, more than doubled his money and did it by acting “independently” of the Case campaign.

Akaka benefited from a $100,000 independent expenditure by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which paid for television spots on his behalf, but AFSCME’s proportional role pales compares to the realtor’s position in the Case effort.

Both the Realtors and the AFSCME expenditures are among the independent expenditures made recently, according to FEC data reported by PoliticalMoneyLine. You’ll have to search that list for Case or Akaka to find the individual entries.

Now let’s see. This is the same Ed Case who co-sponsored the Bankruptcy Bill, making it tougher for citizens who go broke to declare bankruptcy. What do you think realtors would say about that bill? I’ll bet they like it, a lot!

Bob

In case you haven’t received the announcement, here it is:

Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dave Chun
Subject: ANWR Statement
Aloha kakou,

The attached statement is from Senator Daniel K. Akaka regarding the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).Senator Akaka is committed to returning to Alaska in the summer of 2007 to participate in fair and open discussion with the Inupiat, the Gwich`in, and other affected people, and to re-examine the land under consideration.

Well, I wish he had done this a year ago, so that he could be running on a new assessment of the situation. But I note with great enthusiasm that Akaka has vowed in this statement to include the “Gwich’in, and other affected people” in his re-assessment. This is new, to my knowledge. Previously, to my knowledge, he has only considered the will of the Inupiat, by which he probably meant the lobbying position of the lawyerly suits of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC), who are the Inupiat’s legal representatives in this matter, and one of the more influential lobbying groups in Washington, DC.

Also perhaps new is that Akaka is vowing to go to Alaska and see (and listen) for himself, rather than accepting the word of Sen. Ted Stevens and the lawyers of the ASRC.

So if this has been a sticking point for you (and I know it is, for some), this is important news. Please pass the word to your friends.
Bob Schacht

Much was made in the press about whether or not Harry Kim would run for governor. Since Lingle’s election seemed to indicate a rejection of the perceived “Democratic Machine” Kim as a normal guy was put on a pedestal as one of the few who might have a chance against Lingle. The emphasis put on Kim’s non-campaign and the constant drum that the Dem’s couldn’t find a decent candidate for Governor drowned out any meager coverage that was given to the two Democrats that ARE running for Governor. Of those two, I personally prefer William Aila… arguably as much an “everyday guy” as Harry Kim. Perhaps, I too, am suspicious of many of the entrenched Dems that have been in power for so long, but Iwase seems like one of them and is largely uninspiring.

Last night at our monthly PDH meeting we got to meet David Henkin, who is running for Lt Governor in support of Aila. I was very impressed, and it seemed that most (all?) of the others in the room were as well. He seemed smart, articulate and sincere. He has a background as an environmental and public interest lawyer for Earthjustice.

One question that Henkin fielded was: “Why run, when you don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell at winning?” Henkin answered well to the effect of — If Aila & Henkin can win the primary, they would have as much or better of a chance against Lingle than Iwase & Solomon. Aila & Henkin could offer a choice to all Hawaii voters who dis-trust the “Democratic Machine” yet aren’t very comfortable voting Republican.

I plan on voting Aila & Henkin for Gov & Lt Gov… why don’t you check out their websites and if you like what you see spread the word. They do not have the kind of money to blitz us with ads about themselves so if they are going to have a chance at this, we need to spread the word the old fashioned way… through the coconut wireless.

Hi,

Just a quick note. For those who have not already logged their concern with ABC’s mockumentry pathto911. Check out this easy “Letter to Robert Iger” sponsored by our very own. 120,000 names is less than 48 hours!

http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/pathto911

I was forwarded a link to a transcript of last week’s debate between Dan Akaka & Ed Case: http://www.hawaiinews.com/archives/politics/000414.shtml

Of course a transcript does not convey the same way that watching the two men on TV does… but it makes it much easier to analyze their answers for how they relate to ISSUES. Most of the people I have spoken to think that Ed Case came across much better than Akaka did during the debate; I will not argue that… we all knew that Case would look better and quicker on TV.

I challenge all of you who were impressed with Case’s performance to read the transcript for a closer look at the issues that he talks about. Feel free to post your commentary here with reference to specific quotes, but please keep it civil. I know this is a very contentious race and people tend to get their blood boiling as they debate it, but I will have to moderate you if you get nasty or call people names unnecessarily.