Political Radar


April 29th, 2013

Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who formally announced his re-election campaign on Monday, would not discuss U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa's primary challenge next year against U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz but reiterated his support for Schatz.

Abercrombie appointed Schatz, his lieutenant governor, to replace the late U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye in December.

“I think the reasons that I appointed him were solid. I think that he’s making a case for himself on that. And as far as any possible election challenge is concerned, that remains to be seen. That’s strictly speculation at this point,” the governor told reporters. “But I have every confidence that my appointment was for good and solid reasons and I expect that the people of the state will judge those reasons and vote accordingly.”

5 Responses to “Solid”

  1. Kolea:

    The Guv's remarks are exactly appropriate. (Which is not always the case with the guy!) Either Hanabusa or Schatz would have been a good selection for the state, but Schatz got the nod and now voters will have to decide for themselves whether to elect him. The appointment gave him a chance to show what he has to offer.

    Although Hanabusa was (and is) well-qualified, appointing her would have forced us to undergo and expensive, winner-take-all special election and may very have resulted in the election of a Republican candidate whose lack of majority support would keep them from being elected in a regular election.

    I will be comparing Schatz and Hanabusa closely over the next year, watching each important votes and trying to determine whose views on the major issues most closely align with my own. I will also watch to see how their supporters behave and WILL hold the candidates accountable if their supporters launch mean-spirited attacks. And I hope PRP keeps their yap shut!

    It will be a very close election.

  2. TKeiko:

    The argument that Schatz was a good appointment because it avoided a special election has always been weak. If the Democratic Party couldn't get its act together to get behind a single candidate, that's the party's fault. In addition, where did Democrats get the idea that the best way to hold on to influence is to prevent people from voting? As a Democrat, I find it incredibly distasteful that they would make their primary goal preventing the public from voting in an election simply because they might lose.

    But Abercrombie earned the greatest rebuke for following that same line of thinking in appointing a less-qulaified candidate in order to avoid the special election, particularly after triggering a special election of his own--which a Republican won--when he unnecessarily resigned his seat in Congress. Neil Abercrombie is the governor of the state of Hawaii, not the Democratic Party. His responsibility was to all the people of the state, not only the members of his party. The appointment was a gross dereliction of his duties as governor.

  3. Especially Incognito:

    If Senator Inouye did not die, nothing would have changed.
    Senator Inouye loves the person that has the guts to stand up
    against him. If that person cannot then that person is weak
    and should crumble up and hide from public office.

    Sometimes one has to fight their own party to do what they think is right for the people of Hawaii. The person to blame is the Democratic leader or the one who controls This Divine Comedy or Dante's Inferno.

    One will getting a carefree hissy fit.

  4. Kolea:


    I did not mean to say avoiding a special election was the ONLY reason why Schatz's appointment made sense. He is also a skilled public official. The citizens of Hawaii have made it clear they are NOT HAPPY when politicians resign to seek higher office and taxpayers are forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for a special election. If you are unaware of this oft-expressed sentiment, you must not be reading the very online sites where you are posting.

    This doesn't mean avoiding a special election should be the ONLY criterion. But it does mean it should carry weight. Not only for partisan reasons, but for budgetary ones.

    As for your claim it is the Party's own fault if it cannot "get its act together to get behind a single candidate," that is complete..., er, "bullpucky"! The party is always being attacked for being a "machine," yet the reality is, within the party itself, there is a strong commitment that the party must remain neutral between competing Democrats. Look at the three names the party submitted to the Governor: Hanabusa, Schatz and Kiaaina. Three very different candidates, rooted in different networks. A good representation of the range of groups within the party without one faction blocking the others. Yes, it was a practical result of balancing competing factions. But those same "competing factions" would be operating in whatever unnamed process you demand the party employ to "get behind a single candidate."

    If you think the party deserves blame if it is NOT disciplined enough to IMPOSE a single candidate on its members, there are THOUSANDS of Democrats who would scream BLOODY MURDER if such an attempt were made. Actually, I suspect you may not feel bound by logical consistency and would be one of the ones screaming the loudest if the candidate so imposed were not your first choice.

  5. Goober:

    Mr. Smith has done nothing for Hawaii,
    besides holding his breath.
    Re-election on what grounds?

    Those raising cane.

Leave a Reply

By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the Star-Advertiser's TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.