Women for Colleen

December 4th, 2013
By

Three politically powerful women -- Millie Akaka, Jean Ariyoshi and Irene Hirano Inouye -- are hosting a fundraiser this month for U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa.

The evening event is scheduled for Dec. 17 at a Pacific Heights home. Akaka is the wife of retired U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka. Ariyoshi is the wife of former Gov. George Ariyoshi. Hirano Inouye is the widow of the late U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye.

Women on the fundraiser's host committee are expected to contribute or raise $2,600. Sponsors must donate $1,000. Guests can give $500.

Other women on the host committee include state Rep. Sylvia Luke, the chairwoman of the House Finance Committee, state Sen. Jill Tokuda, the chairwoman of the Senate Education Committee, and state Sen. Michelle Kidani, the vice chairwoman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee.

Hanabusa is challenging U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate to fill out the remainder of Inouye's six-year term, which runs through 2016.

17 Responses to “Women for Colleen”

  1. toobn:

    Why is it that women can have a Women for Coleen Night, yet if men had a Men for Schatz Night it would be frowned on? Seems like a double standard.


  2. Eric Ryan:

    I guess the fact that Democrats keep getting away with sexist "Women for..." events and coalitions means that they never really want women to be equal to men. The concept of helpless women banding together to beat men (or beat one man) seems extremely dated. It's like watching the movie 9 to 5 and seeing secretaries Dolly Parton, Lily Tomlin and Jane Fonda tie up their boss Dabney Coleman. You go, girls. Hopefully Schatz will hold a Men for Schatz fundraiser in which the men on the fundraiser's host committee will secure male-only sponsors and sell tickets to men only. Sadly, Schatz will probably respond in campaign boilerplate fashion by having a Women for Schatz TV commercial or a sexist event of his own. Remember last year's "Filipinos for Rail"? Yes, that's how stupidly backward Hanabusa's fundraiser seems.


  3. sato:

    Yes, I agree that the coalition seems pretty outdated.


  4. Kolea:

    Nonsense. Really? You GUYS think it is "sexist" if there is a "Women for Hanabusa" committee? I suppose you think it is as "racist" to have a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People as it would be to have a National Association for the Advancement of White People?

    Women are grossly under-represented in both the US House and the Senate and until the numbers are approximately equal, I think it is fully justified for women to organize AS WOMEN to push for greater equality. Even then, if women's wages and other opportunities lag significantly behind those of men, they would still be justified to so organize.

    But then, it appears all three of you whiners are men.

    (None of this means I am voting for Hanabusa over Schatz. My mind is still open and I have questions for, and concerns about, BOTH of them.)


  5. Especially Incognito:

    Gays for Hannabusa.


  6. Especially Incognito:

    It would be called a Bachelor Party.
    Women have Amway Parties.


  7. Goober:

    "Hanabusa Wins Dick Award" Sometimes the headlines just write themselves.


  8. WaianaeDon:

    Yes, Kolea, it IS racist to have the NAACP and NOT allow the same for whites. It IS sexist to have a women only group and NOT allow a men only group. You are jamming your head deep in the sand and letting huge waves roll over you to think otherwise. If I was young and had no concerns I'd apply for the Miss Black America contest and then sue them for discrimination when they denied my request. There can never be true equality until we do away with these special groups or allow everyone to have their special group.


  9. zzzzzz:

    "Women are grossly under-represented in both the US House and the Senate "

    Not in our delegation.


  10. Especially Incognito:

    More women too have resigned
    because of peer pressure and
    conservatives that feel the need for "whipping"
    someone. Right Mr. Tibbs?


  11. Shay Chan Hodges:

    The 113th Congress includes 435 members of the House. A total of 81 are women (18%). There are 43 African American Members (including 2 Delegates), 34 Hispanic or Latino Members (including 1 Delegate and 1 Resident Commissioner), 12 Asian American Members (including 2 Delegates, and 2 Native American Members

    There are 100 members of the US Senate and 20 are women. One senator is African American, 4 are Hispanic or Latino, and 1 is Asian American. The only women of color to serve in the US Senate to date have been Carol Moseley Braun, an African American woman from Illinois who served from 1993-1999 and Mazie Hirono.

    There is no question that efforts need to be made to support increasing the number of women and minorities in political leadership positions -- so that they come close to reflecting the diversity of this country. Furthermore, what the gender and ethnicity of the 113th Congress do reflect are the gender and ethnic inequities that have continued, and in fact in some cases gotten worse, in other fields and professions. The idea of providing a level playing field for all of our citizens regardless of gender and ethnicity is not outdated, but instead is more urgent and pressing than ever, regardless of an insidious acceptance of misogyny and racism in recent years. In fact, Senator Schatz himself has said, "the US Senate in particular has an obligation to look like America in terms of gender and ethnic diversity." Clearly, the US Senate, Congress, State legislatures, and industry have an obligation to support the success of women and other under-represented groups. This doesn't just help those groups, but contributes to the success of our country.


  12. Especially Incognito:

    Women in congress should have to present their
    Birth Certificate like President Obama had to.


  13. Karen Chun:

    I agree with Shay that government representation of women in the U.S. lags sadly behind countries in Europe and indicates an institutional problem.

    That said, I would NEVER use gender as a reason to vote for or against someone. Positions matter to me and Hanabusa's positions are terrible.

    1. Voted against getting a rebate (volume discount) on Medicare/aid drugs (and just coincidentally is being supported by the Drug lobby, PhARMA)

    2. Voted FOR more spying on Americans including the detestable CISPA which thank heaven Brain Schatz helped kill in the Senate.

    3. Voted with the GOP to prevent the EPA from strengthening rules on Coal-fired plants (EPA estimates "Tens of thousands of premature deaths per year in the U.S. from soot")

    4. Voted with the GOP to strip out the part of Dodd-Frank financial reform that prevents Wall Street banks from gambling on derivatives with tax-payer insured deposits (the very thing that crashed the world economy in 2008)

    What kills me is that Emily's List endorsed her for the very reason of her gender (they ONLY endorse women) even though Brian Schatz is much better on women's rights. Hanabusa hasn't even signed on to the Protecting Women's Health Rights legislation yet!

    So that's why I don't choose who to vote for based on the gender of the candidate.


  14. Shay Chan Hodges:

    I was participating in this blog to respond to the comments that implied that the idea of specifically supporting women and minorities in leadership positions is outdated. Considering that women and minorities are severely under-represented nationally, and that even in the state of Hawaii, where the legislature is diverse ethnically, men outnumber women 2 to 1, we absolutely need to continue to support women in office. I did not post here to support a particular candidate. While I do not have daughters -- I have sons -- I believe that the world in which my boys raise their children will be better if those who are making decisions reflect the diversity of the population of our country. We need to hear many voices -- even those that we don't agree with or that make us uncomfortable -- and we need to learn how to listen to those voices (and even disagree with them) respectfully, and work together to find the best solutions for everyone. I don't believe that our political process supports that kind of problem-solving, and I would hesitate to contend that more women and minorities in office will necessarily create the kind of change needed. That said, changing the status quo is much more likely to bring change than continuing down the same road.


  15. Karen Chun:

    Shay I do agree with you that women are under-represented.

    What I don't agree is that being a woman per se will "change the status quo" if elected. (Which you sort of implied and also didn't imply - so apologies if I am misrepresenting your position. This IS the position of Emily's List and led to them endorsing the disastrous Blanche Lincoln)

    A woman who SUPPORTS the corporations and who is supported BY the corporations is quintessential status quo. So there's no way I would think she would improve Congress. Better than Djou - no doubt about that. But we have a far better person already in the Senate.

    I really don't believe that gender confers some special immunity to being corrupted by the corporate money that permeates our political system.

    Again - I think we have to look at a candidates votes, record, and positions and choose the one who will best fight for us against special interests - regardless of gender or ethnicity.


  16. Especially Incognito:

    1 palin is enough. got bachman 2.
    Lot of talk but no action.
    Like we need more lingles


  17. Especially Incognito:

    Lot of plagirarist lurking.


Leave a Reply