Divisions

May 26th, 2014
By

In the newspaper on Monday, we outlined how U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz's and U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa's took different paths on a government surveillance vote.

Here are some of the other comparison stories in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate:

*A constitutional amendment on preschool funding

*Social Security

*Bipartisan Budget Act

*Arctic drilling

*Medicare drug rebates

*Marriage equality

7 Responses to “Divisions”

  1. TKeiko:

    I respect Hanabusa for being honest about her position on same sex marriage. While she initially did not support it, she changed her position - as did many people - and was up front about it.

    Schatz, on the other hand, took multiple positions during his first run for office in 1998, telling some people he was a strong supporter of same sex marriage, but sending a letter to voters saying he supported "traditional marriage." I will trust someone who honestly disagrees with me over someone who will say whatever it takes to get my vote.


  2. zzzzzz:

    Supporting same sex marriage and supporting "traditional marriage" are not mutually exclusive. Many people support both.


  3. Kolea:

    TKeiko is presenting the Hanabusa campaign's talking points on civil unions and marriage equality. T But thanks for this opportunity to expose the falsehoods.

    Anyone who knows how to read the status report on a legislative bill can check the facts for themselves. Here is the legislative history of HB444, the House bill for civil unions:

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Archives/measure_indiv_Archives.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=444&year=2009

    It shows clearly that Senate President Hanabusa, while telling CU advocates she was on their side, orchestrated blocking the bill in 2009.

    A sharp reporter by the name of Derrick DePledge wrote a good news story which must be confronted and answered by any Hanabusa supporter trying to pretend Colleen has been forthright with her views on gay and lesbian equality:

    http://www.webcitation.org/5hQFofO4R

    Here is an excerpt:

    "The move was engineered by Senate Democratic leaders after it became apparent yesterday morning that supporters of the bill had the votes necessary to pull it from the state Senate Judiciary and Government Operations Committee, where it has been stalled since February. A motion to recall was successful yesterday, but so was an amendment, which killed the bill because the deadline to alter bills had passed and the session ends today."

    Hanabusa supporters who like to pretend Colleen is a master strategist from her years in the legislature cannot now pretend she was not orchestrating the effort to block passage of HB444 in the 2009 session. And nor can they pretend she has "been honest about her position," since she was telling civil union supporters she was on our side at the same time she was orchestrating the obstruction of the bill.


  4. Especially Incognito:

    Someone taking a Wiki whiz?


  5. Nala007:

    2009- Hanabusa orchestrated maneuvers to kill civil union bill for the session despite claims that she supported it. She also refused to meet with advocates of the bill until about April 2009 once she thought it was successfully killed. Then in May, the advocates were successful in getting the bill pulled to the floor. It had the votes for passage. Even the opponents conceded defeat. The media was present all ready interviewing the advocates as if it was done deal. Then bamm, within a few hours, Colleen had her underlings amend the bill which effectively killed it for the session.

    But then a strange thing happened. After session ended, she decided to run for Congress in the CD1. Bamm, she suddenly becomes the best friend of the advocates and promises to pass the civil union bill first thing in Jan 2010. And she delivered on that promise. Hmm, now why did she need to kill it just 8 months prior. What changed?

    Fast forward 2012. She is running for congress again. This time on a pro-civil union platform but still opposed to marriage equality for same-sex couples. Then Senator Inouye does and "bamm" Colleen "evolves" to support marriage equality.

    My question. Would the State Central Committee of the Democratic Party put the name of an anti-marriage equality candidate on the short list of 3 to be given to the governor for Inouye's replacement?

    Makes me wonder. What does Colleen really stand for? Real issues or just herself.

    As for Senator Schatz, what his opinion may or may not have been in 1998 is far less relevant to what his opinion had been on marriage equality for many many years now. He has been a consistent supporter. With Colleen she officially opposed marriage equality as late as the 2012 general election. 2012 opinions are more important to me than what one thought in 1998. At that time 60-70 % of the public opposed marriage equality. That certainly wasn't the case in 2012.


  6. zzzzzz:

    Yeah, the big question for Hanabusa isn't really where she stands on marriage equality or civil unions, but in general, what are her core principles?

    The civil unions/marriage equality issue just shows why people should ask that question.


  7. Especially Incognito:

    A Candidate would say what they need to say just to get votes.
    Once in office they have their strings pulled by those who
    donate to their campaign. Whether they believe or not,
    they have a ventriloquist speak for them.


Leave a Reply