The Case against Mr. Case

I was pleased to see that the reasons for re-electing Mr. Akaka were demonstrated clearly in the debate between he and Ed Case on local television last night. Mr. Akaka took most rounds in my opinion.  Ed Case came across as whiny and arrogant.  Mr. Akaka seemed wise and self-confident.  Great Job Senator Akaka.

I have also been pleased to see a very effective television ad that the Akaka team has put together.  This TV ad helped me understand that there is already a strong case against Case. Case, by the way opened himself up to this ad by trying to swiftboat Akaka.  Go to You tube and view it there: http://www.youtube.com/...  or go to the Akaka web-site to contibute or check out his other web stuff: http://akaka2006.org/

Since writing my original essay Hey Bubba, it's about Iraq stoopid! which gives you some background on how the race developed, I have been carefully watching this race.  

My case against Case: The 4 biggest reasons I'm voting for Akaka not Case are pretty simple and pretty basic.

First off, please let me say I respect Ed Case and his family  It gave me a twinge as I saw him and his loyal wife beside the road in Hanamaulu, waving as I passed by, knowing in my heart that he didn't have a chance to get my vote this time around.  Also as a life long iconoclast and professional outsider, I  respect his challenge of the Democratic establishment which in Hawaii is a pretty "get along or go alone" type of party.  I have been shafted myself by some of the same characters and understand.  And, I do admire his energy and his kamaaina work ethic.  He is a hard worker and he is strong, that I give the man.

So, what is my case against Case?

1.)  He does not understand that the war in Iraq was, is , and continues to be the primary problem in America today.  Despite all the House briefings and access to information, Case continues to echo the Republican line that is completely clueless.  They said the same stuff when we left Vietnam, it was the end of the world.  Remember the Domino theory?  Preemptive wars are not justifiable.  As a kamaaina Hawaiian Case should have that ethic in his gut.  He doesn't! We exchanged a buffer against Islamic extremism and created a mess.  We need to leave NOW ! If he is such a fool as to fall for and echo Bush's lies, what can we expect from Ed Case in the future?  

2.)  I live on Social Security.  Case is under some delusion that making it a private rather than government concern is the way to go.  Again, his loyalties seem with the Republican money grubbers instead of the little guy.  Use the money from the preemptive illegal war in Iraq to shore up Social Security.  Am I worth less than an Iraqi citizen?  Again Mr. Case has his priorities backwards.

3.)  Case, the spoiler, "The Lieberman Gambit:"  Case has taken to telling Republican voters to vote in Hawaii's open primary.  It is a blatant appeal for voters to cross party lines and vote for Case.  Now, although I sometimes respect an iconoclast, but I certainly don't respect disloyalty.  Case, like Lieberman, is a disloyal spoiler when he resorts to this desperate gambit.

4.)  Case blindly supports the Patriot act as a part of the same blind acquiescing to the Republican warmongers and war profiteers.  We should give up freedom to support freedom?  It does not make sense, Eddy Boy, please get a thought in your empty head instead of Bush slogans.

That's what I think!

•  Based on the previous,

  why is Case running as a Dem?

  by wozzle on Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 12:24:57 PM PDT

  •  It continues to be the

    dominant party.  Best opportunity for advancement.

    by Keone Michaels on Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 12:28:25 PM PDT

    •  Seems to me that the party would have

      had its fill of Liebermanesque candidates, but I don't know the territory.

      by wozzle on Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 12:36:11 PM PDT

  •  because Akaka is pathetically ineffective

    According to congress.org, there is only one Senator who is less influential than Daniel Akaka, and that is Conrad Burns.  Akaka has been in the Senate for 16 years--and in the House for 14 years before that--and the only one out of 100 Senators who is less influential than him is someone who's so corrupt nobody would be seen speaking with him, much less support him.

    Akaka tried four times to get his namesake bill passed, and all four times the Akaka Bill failed.  That's not because Repubs have been in charge--he failed even when the Senate, the House, and the White House were all controlled by Dems.  It's because he can't pass wind, much less a bill that he cares about.

    Akaka was named one of the five worst Senators by Time magazine.  That's not because they disagree with his positions--the others were Wayne Allard, Jim Bunning, Mark Dayton, and--you guess it!--Conrad Burns.  It's because "Akaka is living proof that experience does not necessarily yield expertise. After 16 years on the job, the junior Senator from Hawaii is a master of the minor resolution and the bill that dies in committee."

    by MelUH on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 11:18:43 AM PDT

    •  Mel

      Both have flaws.  You have a hard on for Akaka over gay rights and general corruption.

      Those of us on the other side see a closet republican in Ed Case on economic and security issues.

      neither has been effective and if you were honest you'd drop that line of BS.  Case is ranked even lower than Akaka and lower than his peers of similar seniority.  He was not effective in the state house and unliked by his law partners.  He's a lone wolf type and will not be good at most Senatorial taks.  What he will do is become a Fox Democrat.

      by HiD on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 04:25:09 PM PDT

      •  Effectiveness in 30 years vs 3 years?

        I don't think so, HiD.  You don't think Ed Case has been effective, but he's been in office only three years, while the House (and the Senate, and the White House) have been very tightly controlled by the Repubs, and he hasn't been with Nancy Pelosi, and the other members from Hawaii--Inouye and Abercrombie as well as Akaka--have probably been unhappy having a new member of the team.  (I don't know that, I'm guessing.)

        But Akaka has had 30 years to prove his ineffectiveness.  That's the simple fact.  There's no more guessing whether he can do the job.  We know beyond all doubt that he's not up to the job.  Whether he ever was, well maybe that's up for debate; of course he never accomplished anything significant while he was in his "prime," so I think it would be hard to make the case that he was EVER effective.  But certainly he's not going to accomplish a thing--not anything--between his 82nd and 88th birthdays.

        Akaka is a proven failure.

        by MelUH on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 07:34:11 PM PDT

        •  he is way behind his peers in the House.

          sorry.  I just don't see anything being done in my part of the district due to his efforts.  Case has not been an effective Rep.  

          so also a proven failure.  You're just hoping he gets better in a bigger job.  That's more than a little hopeful.

          by HiD on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 12:25:56 AM PDT

•  I forgot that ...

  Realtors and developers are also big behind his campaign which also makes me uncomfortable.

  by Keone Michaels on Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 12:31:09 PM PDT

  •  Akaka's the one in the pocket of corporations

    According to opensecrets.org, Akaka has taken four times as much money from business PACs as Ed Case has received.  Case has received 70% of his contributions from individuals, Akaka only 40%.  Maybe that's why Akaka is so quick to allow them to rape the environment.

    by MelUH on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 11:21:50 AM PDT

    •  Realtors and Developers

      have been particulary rapacious and in the long term often not good for the locals.

      Especially on the outer islands, and on rural Oahu, their greed and envrionmentally destructive practices have left local peoples unable to afford rent.

      Homelessness and "beach tent cities" have resulted.  Go, take drive and check it out.  In many of these cases, the realtors and developers have profited and the local folks have lost.

      by Keone Michaels on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 11:40:36 AM PDT

      •  You're wrong, Keone

        It's not developers who are supporting Ed Case, it's the National Association of Realtors.  Realtors don't destroy the environment, they just sell houses.

        I'm not there, so I can't take a drive--I'll just have to believe you.  But homelessness and "beach tent cities" were there in the 1960s, long before house prices went up.  Realtors aren't the problem anywhere on the mainland, I don't know why they would be the problem in Hawaii.

        If the environment is being destroyed, maybe you should look at the land use controls.  Of course, land use and planning functions have been under the control of Dan Akaka's wing of the Democrat party for more than 40 years.

        by MelUH on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 11:49:27 AM PDT

        •  thanks for the laughs

          It's not developers who are supporting Ed Case, it's the National Association of Realtors.  Realtors don't destroy the environment, they just sell houses.

          ...hhhuuuummmm...I wonder who they sell houses for?

          by Keone Michaels on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 12:11:08 PM PDT

          •  that just doesn't make any sense

            I wonder who the members of the plumbers' union fixes drains for?

            Give it a little thought next time, Keone.

            by MelUH on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 01:47:16 PM PDT

            •  ho ho ho

              you really are reaching.

              by HiD on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 04:26:41 PM PDT

              •  who's reaching?

                What you're saying just doesn't make any sense.  Yes, realtors sell houses that have just been built.  They sell many, many more houses that were built a long time ago.  Plumbers, and electricians, and drywallers, and painters, and roofers, and all sorts of construction workers build new houses--does that mean that they're responsible for destruction of the environment?  or for higher house prices?

                Seriously: there's no other part of the country where people are blaming realtors for high house prices or environmental destruction.  For you to blame realtors for it in Hawaii--and then criticize Ed for getting support from realtors--now that's really reaching.

                by MelUH on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 07:38:04 PM PDT

                •  I have personally been solicited

                  by local realtors to buy homes in established neighborhoods here with CCRs that prohibit a 2nd home on the property.  However, since the property meets county zoning for an ohana unit and the CCR's are difficult to enforce if they've not been uniformly applied, the realtor proposes to

                  1. buy the property and sign the CCR acknowledgement

                  2. Immediately CPR and build a 2nd house.

                  Other large realtors here are also basically in partnership with developers searching out ag property to subdivide or CPR in order to maximize development potential. It's leading to our uncontrolled growth.  The root of the problem is lack of County planning/rules, but these guys are hustling like crazy to sell property into development as fast as they can to make their 6%.  The number of realtors has at least tripled in the last 6 years.  It's unreal.

                  If you like Case, fine.  Just stop pretending.

                  by HiD on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 12:22:44 AM PDT

  •  Realtors WERE among Akaka's biggest supporters!

    The National Association of Realtors were one of Dan Akaka's biggest supporters--in fact, since 1989 (when opensecrets.org started keeping track) there are only 13 organizations that have contributed more money to Akaka.

    Keone, were you this uncomfortable with Akaka when the realtors were big behind his campaign?  Or is it only since they decided he was such a loser they should start supporting a challenger that you started to get concerned?

    by MelUH on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 08:16:13 PM PDT

•  DLC looking for a pickup

  They lost their poster boy Joe, so they are trying to get a new poster boy.

  I hope it backfires. I even sent Akaka some cash. He sent me a very nice letter in response.

  by wezelboy on Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 01:05:46 PM PDT

  •  We have clutched so many snakes to

    our breast.  They are biting now we recognize them as snakes.

    by Keone Michaels on Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 01:13:45 PM PDT

•  Case lost my vote with the patriot act support

  and the Iraq debacle!  And I voted for him for congress, what a disapointment that was!

  by The Hindsight Times on Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 02:20:02 PM PDT

  •  Akaka voted for the Patriot Act

    Akaka voted for Patriot Act I, which had no safeguards to protect privacy rights.  Once it was strengthened to protect individuals, only then did he vote against it.  What kind of thoughtfulness is that?

    by MelUH on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 11:23:50 AM PDT

•  Case is a Dem! Akaka's influence is 3%

  Why is Akaka advertising that he is the third worst senator in the Senate after 30 years?  Thats the kind of incompetency that is going to get him kicked out of office.  Any moron would not advertise that fact.  

  I have only voted for democrats and I will continue to vote for democrats and I am voiting for Ed Case.

  by trojanraider on Sun Sep 03, 2006 at 11:11:02 AM PDT

  •  You Are Misleading Readers

    Case is running an ad citing Congress.org's ratings.  One of the subcategories is called "Influence".  It concerns whether or not the Senator or Representative has been on Sunday talk shows, been quoted frequently in major national newspapers, and given money to members of his/her caucus.  According to Congress.org, it is not a measure of effectiveness.  Nevertheless, Akaka's ranking in that category is at at 97/100, but Case's ratings are even lower.  In addition, Case's ratings are lower for every category measured by Congress.org even when adjusted for seniority.  

    Case's ad discusses this one category (without mentioning his low rating), and it fails to discuss any of the other ratings including Akaka's high ranking for "Legislation" where he is ranked 30/100, while Case is in the lower 4% in the House.

    The Akaka campaign has made an ad about this, which is now posted at http://akaka2006.org.  I'd suggest that interested readers take a look at the ad as well as the written materials that explain just how misleading Case's ad really is.

    Having gone to UCLA, I guess I shouldn't have expected anything better from a Trojan....

    Andy Winer
    Campaign Manager
    Akaka in 2006

    by andy winer on Sun Sep 03, 2006 at 01:38:03 PM PDT

    •  Senate vs. House

      Andy, you know that the Senate works differently than the House.  The minority has a lot more procedural rights to push legislation.  Why can't Akaka get the the Akaka Bill passed if he is sooooooooooo powerful according to his "high" ranking.  

      do you have a link to the Case ad that is misleading?  I haven't seen it yet and I would like to make an informed response to your argument.  

      by trojanraider on Sun Sep 03, 2006 at 02:48:03 PM PDT

      •  That's pretty funny

        being uninformed didn't stop you the first time...............

        by HiD on Sun Sep 03, 2006 at 06:04:39 PM PDT

      •  that's why congress.org doesn't compare the two

        "We took the Power Score and ranked each member against one another by chamber. So House members are ranked against other House members and Senate members are ranked against Senate members. We did not rank the entire Congress because the power structures are very different and by default Senators as a group nearly always have more power than their counterparts in the House."

        Borreca was wrong to compare the two, and so is any ad that does.

        K

        by Keoki on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 06:18:36 AM PDT

        •  but comparing relative effectiveness

          and relative ranking is legit.

          Coming in at the back of the pack is what it is.

          On the more important yardsticks Akaka is weak but at least not in the bottom quartile (at 30%).  Case, however, is in the bottom 5%....

          Case made the effectiveness rankings an issue.  You can't run away from them now that both records are out in the open.

          by HiD on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 12:38:46 AM PDT

          •  relative rankings are not legit

            else congress.org would have used them.

            The Akaka camp came up with the percentages and percentiles to somehow make the case for comparing a Senator's power scores and House member's power scores, despite the FAQ section of congress.org specifically stating they don't do this.

            Relative rankings make sense all things being equal.  For example, you can compare Abercrombies and Cases relative ranking and there would be less skewing, except that Abercrombie has been there 16 years.  

            It's just a different data pool for each chamber.  The Akaka camp should have just pointed out that the website provides other scores and present those scores for public digestion.  

            Really though, when did this commercial first hit?  Seems like a whole of hui to focus attention away from the debate last week.

            K

            by Keoki on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 03:23:26 AM PDT

            •  I can't agree

              yes, they rank people against their peers and not between the houses.  That's the only legit way to do it.   Otherwise you are grading the Freshmen with the Seniors in a high school analogy.

              But when we choose in this primary it is perfectly legit to notice that while Case makes Akaka's weak scores an issue, his own are as weak or weaker.  Neither is all that effective, but with 16 years in, Akaka is a bit more effective.  Akaka gets a C- while Case is a D-.  Not in the same classes, but Case is the poorer representative (student).

              You're putting far too narrow a focus on this.  Arguing on details rather than facing the fact that Ed Case is also not effective compared to his peers overall or those with the same seniority.  

              by HiD on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 12:36:37 PM PDT

      •  That is another reason I respect the man...

        He had the courage to vote against the Republican war despite the fact he was trying to get his bill past the Republican congress.

        When he had to make a choice he put the safety of the nation first!

        by Keone Michaels on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 10:30:18 AM PDT

        •  yeah, and the courage to pillage the environment

          Akaka had the "courage" to vote to allow big oil companies to drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.  Ed Case opposed it.

          Ed introduced a bill to protect the Northwest Hawaiian Islands.  Akaka refused to support it.

          Ed's voting scores on environmental issues are consistently stronger than Akaka's, from organizations life Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, American Wilderness Coalition, and League of Conservation Voters.

          Ed has been endorsed over Akaka by Defenders of Wildlife.

          by MelUH on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 11:10:12 AM PDT

          •  I agree with you

            I just put more emphasis on the dead Americans in Iraq at the moment.

            by HiD on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 12:39:43 AM PDT

    •  both camps have a bone to pick with their PR firm

      Case's PR firm should have left it with the Akaka bill, four tries, four strikes.

      Akaka's PR firm should not have mentioned his low ranking again.

      Call it a draw and move on . . .

      K

      by Keoki on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 01:53:37 AM PDT

    •  That's funny, Andy--now how about some answers?

      Andy, you've been misleading readers about Ed Case's record for at least seven weeks--and then when somebody challenges you on it, you disappear.  For your convenience, I've copied below the entire text of my post from another thread.  Since you're the one who speaks for your boss, how about some answers?

      (1) Is your boss proud that he voted to let big oil companies drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge?  Is he proud that he considers it expendable because "it is practically void of life" and "it is flat and barren with no trees, hills, or mountains"?  Is he proud that he cut a purely political deal to sell out the environment in return for votes from the Alaska Senators?

      (2) What exactly was the deal?  What did his constituents in Hawaii get in return?  Did the Alaska Senators vote for some hidden earmark that Akaka wanted?

      (3) Is your boss proud of having defended the corrupt Bishop Estate trustees?  Is he proud that he said they should take even more money?

      (4) After your boss failed four times in four separate Congresses to get the Akaka Bill passed, does he have any plan so it won't fail in the future?  And don't tell me "the Senate will pass it when the Dems take over."  The Senate was Democratic the first time Akaka failed.

      (5) Is your boss proud that he doesn't meet his constituents one-on-one in unscripted forums where they can ask him anything they want and he has to answer without turning to one of his staff?

      Some specific answers to these specific questions would be great.  Mahalo!

      by MelUH on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 11:29:09 AM PDT

      •  You are missing the point ....

        You are confusing the issues with smoke and mirrors.

        Your candidate, Mr. Case wants to be our future?  He  really got it wrong and continues to not understand the pickle it is putting us in:

        If he is such a fool as to fall for and echo Bush's lies, what can we expect from Ed Case in the future?  

        The war in Iraq is the single most dangerous issue facing us today.  Bush may use his defeat there to incite war against Iran in the same way.  If Case did not and does not recognize the danger why should he represent us?

        by Keone Michaels on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 11:56:13 AM PDT

        •  Fine, cast your single-issue vote for mediocrity

          I, for one, will continue to choose my candidate based on the whole of their record.  Ed Case is stronger than Dan Akaka on the environment.  He's at least as strong as Akaka on all the other issues I care about: women's issues, gay rights, abortion, guns, public health, etc.

          Akaka supported the corrupt Bishop Estate trustees--even saying they should take even more money--while Ed Case was fighting against them.

          Akaka has proven beyond doubt--in 16 years in the Senate plus 14 years in the House with no significant accomplishments on any issue whatsoever--that he is not a competent representative in Congress.

          by MelUH on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 01:58:25 PM PDT

          •  Is is the single most important issue.

            You don't understand how important this issue is.  It is extremely important to have a reperesentaive that understands peemptive war is never ever an option.  

            by Keone Michaels on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 03:23:50 PM PDT

            •  single-issue just doesn't cut it

              Sorry, Keone, but a Senator has to be able to think, talk, and vote thoughtfully on a huge range of issues, not just one.  And no Senator is going to get all of them right (see Akaka on the environment), so we should look for one who's going to be thoughtful on the whole range.  If Akaka agreed with you that there's only one issue, then he wouldn't bother with the tiny little "discussions" of 13 other issues on his web page.

              You need to set a higher standard of performance for the people you choose to represent you in Congress.

              by MelUH on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 07:41:24 PM PDT

            •  Only an idiot would say Iraq is a "single-issue"!

              I'm sorry, Mel. But I have lost patience with you. I understand that you are trying to construct an understanding of what is happening in this race from a distance of quite a few miles, as wqell as trying t6o re-construct an understanding of Hawaii's politics from the time you lived here, so I have cut you some slack.

              But you have NOT faced the question I put to you about whether it is possible to evaluate whether a Senator is "better" or "worse" while ignoring their votes on issues. I really ask you to demonstrate a modicum of honesty BEYOND your attachement to Ed Case and drop this CRAP about Akaka being one of the 5 worse Senators. I will not be able to treat you with any respect if you continue that argument.

              Keone is EXACTLY right about the importance of the issue of "pre-emptive war." (Well, almost right, as we technically are objecting to "preventive war" rather than "pre-emptive war."

              THIS IS NOT A SMALL THING! IT CANNOT BE DISMISSED AS A MERE "SINGLE-ISSUE." This is a WAR CRIME! I am not talking in an exaggerated manner about this. Ever since the 1830s, it has been the position of the United States that it is an ILLEGAL act for one country to attack another country unless it has been attacked first, or is in danger of an imminent attack. The ONLY exception to this is if the United Nations authorizes military action for humanitarian purposes or to enforce its rulings.

              When we say "the war in Iraq" is an important issue, we are talking about a whole bundle of issues that encompass almost the entirety of US foreign policy. We are also talking about the incredible stress the war has put upon our financial means to solve a wide range of domestic problems AND the stress that has been placed upon our internal civil liberties, government openess and constitutional checks and balances.

              If you drop your blind support of Case for a moment, I believe you will recognize AND EXPLICITLY CONCEDE that it is foolish to speak of the "war on Iraq" as if it is only a "single-issue."

              I would really appreciate an honest concession from you on this matter. I have conceded some points to you and would appreciate some reciprocity if we are to continue having a civil discussion.

              Alex

              by Shliapnikov on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 12:44:34 AM PDT

•  Touche Bruin Andy but really now . . .

  Fact of the matter is that after 30 yrs in congress, we should expect more than a 1/2 % advantage over a Jr. representative.  Akaka is a nice guy for sure but can that get anything done?

  Also don't you have a campaign to run?  How is it that you have so much time to blog?  I must admit that I am impressed at your ability to keep up with the bloggosphere.  Do you have blog handlers too?

  Lastly I still don't udnerstand why Akaka is advertising the 3% influence.  Maybe you should have left that one out of the ad and put in a big Alooooohaaaa from our Jr Senator.

  by trojanraider on Sun Sep 03, 2006 at 02:42:23 PM PDT

•  you are entitled to what you think

  But most independant political commentators in Hawaii (Milner, Rohter, Boylan, Shapiro) gave the debate to Case.

  K

  by Keoki on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 01:48:41 AM PDT

  •  Who would you cite as "independent?"

    I found the coverage a mish-mash of opinion depending upon whose water the so called "independent" commentator was carrying.

    It seemed to me that Burris at the Advertiser gave a fair, reasoned account with knowledgeable background and was careful to give points to each side as due.

    It is telling that you comment on the one point upon which I will not make my voting choice. Let's just say we call it draw and make our choice on substance?

    by Keone Michaels on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 10:02:55 AM PDT

    •  Honolulu Advertiser's banner headline

      The day after the debate, the Honolulu Advertiser (one of the two major daily newspapers) had the headline "Advantage Case."  Keone, are you going to argue that the Advertiser editors are biased in favor of Ed and against Akaka?

      by MelUH on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 11:51:27 AM PDT

      •  The Banner was puff ...

        Burris's article right on the front page was fair.  You know Mel, you gotta sort out the rubbish from the truth or at least the "objectively percieved" truths.

        by Keone Michaels on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 12:00:53 PM PDT

        •  I'm not getting it, Keone

          You're saying that all the commentators that said Ed Case won the debate were wrong; Akaka won the debate because you say so.  Giving your opinion is fine, but don't suggest that it's fact, or truth, or the "objectively perceived" truth.  The fact and the truth is that basically everybody agreed--that is, "objectively perceived"--that Ed Case performed better in the debate.

          People will have all sorts of valid reasons for choosing the way they do between Case and Akaka.  But, by all accounts, Akaka showed in the debate that he's not up to the job.  I haven't seen it, but my understanding is that he hardly looked at the camera because he had to read every answer from the briefing book that his staff prepared for him.  My understanding is that he frequently got confused because he had to figure out which canned response would be best to use for the question that had been asked.  The guy just doesn't have what it takes.

          by MelUH on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 01:53:24 PM PDT

          •  ADVERTISER ENDORSES AKAKA!!!!!

            Mel/Trojan:  Running out for an all afternoon meeting, but thought you'd enjoy reading that the Honoluolu Advertiser has endorsed Senator Akaka over Case.  The endorsement came out after the debate, so I guess the Advertiser editors disagree with your assessment that Akaka "doesn't have what it takes."

            We've posted the editorial on http://akaka2006.org.

            Also, you might want to check out our new ad responding to the misleading ads and mailers sent out by the National Association of Realtors.  The Realtors are falsely claiming that Case is sponsoring legislation that will help Hawaii's workers get more access to health care.  The Case plan has no application to Hawaii (because of our Prepaid Health Care Act), and Case admits this.  

            Since the advertising is false, do you believe that the Realtors should pull it and apologize?  Also, why hasn't Case asked for the ad to be pulled since it is false?  The ad is also on our web site under the heading, "NAR Challenge".  

            Enjoy.  I'll be back late this evening....

            Andy  

            by andy winer on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 02:16:53 PM PDT

            •  Andy advocating unethical behavior?

              Andy,

              You know that the Case campaign cannot have any coordination with the NAR.  Why would you advocate unethical behavior?  Have you been coordinating with the many special interest groups that aupport Akaka?  We need a senator who is not beholden to special interests or the senior senator from hawaii.

              by trojanraider on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 02:58:06 PM PDT

              •  childish

                He's advocating Case telling his buds that they should pull dishonest information.  That's not coordination

                by HiD on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 04:06:25 PM PDT

                •  You Dont get it

                  It is illegal if Case tells a 3rd party political group what to print.  That would violate campaign finance and ethics rules.  Andy knows this.

                  by trojanraider on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:23:54 AM PDT

            •  You'll be back late this evening?

              Great.  Then you'll have a chance to answer the questions that I've been posing and that you've been avoiding.  Here, I'll repeat them so you can't miss them:  

              (1) Is your boss proud that he voted to let big oil companies drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge?  Is he proud that he considers it expendable because "it is practically void of life" and "it is flat and barren with no trees, hills, or mountains"?  Is he proud that he cut a purely political deal to sell out the environment in return for votes from the Alaska Senators?

              (2) What exactly was the deal?  What did his constituents in Hawaii get in return?  Did the Alaska Senators vote for some hidden earmark that Akaka wanted?

              (3) Is your boss proud of having defended the corrupt Bishop Estate trustees?  Is he proud that he said they should take even more money?

              (4) After your boss failed four times in four separate Congresses to get the Akaka Bill passed, does he have any plan so it won't fail in the future?  And don't tell me "the Senate will pass it when the Dems take over."  The Senate was Democratic the first time Akaka failed.

              (5) Is your boss proud that he doesn't meet his constituents one-on-one in unscripted forums where they can ask him anything they want and he has to answer without turning to one of his staff?

              by MelUH on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 07:45:40 PM PDT

              •  Calm Down Mel

                Man, you really should move back to Hawaii.  Your intensity is overpowering, and you could definitely use some time back here to mellow you out and provide you with a sense of reality.

                1.  ANWR--Senator Akaka has repeatedly said that he supports drilling because the indigenous people requested this from him.  He bases this position on a visit to the region. He has pledged to return to Alaska to determine if this is still their sentiment.

                2.  Deal?  None that I know about.  Let me know if you have info to the contrary.

                3.  Bishop Estate:  Ed Case as the savior of Kamehameha Schools?  You are kidding, right?  This is the same Ed Case who has made it clear that breaking up the leasehold land system in opposition to Kamehameha Schools was one of the crowning achievements of his legal career.  If you want information about Case, and his relationship with Kamehameha Schools, check out http://billmeheula.com and http://hawaiiansunite.com.  

                4.  Akaka Bill:  First, there would be no talk about the Akaka Bill if Senator Akaka did not succeed in getting the Apology Resolution passed.  Second, Republicans have succeeded in blocking the Akaka Bill through procedural means like cloture.  Remember Mel, you need 60 votes, not 50.  Third, civil rights legislation is the most difficult type of legislation to enact.  In six short years, Senator Akaka has succeeded in raising the awareness of the country on this issue.  Ultimately, the Akaka Bill will pass because it is the right thing to do.  It will likely require a change in control of Congress and, possibly, the Presidency, and we all hope to see the day soon.

                5.  Meeting Constituents:  Senator Akaka has made literally dozens of appearances in this campaign where he has met voters face to face.  Unlike Case, however, Senator Akaka does not choose to make the number of so-called "Talk Story" sessions a campaign issue.  He meets with constituents and listens.  If Case decides to turn this into a competition, then so be it.  Since you don't live in Hawaii, however, how would you know if constituents are getting a chance to meet face-to-face with Senator Akaka?

                Let's face it Mel.  The Honolulu Advertiser considered all of these arguments, and they endorsed Senator Akaka.  Case Closed.

                by andy winer on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 08:11:24 PM PDT

                •  Finally--thank you, Andy!

                  (1) I'm glad Akaka is willing to destroy the environment as long as he can find at least one group of people (none of them his constituents) that are willing to provide him some political cover for it.  And, of course, the fact that "it's flat and barren with no trees, hills, or mountains" just makes it that much more deserving of destruction.

                  That's not what I look for in a Senator.  I look for a Senator who will represent the interests of his own constituents.  I look for someone who will protect the priceless parts of our environment FROM the people who want to destroy it--not someone who will help them do it.  I look for someone who has a little better appreciation of the importance of ecosystems than to destroy something just because it doesn't have trees, hills, or mountains.

                  (2) Glad to hear it.  Of course I don't believe it for a second and I don't think there's anyone with an IQ above 40 who does--but nonetheless I'm glad to hear you deny any political deal.

                  (3) Gee, Andy, this seems an awful lot like a dodge.

                  Let me repeat the question: "Is your boss proud of having defended the corrupt Bishop Estate trustees?  Is he proud that he said they should take even more money?"  I'd love your answer.

                  (4) Let me paraphrase your answer: "No, Akaka has no plan to pass the Akaka bill.  It will remain dead as long as its prime sponsor is somebody as ineffective as the invisible Senator."

                  (5) You're right: since I don't live in Hawaii, I have no way of knowing whether you're BSing me.  It's the fact that "Senator Akaka does not choose to make the number of so-called Talk Story sessions a campaign issue"--and the fact that I've never seen anything on his web site, or the local newspapers, or the local blogs, about his actually listening to voters--leads me to believe that you're BSing me.

                  Let's face it, Andy.  The Honolulu Advertiser basically said that Akaka is the weakest possible Senator, but that they would continue to support him as long as he had not accepted any bribes.  Your candidate is about as weak as they come, and my guess is that voters will apply a higher standard than the Advertiser did.

                  by MelUH on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 08:31:04 PM PDT

•  most commentators scored a win for Case

  by Keoki on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 01:50:35 AM PDT

  •  I would too on debating points.

    Sen. Akaka was horrible.  Ed Case was just wooden.

    But on the issues, Ed came across as a moderate Republican to me.  So no way I could vote for him in the primary.

    by HiD on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 12:45:04 AM PDT

    •  I never thought I'd see you give Case anything

      I respect your decision not to vote for Case based on him having opposing views from you.  That is what this country is all about.  

      K

      by Keoki on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 03:27:18 AM PDT

      •  I've said from minute one

        in this debate re this primary that my problems with Case stem from a talk story session where he tried to blow smoke up our rears re Iraq.  When challenged, he read the room and switched to bashing Bush.  It was dishonest and lame.  Lost me forever.

        Add the bankruptcy bill, voting for Paris Hilton's estate tax relief, adopting Republican language on SS and you just get some icing on the cake.

        I'm not wild about Akaka.  But see no need to replace mediocre with bad.  Especially when bad is young and vigourous.

        by HiD on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 12:40:28 PM PDT

•  Keone's information is false

  (1) Ed Case is not echoing the Repub line on Iraq.  He wasn't around when Congress voted to authorize it, but he has said that he--like many Dems--would have voted for it with the information that they all had at the time.  Ed's position is the same as Senators such as Barack Obama, Carl Levin, Paul Sarbanes, Kent Conrad, and Jack Reed.  Akaka's, on the other hand, really is "cut and run."

  (2) Case doesn't support privatizing social security.  He opposed Bush's proposal.  But he has said that social security will go bankrupt if we don't do something about it, and the earlier we start talking about it the easier it will be to fix.  To oppose any discussion of social security is, in my opinion, stupid and short-sighted.

  (3) Case is telling people to vote because many Dems who support him don't realize they're allowed to vote.  I'm not kidding about this--you can check some of the local blogs (HawaiiThreads.com, for example) for some strong Ed Case supporters who think they can't vote for him because they live in the 1st Congressional district, not the 2nd.  (And frankly, others don't think voting matters because the party leaders in Hawaii have stomped on challengers so much in the past.)

  (4) Case did not blindly support the Patriot Act.  He opposed the Patriot Act when it didn't have safeguards against abuse (that's when Akaka supported it), and he supported it only when those safeguards had been added (that's when Akaka opposed it).  Although I may oppose his vote, at least it's clear that Case is the one who did some real thinking about this issue, not Akaka.

  by MelUH on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 11:44:16 AM PDT

  •  no demonizing please ....

    1.)  "Cut and Run" is exactly the kind of Rush Limbaugh demonizing of a subject that the Republicans do so well.  It is no surprising to see it come from you.  I won't even talk to folks that use this kind of demonising language.  How very Republican of you!

    2.)  He is unclear and seems obtuse about what he supports vis a vis Social Security and he does not reject privatizing outright, saying that perhaps some "combination" might work.  We been here before and it is the REPUBLICAN business interests that always advance some plan to get their corrupt claws on elder's hopes and dreams.  Lot of money there dude.  Before Clinton was elected this was the same damm Republican business Interest mantra and all of a sudden when  the deficit got solved so did the Social Security problem.  Get out of Iraq and dedicate that money to Social Security. This is a slippery slide and I reject anything other better fiscal management of our government programs.

    3.) Snark, snuffle, cute.  PuHHHHHleeezee (imagine Mel Cabang winking at you)... see you gotta twist the truth to meet the question.  Is your nose growing?

    4.) The point is that when he got a chance to vote, he voted for the Patriot extension and he still has not got the understanding of the relationship of this issue to the issue of the war.  Neither do you, and that is why you think I am making too much of this issue of preemptive war. See how a "single issue" morphs into another?  

    by Keone Michaels on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 03:54:32 PM PDT

    •  Akaka's Iraq position is getting more Bush

      I'm just not close enough to Hawaii to see how Akaka's position on the Iraq war is "evolving."  But here's what the Honolulu Advertiser says in the endorsement that Andy Winer trumpets with all capital letters and five exclamation points:

      "Case's more measured approach toward the timing of withdrawal from Iraq makes more sense than Akaka's adherence to the "date certain" policy, a stance on which even he has wavered in recent weeks."

      by MelUH on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 07:56:04 PM PDT

    •  "no demonizing please"--that's a laugh!

      It's unbelievable the things that have been said about Ed Case on these threads, but as soon as somebody calls Akaka on his "cut and run" position you start screaming "demonizing!"  There are three groups of people: those who advocate cut-and-run and support Akaka; those who recognize that the situation requires thoughtful and principled decisions and support Ed Case; and Repubs.

      (p.s. I have no idea who Mel Cabang is.)

      by MelUH on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 08:08:32 PM PDT

      •  mel cabang

        

        by Keone Michaels on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:40:33 AM PDT

      •  I prefer

        as does the United States Military"  "Strategic Withdrawl!"  Cut and run is just too loaded to be fair.

        by Keone Michaels on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:45:15 AM PDT

  •  good grief this is dumb as a stump

    Case is very much an apologist for Bush and spouts EXACTLY the Bush line "we can't leave because ....insert Bushco BS here".  Even in the debate he danced all around the issue.  But basically he would not set any sort of time line to leave.  Only that we "must win" which to me is stay the course.  

    2.  Case is not pimping for ignorant Dems who don't know that they can vote in the Senate primary.  There cannot be many people who are active primary voters that are that stupid.  He is clearly trying to lure R's over.  Nice try but you are not being honest.

    3. Social Security.  Like the R's, Case keeps focussing on SS going under.  

    First, it may not.  If you use the same economic projections BUSHCO use for their tax cut BS, there's no shortfall.  Even with the moderate growth line the shortfall is no more than about 25% of benefits.  The money wasted on the Iraqi adventure would plug the hole.

    But Case takes the R line to a tee.

    4. Patriot Act  -- Case didn't do squat.  His position is identical to Akaka's.  

    In fact, after 4 years, he's done exactly squat overall, which is why he's ranked 410/438....

    He might be a nice guy, but I'd prefer 6 more years of a marginal Senator to perhaps 30 of someone without the right views.  

    Further, based on his job hopping, if the Governor's seat opens how can I be sure Case won't trade jobs?  So much for the "we have to build seniority line of BS".  Sure hasn't paid off in the House seat.

    by HiD on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 04:04:25 PM PDT

•  Not Much of An Edorsement :(

  Andy,

  Have you read the endorsement or just the headline?  How can you support a Senator who's policies and skills are so diminished?  For example, the Advertiser writes in its own endorsement of Akaka:

  "for example, that Case's more measured approach toward the timing of withdrawal from Iraq makes more sense than Akaka's adherence to the "date certain" policy, a stance on which even he has wavered in recent weeks."

  "while the senator conveys a lot of warmth and aloha, he neither thinks as well on his feet nor presents his thoughts as clearly as the younger congressman."

  "And perhaps that low-key, genial demeanor worked against him on the Akaka bill and factors into the belief by some that he is ineffective."

  "This election has raised some credible concerns about the Democratic power structure in Hawai'i. Case's decision to give up his seat as a U.S. representative took political courage as well as ambition. The party, which has done little to nurture the careers of subsequent generations of leaders, seems mired in the maintenance of the status quo. This may be the principal reason for its loss of the governorship four years ago."

  "And Democrats have been put on notice: Hawai'i needs new leaders. Moving the party ahead — not running in place — should be its imperative."

  I agree with the Advertiser.

  by trojanraider on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 03:06:30 PM PDT

  •  perhaps

    but would Case have preferred his name with the tepid recommendation??  I think so.

    by HiD on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 04:11:18 PM PDT

    •  Look at the Advertiser's reasoning

      Here's why the Advertiser supports Akaka: "he remains a public servant untarnished by the kind of misdeeds usually underpinning moves to oust incumbents nationally."

      In other words, the Advertiser recognizes how ineffective Akaka is (and has been, and will be), and how muddled his thinking is, but they don't care how ineffective he is, and they don't care whether his thinking is muddled: as long as he hasn't actually taken a bribe, they're not going to advocate defeating him regardless of who might replace him.

      As Trojan says, not much of an endorsement after 30 years in office.

      by MelUH on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 08:02:48 PM PDT

      •  beats the one they're offering Case

        no matter how much you don't like it or agree......

        They've put their finger on the key problem with Case's arguement that we need to start getting ready for the future so we don't end up like Oregon with no power (said that twice in the debate).

        First, I don't see Oregon as powerless, but of course when you lose and Inouye type you give up ground.  The key is that in the short run, Case will be even weaker than Akaka.  So why lose now in hopes of making a little up later?

        I don't find any of this persuasive.  For me, Case's positions on the war, bankruptcy, estate taxes put him outside the lines of an acceptable candidate.  I might well vote for Lingle before Case.  At least I know what I'm getting.

        by HiD on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 12:33:29 AM PDT

  •  and further if we're going to parse

    The Honolulu Advertiser has concluded that, despite the considerable attributes the Isles' junior congressman could bring to the job, Hawai'i would be best served by returning incumbent Akaka to the Capitol for the next six years.

    But in reality, a senator's function hinges far less on oratory than on position.

    Over his 30 years in Washington, Akaka has accrued seniority that situates him well on key committees. This enables him to advance Hawai'i's interests at a time when the pot of federal money is shrinking; then, from his perch within the lofty appropriations committee, the senior U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye has a good shot at making sure Hawai'i gets the dollars and support it deserves.

    Having the senior ranking Akaka-Inouye team in place for as long as possible will ensure Hawai'i and the Pacific region will continue to enjoy support in terms of federal dollars and programs. And this is no small matter.

    yes, they say some nice things about Case, but basically reject his theory of time to re-start building seniority.

    by HiD on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 04:19:25 PM PDT

    •  more good about case, and much bad about Akaka

      from reading the endorsement, most of the article talks about the good of case and the bad of akaka but then reverses the entire argument.  I think the endorsement will help Akaka with those who rad the headline but it will hurt him with those who read the article.  unfortunately most will just read the headline.  i guess kudos to akaka for again benefitting from voter misinformation.

      by trojanraider on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 07:24:37 PM PDT

      •  that could be

        but the endorsement is clear.  

        It's not like Case has been a great Rep.  So we have an ancient C- running against a younger lone wolf type who in my mind is a D- for a Democrat.  He's solid on environmental issues but terrible on the economic issues where every last vote counts.  You cannot filibuster funding bills (usually) so putting a blue dog on economics in the Senate is a mistake.

        sorry, we'll just have to disagree on this one.

        As for voter disinfo.  Case's campaign flyers are full of it as well.  Spin, spin spin.

        by HiD on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 12:29:32 AM PDT

  •  oddest endorsement I ever saw

    Apart from the actual endorsement, the thing leaned more in Case's favor than Akaka, with a generous chastising of the status quo democratic establishment, and annointing of Ed Case as one of Hawaii's future leaders.

    I really had to read that thing twice and almost thought some editor's word processor went nuts and combined two pre-versions (one for Case, other for Akaka) of the endorsement.

    This, preceded by a wierd preemptive editorial explaining how their endorsements were not going to follow their recent editorializing or story-writing, makes me wonder what is going on?  The conspiracies are already flying, but I'm not going to go there.

    Unfortunately, the Advertiser should have waited a week before endorsing because the shock of the debate had not worn off yet, and instead of the usual "ah . . . the great Advertiser has spoken" reaction, there was a "what the bleep were they thinking" reaction (I admit that I only had the benefit of soliciting opinion from the 19 or so family members/friends I was barbequeing with on Sunday, with the bleeps getting more expressive as the day and beers wore on).

    Definitely a lukewarm wash, and not enough IMHO to squelch a re-buzz regarding the debate from occuring at the office cubicles tomorrow.  The debate was kind of like watching a bad accident.  People don't talk about it until the shock wears off.  

    So can you hear it tomorrow morning?  "Did you see the debate?"  "Did you see the Advertiser endorsement?"  "What the bleeping bleep is going on?" buzz, buzz, buzz.

    The only benefit for the Akaka camp is that they get to make those great post-endorsement commercials with hovering headlines and newspaper logos and black and white (or other contrasting colors) quotes all hovering around while a voiceover provides additional soothing reasons why Akaka should go back.  I think the Advertiser provided just enough soundbites for the Ad agency to put together a credible commercial.  This kind of commercial is always worth a shot because there are people who'll only hear the soundbite and think if the Advertiser is saying it, good enough for them.  

    It might be worthwhile to contribute money to Case's campaign so they can put up a counter-commercial since the column provides just as many favorable soundbites for Case.

    K

    by Keoki on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 04:11:52 AM PDT

•  At least there's one smart newspaper in town...

  The Star-Bulletin endorsed Ed Case in today's paper. link

  I thought the SB editorial made some great points -- it certainly succeeded in logic, not to mention style of argument, where the Advertiser endorsement of Akaka failed. I personally thought the Advertiser editorial was quite bizarre, and the support it offerred Akaka was lukewarm at best.

  Regarding the Advertiser editorial -- if those are the best reasons the Advertiser can give for why we should re-elect this person, it does not speak very highly for their editorial staff, nor for those who will vote for Akaka without really doing their homework. If one of the two most important newspapers in our state can only offer a confused, convoluted argument in support of the Senator, this fact alone might make his supporters question their own reasons for backing him.

  by keiko on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 02:52:51 AM PDT