-
Archives
- August 2022 (1)
- November 2021 (2)
- July 2021 (1)
- May 2021 (1)
- September 2020 (1)
- September 2019 (1)
- August 2019 (1)
- March 2019 (1)
- February 2019 (1)
- January 2019 (1)
- September 2018 (2)
- August 2018 (1)
- November 2017 (1)
- October 2017 (1)
- April 2017 (1)
- February 2017 (6)
- May 2016 (1)
- March 2016 (1)
- November 2015 (1)
- August 2014 (1)
- January 2014 (1)
- November 2013 (1)
- October 2013 (1)
- August 2013 (2)
- July 2013 (1)
- June 2013 (1)
- September 2012 (1)
- April 2012 (1)
- December 2011 (1)
- September 2011 (2)
- March 2011 (1)
- January 2011 (5)
- December 2010 (7)
- November 2010 (3)
- October 2010 (6)
- September 2010 (8)
- August 2010 (9)
- July 2010 (6)
- June 2010 (6)
- May 2010 (4)
- April 2010 (2)
- March 2010 (3)
- February 2010 (4)
- November 2009 (1)
- June 2009 (1)
- April 2009 (3)
- January 2009 (1)
- December 2008 (2)
- November 2008 (2)
- August 2008 (1)
- June 2008 (2)
- May 2008 (2)
- April 2008 (21)
- March 2008 (1)
- January 2008 (1)
- December 2007 (2)
- November 2007 (4)
- October 2007 (1)
- September 2007 (1)
- August 2007 (3)
- July 2007 (6)
- June 2007 (3)
- May 2007 (1)
- April 2007 (1)
- March 2007 (1)
- February 2007 (1)
- January 2007 (4)
- December 2006 (1)
- November 2006 (1)
- June 2006 (7)
- May 2006 (8)
What Do You Djou?
If we were handing out political courage awards, we wouldn’t exactly break out backs trying to carry the ones needed for Hawaii’s political class. Especially on the Akaka Bill. Heck, a three-year-old child could probably handle the load on that one. Hawaii’s Democrats are rather remarkably in lockstep agreement on a fairly controversial issue–which pretty much indicates that the Party has declared its approval and will brook no dissent. Hawaii’s Republican Party (such as it is) thankfully lacks the inflexible message of the Democrats, but makes up for it with party leaders who take a half-measures approach that consists mainly of offering weak disapproval and then caving-in after a few showy are largely meaningless “compromises.” (Yes, there are exceptions. There always are. But not enough of them.) Thus we have Linda Lingle’s shift on the Akaka Bill and Charles Djou’s rather bewildering variations.
Djou, in particular, is an interesting case. Prior to getting elected, he gave some the impression that even if he wasn’t a vocal opponent of the Bill, neither did he plan to promote it. But consider the statement he made in a recent radio interview: “Should the Akaka bill come back to the U.S. House, I’m confident that I’d be able to garner far more Republican support for the Akaka bill — make it bipartisan, make it less controversial, and make its passage far smoother.” It’s hard not to see this as full support for the Bill’s passage.
Then, perhaps sensing that his position on Akaka was gaining him no friends among the Republicans and Independents that he needs in order to win, Djou decided to add a little nuance to his stance on the Bill. Now, he says that he supports public hearings on the Bill and a non-binding vote from the Hawaii people. Needless to say, those who are concerned about the impact of the Akaka Bill feel that the voice of the people of Hawaii on the issue should be a binding one–the current suggestion raises the strange possibility that hearings and a vote could show significant opposition to the Bill only to have it overridden by Congress. Still, Djou’s latest position demonstrates some understanding that the most radical political questions since statehood deserves a public voice. And of course Djou’s opponent, Colleen Hanabusa (a Democrat) is an unreserved supporter of the Akaka Bill (she has mentioned some support for public hearings, but not for a public vote). Clearly, election day this year may have a real effect on what happens next in the effort to pass the Akaka Bill.
Tags: Akaka bill
This entry was posted on October 31, 2010, 9:43 am and is filed under Commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.