HD42: Crazy train
July 22nd, 2008 by Derrick DePledgeState Rep. Rida Cabanilla, D-42nd (Waipahu, Honouliuli, `Ewa), may have lost an office manager but gained a Republican political opponent.
Cabanilla apparently dismissed her office manager, Tom Berg, after learning Berg had endorsed engineer Panos Prevedouros for Honolulu mayor. Up until County Councilmember Ann Kobayashi’s surprise entrance into the mayor’s race today, Prevedouros was the star of the anti-rail coalition.
Cabanilla has talked about several creative alternatives to traffic congestion but has not come out against rail given the traffic-choked Leeward district she represents.
A telephone caller to her office on Monday afternoon told Cabanilla that some of her staffers had backed Prevedouros. She asked Berg to pull up the Panos for Progress Web site and when she saw his endorsement she fired him on the spot.
“She goes livid. We’re talking livid,” he said. “She closes the door, screaming at me.”
Berg, a Republican, said Cabanilla had previously told him not to have Prevedouros or rail critic Cliff Slater on his public access television show — `Ewa Today. He said she also ordered him to remove a bumper sticker for U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, from his car.
Berg filed papers today to run as a Republican against his boss. Cabanilla also has a primary opponent in Michael Schultz, a young Democrat with connections.
“I’ve always been a registered Republican,” explained Berg, who added he has no ill-will against Cabanilla.
Cabanilla said today that she had not really fired Berg. She said she was leaving on a family vacation to Washington, D.C., and would decide his fate when she returns next week.
“I need to re-evaluate, because I was so upset yesterday,” she said. “I just told him that if you force me to make a decision today, if I am to make a decision today, you’re fired.
“But, granted that, there is beauty and ugliness in every individual, I will re-evaluate your services here at this office.”
In a related move, Daniel de Gracia II, a former Cabanilla staffer who has also endorsed Prevedouros, said he would resign as a Democratic precinct chair in protest of Berg’s apparent firing.
Update: Cabanilla, who had spoken to us just before the filing deadline Tuesday and was traveling, called Wednesday morning to say that Berg’s decision to run as a Republican in her district makes it easier to let him go. She said the fact that he is a Republican and anti-rail did not bother her until he made it public.
“He’s filed at this point so there is no reconciliation,” she said.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Wow, what a story!! A crazy train, a crazy house member, and two upstanding staffers. All you need is the love interest and you could make an pretty interesting movie about politics in Hawaii. Wait, doesn’t she reportedly have multiple love interests? Wow, the story just got even more interesting.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:40 pm
GameTime: How many synonyms exist for ‘crazy’ and ’stupid’? Use ‘um all to describe this wackjob.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:24 am
Hmmmm. . . I would agree that if the office manager of a legislator chooses to run against the legislator, that would probably pass the smell test in dismissing the office manager.
Then again, you could share some campaign tips with each other.
Good grief.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:27 am
Rida Cabanilla and the Democratic Party of Hawai’i, showing their true colors… Again!
What gives Representative Cabanilla the right to tell Tom Berg that he cannot have Panos Prevedouros or Cliff Slater on his public-access show, or tell him to take a John McCain bumper sticker off his car?
The height of arrogance from the “Do as I say, not as I do”, Democratic Party.
I know Daniel de Gracia II is a Democrat, but the fact that he has resigned as President for District 40, in protest of Mr. Berg being fired, shows the public that there are still some Honorable people left in what is supposed to be the party of “Jefferson and Madison”.
Obviously the anonymous caller “ratting out” Mr. Berg was a status quo moonbat from the Ol’ Boy Network.
Good to see the Hawai’i Democrats are still predictable in their shenanigans.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:17 am
Cabanilla said: “He’s (Tom Berg) filed at this point so there is no reconciliation,” she said.
So much for individual thinking. Democrats love conformity in their thinking and attitude, don’t they?
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:52 am
Hey Eric!
Why do you claim the Democratic Party is responsible for Rep. Cabanilla’s actions in this matter? The Party has no control over who runs as a Democrat. That should have been clear to you from their inability to prevent Mike Gabbard or Bev Harbin from switching their party affiliation despite their general opposition to the Democratic platform on a wide range of issues.
Daniel de Garcia II, who you like, is another example. Although he is not a Democratic elected official, he is a party member and a very minor party official. Yet he spends a great deal of his public political activity in attacking the Democrats on the Hawaii Reporter website. Frankly, if he is an “honorable” man, as you say, he should resign his membership with the Party, since he is in closer alignment with Bush, McCain and the local Republicans, as he makes clear on the HR site.
It strikes me as logically inconsistent that you attack the Democrats as a whole for the personal misbehavior of an individual Democratic elected official, while at the same time, claiming they are heavy-handed in trying to enforce “conformity” upon their members.
The reality is, the Party has little or no control over either the private or the political activities of its individual members. We are stuck with whomever signs a party card–even the dingbats and opportunists–unless they flagrantly violate Party rules. And even then, we mostly look the other way rather than provoke a fight.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:43 am
This story truely shows the shenanigans of that entire office!
As for Daniel de Gracia, he’s been looking for attention in the lime light with all of his letters to the editors to the ‘Tiser and the Bulletin. His biography at the ends is entirely egotistical and constantly changing as the month goes by.
Kolea adequately points out that de Gracia has been infatuated with the Republicans, that this little stunt is only his “vehicle” (pun intended) to switch sides. Come on, with his past editorials commending the military, BUSH, and McCain along with his overt criticisms against the Dems. He was just another GOP in Democrat clothing.
Maybe with his switch to support Berg, the GOP-Hawaii will pick him up for some seat in the 2010 election. The guy’s had his eye on any political seat since his loss in ‘06 over the Kapolei district. They’re all opportunists if you ask me.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Wow… “kolea” and “Independent”. Must be Democrat-stooge month.
I didn’t know, “Independent” that commending the military was strictly a Republican trait? I thought all Americans, regardless of Party affiliation would be more than proud to commend our brothers and sisters in our Armed Forces.
Glad to see how you truly feel about our military.
I don’t recall Mr. de Gracia “heaping praises” on George Bush and John McCain, but I do recall him criticizing how the Democrats have fallen in blind faith for Barack Hussein Obama, who, to date, has not given us many specifics on how he plans to make his “changes”. All I hear is “change for the sake of change, and that we need to change to make the changes of change, blah… blah… blah”.
You all fall for it, hook, line and sinker.
And I believe he also called you people out on your absurd comparisons of Barack Hussein to John F. Kennedy.
Incase you’ve been sleepwalking for the last 40 years or so, there are still some conservative Democrats remaining who believe in a strong national defense, keeping watch on our enemies, securing our borders, cut outrageous government tax & spending habits, and stop placating to every whim of the union’s interests, even when it’s at the detriment of the people of Hawai’i.
For you, if a Democrat doesn’t act and talk as an outright socialist (a la, Fidel Castro, Che Guevera, Neil Abercrombie and that lunatic Hugo Chavez) you dismiss that individual as a “DINO” or a GOP in Democrat’s clothing.
And “kolea” doesn’t believe that certain members in your Party aren’t comforming other Democrats to the status quo’s way of thinking?
You have a great individual such as Mr. de Gracia in your Party, but instead you prefer to “rag on him” for not following the Party line of thought, because as we’ve been seeing since 1952, the majority Democrats have been doing a “bang up” job in making Hawai’i a more affordable place to live.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Hear, hear, I agree with Kolea’s and Independent’s posts. Mr. Seabury is way off base and paints with quite a broad brush. Besides, from what I hear, I think the Democratic Party would be more than happy if Ms. Cabanilla switched parties. Mr. Seabury, I think you should extend an invitation should Ms. Cabanilla prevail in the general election.
Additionally, anyone who has spent at least 5 minutes listening to the rants and self-aggrandizing diatribes of both the incumbent and her former office manager on his public access television show could easily deduce that they are both at least ten (no, not just two) bricks shy of a load.
It will be interesting to see how Mr. Berg will try to distance himself from his past flattering remarks and incessant obsequiousness toward his former boss during his shows.
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Listen folks….Cabanilla, Berg and de Gracia had a little love-hate 3-way going on. They are all idiots and hated by Democrats and Republicans alike. Although this story has the makings of crappy soap opera, the bottom line is that none of them are worth wasting space. But I couldn’t help but comment because it’s an incredible riot! Bottom line - our ohana will be voting for Schultz. And if Cabanilla wins the primary, we’ll be leaving our ballot blank. I can’t wait for redistricting. I think that’s the only way we can get rid of these lolos. They are not doing west Oahu any favors.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Pu’uloa - you crack me up. I wholeheartedly agree. This whole situation is actually making me consider watching Berg’s show just to see how he’ll try to justify working with Cabanilla for the past 4 or so years.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:41 am
So “Raison d’etre”, exactly where am I “way off base”?
That the Democratic-majority have, since 1952, been responsible for our high cost of living? For our excessive taxes and regulations? For our neglected roads and infrastructures? For our $2.4BILLION a year, worst in the Nation, public education system? For our highest to second highest gasoline prices? For the growing amount of homeless living on the beaches and in the parks? For supporting the raise of the GEtax, to fund a rail system which would do little to nothing in reducing traffic (And also put another hardship on the middle-class and poor, in regards to the GEtax raise)?, Against making revisions on the “Jones Act” so shipping competition can come to our islands and reduce the price of materials which are shipped in and shipped out?
Was I “way off base” that the Democratic Party of Hawai’i is the pawn and tool of the union organizations and special interest groups, which keep Hawai’i`s cost of liviing, high?
Or that I said that the majority of Hawai’i`s Democrats have fallen for “hoodwinked” antics of Barack Obama?
July 24th, 2008 at 8:03 am
“kolea” wrote: “It strikes me as logically inconsistent that you attack the Democrats as a whole for the personal misbehavior of an individual Democratic elected official, while at the same time, claiming they are heavy-handed in trying to enforce “conformity” upon their members.”
Exactly.
Look at how the Democrats treated Ed Case when he ran against Dan Akaka in 2006. The status quo (including socialist-Neil Abercrombie) were crying, demanding to know how Ed Case could have the “audacity” to run against “Uncle Dan” and not “wait his turn”?
Ed Case was being realistic about our situation in Iraq, he wanted to get the “Jones Act” amended so we wouldn’t have to keep suffering under high prices and a high cost of living, and most of you treated him like a leper, all because he didn’t “conform” to the Democrat’s way of thinking.
I’d say I’m not being too broad in my opinions, after all.
What Representative Rida Cabanilla did to Mr. Tom Berg was just another example of how the Democrats resist independent thought.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:32 am
@Eric
You no make attempt at being consistent, except to consistently attack the Democrats using evershifting standards. The Dems are blamed for Cabanilla’s personal outbursts, yet the Dems have no control over which candidates pull papers to run as Democrats. If Cabanilla, or Gabbard, or Bev Harbin or Ed Case or de Gracia II or Dan Inouye himself decide to declare themselves Democrats we may not like it, but there is little we can do to stop it, unless they flagrantly violate the Party rules.
Yet you want to hold all Democrats responsible for any awkward behavior by any Democrat. By that logic, you must be a homophobic pedophile corporate lackey!
You cite Ed Case. Ah, the favorite local “Democrat” of Republicans like yourself. That itself, speaks volumes about Ed’s views and provides a hint as to why most individual Democrats disagree with Ed. Not because he “refuses to wait his turn.” But because we don’t want someone with his views to decide national policies on such matters as the war in Iraq. The formal Party apparatus has always treated Ed fairly, “according to Hoyle.” It appears your complaint is that a majority of active Hawaii Democrats don’t like Ed. Arre we not allowed to hold that opinion, so long as the formal Party organization treats him fairly?
If we look at the past two conventions of the Hawaii political parties, the Dems and the Republicans, please tell me which convention treated its dissidents more fairly and which came down on their dissidents like a “ton of bricks”? The Lingle leadership abandoned any pretense at fairness in dealing with the Ron Paul and conservative wing of the Party. I seem to remember you complaining bitterly about it at the time.
The Dems allowed full debate on a wide range of issues and people spoke at length and with passion for hours. The we voted, made our decisions and moved ahead with a great deal of unity. Not “conformity,” as we “agreed to disagree,” but “unity.”
For several years, both the national and the local Republican party had placed loyalty to George W, Bush and his policies as the standard for “loyalty” and allowed no dissent. Frankly, this attitude became extremely oppressive across the country as those disagreeing with Bush’s aggressive war policies were treated as disloyal. This created an atmosphere hostile to free debate and examination of the options available to us, and suppressed voices of those who warned that Bush, Cheney, Powell and Rice were misleading the American people. It took a long time to create public space to allow free speech to flourish again, but that is NO Thanks to Republicans, national OR local. (A minor exception would be Rep. Paul and, to a lesser degree, former Rep. Bob Barr. And a nod to Bruce Fein, a former darling of the local “white wing” Republicans clustered around the Grassroot Institute” for his opposition to the Akaka Bill, but who is now anathema because of his strong call for Bush’s impeachment. Hey, I’d pitch in a few bucks if you guys wanna bring him back to Hawaii!)
You call Ed’s views on Iraq “realistic.” Well, I haven’t heard Ed’s views on Iraq in the past two years. Maybe they’ve changed from when he ran against Akaka. Hawaii’s Democrats, and voters generally, rejected him largely because of his views on the war. I suspect at least part of the reason he declined to run against Mazie Hirono is because the Akaka/Hirono/Obama view on Iraq turned out to be more accurate, and aceptable to Hawaii voters than Ed’s views.
You call Ed’s views on Iraq “realistic.” I suspect you would call John McCain’s views on Iraq “realistic” as well. I will suggest we could lift Ed Case’s comments on Iraq from 2006 and compare them to McCain’s statements today and find a pretty close match. Though Ed might not mistake the Sunnis and Shia the way McCain is wont to do.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
How could anyone vote for Rida, she wasted so much money on her insane idea to build under Pearl Harbor (even when experts, military, legislators all said it would not work)
She wants toll roads…. ridiculous
Don’t even get me started on how she got busted for “Conflict of Interests”
She wants to take credit for road expansion when all the legislation was passed before she was in office
Has anyone seen the letter her husband sent out last election(06) titled “100 reasons not to vote for Rida Cabanilla” HER HUSBAND!!!
She is a wack job, anyone who has worked for her is a wack job.
I’m voting for Mike Schultz
The district leadership needs some sanity. Time to wipe the slate clean and start new.
This will be a very interesting primary.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Well “Kolea”, as far as your comments about Bush and Iraq, and far as the recent Hawai’i GOP convention, I don’t disagree with you there. Never did. Bush is an embarrassment to the Republican party and has no business being a part of it. I also think Linda Lingle is an embarrassment to the Republican party because she has followed, like a sheep, the neo-con line of thought, which had since badly damaged the party of Goldwater-Reagan.
And as for my comments about Rida Cabanilla, I never said that the Democrat party was responsible for her firing Mr. Berg, I just stated that that was the typical action that the status quo in your party takes when someone “steps out of line”.
Many of us can still remember the gross smear campaign done on Cec Heftel’s run for Governor back in 1986.
As for your claim that the Democrats didn’t vote for Ed Case because of his views on Iraq, and not because he didn’t “wait his turn”, is b.s.
I still remember people writing to the Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin commenting on how Mr. Case was “rocking the boat” in not wanting to wait until Senator Akaka retired. Even socialist-Neil Abercrombie made the same comment about Ed Case being “out of line” with going against Uncle Dan.
As for the Iraq situation, we can debate whether we should had gone in to Iraq or not (I don’t think we should had) but Ed Case did support our finishing the job and McCain was accurate about the surge working. Violence has gone down, people are coming out in to the streets, businesses are sprouting up and it was even reported recently that al-Qaeda in Iraq are planning to leave in order to continue their fight in Afghanistan… All because we stuck to our “guns” instead of “tucking tail” and leaving like your Nancy Pelosi and hazie-Mazie Hirono wanted to do.
Our brave brothers and sisters in our Armed Forces are getting the job done, whether you like it or not, whether you acknowledge it or not.
And as for the remark about McCain “not knowing the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni”, I think we can all agree that that was an honest mistake, otherwise we can talk about how Obama had mentioned how he had visited our “54″ States in his run for President.
July 24th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
@Eric,
It is true that some people were offended by the younger Ed Case “not showing respect” by challenging “a rerspected elder” like Danny Akaka. I will concede that. But Ed’s position on the war was still a major factor, and contray to your statements. he was wrong and McCain is still wrong.
Ed was more worried about “appearing weak” on the war, and about being seen as supporting an “American military defeat” than he was about solving the dilemma of how to end our occupation of Iraq. Not only was he unwilling to “set a deadline” for withdrawal, he was unwilling to establish benchmarks for determining success. That would require simultaneously establishing criteria for “failure” and Ed refused to entertain the notion that the US military might not “succeed” in Iraq.
Two years later, McCain is in the same position and Ed hasa declined to run. Your GOP talking point that the “surge has been a success” is a fiction, verey similar to Bush’s claim “Mission Accomplished!” When I watched the American tanks roll into Baghdad, as we all did, and encounter virtually no resistance, my jaw dropped. I told my friend, “Omigawd. It’s Napoleon conquering Moscow.” The resistance melted away, to live and fight another day.
To the extent there is a lull in the level of violence in Iraq, I think this can be more accurately attributed to the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis from Baghdad by the Shiite forces, the “financial cooptation” (aka bribery) of Sunni tribal leaders by the US government and a realization by most Iraqis that they should just wait out the American occupation, as public support for the war in the US has dropped and continues to drop further.
The smart military leaders know the war will require a “political solution rather than a military” one. By that standard, how well has The Surge worked? Large majorities of Sunnis and Shia want the US troops to withdraw. In fact, a majority of Shia and Sunnis say they SUPPORT armed attacks on American troops!
The elected government–remember those purple thumbs being celebrated as a victory for “Democracy” in Iraq– wants the US to establish an explicit timetable for withdrawal and oppose the permanent base agreement Bush (and McCain) wish to impose upon them as an insult to Iraqi sovereignty.
Iran is the dominant player, and the greatest beneficiary of both the US invasion and The Surge. The president of Iran gets a red carpet treatment from the elected Iraqi government and Bush has to sneak into the country under the cloak of darkness, fearful of leaving the base. When the Bush gang start saber-rattling against Iran, the Iraqi government publicly announces its opposition to any move military against Iran. If the US, or Israel, attacks Iran, the “moderate” Shia position in Iraq will shrink away to nothing and the people will be evermore unified against the US occupation. The US position, militarily, diplomatically and economically, is untenable. But you chose to repeat the mantra, “The Surge is working.”
The American people are rejecting that nonsense and McCain will be defeated in November. You pretend to speak in support of “our brave brothers and sisters in our Armed Forces,” but I think they are waking up, too. Re-enlistments are way down, even with the increased re-up bonises–and the shameful McCain/Bush/GOP opposition to increased veterans benefits as a conscious means for deterring enlisted personnel from leaving the service! The video footage I watched of Obama’s reception by our troops in Baghdad further re-inforced my suspicion that he is going to pull a lot of votes from active duty personnel. (Click my name to watch the footage from Baghdad.)
Finally, you dislike Lingle Because she is a “neo-Con”? How is she more of a “neo-Con than John McCain? I am impressed by the flexibility of your intellectual conceptions! Your brain must be taking yoga classes when you are not using it!
July 24th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
“Pu’uloa:
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Listen folks…”
Please, spare me the “folksey” garbage! Another POG (Piece of Garbage) for the masses! Are we an Obama-phile or what?
First point:
“They are all idiots and hated by Democrats and Republicans alike.” I didn’t know you spoke for so many. You certainly don’t speak for me. I personally could care less if Rida, Tom, and Dan had any 3-way going on, love-hate or otherwise! As any Democrat knows, even Bill Clinton showed us the way when it comes to “plausible deniability” (a lie of omission rather than commission, or was that the other way around?) in more personal matters! However, Dan de Gracia is a fine and honorable man and not deserving of such a vile comparison! I’m sure that he was justified in taking taking the actions that he did in support of Tom Berg. Rather than refute an argument by being ad hominem, why not bring out some valid points?
Second point:
“Bottom line - our ohana will be voting for Schultz.” Boring, buddy. You just made Eric’s point rather handily. After all, it now appears to be true that Democrats are in lock-step with each other. How military! Ha! Or are you a psycho-babbling socialist at heart? Ugh. Boring.
Third point:
If you leave your ballot blank, you are only serving up what you don’t want on a silver platter before the king! (Can you say “Ross Perot or Ralph Nader for President?”) You will only undermine the little good that may be accomplished by one candidate (if elected) for the greater good of all! A distinctly bad move, my friend!
As for “Independent” and “Kolea” I can only surmise you must both be talking heads for the Demo apparatus … making you both something of an “Apparatchik” yourselves … again, boring.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
“Independent:
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:43 am
This story truely shows the shenanigans of that entire office!”
Aside from your feeble attempt at the ad hominem, your direct attack on Dan is unwarranted. Your apparatchik leanings are showing, grasshopper. After all, one cannot show support for the military in any form at any time … and by inference, remain a “good” Democrat? You don’t appear to be all that supportive of Kolea. Is Kolea only doing an “adequate” job of making his talking points known to the public regarding his opinion of Mr. de Gracia? Where is the courage of his conviction? For that matter, where is the courage of your conviction?
I don’t recall reading anything about Mr. de Gracia making any switch. I only recall reading that he was supportive of his friend and colleague and that he supports a vote by the electorate! Let us not forget that this is a Republic! We haven’t been subdued by the Chinese or those globe-trotting Iranians yet!
I honestly believe most people don’t give a toot in a tin tumbler whether Mr. de Gracia is “infatuated with the Republicans …” or not. Since when is it wrong to offer “overt criticisms” of anything? I’m offering “overt criticisms” right now! I’m exercising my Constitutional rights in informing you that your obvious view of the military is off track! Stick THAT in your pink meerschaum pipe and smoke it!
July 24th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Kolea:
July 24th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Well, let me think. Uh, gee. By “smart military leaders” you mean commanders who understand their function within the boundaries of the Constitution? Good thinking! Your lack of military grounding (savvy) is evident! Your attempt at slamming the military is more of a compliment. Unlike some, military Officers and Enlisted keep to the oath they swore and act in a manner to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” A cursory understanding would clarify why “smart military leaders” realize that it’s a political resolution from here on out. Heard any goodwill stories coming out of Iraq lately? You won’t find it in the mainstream media!
How well has the Surge worked? Well enough to allow people riddled with the disease “Obamaphilia” to have their “Commander-of-Chief” hopeful visit without undue stress! How’s that!? And, to add insult to injury, it worked well enough that Iranians could also make “state” visits without a whole lot of trouble.
“The president of Iran gets a red carpet treatment from the elected Iraqi government and Bush has to sneak into the country under the cloak of darkness, fearful of leaving the base.”
Uh-huh. Looks like you’ve not really had much opportunity to see how these things really work. I doubt that Bush was fearful of leaving the base. Did Obama go out into the crowds PRE-ANNOUNCED? Doubt it. In fact, I doubt he left the confines of any safe haven at all. The Secret Service are charged with the protection of the President. The surge worked well enough that the President could go and Obama could put in an appearance. Hey! You get two good deals! First, the REAL Commander in Chief and then the Commander OF Chief! Ha!
Aren’t you being just a wee bit presumptuous when you make large sweeping generalizations about “Large majorities of Sunnis and Shia want the US troops to withdraw. In fact, a majority of Shia and Sunnis say they SUPPORT armed attacks on American troops!”…? I didn’t know you spoke for so many other people! You’re incredible! And to go on about how Barack Hussein Obama will get so many votes from one “stop and go” visit to Iraq is just amazing! Stop it! Please! I’m dying from laughing so hard!
Having lived in that area of the world for a significant portion of my life I can tell you, “It ain’t so!” Believe none of what you hear (and by extension in these dis-information riddled times, what you read) and only half of what you see, and you should do well in life.
You are basically off topic and mumbling about things having nothing to do with having a vote on an important issue regarding transportation in Hawaii … the so-called “Rail” vote! Get off your silly soapbox and get on with life, man!
July 25th, 2008 at 3:07 am
“My brain must be taking yoga classes when I am not using it”? LOL
Try reading what I write instead of unleashing your misinformed rantings on me just to get your “point” across. I never said I supported John McCain. McCain, in my view is a RINO, just as bad as Bush and just as weak as Lingle. Nowhere did I say I supported John McCain, only that he was right when he stated that the surge was working.
And “Kolea”, the surge IS working. Regardless of what you read and see on the biased, Obama-obsessed, MSM.
Unlike you, I don’t get my facts from the Advertiser and Star-BULLetin editors, nor the liberal-peanut gallery writers to these same editors. I don’t get my facts from “moveon.org” nor the “Huffington Post”, and I sure as hell don’t get my facts from the likes of Katie Couric, Chris Matthews and all the other media hacks who’ve already decided who they support to run for President.
I get my facts from those who are in Iraq right now. People whom I know, who’re serving our Nation and fighting against the terrorists in Iraq. I get my facts from General David Patraeus, who has gone to Capitol Hill and has told our Congress that the surge is working.
Perhaps, for a change, you should consider getting the news from the people who are actually there?
Re-reading my posts here, I see that I was being a bit too aggressive about the Democrat Party, and I was going to tone it down and participate in a more civil discussion with anyone who wanted one, but after reading your last post, it is obvious that you’re not interested in facts, you rely on spin from the Left, who has every intention of belittling the sacrifices of our fallen and those who are in Iraq.
As I said, if you disagree with our being in Iraq or going there in the first place, if you want to criticize Bush, have at it. But don’t do the typical revisionism to justify your blind support for a presidential candidate who has nothing to offer, in regards to true solutions, and prefers we play “patty-cake” and talk with a government (Iran) that has been active in killing our troops in Iraq, and then stands there and LIES about doing it!
July 25th, 2008 at 3:39 am
Hey “Kolea”, I saw that video you had attached.
Embassy personnel? These are the people whom you equate with believing that our military prefers Barack Obama?
How about those who are on the “front lines”, going head-to-head with the terrorists and the insurgents? How about those who have to bear seeing innocent Iraqi men, women and children bleeding and blown to bits by an insurgent’s bomb, that he had strapped to his body and didn’t care who he took out?
How about the troops who’re sick and tired of Iranian IEDs killing their friends? Do you think THEY prefer we placate and simply “talk” to Iran, and HOPE that they’ll be nice to us?
The same Iran who, months ago, had speed boats race out to international waters, dropped boxes into the water and radioed our air-carrier task force and had threatened to blow them up… This is the Iran who Obama wants to “talk to”?
You can revise and tout liberal b.s. all you want, just do a bit of research and reading, which isn’t just relegated to the Honolulu Advertiser, and you’d see that our Armed Forces are making a difference. They are getting rid of the terrorists, the Iraqi forces are taking on more responsibilities, and more Iraqis feel safer because of our efforts.
Do the Iraqis want us to leave? Ofcourse they do! I don’t think we should have permanent military bases there, either. That’s just more Bush-Cheney stupidity and arrogance, but our efforts and the surge is making it possible that we can leave Iraq to the Iraqis. No spin there. But your “rationale” on why the level of violence has gone down and that the insurgents prefer to “wait out” our presence until we start leaving, is just absurd and illogical.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Does anyone know anything about the Schultz guy?
The “with connections” part sounded interesting.
I think I saw him sign waiving on Ft. Weaver the other morning.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Hey Sky King,
The subject of the article was NOT about having a vote on rail, but on Rep. Cabanilla’s dispute with her staffers. Which Eric S saaw as an opportunity to tar the Democratic Party as some oppressive machine which demands conformity from its members.
Well, he was being trollish and I took the bait.
You make statements on Iraq in an authoritative tone, but as I sift through your pronouncements, I find nothing of substance. You missed my point on the need for a “political” solution to the Iraq occupation. Many on the right have argued the military could have “won” in Vietnam, if only the “politicians” had gotten out of the way and allowed them to fight “without having one arm tied behind their back.” The undertones of the same argument is arising again, but the public, in genereal, is not buying into it. Some on the right arre pretending they are being “supportive of the troops” by adopting this view, but there are many top military officers who are fully aware of the limitations of military power, even if their alleged “supporters” are not.
While I am aware of the constitutional obligation of the military to take direction from civilian authorities, your president Bush has made a major PR effort to obscure that relationship. He pretends to be taking direction from the “commanders on the ground,” which is a complete crock for a long list of reasons, starting off with the long list of professional military officers who have been forced into early retirement because they gave Bush advise he, and particularly Rumsfeld earlier, didn’t want to hear, starting with General Shinseki. Admiral Fallon was a recent victim of this as he was strongly advising against an attack on Iran, but there is a longer list of top names who have not gotten much play in the “mainstream media” you apparently think is not pro-war enough in its reporting.
If you take a very superficial, one-dimensional standard of measuring the “Surge’s” success (i.e., the “level of violence”), it can be argued the Surge “is working.” I offered alternative explanations for the reduced violence which I think deserve more consideration than your quick dismissal, though maybe there is a more appropriate place for that then this discussion of Rep. Cabanilla’s dispute with her staffers.
Your difficulty in recognizing the views of the Iraqi people is understandable as most of the American politicians, including Bush, McCain and Clinton, have repeatedly excluded their desires from the discussion over what should be done in Iraq. The Bush/McCain group is attempting to impose longterm oil concession agreements and an agreement for permanent US bases upon them and the Iraqi “democratically elected” leaders are strongly resisting the arm-twisting. I am not a big fan of Obama, but he is often alluding to the desires of the Iraqi people. Hillary, on the other hand, decided it would be more popular, perhaps “populist”, to blame the Iraqi people for “failing to assume responsibility” for their own future.
The statements I made about the views of the majority of Sunnis and Shia regarding the presence of US troops can be found easily if you use Google. This site frowns upon active links in the text of a post. You might be surprised how much information is actually available to us if you would just turn off Fox News.
The occupation of Iraq is widely unpopular in Iraq. The Iranians have been strengthened by the US intervention. Our army is bleeding, our treasury is hemoraghing, and our forces are overstretched. The Bush Gang is more interested in finishing out their term than in solving the problem. If they get political mileage out of fanning the flames with their saber-rattling against Iran, they are willing to do so, even if that path will exacerbate tensions with the Shia in Iraq.
Polls show that majority opinion in virtually every country in the world supports the election of Obama as a correction to the GOP’s disastrous foreign policy. Fortunately, a majority of Americans appear to be feeling the same way.
Even if Daniel de Gracia, and you, refuse to understand that.
See how I brought it back “on topic”?
July 25th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Eric S,
The video was NOT primarily of “embassy personnel,” but of active duty military forces in Iraq.
I do not get most of my information from the Advertiser or Star-BULL or the mainstream press. I do go to the “alternative press,” but use a critical mind to sift through what I read there and I rely upon reading the international press, though I admit that my working knowledge of other languages forces me to rely upon English language editions.
After my comments on the forced retirements of professional milittary men, I hope you will allow me to remain skeptical of pronouncements coming out of the mouth of General Petraeus? When a man is not allowed to speak frankly, according to his own best judgment, it is difficult to rely upon his testimony. Bush and Rumsfeld demoted, forced out and skipped over a lot of top grade military officers in order to promote those willing to tell them what they wanted to hear.
They are now hiding behind General Petraeus and pretending he is the “Decider.”
I am glad to hear you are skeptical of McCain. It seems to me you are running out of Republicans to like, once you’ve eliminated all those you choose to label “neo-cons.”
I will dispute your view that Reagan’s administration was a Golden Age of true Republicanism, free of the “neo-con” distortion. The original group of Neo-Cons were largely Democrats, who were aligned with the Scoops Jackson wing of the Democratic Party and huddled in organizations like the “Committee on the Present Danger.” These guys switched over to become Reagan supporters during his administration and rose to responsibilities and power under him. I am unsure which current groups you want to label as neo-con, or what you think are the defining characteristics which differentiate “neo-conservatism” from other variants of conservative or rightwing thought, or from Kissinger’s aggressive “realism,” or from the “muscular internationalism” of the DLC crowd. But if you look at the bios of the signators of the Project for the New American Century, which may be a convenient way of pinning down a group of neo-cons, I think you will find a lot of them having gotten their start under Reagan.
Certainly, if you want to include their main protectors/mentors in the Bush administration, Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, that would take you back to Reagan and then Nixon before him.
Lingle’s involvement in foreign policy matters has been pretty limited. Mostly she has just done things in support of Bush policies as a loyal Republican governor. I do not see sufficient evidence that might qualify her as a believer in neo-conservative policies and suspect you just find neo-con as a convenient label for categorizing Republicans you either don’t like or are unpopular and you want a means for writing them out of the “true” Republican Party. You have already written off Bush, McCain and Lingle as “neo-cons” and/or RINOs. Who are you left with as “true leaders” of the Republican Party?
And, no, for the reasons I have stated, the Surge is NOT working. Its purpose was to create space for the creation of a political solution. But the political situation is no more conducive to a settlement than before. In fact, as I said, the “moderate Shiites” are in a precarious position and are becoming more confrontative with the United States. The Mahdi Army is biding its time. The Sunni tribal leaders are sucking on the teat of the US treasury, but the US is mostly interested in them as a counterweight to the pro-Iranian Shia. Public opinion in Iraq is not only eager to see the troops leave, opinion polls show that a majority supports armed attacks on the US and British forces and the situation is getting worse. The Bush gang is interested in surviving the election and awarding the oil contracts to the Bush-Cheney cronies in the oil industry before the power to award contracts shifts over to the Democrats.
Meanwhile, everyone is waiting for the election, assuming Obama is going to win. When the war in Afghanistan proved to be difficult, Bush-them launched the war against Iraq. There is a danger they will be tempted to attack Iran before the election, but the threat of a strong uprising by Shia forces in Iraq, plus resistance from our allies (excepting, perhaps, Israel), plus resistance to a new war from within the upper ranks of the US military itself, is limiting their options.
Will Obama be better? That’s the hope of a strong majority of the world’s people, in every country polled (again, excepting Israel) and among most Americans. The Bush/Cheney crowd, with the slavish support of most Republican federal level elected officials, have really screwed things up for us. Can Obama fix it? I dunno. “All the King’s horses and all the King’s men…”
July 27th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Your site- thenotebook.honadvblogs.com is amazing site, thanks, owner. But look at this ipod nana problem screen
Good buy.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:20 am
The site thenotebook.honadvblogs.com is interesting site, thanks, owner. look at this sasser worm remove
By.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
The site thenotebook.honadvblogs.com is excellent site, tnks, webmaster.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
honolulu real estate
Now is the time to invest in US property, Don’t abandon it, invest in it.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
The site thenotebook.honadvblogs.com is good resource, respect, admin.
viagra viagra pills.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:58 am
The thenotebook.honadvblogs.com is cool resource, good job, owner. But look at this [url=http://howdoqj6.netfirms.com/index.html] buy liquor [/url]