Posted on: Saturday, October 30, 2004

Letters to the Editor

Can we afford to have ineptness continue?

Recently Hawai'i buried two sons — soldiers who gave their lives for their country in foreign lands of Iraq and Afghanistan. My heart goes out to the wives, parents and family, not only of these two men, but for the 1,100 others who perished at too young an age.

George W. Bush continues his tirade that the war was justified, that Saddam Hussein had connections to al-Qaida, that there were weapons of mass destruction. We find, in reality, that there were no WMDs.

For whatever reasons he instigated the war in Iraq, we need to ask ourselves one question: Can we afford to have this ineptness continue for another four years? The answer should be a resounding no. It makes me cringe to think where he could lead our nation next.

Vote against man who created mess in Iraq

Two sons of Hawai'i, Gens. Eric Shinseki and Antonio Taguba, stood up for truth.

Gen. Shinseki said that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to prevent looting, provide security and win the peace in Iraq. He was disparaged and ridiculed. Time has proven Gen. Shinseki right given the mess the Bush administration is responsible for in Iraq.

Gen. Taguba did an honest and straightforward report on the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. Republicans questioned whose side Gen. Taguba was on.

Both generals did the right thing and placed truth ahead of their careers. The right thing for me to do this November is vote against the president who created this mess.

John Kerry doesn't qualify for position

John Kerry is a lifetime opportunist. He could be judged as a superhero for his service in Vietnam, earning one medal for every four weeks there, and nary a need for one day's recouperation in getting the two purple hearts.

You say selection criteria for local candidates is their contribution to the work of the Legislature. Well, Kerry has spent 20-plus years in the U.S. Senate without such contribution.

The bottom line is that he is shallow, and his only applied knowledge, skill and ability are that of a fast talker who will say anything to reach his goal.

If he wins, we will all suffer by not knowing if he is telling the truth or standing firm on issues.

Kerry ads attacking president are wrong

The recent Kerry ads hitting Hawai'i's airwaves are disturbing falsehoods.

High oil prices caused by President Bush? Fact: High gas prices are largely due to Hurricane Ivan's destruction of oil pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico.

Hawai'i's personal income lowest in the nation? We have one of the strongest economies in the country. If our personal incomes are relatively low, it's always been that way even before Bush came on board. It has to do with the state's overregulation and lack of economic diversity and not Bush.

Halliburton enjoying great business in Iraq because of Bush? Halliburton is barely making money there and has lost 43 personnel because of terrorism. Halliburton should be awarded a purple heart for even being there.

Tax burden shifted from millionaires to middle income? Fact: Under Bush, tax rates for the middle income had greater decreases than those for millionaires.

Our high national deficits? As in all past wars, the national budget will be subject to deficits. When we succeed in Iraq, these deficits will disappear.

Bush has left us far worse off than in 2000

When President Bush took office in 2000, I was very hopeful. He came to office with a budget surplus. We were the lone remaining superpower. He promised not to send our troops abroad unnecessarily. As he is a Republican with a Republican Congress, I expected that our government would continue to be fiscally responsible. We were involved in negotiating the Kyoto Treaty. He even had an education plan. Things were looking up.

I was completely astounded at how quickly President Bush made the surplus evaporate. We abandoned U.S. involvement in addressing global warming. After 9/11, it became clear that even a superpower could be vulnerable to devastating attacks. I applauded the invasion of Afghanistan and the policy of holding governments that harbor terrorists accountable. Then I was astounded by how quickly things turned sour when Bush rushed to war with Iraq while the inspectors were still there.

While life is better for the children of Afghanistan (Bush deserves credit for this), it is far less secure for my child. After four years, we are not better off. We are not even as well off as we were. We need a president who recognizes the complex challenges we face and takes appropriate action. Sen. Kerry convinces me he is that president. Vote.

President's team isn't doing the job

"Support Our Troops" stickers and decals are very popular. As I put my decal on my car, I realized that at best I was only being a cheerleader for our troops. Putting a "Support Our Troops" decal on my car does no more to support our troops than cheerleaders give aid to athletes on the playing field. How, then, can we actually support our troops?

We begin by identifying what is working against our troops and then see if we can do something about it. We learn from many sources that the war is being grossly mismanaged. Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni has gone so far as accusing high Pentagon officials of dereliction of duty in the lead-up to and conduct of the war. Those primarily responsible for this mismanagement have been President Bush's political appointees in the Department of Defense — Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their crew. They have been colossal failures and need to be replaced.

However, as the war gets ugly and the insurgency grows stronger and our undermanned force is stretched thin, President Bush has not replaced a single official responsible for this failing.

Abercrombie didn't listen well at forum

Out of all the questions Neil Abercrombie could have asked me at the OHA congressional forum on Oct. 27 — in these times of global conflict, domestic security fears and the need to address Hawai'i's future — his question was this: "Do you support Mike Gabbard?"

I answered that my focus was my race with him in the First District and not the Second District candidate, and that his weak record demanded change.

But, Mr. Abercrombie, if you were trying to get me to say that I would only support a Republican, you weren't listening all night. In fact, should Ed Case be re-elected in the Second District, I would be honored to serve alongside him as a young, energetic bipartisan team working in the best interests of all Hawai'i.

Tanonaka attack on Abercrombie off base

Dalton Tanonaka implies that Neil Abercrombie supports the draft because he introduced a bill to reinstate the draft. Abercrombie, who has always been opposed to the draft (we were classmates), introduced the bill to force discussion of the draft into the public. All discussions up to that point had been conducted behind closed doors, antithetical to our democracy.

Of course, Abercrombie voted against the bill he introduced, which was clearly his intention from the beginning.

Tanonaka's intentional misrepresentations — or worse, lack of understanding of the legislative process — clearly make him unworthy of your vote.

Neil Abercrombie deserves re-election

Rep. Neil Abercrombie supports active-duty military and civilian defense workers in many ways.

In his position as the ranking member of the House subcommittee responsible for military construction projects, he has brought millions of dollars into Hawai'i, enabling the military to more efficiently accomplish its assigned tasks. His support of programs to hire engineers and apprentices has allowed many of our best and brightest to remain in Hawai'i with good jobs and secure futures.

Re-elect Neil Abercrombie for a strong Hawai'i and a strong national defense.

Note that SHOPO endorsed anti-gays

Recently, two tourists, on separate occasions, were attacked in Waikiki for being gay. I begin to understand why the Police Department was apparently reluctant to deal with the attacks and took days after the attacks to begin investigations.

It seems the Police Department is endorsing homophobia. The full-page ad taken by SHOPO in the voters' guide in last Sunday's paper endorses at least three candidates opposed to gay rights: Mike Gabbard, a man whose obsession with fighting against the rights of gay Americans is well known; Paul Whelan, who, in a conversation some years back, indicated that marriage relationships are based on gender/genitals, not love; and Mufi Hannemann, who supported Mike Gabbard in his fight against equal marriage rights in 1998. There may be others among the list of endorsees, but these three I know.

The only civil-rights nightmare missing is Cam Cavasso, who, on his Web site, indicates that he considers same-sex marriage (which is illegal in Hawai'i by constitutional mandate) to be a greater threat than terrorism or the economy.

It's too bad we can't elect a new Police Department. Whether or not one believes that gay citizens should have the same marriage rights as straight couples, I doubt there are many who think the police should overlook crimes because they are committed against homosexuals.

Legislating religious beliefs is dangerous

Richard Halloran's Oct. 26 letter disputes Richard Miller's Sunday Focus commentary stating that voters should not allow our religious beliefs to govern how we vote in an election. Mr. Halloran says that professor Miller is "asking Americans to set aside the Judeo-Christian tradition on which our nation was founded." What Judeo-Christian tradition is Mr. Halloran speaking of?

My reading of American history indicates that with respect to religion, even more paramount than the freedom to worship as one pleases, our Founding Fathers were adamant in wanting religion excluded from government.

Mr. Halloran emotively claims that in the wake of professor Miller's proposal, "Gone would be the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and scores of laws and customs." Again, a close look at history and biography reveals that none of the main authors of those three perceptive documents, Jefferson, Madison and Lincoln, respectively, were adherents of Judeo-Christian philosophy. Nor were many of the other Founding Fathers of our country, including Washington, Adams and Franklin. These men had seen firsthand the inequities that ensued when religion and state conjoined and wanted nothing of it in this new nation.

The danger of legislating religious beliefs, using religious beliefs to justify state decisions, or claiming that this country was built upon the beliefs of any one religion, is the beginning of a process that has undone many a great nation.

Don't blame Mufi for 'Our Home' slogan

Duke Bainum's whispering campaign will backfire.

In a letter this week, Henry Hanalei Kim defends Duke's "local-ness" and goes on to accuse Mufi Hannemann of starting a "negative campaign." He writes, "Mufi started it when he opened his campaign with his slogan 'Our Home, Our Mayor' on all his posters, signs, banners, brochures and television and radio ads. He ran a television ad featuring children with local roots supporting Mufi as one of their own."

I produced the commercial Mr. Kim is referring to. It was shot in my neighborhood and features (among others) my twin 9-year-old boys. Mr. Kim's recollection of the commercial seems a little fuzzy as my kids have blond hair and shiny pink faces. He is correct in saying they have local roots as they were born at Kapi'olani Medical Center. And, yes, they do consider Mufi one of their own, because no one has taught them not to.

The slogan "Our Home, Our Mayor" was, and is, all-inclusive, meant for everyone. It's an extremely positive concept about responsibility and belonging. The "Our" applied to all who are committed to what's best for our island home. Mr. Kim's negative spin and implied accusations of racism are recurring themes of the Bainum campaign and have no place in Hawai'i.

Democratic attack on Pendleton not pono

I am an eight-year Kailua resident and proud constituent of Rep. David Pendleton. He has served our community with distinction. We are lucky to have such a hard-working, honest and bright member serving us.

The Democratic Party recently mailed misleading postcards to my home attacking Rep. Pendleton, claiming he missed 1,022 votes. This number includes missed "First Reading" votes, which happen before bills get to committee. During First Reading, legislators cannot vote "No" or speak to the substance of the bill. These are not substantive votes.

The Democrats could have been honest by mentioning there are approximately 3,000 First Reading votes a session. Over the years, Rep. Pendleton has attended thousands of these sessions. His attendance for all bill readings, committees and community meetings is probably over 95 percent.

It's a shame the Democrats must tell half-truths to try to get Pono Chong elected. That's not good. It's certainly not pono.

Letter misrepresented support by the HGEA

On behalf of the Hawai'i Government Employees Association, I wish to set the record straight about our involvement in the race for State House District 18 in which we support Lyla Berg in her effort to unseat Bertha Leong.

In a letter published by your paper on Oct. 27, Douglas Lung of Kuli'ou'ou accuses the HGEA of sending out "propaganda and deceptive mailings" that distort Ms. Leong's image and her claimed support of families and education. Nothing could be further from the truth.

For this race, the HGEA only sent materials to our members that tout Ms. Berg's candidacy — her many years of community service; her leadership experience as a small-business owner, former teacher and principal, and public school administrator; and her fresh ideas, energy and integrity. We also challenged Ms. Leong's record on specific issues impacting the HGEA — which did not include education and family issues.

It seems that Mr. Lung (who is not an HGEA member, therefore would not receive our mail) is spreading nonsense to the voters to sway their support.

Stonebraker isn't getting the job done

I can appreciate The Advertiser's approach to political endorsements. Choosing candidates to increase minority voice can enhance debate and elevate good ideas. In most cases, I would agree that candidates are focused on community concerns. However, endorsements also can do a disservice to communities if candidates are not so focused.

In House District 17, Bud Stonebraker has ignored the issues that concern our community. For example, he has no plan for curbing irresponsible development or reducing traffic. Rich Halverson does. Our schools have been neglected. Halverson has talked to the principals and has a list of prioritized needs. In contrast, Stonebraker takes credit for lines on a school parking lot, while neglecting the very things likely to improve education (such as adequate textbooks and teacher's pay). Thus, he is an ineffective representative as to community concerns.

For the good of the Legislature, I hope the other endorsed candidates win. While Bud Stonebraker may increase House debate, I'm voting for Rich Halverson because his ideas, priorities and votes are needed.

State amendments should be rejected

Thanks for your Oct. 24 editorial "On the constitutional amendments, vote no." The Hawai'i Constitution should not be a bulletin board for half-thought-through notions based on a fear that bad guys are not getting what they deserve.

We should be wary — no, afraid — of any attempt to justify limiting individual rights to gain convenience or cost-savings. The prosecutor's and AG's offices have their work to do, and they already have adequate tools to do that work within a tried-and-true, rights-preserving framework.

I echo your recommendations: Vote "No" on all four constitutional admendments.

Siding with criminals

It is sad that The Advertiser would side with the criminal element in Hawai'i by recommending a "No" vote on all of the sex crime amendments. This in spite of many endorsements for a "Yes" vote on all four of them by many child advocacy groups and law enforcement.

It is clear from this and many other editorials that the editors of this paper have no regard for the victims of crime. A "No" vote is tantamount to an endorsement of sexual abuse of minors.