The Honolulu Congressional District Is One Of America's Bluest-- But The Establishment Is Trying To Sneak An "Ex"-Republican Into The Seat

There's only one real Democrat running for the open seat in Honolulu

Sunday I sent Marianne Williamson, an old friend, a note introducing her to Hawaii state Rep. Kaniela Ing. I'm guessing most people on Maui think of him as the guy who writes legislation that's a step or three ahead of where the rest of the state-- and country-- are. He's working on things like tuition-free education, guaranteed minimum income (advocated in the past by Abu Bakr, Thomas Paine and Napoleon and, more recently, by Friedrich Hayek, Richard Nixon, John Kenneth Galbraith and Daniel Patrick Moynihan), 100% renewable energy (by 2035), scrapping the cap on Social Security and, of course, impeaching Trump. But when I introduced him to Marianne, what I brought up was his commitment to mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food, pesticide disclosure and bufferzones, common-sense regulation of harmful chemicals like Glysophate and regenerative, o‍‍‍rganic agriculture.‍‍‍ In Maui, Kaniela led the citizens' initiative campaign against Monsanto and won-- the first time a citizens initiative campaign won in the state's history.

Marianne has been traveling around the country introducing progressive congressional candidates like Jenny Marshall in North Carolina to her own supporters. I'm hoping she'll include Honolulu on her list of events. Kaniela, the most progressive Democrat in Hawaii's legislature is running for Congress. But what's really strange is that his 3 opponents in the Democratic primary are conservative Republicans pretending to be Democrats. You think I'm kidding? Let's start with the only other declared candidate, EMILY's List Special, Donna Kim, an anti-LGBQ fanatic. A few years ago when EMILY's List failed to foist Kim on Hawaiian voters I wrote that "Many elderly ladies who remember when EMILY's List was founded by Ellen Malcolm 30 years ago don't realize EMILY's List has swung from being a basically progressive organization to being one of the most conservative and untrustworthy elements in the Democratic coalition. 'We don't care about anything except electing pro-choice women to office,' they use as their excuse for backing absolutely horrible conservatives most of the time-- even when their conservative candidate, like Kim, isn't even really pro-Choice. It's identity politics at its ugliest. EMILY's List is backing Kim because Kim is a woman. Other candidates in the race are much more pro-choice than Kim but… well, that's EMILY's List 2014. Maybe EMILY's List should have consulted with the Patsy T. Mink PAC, which is Hawaii's progressive version of EMILY's List. They have never once endorsed the conservative Donna Kim in her 30 years of politics. There's a reason for that.

For one thing, Kim regularly campaigns at vehemently anti-Choice fundamentalist churches, and even partners with them in her official capacity. It hasn't been clear Kim is even pro-contraception. In 2012, when seeking the endorsement of the anti-choice Hawaii Family Forum, she described herself as undecided on whether rape victims should be entitled to emergency contraception. She very pointedly hasn’t commented on the Hobby Lobby decision.

EMILY's List head Schriock, who apparently knows as little about Hawaii politics as her organization knew about Memphis when they waded into an anti-semitic campaign there with their bulging wallets wide open, also described Kim as "pro-labor" and "pro-education," which was equally surprising to anyone watching this race for an open seat in Hawaii's First Congressional District. Kim is well known for railing against public-employee unions and what she regards as excess in social services and public education. In fact, that's probably what she's most known for (well, in addition to corruption, always a big turn-on for EMILY's List). Opposition to public investment is certainly what she wants to be known for, as she brings it up at every opportunity. It’s why she’s called “outspoken."

She regularly appears on right-wing media to argue for cuts in government programs with the type of impassioned outrage that would make a Tea Partier blush. As we once reported, when she appeared on the local Christian Coalition's TV show (as a "very, very special guest"), she exclaimed to the enraptured host that educators “getting paid huge dollars!” She complains to birther-friendly bloggers that educators’ salaries are “bloated.” Her campaign website notes that Kim supports a balanced-budget amendment, which of course would be ruinous.

On its website, the Christian Coalition describes Kim as "fantastic." She is the always that organization's favorite, as she's regarded as the only reliable anti-LGBT candidate of any party. So Hawaii is seeing a partnership of EMILY's List and the Christian Right for the first time. Donna Kim is the Nikki Tinker of the Pacific, the face of EMILY's List's downward trajectory. Kim’s unwavering loyalty to corporate interests and the Religious Right have helped turn her into a prodigious fundraiser. While the media can be expected to focus on the horse race and always lauds Kim for her prowess at generating campaign cash, her right-leaning record usually goes unexamined. She has always favored business over labor and consumers:

"My first priority to help businesses will be to work with the business community for their suggestions on ways that we can eliminate unnecessary regulations and requirements that make it difficult to run a business. On a long-term note, I will make a comprehensive review of existing laws, compare them with other more business-friendly states and come up with a comprehensive package to make Hawaii attractive to national and international businesses."

She has a well-earned reputation for trying to humiliate public employees and fight public projects during legislative hearings. Her incessant attacks on the public sector, which often include allegations of unethical conduct, have been praised in conservative media outlets. (Meanwhile, Kim occasionally gets called out on her own ethics.) And while long a foe of environmentalists (dating back to her days as a pro-development Honolulu City Councilmember), Kim has been lauded by the Hawaii Christian Coalition (for introducing a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage) and New Hope Honolulu (a Christian fundamentalist church where she’s been received as a VIP attendee).

OK, two more arch-conservatives are running against Kaniela as well. Remember Beth Fukumoto? Earlier this year Republicans in the state House fired her as GOP minority leader after she criticized Trump. As far back as 2013, national media was lauding her as one of the new breed of conservative Republican women remaking the right. She was lumped in-- rightfully-- with hardcore Republican politicians like drunken New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez (NM), Scott Walker's extremist Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch, corrupt Trumpist Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Alabama Congresswoman and current Roy Moore supporter Martha Roby, Utah rightist Mia Love and Nicole Malliotakis, the female Michael Grimm, a corrupt Staten Island wing nut who went with Grimm to Cyprus to visit a Putin-owned bank. Of Fukumoto they wrote that after she had been in office for just a year she was "selected by the RNC in Washington to showcase its Women on the Right Unite program to elect more conservative women to office."

After she was dumped for calling Trump a bully, she didn't change her bigoted right wing positions on issues-- she's anti-Choice, an incredibly homophobic asshole and has always opposed all legislation meant to give Hawaii's working families a break. She just changed the "R" next to her name to a "D." That's pure opportunism, not a Saul on the Road to Damascus conversion. Instead, she told HKON2 that "If you followed what happened at the state convention, I got booed for about 10 minutes straight for raising concerns about President Trump... [T]here have been many calls for my resignation, and my caucus members have raised concerns about whether or not that means I’m a Republican, whether or not that means I’m fit for leadership, whether or not that means I should even be an elected official. My caucus has asked me to stop speaking out about Trump and to make a commitment. They’ve said they’ll keep me as minority leader if I make a commitment not to speak out against Trump for the remainder of his term." Although Fukumoto backs every single reactionary Republican policy she couldn't make a deal and the other 5 GOP legislators in the state House fired her as Minority Leader.

Democrats let her join their party, even though she hasn't indicated she would ever vote with Democrats. Example: when the House voted to require gun owners to register in a database, she supported her NRA allies and voted NO. Similarly, when the Dems voted to end the sale of tobacco products to people under the age of 21, she was one of 7 votes in opposition. And, of course, when the House passed a bill legalizing same sex marriage, she voted against it-- and lead the opposition against it (as did Donna Kim, who had also voted against Civil Unions twice in 2011 and once in 2010).

Meanwhile, Hawaii's Democratic political establishment-- basically the folks who pushed Clinton during the primary and were rebuffed by Hawaii's voters 70-30%-- want to see Attorney General Doug Chin win the seat. Before being appointed AG, he was a sleazy Republican lobbyist. The party feels it has an anti-Trump candidate and they hope they can confuse voters into thinking anti-Trump= progressive. It doesn't. Chin challenged the Trump travel ban-- he was chosen to do it by the Association of Democratic Attorneys General because the Muslim ban isn't a big issue in Hawaii-- and got tons of press for it. Chin has never run for office before. A not very sterling former lobbyist, if he runs, you can count on lots of heretofore hidden baggage emerging. He was a lobbyist for Wasserman Schultz's favorite private prison racket, Corrections Corporation of America and he worked under Honolulu's throw-away-the-key Republican Mayor Peter Carlisle for years as deputy prosecutor, where he opposed criminal justice reform and added to Hawaii's overcrowded prisons, eventually authorizing a deal to send Hawaii prisoners to a Corrections Corporation of America prison in Arizona. Cozy! As a corporate lawyer for Carlsmith Ball, Chin worked for Wall Street banksters against the legitimate interests of Hawaii's working families, reason enough to oppose his attempt to get into Congress.

In September Karen from Maui wrote at Daily Kos that Chin has "been defending business interests who have violated the law and quite rightly the courts have smacked him down. Don't let his one good act (suing over the Muslim Ban) mislead you into thinking he is not the ultimate corporate tool. He is no progressive. Not even close." While other states and cities have stood up to ICE, Chin has been more than compliant. in fact, under Chin Hawaii's per capita deportation rate has been the highest in the nation. Meanwhile, he has a well-earned reputation for approving lots and lots of pay-to play sweetheart deals with millionaire developers and contractors. Chin isn't a progressive, just an anti-Trump Democrat, with more in common with Fukumoto than with an actual Democrat. And, yes, he's a crazy anti-LGBT nutcase too, a gay-hating pastor of a gay-hating church. The church supports ignorant homophobic conversion therapy. And Doug Chin wasn't just attending this anti-gay, anti-marriage equality, conservative, "cult-like" church-- he was the preacher who helped build it, and led his congregation to oppose gay-rights and support gay-conversion therapy for over 20 years. And he's still there! This resistance stuff is opportunistic and inauthentic. If Hawaii was a red state, he'd be running as a Republican.

2 anti-progressive crackpot gay-haters, Chin and Kim

Racist Fanatic William Colmer Has A Minority Majority School In Pascagoula Named After Him-- Plus Hawaii Update

The William M. Colmer Middle School is in Pascagoula, Mississippi. 46% of the students are African-Americans and 15% are Hispanic. 79% of the students are eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch program, somewhat higher than the average for Mississippi (71%). The school is named for Representative William M. Colmer who died on September 9, 1980 (age 90) and is buried at Machpelah Cemetery right their in Pascagoula. The students can walk over to the cemetery and visit their school's namesake. Perhaps they should read a little about the 20-terms congressman from Mississippi's Gulf Coast first though.

Colmer won a primary against Robert Hall in 1932, and that turned out to be a very good year for Democrats. Congressional Republicans lost 101 seats in the House that year. Colmer was elected with 94.5% of the vote-- the lowest percentage of any of Mississippi's 7 Members of Congress. He was swept into office as a New Deal Democrat but soon figured out that the New Deal not only helped whites, which he was fine with, but helped blacks… which he was very much not fine with. As time went by, he turned increasingly more reactionary and made opposing racial equality his life's work.

By all accounts he was a disgusting political figure and in no ways-- except the for "D" next to his name-- a Democrat. He was a blight on the party brand, just the way Blue Dogs, New Dems and corporate shills like Israel, Emanuel, Wasserman Schultz, Crowley and Hoyer are today. Even though Colmer endorsed Nixon against JFK, Humphrey and McGovern and endorsed Goldwater against LBJ, the idiot House Democrats allowed him to retain the Rules Committee chairmanship, putting him in a position to slow down desegregation for years. When he finally retired in 1972, his administrative assistant, Trent Lott-- another pile of racist dogcrap-- ran for his House seat and won… as a Republican-- the first elected there since 1873.

I didn't share this Colmer info with you just as another random example of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, although he was obviously that. I shared it because Karoli seemed so worked up Saturday about a Democratic judicial candidate in Connecticut, Anna Zubkova, whose husband, Rob Freeman, is a very public racist. "If whites had a voice in the government," he wrote, "there might not have been an Iraq war. There might not have been all these horrible trade agreements that are impoverishing everyone. We might have more fuel efficient cars, or more mass transit. Who knows what might have been?" I guess Debbie Wasserman Schultz would call it being part of her twisted conception of a "big tent party."


DREADFUL RESULTS IN HAWAII LAST NIGHT

Voter participation through absentee ballots was high, up over 12% since 2012. But that was the only good news there was yesterday. And although none of the candidates are as bad as William Colmer, it was a good night for the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. As expected, progressive Governor Neil Abercrombie was defeated by centrist David Ige in a huge landslide, 143,835 (67%) to 67,368 (32%). Ige will face Republican Duke Aiona and extreme right-wing ex-Democrat (now Independent) Mufi Hannemann in November. It will be a tough race for him.

With all 113 precincts counted in the first congressional district, the race to replace Hanabusa was won by Mark Takai, a reactionary claiming to have seen the light and miraculously "turned" progressive.

• Mark Takai- 48,510 (45%)
• Donna Mercado Kim- 30,979 (29%)
• Stanley Chang- 11,023 (10%)
• Ikaika Anderson- 7,269 (7%)
• Will Espero- 4,166 (4%)
• Joey Manahan- 3,941 (4%)
• Kathryn Xian- 2,786 (3%)

The Congressional Progressive Caucus undercut progressive Stanley Chang at the last minute by making his endorsement into a dual endorsement of him and conservative homophobe and militarist Takai. The strategy, one of the key players told me, was to stop Donna Kim, an even worse reactionary. Although Takai and Kim have been allies in the legislature and although, when asked, she said if she couldn't win she would like to see Takai win, 2 Japanese-American Progressive Caucus members claimed they could guide Takai in a progressive direction. The last time I heard such a patently spurious argument was when another Progressive Caucus member wanted to endorse Republican-turned-fake-Dem Patrick Murphy in 2012, telling me he could guide Murphy. Murphy did win-- and immediately joined the GOP-leaning, Wall Street-owned and operated New Dems. Murphy has amassed one of the worst voting records of any Democrat in Congress-- a dismal ProgressivePunch crucial vote score of 48.17-- and has worked consistently to undermine progressive values and principles inside the caucus. This cycle he is already the 3rd biggest recipient-- $801,750-- of shady cash from the Financial Sector, right after crooked conservative sell-outs Joe Crowley and Jim Himes.

Even worse news is the still undetermined U.S. Senate race, where corrupt New Dem Colleen Hanabusa has come close to unseating progressive champion Brian Schatz. There are 2 rural precincts on the Big Island that couldn't vote because of Hurricane Iselle-- polling sites at Hawaii Paradise Community Center and Keone-opoko Elementary School-- so it will be some days before the election is decided. Democrats there will vote by absentee ballot. Right now, as best I can tell, the 245 of 247 precincts have given Schatz the tiniest of leads-- 105,794 (49.38%) to 104,008 (48.55%). He's leading her by 1,786 votes and it's a real stretch seeing her make up that kind of a lead in just two precincts.

As of the July 20 reporting deadline, Schatz had raised $4,914,576, spent $3,937,606 and was sitting on $976,970. Hanabusa had raised $2,876,245, spent $2,408,572 and was sitting on $522,566. She wrote herself a check for $117,000 out of the personal bribes she and her crooked husband have taken from developers and other shady operators who have financed her sleazy career. Conservative Democratic group EMILY's List put another $697,920 into independent expenditures on Hanabusa's behalf, including a $75,000 push this week. Environmental and progressive groups spent $591,353 to bolster Schatz.

Again, Hanabusa isn't as bad as Colmer. But this is 2014, not 1950 and she's about as bad as you can be and still legitimately call yourself a Democrat today. Yesterday was a terrible day for Hawaii. At least EMILY's List failed-- and failed miserably-- to foist Donna Mercado Kim on Hawaii. They have become the single most destructive player inside the Democratic Party coalition, almost never a force for progressive politics-- almost always a force for reactionary thinking, a real corrupt, money-based pillar of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.


UPDATE: Who Are The Voters In The 2 Precincts?

The voters in the remaining precincts aren't exactly off the grid but many tend to be anti-establishment, anti-war, anti-GMO, pro-marijuana legalization, and anti-geothermal-- not exactly Hanabusa's crowd, no matter how you slice it or dice it. And she would have to beat Schatz in the two precincts on the Big Island by a 2-1 margin to take the lead, which isn't likely, no matter how much more money EMILY's List throws into her campaign. This post should give you a better idea about who the 8,000 people are who haven't voted yet. Excerpt: "In our district (Puna), Dennis got 60% of the caucus vote. On our island (Hawaii), 50%. In our state (Hawaii), 33%." Probably not admirers of militarist and corporate shill Colleen Hanabusa.

Identity Politics Rearing Its Ugly Head Again-- In Hawaii, Michigan And California

This week, EMILY's List dropped a last minute $17,441 into an independent expenditure for the extremely conservative candidate they're supporting in Honolulu, Donna Mercado Kim. Many elderly ladies who remember when EMILY's List was founded by Ellen Malcolm 30 years ago don't realize EMILY's List has swung from being a basically progressive organization to being one of the most conservative and untrustworthy elements in the Democratic coalition. "We don't care about anything except electing pro-choice women to office," they use as their excuse for backing absolutely horrible conservatives most of the time-- even when their conservative candidate, like Kim, isn't even really pro-Choice. It's identity politics at its ugliest. EMILY's List is backing Kim because Kim is a woman. Other candidates in the race are much more pro-choice than Kim but… well, that's EMILY's List 2014. Maybe EMILY's List should have consulted with the Patsy T. Mink PAC, which is Hawaii's progressive version of EMILY's List. They have never once endorsed the conservative Donna Kim in her 30 years of politics. There's a reason for that.

Last week we looked at how progressive Congressman Mark Takano threw his progressive cred to the winds, lied to the Congressional Progressive Caucus that another conservative, Mark Takai is somehow not a conservative despite a record that proves he is, and tricked them into backing someone based on an ethnic kinship-- Takai and Takano both being Japanese-American. More ugly identity politics.

Today I got a letter from a former Blue America-endorsed Michigan congressional candidate, Syed Taj, from the 11th district. He's a Muslim and last cycle when he could have beaten insane teabagger Kerry Bentovolio, except that anti-Muslim sleaze bag Steve Israel refused to allow the DCCC to help him. So he lost. This year, Israel is trying to insert some ex-CIA agent, Bobby MacKenzie, as the Democratic nominee. Dr. Taj's letter this morning urged me to support another MD, Anil Kumar. I spoke with Kumar a few months ago. He seemed like a nice enough man but, unlike Taj, there was absolutely nothing about him that qualified him for public office, especially not as a Democrat. He and Taj, though, have some identity politics between them.

But the one that really took the cake for identity politics this week wasn't religious, or gender-oriented or ethnic. It was mayoral-- the very conservative, fake-Democratic mayor of San Jose, Chuck Reed, endorsing the Republican mayor of Fresno, Ashley Swearengin, for state Comptroller against a superbly qualified Democrat, Betty Yee. "Ashley Swearengin and I have worked together as part of the Big Ten Mayors, a bipartisan group organized to focus on statewide issues impacting our residents and taxpayers," said Reed. Swearengin’s "focus is not on partisan politics, but rather on getting the job done right. I’m proud to support her."

Reed’s decision to give the cold shoulder to Betty Yee, the state Board of Equalization member who is the Democrats’ choice in the Nov. 4 race, shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. Reed, who has always been well out on the conservative edge of the Democratic Party, is termed out of office this year and has even less reason now to go blue.

Even before Reed was elected in a landslide back in 2006, local Democrats grumbled that the Air Force veteran and land-use attorney was way too conservative for the South Bay. But with San Jose on the brink of financial disaster, voters liked his tough stand on public spending and re-elected him with 77 percent of the vote in 2010.

But when Reed persuaded San Jose voters in 2012 to pass Measure B, which called for city workers to pay more into their pension fund and required a citywide vote before retirement benefits could be increased, labor unions howled and filed lawsuits that are still making their way through the courts. And when Reed pushed for a statewide initiative allowing cities and other government agencies to cut future pensions in a fiscal emergency, Democratic leaders joined their labor allies in loud opposition.

Reed ended up suing Democratic state Attorney General Kamala Harris for what he claimed was a biased title and summary of the initiative written by her office. After losing the court battle, he dropped efforts to put the measure on the 2014 ballot.

Reed said the pension reform was desperately needed because “skyrocketing retirement costs are crowding out funding for essential public services and pushing cities, counties and other government agencies closer to insolvency.” There’s little love lost between the San Jose mayor and the Democratic Party leaders who joined with labor to help quash the measure.

That partisan attack left a mark, as Reed made clear in his pointed endorsement of Swearengin.

The Fresno Republican has “demonstrated the leadership and determination that we need to reform government and improve efficiency, without regard for party labels,” Reed said in his statement.

At least this seems to be based on politics and issues-- albeit from a decidedly right-wing, anti-family prospect that Reed and Swearengin share. I respect that, as much as I disagree with it, much more than picking people based on factors that having nothing to do with policy, the way Takano, Taj and EMILY's List did. Obviously, I still hope Swearengin loses and have every intention of voting for Betty Yee, a far better choice.

August Primaries

There are quite a few of them but the ones progressives have a stake in, in chronological order, are Hawaii (August 9), Wisconsin (August 12), and then a late super-Tuesday on August 26 for Arizona, Florida and Oklahoma. That same day has primaries in Alaska, Missouri, Oregon and Vermont with interesting races but no races that pit a progressive against a shill from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

Up top is the brand new video from one of the most grassroots campaigns anywhere, the Tom Guild campaign for the open Oklahoma City congressional seat. Guild came in a strong first in the 3-way June 24th primary, beating non-courageous, and conservative Establishment Democrat Al McAffrey:

• Tom Guild- 11,597 (42.1%)
• Al McAffrey- 8,505 (30.9%)
• Leona Leonard- 7,424 (27%)

McAffrey, who is being partially financed by Krumme Oil, has out-raised Guild but small contributions through ActBlue are keeping Guild competitive. OK-05 doesn't have an astronomical media market and Guild is using contributions to keep his ad on TV news shows and on a field operation and get out the vote effort.

Yesterday we took a brief look at the WI-07 primary, where a Republican right wing lunatic and gun fanatic, Mike Krsiean, switched his party registration so he could primary progressive Democrat Kelly Westlund in the race to replace Paul Ryan-clone Sean Duffy. The other Wisconsin primary to watch is in the southeast part of the state, WI-01, where an L.A.-based UFO conspiracy buff, Amar Kaleka, is challenging Rob Zerban (on the same day that a Republican marijuana activist named Jeremy Ryan is challenging Paul Ryan in the GOP primary. Republican crossbow expert Ryan Ryan says he will challenge whichever of the two Ryans wins when he's old enough to run in 2016.) So far Paul Ryan raised $6,938,372; Rob Zerban raised $494,878; Amar Kaleka raised $138,353; and neither Jeremy Ryan nor Ryan Ryan has raised enough to file with the FEC. In WI-07, Sean Duffy has raised $1,808,688; Kelly Westlund has raised $303,214; and Mike Krsiean and his 700 pound pig Barney are refusing to report their fundraising to the FEC.

There's an important primary in Phoenix, where Ed Pastor, first elected in 1991, is retiring from a super-blue district, AZ-07 (PVI D+16). Obama beat hometown boy John McCain there 65-34% and in 2012 wiped out Mitt Romney 72-27%. Whoever wins the Democratic primary August 26 will be the next congressmember. There are 4 Democratic candidates, Ruben Gallego, Randy Camacho, Jarrett Maupin and, from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, Mary Rose Wilcox. Gallego, who has been endorsed by Raul Grijalva, Dolores Huerta, MoveOn, the Sierra Club, Climate Hawks Vote and Daily Kos, is the progressive fave in the race and Mary Rose Wilcox is just another grotesquely conservative, corrupt EMILY's List pick. They're the only two who have raised any money-- $434,873 for Gallego and $335,656 for Wilcox. Celinda Lake has done the only published poll (May 22) and it shows Gallego leading Wilcox 38-32%.

Primary day in Hawaii, two weeks from yesterday, is really important and it features two races, one for Senate and one for the House, that pit shills from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party against proven progressives. The Senate race is a match-up between Senator Brian Schatz, one of the best members of the Senate-- right up there with Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley and Tom Harkin-- against a corrupt conservative New Dem, Colleen Hanabusa. Everything you need to know about the Senate primary is here. The House race is to replace Hanabusa in the seat she gave up to run against Schatz. The progressive in the race is Stanley Chang and he's being challenged by two conservatives, Mark Takai and Donna Kim. Back in May the Congressional Progressive Caucus endorsed Chang. Last week, Japanese-American congressman, Mark Takano, lied to his fellow caucus members and convinced them that his Japanese-American pal Takai is not really a conservative and railroaded them into making it a "dual endorsement." They should have known better because Takano, one of the least effective and least trustworthy members of the CPC, also went to bat for corrupt conservative Pete Aguilar (a New Dem) on behalf of DCCC chairman Steve Israel (a Blue Dog who was behind both Aguilar and Takai).

One of the CPC members I respect, even admire, sent me a note that explained how Takano had persuaded him and other members to go for the dual endorsement. I don't have permission to publish it but I will publish my own response to that member:

Yeah, I know. And Brat had no chance to beat Cantor either. So Stanley had "no chance" so you endorsed an anti-gay conservative who's slightly better on most things-- but not all-- than Donna Kim, splitting the progressive vote and guaranteeing that Kim will win. Sorry it took so long to get back to you but the electricity in my neighborhood was down all day 'til just now.

Takai talks a good game, but he's not a progressive, as I've been writing about on my blog.

Many Democrats including el presidente have "evolved" on marriage equality in recent years, but Takai's flip-flop is very recent and smacks of opportunism, which is how the press in Honolulu interpreted it. Takai voted no on civil unions twice and was in favor of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman in 2012. He only reversed his position after deciding to run for Congress, a few months ago. Does a "progressive" go from no on civil unions and pro-marriage amendment to yes on marriage in the blink of an eye?

Takai introduced bills to drug-test welfare recipients twice. He's terrible on choice. You mentioned emergency contraception as an issue that is important to you, but Takai has repeatedly said that he would vote for religious exemptions for hospitals that don't wish to offer emergency contraception, including in statements to the Hawaii Family Forum in 2010 and 2012. This is not ancient history.

You expressed concern about the polling, but the most recent poll (by Civil Beat) was conducted over two months ago. It had a sample size of 249 people and a margin of error of nearly 5%. This poll was in the field just 2 days after Stanley's first TV ad went live and right at the point where Stanley's campaign began ramping up their voter outreach. It does not reflect today's reality on the ground. The media in Hawaii paid barely any attention at all to this race until very recently, due to the high-profile primaries for Senate and Governor. In May, voters were not knowledgeable about the candidates and were only responding on the basis of name recognition.

Labor unions and other local organizations are notoriously risk-averse in their endorsements and tend to go for establishment figures. Stanley has gone out of his way to court labor and all the local unions like him. Many of the major unions like HGEA have decided to stay neutral in this race. The endorsement by Equality Hawaii is a joke. There was no questionnaire, no process, no interview; just a few board members getting together to back Takai. Equality Hawaii is widely mocked and hated by the progressive LGBT community in the state. Takai's endorsement by the Star-Advertiser is meaningless and they are very conservative, having endorsed the worst Democrat in contemporary Hawaii politics Mufi Hannemann (anti-equality so-called Democrat turned Independent this cycle) twice for Governor in 2010 and Congress in 2012. Needless to say, he lost both times.

I'm not sure what evidence Takai gave you for his strong ground game, but we have people on the ground in Honolulu and they are NOT seeing it. Except for Schatz, Stanley's campaign is the only one in the state that has a serious field operation. I'm talking about real voter outreach, not just appearances like sign-waving, which is what many in Hawaii mean when they talk about canvassing.

Kim said in this week's debate, when asked who she would vote for if she weren't running: "To be very honest, I would be supporting Mark Takai, because I've worked with Mark Takai for many years in the State House of Representatives. We get along very well and I respect Mark."

Takai is going through the motions to pander to the progressive community, and if you watch his talking points over the past several months you will notice this evolution. Sure, it's great that he's on our side now for some issues, but I have a hard time imagining him in the Progressive Caucus-- MAYBE the way Jared is-- and I very much doubt that he'll be a reliable progressive vote if elected. His interest first and foremost is bringing more military resources to Hawaii.

XXX, I don't expect anything better from Takano, but you got sold a bill of goods and I feel awful about it.

Endorsed Mark Takai, who has a virulently homophobic voting record, but… what the hell?

Mark Takai Proposed Testing Homeless Veterans For Drugs

"I am proud to support Stanley Chang for Congress. Stanley knows what needs to be done to fix Wall Street and protect the rights of consumers. He has declared his support for the Better Off Budget, which would create 8.8 million jobs by 2017 and reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years. Stanley is a champion for civil rights for all and will work toward a more secure and peaceful world. The Progressive Caucus and its members will work hard to support Stanley to see that he joins us in the 114th Congress."
- Keith Ellison, co-chair, Congressional Progressive Caucus

"Stanley Chang is the clear choice to represent Hawaii’s first district in Congress. His Agenda for Change calls for universal early childhood education, which has been a key focus of my work as a member of the Committee on Education and The Workforce. Stanley has proposed a bold job creation plan and is fighting for an increase in the federal minimum wage. I look forward to working with him on important environmental priorities such as preserving wilderness and protecting endangered species. We need more bold progressives like Stanley in Congress."
- Raúl Grijalva, co-chair, Congressional Progressive Caucus

Congressional candidate Mark Takai wants to subject homeless veterans to drug tests.

Ironically, he’s campaigning as a supporter of military veterans. Takai, who is running for the open seat in Hawaii’s First Congressional District, campaigns in his National Guard uniform-- which isn't legal-- and recently secured a Vote Vets endorsement. More identity politics, like EMILY's List endorsement of the other conservative in the race, Donna Mercado Kim.

As the Vote Vets PAC has highlighted for years, unemployment and homelessness have long been rampant among veterans.

As a Democratic back bencher in Hawaii’s legislature for the past 20 years, Takai has compiled precious few legislative accomplishments. Takai is a former athlete at the University of Hawaii, and much of his work has focused on raising money for the school’s athletic department (notably, not for its libraries). But over the last three years, his other pet cause has been imposing warrantless, suspicionless drug tests on anyone seeking public benefits.

Served your country in Iraq and Afghanistan, but returned home to face difficulty finding good work and feeding your kids? Takai wants you tested for drugs.

He introduced legislation for that purpose in both 2012 and 2013. The 2012 bill would have imposed the most stringent drug-testing program in the country, requiring all applicants for temporary assistance for needy families to pass a drug test as a prerequisite to receiving any benefits. A failed test would result in the applicant being denied benefits. That bill went nowhere. The 2013 bill had an even more far-reaching policy goal: “to ensure that only those who choose not to use illegal drugs” would be eligible for any “public assistance programs.” The proposal was mitigated by the prerequisite of cost-benefit analysis. Takai’s colleagues recognized suspicionless drug testing of welfare recipients is not only cruel, but also inefficient, and also defeated this bill.

In Wednesday night’s debate-- the final candidate forum before the August 9th Democratic primary-- Takai had the nerve to express concern for the more than 800 homeless veterans in Hawaii. But it’s clear he’s much more of a pro-military candidate than a pro-veteran candidate.

He’s been most comfortable in debates talking about the need for more Pentagon spending. It’s a topic he turns to again and again-- often including strong critiques of President Obama (despite this being Obama’s birthplace and a 70-percent Obama district)-- even giving exclusive interviews to right-wing blogs and talk shows.

Takai’s use of his military uniform while campaigning and constant defense references are attempts to give him some foreign-policy gravitas. But he in a recent debacle, he showed he’s over his head when it comes to foreign affairs, while also committing a serious ethical breach.

Takai took a free trip-- valued at $8,000-- to Azerbaijan last year to participate in a conference sponsored by oil companies. He came back home and promptly introduced two resolutions drafted by the Azerbaijan government-- expressing anti-Armenian viewpoints-- and actually scheduled them in his committee. An international embarrassment was narrowly avoided as Armenian-Americans from Hawaii and U.S. Mainland expressed outrage and convinced Takai’s colleagues to defeat the resolutions.

Ben Lowenthal, a local newspaper columnist has more on the story:

And what about an oil-company sponsored holiday? Is that an ethical problem? No way, says Takai. Civil Beat reported that Takai explained to its reporters that at the time of the trip, the Hawaii Legislature had not addressed any relevant issues that directly would benefit Azerbaijan so there was no ethical problem in going on the trip.

But that may not be the case for the future. Taka and Cabanilla introduced in the House this session two resolutions addressing a very touchy subject in that part of the world.

House Resolution 13 states a number of facts that you would not expect to find floating around our legislature. It addresses an armed conflict that broke out between Azerbaijan and Armenia as the Soviet Union collapsed. The countries have been (and continue to be) locked in a territorial dispute for some time.

According to the resolution, the town of Khojaly in Azerbaijan was the site of a massacre on February 25 and 26, 1992. There, the resolution states that six-hundred men, women, and children were killed, and thousands were wounded and captured by Armenian and Russian forces. The resolution marks the twenty-second anniversary of the “Khojaly tragedy.” The other resolution urges the United States to strengthen ties to Azerbaijan in coming up with some kind of settlement with Armenia over this disputed region.

The factual claims in the resolutions have been hotly disputed by our local Armenian-American community and the greater Armenian population.

. . . Mark Takai doesn’t seem to have a problem with taking sides. Last year he-- along with other American legislators-- signed off on a birthday note to the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev. Takai congratulated Aliyev in his efforts to reduce crime within the country and promoting allegiances abroad.

Aliyev has been criticized by many diplomats and those that follow international relations as an autocrat. After taking office in 2003, he eliminated term limits for himself from the constitution. He’s been accused of running a corrupt government, clamping down on a free press, and rigged elections. The infamous Wikileaks website released a cache of diplomatic cables in 2012 that compare him to a mafia crime boss. Surely, Takai was aware of this before congratulating him on reducing crime in his country eight time zones away, right?

With just over two weeks left in what figures to be a close election (with seven candidates), Takai is scrambling for support and even reaching out to gun guys. The Hawaii Rifle Association recently lauded him for his “supportive record,” which the organization noted contrasts with his two main rivals in the congressional race, Donna Kim and Stanley Chang. A Hawaii-based gun rights blog last week featured this entry: “I have been personally been contacted by Mark Takai requesting my vote and monetary contribution toward his campaign. . . He claims to be the closest one that will get an endorsement from HRA.” On his campaign website, Takai goes out of his way to voice his support for hunting and notes he’s only concerned about regulating “military grade weapons.”

Courting the Right has been part of Takai’s campaign strategy throughout his tenure. For instance, he’s repeatedly bragged to the Hawaii Family Forum that he opposes the right of rape victims to receive emergency contraception at all hospitals.

Amazingly, Takai is being touted in some circles as the progressive choice in this race. But how could anyone who pays attention to his record possibly fall for that one?

Thankfully, Chang provides an actual liberal alternative.

He’s been winning the debates with clearly stated progressive views-- he was the only candidate Wednesday to state concern about children refugees at the border-- as noted in real time via social media:

Chang: It’s our responsibility to facilitate open, transparent consensus building process with Native Hawaiians #KITVdebate
— Honolulu Civil Beat (@CivilBeat) July 24, 2014

Could be just me but Stanley Chang has the clearest platform and clearest message delivery. #KITVdebate
— Cedric Duarte (@cedricduarte) July 24, 2014

RT @CivilBeat: Chang: Create new industries to move economy forward. Clean energy is a great example #KITVdebate
— Climate Hawks Vote (@ClimateHawkVote) July 24, 2014

So pleased that the people of HI-1 got to hear from @stanleypchang tonight on @kitv4 #hipol #kitvdebate pic.twitter.com/X6VtsEPskS
— Alina Meltaus (@alinacm) July 24, 2014

You won. RT @stanleypchang: I will not only protect, I will expand social security. What did you think of the debate? #HI01
— Jeff Melland (@Jeff_Melland) July 24, 2014

A committed environmentalist and civil libertarian, Chang has been endorsed by People for the American Way, the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC, the new Climate Hawks Vote and Blue America. With absentee voting already underway, Chang needs help in getting out the vote to ensure the only progressive candidate emerges as the victor in this crowded field, and that neither of the two conservatives from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, Kim and Takai, pulls the wool over voters' eyes and succeeds as passing themselves off as progressives.

Stanley with Juan Antonio Vargas

Hawaii: A Bastion Of Progressivism-- Let's Keep It That Way

Hawaii's primary is August 9, a week from Saturday. Saturday? Sure, that's how to encourage voter participation in a democracy-- have the elections when people aren't working. Conservatives are generally terrified at the prospect of more people voting-- especially working class people-- so they tend to block legislation like Hawaii's. Hawaii is a pretty progressive state, first to mass a $10.10 minimum wage, first to start the process of marriage equality. The Republican Party is pretty moribund there and the Democratic Party has been in charge since 1962. In recent times Bill Clinton won twice, George Bush lost twice and Obama won twice-- with over 70% both times. There are no Republicans in federal office, only one Republican state senator (out of 25) and only 7 Republicans in the 51 member House. In the last U.S. Senate race, pitting progressive Democrat Mazie Hirono against conservative (not extremist) Republican Governor Linda Lingle, Hirono beat Lingle 269,489 (63%) to 160,994 (37%).

That's not to say Hawaii doesn't have a powerful conservative faction working against the interests of working families. The problem is that they're smart enough to embed themselves in the Democratic Party and tell lo-info voters that they are also "progressives." So you wind up with shady career politicians like Ed Case, Colleen Hanabusa, Mufi Hannemann, Donna Mercado Kim, Mark Takai, who would be Republicans in any other state, festering as Democrats in Hawaii. Donna Kim, for example, is the state Senate president but just voted against increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 and against marriage equality for Hawaii's big LGBT community. And now she wants to bring her right-wing bigotry to Washington to replace fellow conservative Colleen Hanabusa, the anti-Social Security New Dem who is being pushed by EMILY's List against progressive Senator Brian Schatz.

Schatz, who has been endorsed by President Obama, Elizabeth Warren and every senator who has endorsed in the race, is the lead sponsor of the Strengthening Social Security Act, which would increase benefits by an average of $65-70/month and extend the viability of the Social Security system by removing the wage cap on Social Security, so that all Americans pay their fair share, even rich people. The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare endorsed him because of this bill and because of Hanabusa's awful vote in favor of the Simpson-Bowles budget framework and her eagerness to "compromise" away hard earned benefits for working people and seniors, primarily by raising the age of retirement and by recalculating down the cost of living adjustments for retired and handicapped people, which is the Republican position, not the Democratic position.

Hanabusa and her shady lobbyist supporters have been trying to deceive voters in Hawaii by claiming that Schatz's vote on the Bipartisan Budget Act in 2013 cut Social Security benefits by extending provider cuts under Medicare for 2 years. This is total nonsense, and Hanabusa is trying to misrepresent her vote in opposition to the BBA as a vote to protect Medicare and Social Security. Although the BBA was not perfect, it rolled back sequestration cuts and Democrats would not agree to any deal unless Social Security and Medicare benefits were not touched. That's exactly what happened in the deal. As a result, every Senate Democrat and President Obama supported the legislation. Essentially, Hanabusa joined Senate Tea Party Republicans like Ted Cruz on this vote. On top of that, the "cuts" to Medicare/Social Security that Hanabusa is squawking about are actually decreases in provider reimbursements under Medicare that were extended from 2021 and 2023. These provider decreases were actually established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 which Hanabusa neglects to mention that she voted for. Essentially, she voted to establish sequestration and Medicare reimbursement cuts, spent all of 2013 complaining about the negative impacts of sequestration, and then when she had a chance to help fix the worst aspects of sequestration that she helped create, she voted against BBA in a thinly veiled effort to create a difference in position between her and Schatz.

And it gets worse since Hanabusa also bitterly complained that the BBA cut military retiree pensions. Senator Schatz and other Democrats didn't like this aspect of the legislation, and after the BBA passed, Schatz introduced legislation to eliminate that portion of the BBA. This repeal passed-- with Hanabusa and other conservatives voting against the repeal. Jim Dean, chairman of Democracy for America said this about Hanabusa's Republican posture on Social Security:

Hanabusa has been desperately trying to evade responsibility for her vote to cut Social Security and Medicare. At a recent debate, Schatz looked directly at Hanabusa and asked if she regretted her vote for the Simpson-Bowles plan to cut Social Security. She tried to say her vote wouldn't have cut benefits or raise the retirement age.

Schatz then pulled out his trump card. He read out a letter the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare wrote to her, pleading with her to vote against the Simpson-Bowles plan that would have cut benefits and raised the retirement age. The facts are clear-- Hanabusa can't be trusted to protect Social Security.

Hanabusa's claim that Schatz voted to cut Social Security benefits because he voted to extend Medicare reimbursement cuts by two years is typical, sleazy Beltway garbage. Medicare and Social Security are separate programs with different funding and trust funds, so it is absolutely false that Schatz voted to cut Social Security benefits. He's been endorsed by all the organizations voting to protect and expand Social Security. She's backed by conservatives like herself. "The Republicans in the House and the Tea Party," said Schatz, "seem bound and determined to undermine Social Security and I think it's important that for we Democrats in the Senate to stake out a position that not only are we not entertaining cutting Social Security, but we ought to be thinking about ways to enhance the program-- both for the beneficiaries and for the trust fund to be healthy over the long run."

Although EMILY's List promised Hanabusa they could "deliver" Elizabeth Warren's endorsement if she ran against Schatz, Warren not only refused, she enthusiastically endorsed Schatz. In a stunning rebuke to EMILY's List and Hanabusa's deceitful campaign, this week she told her supporters that "I am proud to stand with Senator Mazie Hirono, Senator Brian Schatz, and a growing number in Congress who are committed to protecting and expanding Social Security benefits. The most recent discussion about cutting benefits has focused on something called the Chained-CPI. Supporters of the Chained-CPI say that it’s a more accurate way of measuring cost of living increases for seniors. That statement is simply not true. Chained CPI is just a fancy way of saying cut benefits. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has developed a measure of the real impact of inflation on seniors. It’s called the CPI-E. If we adopted it today, it would generally increase benefits for our retirees-- not cut them. In the end, this is not just about math. It’s about our values. If we want a robust middle class-- a middle class that continues to serve as the backbone of our country-- then we must take the retirement crisis seriously."

As we've discussed before, Hanabusa was one of the congressmembers from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party who refused to sign the Grayson-Takano Social Security pledge or to back Schatz's Strengthening Social Security Act. And on the same Saturday voters in Hawaii are choosing between Hanabusa and Schatz, they are also picking Hanabusa's replacement for the first congressional district (basically, Honolulu). Blue America, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, DFA and People for the American Way have all endorsed Stanley Chang against two well-funded conservative Democrats, Donna Kim and Mark Takai. Chang, who was one of Elizabeth Warren's students at Harvard Law, has backed the same ideas for strengthening and extending Social Security as Schatz. When we asked him this morning, this is what he told us:

I categorically oppose all cuts to Social Security and I am proud to have repeatedly pledged support for the Grayson-Takano Letter, which reads in part: “We will vote against any and every cut to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits-- including raising the retirement age or cutting the cost of living adjustments that our constituents earned and need.” For me, this promise is the first step in bold strategy to not only protect and defend Social Security, but to expand its critical benefits so that all of our kupuna can retire in dignity after a lifetime of work.

Social Security is the bedrock of the safety net our seniors have earned. The common-sense progressive solution that will ensure Social Security’s solvency for decades to come would be to “scrap the cap.” Currently, only the first $117,000 of income is taxed for Social Security, but if we eliminate this loophole, we will have the necessary funds to ensure that our seniors remain healthy and financially secure.

I am opposed to using so-called “chained CPI” to calculate cost-of-living adjustments. This is merely another way to enact deep, harsh cuts to Social Security, which keeps 22 million seniors out of poverty.

You can help Stanley Chang with his crucial get out the vote effort here and you can do the same for Brian Schatz here. They're both from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.



EMILY's List Teams Up With Christian Coalition In Hawaii

Three of the four Hawaii state senators who voted against marriage equality last year: Mike Gabbard, Donna Kim, Sam Slom

Last Thursday night, backward and reactionary congressional candidate Donna Kim told PBS Hawaii viewers she opposes marriage equality based on her Catholic faith. The very next morning she was endorsed by EMILY's List, a nominally pro-choice organization.

When Stephanie Schriock described Kim as “pro-choice” in the group’s endorsement statement, it was more than a desperate stretch; many in Hawaii were shocked. That term has rarely, if ever, been used to describe to Kim, a state senator who's been in various elected offices for 30 years. Kim has never been endorsed by the Patsy T. Mink PAC, which supports pro-choice women seeking election to the Hawaii state legislature. Kim regularly campaigns at vehemently anti-Choice fundamentalist churches, and even partners with them in her official capacity.

Indeed, it hasn't been clear Kim is even pro-contraception. In 2012, when seeking the endorsement of the anti-choice Hawaii Family Forum, she described herself as undecided on whether rape victims should be entitled to emergency contraception. She very pointedly hasn’t commented on the Hobby Lobby decision.

Schriock, who apparently knows as little about Hawaii politics as her organization knew about Memphis when they waded into an anti-semitic campaign there with their bulging wallets wide open, also described Kim as "pro-labor" and "pro-education," which was equally surprising to anyone watching this race for an open seat in Hawaii's First Congressional District.

Kim is well known for railing against public-employee unions and what she regards as excess in social services and public education. In fact, that's probably what she's most known for (well, in addition to corruption, always a big turn-on for EMILY's List). Opposition to public investment is certainly what she wants to be known for, as she brings it up at every opportunity. It’s why she’s called “outspoken."

She regularly appears on right-wing media to argue for cuts in government programs with the type of impassioned outrage that would make a Tea Partier blush. As we recently reported, when she appeared on the local Christian Coalition's TV show (as a "very, very special guest"), she exclaimed to the enraptured host that educators “getting paid huge dollars!” She complains to birther-friendly bloggers that educators’ salaries are “bloated.” Her campaign website notes that Kim supports a balanced-budget amendment, which of course would be <ruinous.

On its website, the Christian Coalition describes Kim as "fantastic." She is the organization's favorite in this race, as she's regarded as the only reliable anti-LGBT candidate of any party.

So Hawaii is seeing a partnership of EMILY's List and the Christian Right for the first time. Donna Kim is the Nikki Tinker of the Pacific, the face of EMILY's List's downward trajectory.

Kim has been leading the polls, based on name recognition and corporate cash. But the PBS Hawaii debate-- the first televised event featuring all seven Democratic candidates-- was many voters' initial opportunity to focus on the race. Contentious primaries for governor and U.S. Senate have been dominating local headlines. Honolulu media outlets have reported on Kim’s status as a former homecoming queen and her “nifty” TV ads, but haven’t examined her record. So, some observers were shocked by Kim's articulation of across-the-board conservatism (even though it’s consistent with her voting record).

Meanwhile, the debate was Stanley Chang's coming-out party. The 31-year-old first-term Honolulu City Councilmember impressed viewers with his clearly stated views, deep knowledge of issues and proud progressivism. While the others equivocated or appeared to attack Obamacare from the right, Chang stood out by advocating for single-payer health care. He also said he seeks an inclusive version of immigration reform and humane solutions to homelessness.

 

Hey @pbshawaii #PBSInsights, how did Republican @DonnaMercadoKim get invited to the Democratic primary forum? Only partially joking. #HI01
— Aaron Landry (@s4xton) July 11, 2014

 

Wow. Donna Kim is as bad as everyone says she is - just recited Repub talking points on cost of Obamacare. #PBSInsights
— Climate Hawks Vote (@ClimateHawkVote) July 11, 2014

 

Mercado Kim: "Well, gay unions are CLEARLY against the sacrament of marriage." #pbsinsights
— Archer (@thermodynamic) July 11, 2014

 

Stanley Chang name checks John McCain and Rand Paul on #pbsinsights. he's well prepared for this debate.
— Patrick Williams (@p_dub) July 11, 2014

 

Surprised by @stanleypchang tonight! Thanks #PBSInsights for the exposure to all the candidates!
— clickk (@clickk) July 11, 2014

 

.@stanleypchang scores some points (w/ me) about where he'd differ from party re: immigration. Well played sir #HI01 #pbsinsights
— Christina Torres (@biblio_phile) July 11, 2014

.@stanleypchang: “I actually think Obamacare does not go far enough.” Says single-payer system would be much better. #PBSInsights
— Nathan Eagle (@NathanEagle) July 11, 2014

PBS Hawaii has a Storify page with more real-time reaction to the debate. Browse #HI01 and #PBSinsights on Twitter for more.

With just a few weeks left before the August 9 primary election, Chang is poised to finish strong. He's a tireless campaigner. In his 2010 City Council race, he scored an upset victory over a well-established attorney (who had more endorsements and money) by knocking on every door in the district. And he has the backing of the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC and the new Climate Hawks Vote PAC (which is opening an office in Honolulu), as well as Blue America. The momentum is evident on his campaign’s Facebook page. But he'll need more resources now that EMILY's List in the race. Blue America supporters can make the difference.

Stanley Chang with Honolulu attorney Louise Ing, a leading advocate for reproductive health and freedom

UPDATE: What Does EMILY's List Stand For Anyway?

The night before EMILY's List announced their endorsement of the most conservative candidate in the Hawaii congressional race, Kim said on the PBS Insights Forum that if elected, she would fight to get Hawaii exempted from Obamacare. She justified it by saying that pre-paid is a better system in Hawaii, a healthcare system that does not include birth control, which means she would actively pursue an effort that would decrease access to birth control in Hawaii. Go EMILY's List! Go Stephanie Schirock! You've wrecked everything EMILY's List was ever supposed to be.

Congressional Progressive Caucus Endorses Stanley Chang

Last year, Honolulu City Councilman Stanley Chang wrote a guest post for us explaining why he wants to join the Congressional Progressive Caucus. This week, in their first round of 2014 endorsements, the CPC endorsed Chang, who's in a crowded 9-way August 9th primary for the seat New Dem Colleen Hanabusa is giving up. Stanley's opponents are, first and foremost transactional careerists rather than principled, values-driven leaders. Last week, we took a closer look at nominal front-runner state Senator Donna Mercado Kim, a corporate-oriented conservative from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

As we mentioned then, Kim’s unwavering loyalty to corporate interests and the Religious Right has helped turned her into a prodigious fundraiser. As a result, she has more cash on hand than anyone in the race, and within the last week has started airing her first (issue-free) TV commercial. Stanley's first TV ad (above) is the opposite of issue-free. But he needs a lot more money if the voters in Honolulu are going to actually ever see it. You can contribute to his campaign here. But you don't have to take my word for it. Below are the responses to a few of the many questions the members of the Progressive Caucus asked him:

Hold Wall Street Accountable

We need a firm wall between speculators and families’ life savings. I support Elizabeth Warren’s 21st-century Glass-Steagall Act to stop investment banks from gambling away our savings. Until the 1990s, the Glass-Steagall Act created a strong barrier between investment and consumer banking. The repeal of this legislation encouraged investment banks to make risky bets with the savings of ordinary Americans. Many experts consider the repeal of Glass-Steagall to be a major contributing factor to the economic crash of 2008. I propose to return order to our financial system by protecting working families’ hard-earned money and preventing banks from becoming “too big to fail.” If financial speculators want to put their own money into high-stakes investments, they are welcome to do so, but they should not be able to drag down our economy if their bets don’t pan out.

Good Jobs And Shared Prosperity

Social Security needs to be protected and strengthened, not weakened. The integrity of Social Security has been threatened several times in recent years. We need to fight every attempt to weaken or dismantle this critical backbone of our social safety net.

Social Security was enacted in the aftermath of the Great Depression and has raised millions of seniors out of poverty. This program served as a model to many retirement savings systems around the world. Social Security has its own separate revenue stream and does not contribute to the deficit. There have already been several fixes to account for the retirement of baby boomers and advances in medical care that have allowed our seniors to enjoy greater quality of life into their golden years.

Recently, President Obama proposed that Social Security benefits switch to so-called “chained CPI” to calculate cost of living adjustments. This proposal represents an unacceptable cut to retirement payments and I firmly oppose it. While the chained CPI plan was withdrawn earlier this year, we must remain vigilant to protect the retirement income of our seniors. Social Security is currently predicted to be solvent for the next few decades, but with a simple fix it will be on a sound financial footing for generations. Only the first $113,700 of income is currently taxed for Social Security, but if we “scrap the cap” and make all income taxable, we will have the necessary funds to ensure that our seniors remain healthy and financially secure.

…We need to raise the minimum wage and we need to do it now, because no one who works full time should live in poverty. Last year, Wall Street bonuses in New York alone were $26.7 billion. That is $11 billion more than the combined income of every minimum wage worker in the country. We can do better for working families.

America needs a raise, but the last time Congress approved an increase was 2009. This is why we need to pass legislation to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 over three years and index it to inflation. Americans must be secure in the knowledge that rising prices will not threaten the value of their hard-earned paychecks. Increasing the minimum wage has huge benefits for our economy as well. Workers who earn this wage are likely to spend their money on consumer goods, injecting much-needed economic stimulus. Leading economists have determined that better paid workers tend to stay in their jobs longer, reducing the cost in time and money of training new employees. With fewer Americans living below the poverty line, expenses for government benefits will decrease.

…We must ensure that the wealthiest Americans are paying their fair share of taxes. While we applaud the success of entrepreneurs and investors, we must reexamine government expenditures that only benefit the wealthy. When conservatives express nostalgia for the golden years of our country’s economic growth, they conveniently fail to mention that marginal tax rates for the wealthy were quite high by today’s standards. Decades of tax cuts for the wealthy have not caused the benefits to “trickle down.” Rather, they have led to extraordinary inequality that hurts our bottom line.

Regardless of their talents, the wealthiest 1% benefit greatly from government programs and services. Tax breaks, loopholes, and subsidies have given many advantages to businesses and investors. All we ask is that the wealthy contribute their fair share.

Business leaders such as Warren Buffett have pointed out the absurdity of a CEO paying a lower tax rate than a secretary. This practice must end. For too long, Congressional Republicans have focused exclusively on indiscriminate spending cuts as a means to end our budget problems. We need to look at both sides of the equation: a fair and equitable tax structure combined with prudent use of government funds is the path to fiscal responsibility and prosperity.

Immigration

We need serious and immediate reform that is fair to all taxpayers and to legal immigrants. There should be a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, but one that would require them to pay a fee and go to the back of the line. Immigration is a central theme of our nation’s history and the main source of its strength.

Immigration reform is an issue close to my heart. My parents came to Hawaii from China to seek opportunities for my brother and me-- opportunities that were not available anywhere else in the world. Our economic future depends on our ability to continue attracting hardworking individuals to contribute their talents and strengths to our economy.

Our current immigration system is broken. Employers are circumventing the system by hiring undocumented workers, and more and more undocumented immigrants are being deported. Recent improvements in border security are necessary and welcome, but do not address the fundamental issue. We need to streamline the process in a way that is rational and avoids breaking up families. Deportation will not solve our problems; it is cruel, wasteful, and damaging to our economy. We need to include law- abiding, tax-paying undocumented immigrants in our society, rather than relegating them to the shadows.

I also support the DREAM Act, which would provide permanent residency to children of undocumented immigrants who graduated from U.S. high schools, attained higher education, or served honorably in the Armed Forces for at least two years. These children would be given an expedited opportunity to gain legal citizenship.

Civil Rights

Marriage equality won in Hawaii; now couples across the country must enjoy the same rights. This is the civil rights issue of our time and needs to be addressed at the federal level. The Supreme Court’s ruling last year invalidated a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act, but the rest of the legislation still stands and must be repealed. I support the Respect for Marriage Act and other efforts in the U.S. Congress to recognize same- sex marriage across state lines. While marriage is regulated at the state level, there is a great deal that all three branches of the federal government can do to ensure fairness for all.

The majority of states still do not allow committed same-sex couples to marry, and many retain discriminatory bans in their constitutions that make a legislative fix difficult. I have supported marriage equality from the beginning and have never needed to “evolve” on this issue. Like many in my generation, I don’t understand how barring loving couples from committing to each other in front of their families and under the law makes any sense. Marriage encourages responsible childrearing and leads to economic prosperity for families as well as for the entire country. To deny the joys of marriage to a group of people based on a core part of their identity is cruel and unfair.

I am a strong advocate for other policies that benefit LGBT Americans, including employment nondiscrimination, measures to address bullying in schools, and ensuring proper treatment of LGBT elders in long-term care facilities. I was honored to receive the endorsement of Steven Levinson, who authored the lead opinion in Baehr vs. Lewin, the 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court ruling that was the first ever to determine that denying marriage to same-sex couples was discriminatory.

Predatory Student Loans

Students should pay the same rates as Wall Street for their loans. Debt is crushing our young generation before they even start their careers. Profiteering in student loan programs needs to be stopped. Our parents may have been able to work their way through college, but with high tuition and our rising cost of living, this is increasingly out of reach for today’s students. Today, too many college students are forced to take out expensive loans in order to finance their education, and can’t get off on the right foot once they graduate and start working. If subject to predatory interest rates, the paychecks for their first few years on the job will be siphoned away. They will not be able to save to buy a home and support a family. If the prospect of paying for college is too daunting for today’s working families, our economy and productivity will suffer in the long run. Let’s make sure that the student loan industry is appropriately regulated so that funding is made available to our young people at reasonable rates.

Health Care

The biggest challenges facing our health care system include: ensuring the proper implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA); the sustainability of Medicare and Medicaid; and the skilled workforce needed to support our system.

Ensuring that the U.S. government broadens health insurance pools through the ACA will bring much-needed financial sustainability to the health care system and help achieve the overarching goal of providing coverage to millions of uninsured Americans.

However, the expanded coverage envisioned by the ACA will undoubtedly put a strain on our health care providers. Thus, Congress must act to expand training opportunities to bring more workers into the health care sector and help keep current health care workers prepared for evolving challenges, such as telemedicine. In addition, changes to Medicare and Medicaid must be sustained with reforms that shore up these programs’ finances without placing new burdens on beneficiaries or service providers. The inclusion of a public option would go a long way toward ensuring the long-term sustainability of the ACA.

Studies have shown that Medicare is vastly more efficient than private insurance companies in providing health care and limiting administrative costs. I oppose any proposals that cut Medicare benefits for seniors, including increased cost sharing, further means-testing of Part B and D premiums, and raising the Medicare eligibility age. These proposals would only cause funds to be spent less effectively. In particular, raising the Medicare eligibility age has the potential to increase rather than decrease Medicare expenditures in the long run as seniors could delay important preventative care.

Environment

Hawaii must take its rightful place as a leader in modern energy generation. We must invest now in 21st-century energy, so over time we can lower the costs of production for all of our homes and businesses, and cut the use of old, dirty energy sources like oil and coal. Hawaii is blessed with abundant natural resources such as wind, solar, and tidal energy that could be harnessed for the benefit of our people without polluting the environment. Green energy solutions not only enhance our sustainability, but also create good-paying local jobs and inject much-needed stimulus into our economy. This is the wave of the future. We can’t rely forever on expensive and dirty energy generation methods based on fossil fuels. The price of gasoline continues to be a major concern for our islands and is another reason why we can’t wait for renewable energy.

Women's Issues

Robust protections for women ensure a healthy society on every level. Women’s rights are a fundamental component of universal human rights, and I support every effort to ensure that these critical rights are protected. I will defend Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose. I am a strong advocate for family planning and reproductive health services, including but not limited to increased access to accurate information, contraception, and family planning resources. I believe that by shifting our focus to proper preventative measures, we can reduce the need for abortion. However, in cases where abortion is imminent, this procedure should above all else be safe, legal, and rare.

It is critical to the well being of our community that women of all ages have access to a wide range of services and that we continue to ensure funding for key programs. I believe that we should permit use of federal and state funding for abortions to ensure that there is equal access for all women. Public funding for abortion is vital to ensure that low-income women can receive essential reproductive health care. We must integrate pre- and post-natal services to allow women of all backgrounds to benefit from these resources.

Despite several advances, there still exists a gender gap in pay, where full-time female workers lose an estimated $434,000 in wages over a 40-year period. Women currently earn an estimated 77 cents on the dollar compared to what the average white male earns, and this is despite women being the primary financial providers in roughly 40% of households. Put simply, women deserve economic equality and security, and I support every initiative to close this inequality gap and give women equal pay for equal work. I stand with President Obama, who has expressed his strong commitment to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.

There are no other candidates in the race running on this kind of a progressive platform and Kim, the front-runner has more in common with Republicans than she does with Stanley's positions. When the CPC asked him if there were any other topics he wanted to bring up that he feels will be important issues while he's in Congress he listed five:

• boosting job creation through federal funding of infrastructure projects;
• enhancing Hawaii’s transportation network;
• providing free college tuition to students who complete military or volunteer service;
• enacting strong gun control to protect our children; and
• labeling GMOs in our food supply while regulating pesticide use.

Is Stanley Chang the kind of congressmmeber you'd like to see working on legislation in Washington? If so, please consider helping him get his message out here.