EMILY's Lost

Their one win, Gina Raimondo, is a corrupt corporate shill as bad as ANY Republican

This was a great year for EMILY's List. They accomplished their top goal-- raising an immense amount of money to pay their executives and run their operation. Their candidates mostly lost but winning is only important to EMILY's List insofar as it helps goose the contribution flow. When Ellen Malcolm and a couple dozen friends founded EMILY's List in 1985, they were launching a model group for progressives across the country. Everyone admired EMILY's List. A lot has changed since then.

Their SuperPAC, Women Vote! spent $8,223,774, a very different pot of money from the one that keeps the organizational wheels greased and the empire growing. These were their top independent expenditures this cycle:

• CA-31 for Eloise Reyes- $180,500- lost
• CA-33 for Wendy Greuel- $158,516- lost
• FL-13 for Alex Sink- $177,869- lost
• GA Senate- for Michelle Nunn- $2,196,587- lost
• HI Senate for Colleen Hanabusa- $507,415- lost
• HI-01 for Donna Mercado Kim- $66,236- lost
• ME-02 for Emily Cain- $439,828- lost
• MI-14 for Brenda Lawrence- 282,837- won against a more progressive Democrat
• NH-01 for Carol Shea-Porter- $54,998- lost
• NH-02 for Ann Kuster- $57,348- won
• NH Senate for Jeanne Shaheen- $975,946- won
• NC-12 for Alma Adams- $119,752- won
• NC Senate for Kay Hagan- $2,876,224- lost
• PA-13 for Marjorie Margolies- $42,545- lost

EMILY's List itself took in $40,241,135 this cycle, their biggest haul in history. A relatively small amount went to help candidates. The biggest single expenditure was $11,014,920 which went to paying their own staffers. After that came $7,265,792 for federal candidates. Administrative costs $4,833,980 and consulting fees added up to $3,229,311. And just over $50,000 for... food.

Today they were trying to take credit for as much as they could. Glomming on to Bonnie Watson Coleman's spectacular win in New Jersey-- considering their refusal to support her in the primary when she actually needed the help-- doesn't count. And Alma Adams district is a D+26 district, so thanks for the imput. Their destructive role in Hawaii was far more to the point of what EMILY's List is all about. The Hawaiian progressive Policy Bear blog exposed them last August.

EMILY’s List spent a huge amount of their members’ donations in futile efforts to defeat two progressive champions in Hawai’i:

EMILY’s List wasted nearly three-quarters of a million dollars in Hawai’i trying unsuccessfully to beat progressive male candidates-- in Schatz’s case a progressive male Senator endorsed by every single woman senator who got involved in the race, including EMILY’s List icon Elizabeth Warren-- with conservative women. They blew $697,891 bolstering Hanabusa and $49,971 bolstering far right reactionary Donna Mercado Kim, a religious freak who’s commitment to Choice is highly suspect.

...Now that both their conservative Hawai’i candidates have gone down to defeat, against pro-choice progressives, will EMILY’s List account for their exorbitant spending? This misallocation and waste of member dollars needs an explanation.

EMILY’s List says they are all about accountability. They say on their website they will:

Communicate with confidence, rationale and clarity. Answer questions with answers, not more questions, and demand the same in return.

We who have supported you in past, and now look aghast at the hard-earned dollars you’ve wasted in Hawai’i trying to elect conservative women and defeat progressive men, have serious questions. We deserve answers. Defeating anti-choice conservative men in the general election is a laudable goal; using member donations against progressive champions in Democratic primaries is quite another thing. Please explain, List, or accept this description of yourself:

EMILY’s List has proven themselves to be, once again, the worst player inside Democratic Party politics. Meanwhile they flat out refuse to assist progressive women they have added to their list without giving any support at all. Shenna Bellows (D-ME), Kelly Westlund (D-WI) and Laura Fjeld (D-NC) could have really used that money to help them defeat dreadful Republican opponents.

Just take a look at this deceptive EMILY’s List mailer from November 2013, in which they frame their support of a right-wing challenger to progressive incumbent US Senator Brian Schatz as a battle for control of the Senate, and where “neck and neck” races against GOP challengers are lumped with Hanabusa’s close primary race against a Democrat:

Friend,

The GOP is desperate-- just look at them flirting with Scott Brown as he decides whether or not to run against Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire.

And now that we are less than a year out, the races are heating up. Latest polls show things tightening up for our candidates; this is when they need every ounce of our support. Kay Hagan is in a close race in North Carolina and Colleen Hanabusa is running neck and neck in Hawai’i. We cannot risk losing the Senate to Republicans and hearing the words, “Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.”

Donate to Jeanne, Kay, and Colleen to ensure they are in Washington to protect us from the GOP War on Women.

Now is the time when EMILY’s List can make the difference between a winning campaign and a losing one. We need you to step up in order to ensure Jeanne Shaheen, Kay Hagan, and Colleen Hanabusa fighting for us in Washington.

And with Republicans in the Senate offering up a 20-week abortion ban, just imagine what they will try to do if they have control.

Give directly to our Senate candidates to make sure they can fight for our rights in Congress. Donate today!

Thanks,
Jonathan Parker
Director of Campaigns, EMILY’s List

Reading that, how is an inattentive donor supposed to know that it’s apples-to-oranges-- and that the party composition of the Senate in 2015 will be unaffected by the result in Hawai’i, a reliably blue state that elects Democrats consistently?

While the vast majority of donor money was spent on the Hawai’i Senate race, EMILY’s List support of Donna Kim might have been even more egregious:

Last Thursday night, backward and reactionary congressional candidate Donna Kim told PBS Hawai’i 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 Hawai’i 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 Hawai’i 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 Hawai’i 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.

A commenter at The Hill summed up the outrage among the Democratic base upon hearing of the EMILY’s List endorsement of Kim:

OK-- Emily’s List REALLY made a major mistake this time. Are they aware that Pat Roberts’ Focus on Family is supporting her? What are they THINKING?

She voted against marriage equality. She delayed and tried to derail raising minimum wage. She’s courting the GOP/Christian Taliban vote. She’s anti-union and anti-environment.

Has Emily’s List completely lost their minds?

Will EMILY’s List account for their decision? Will its leadership provide members and donors with a transparent view of their decision-making process that led to this monumental waste of money? Will anyone in EMILY’s List leadership be held accountable for spending three-quarters of a million dollars on conservative candidates in Democratic primaries in the Fiftieth State?

Author and thought leader Marianne Williamson, the progressive, pro-Choice woman EMILY's List smeared in a failed attempt to elect their conservative candidate, had a very different perspective on yesterday's losses for the Democrats:

Republicans seem to have convinced the average American that what is good for billionaires, oil and gas companies, pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies, banks, chemical companies and defense contractors is good for them. With this midterm election, we gave the country over lock, stock and barrel to our new corporate overlords.

We watched this disaster approach in slow motion over the last few weeks, but in fact it's been approaching for the last few months and even years. The problem wasn't just that the Republicans purged their moderates; the problem is that the Democrats purged their principles.

And that's what did us in.

Corporate America is not dumb; it's worked hard to sew up both political parties in its nefarious schemes to place their short-term economic interests before the health and well-being of the average American. One major party was more than glad to go along; the other one went along with all this angst and agita in the background perhaps, but it still went along.

And that's what did us in.

The Republican corporatists are worse than the Democratic corporatists, but only to a degree. And Republican corporatists are at least true to their principles, however abhorrent those principles might be to some of us. The Democratic corporatists, however, are the real culprits here. Having sucked the soul out of the Democratic party, they have leeched out of it whatever moral authority it had left. Why weren't they able to activate the base?? Because they decimated the base!

And that's what did us in.

It's time for the Democratic corporatists to move over now, and let people who actually stand for something take it from here. Yes, the corporatists won some short-term power but at the expense of long-term viability. A funny thing happens when you act against your own principles: karma gets 'ya.

The Democratic party needs its soul back, and if the midterm results prove anything it's that people aren't impressed by its current corporatist formation. The Republicans have the elite policies but in a strange way a more egalitarian relationship to its own constituency. The Democrats have more egalitarian policies but in a strange way a more elitist relationship to its own constituency. You're not really a party for the people if you're not a party of the people. Corporatists have led the Democratic party for twenty years now, but this midterm election should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that the Democratic leadership needs to change. Real progressives within the Democratic party are ignored as voters, and marginalized as leaders.

And that's what did us in.

Our mid-term elections this year marked the end of one era and the beginning of another. What has ended? Any illusion whatsoever that big money doesn't rule this country. What's begun? Hopefully, the retrieval of the revolutionary spirit that is core to who we are as a nation. Because that is what we need now. We need a massive movement-- a peaceful, non-violent rebellion against the new corporate order of things. We need to give up the illusion that the Democratic party is the nurturing mother who will balance the excesses of the critical father. Like hell it is. It's become the silent mother who stands in the hall just wringing her hands while Daddy takes his whip out and wallops us. We can't just wait for Mommy to stand up to this anymore. We ourselves simply have to grow up.

The new era begins today, as the Democratic corporatists start lining up for the Presidential nomination in 2016. What can we do? Make it clear-- make it really, really clear-- that hell no, we will not support a corporatist nominee. He or she would do as well in 2016 as the Democrats did this midterm. Why? Because we will not go along anymore. The only hope for the Democrats, and the only hope for America, is to nominate someone who tells it like it really is, reclaims the principles that the Democrats historically stood for and shows the bravery and courage we so desperately need to see right now.

Democratic strategy this year was to arouse people's anger at what the Republicans were doing. It didn't work. What they needed to address was how depressed people are at what the Democrats have been doing, and not doing, to live up to its own principles. The mid-term is over, but the 2016 Presidential race is on the horizon. And the new revolution has only just begun.

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.

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.

Which ConservaDem will represent Obama’s birthplace? And does it even matter?

Is Hawaii about to elect a conservative anti-gay crusader disguised as a Democrat to Congress?

President Obama won Hawai`i’s 1st Congressional District-- the urban Honolulu district where he was born, went to high school and partied to the tunes of both Stevie Nicks and Stevie Wonder-- last year with 70 percent of the vote.

This is a solid-blue district. Over the last couple of decades, the only time a Republican represented the district (briefly) was when there was a special election, and two Democrats split the vote in a winner-take-all format.

There are no prominent Republicans interested in running in HI-01. Democrats will keep the seat for years to come.

Incumbent ConservaDem Colleen Hanabusa is apparently giving up the seat for a quixotic attempt to oust progressive Blue America-endorsed U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz. (We say "apparently" because she’s being trounced by Schatz in both fundraising and endorsements, and her campaign’s emails over the last several weeks have raised no substantive issues, but just called for endless debates-- as losing candidates often do. Will she actually file for U.S. Senate or just hold on to her current U.S. House seat? We’ll find out sometime in the February-June candidate-filing period.)

By most measures, Hawai`i is one the nation’s most progressive and Democratic states. It enacted healthcare reform (with an employer mandate) four decades ago, has an all-Dem Congressional delegation, has a State Capitol dominated by Democrats, started issuing same-sex marriage licenses earlier this month and was Obama’s strongest state in both of his elections.

One would think Hanabusa’s departure would be a golden opportunity for up-and-coming progressives in HI-01. But none are running.

There are five arguably serious candidates: Honolulu City Councilmembers Ikaika Anderson and Stanley Chang and state legislators Donna Mercado Kim, Mark Takai and Will Espero.

The local media has suggested Kim, who replaced Hanabusa as President of the State Senate, is the frontrunner, largely based on the name recognition and campaign war chest she’s developed through decades in state and city office. But the money she’s raised for her state seat can’t be transferred to her Congressional run. As of the last filing, she had reported no cash on hand for this race.

Kim’s political career has been highlighted by both social and economic conservatism. She was one of just four senators to vote against marriage equality this year, and she’s long been known for railing against public-employee unions, the local public university and government spending generally. It's hard to imagine a constituency she'll appeal to in a Congressional primary. But because of her connections and position in state government, she’ll likely be able to crank up her fundraising efforts and reach relative money parity with Chang.

And Kim is the only major female candidate in the race. Will EMILY’s List throw her a lifeline? (Even though her friendliness with Hawai`i's small-but-loud Religious Right community might make one question her commitment to reproductive freedom, she just might be choice-y enough to get the nod.).

Chang is the current money leader with $272,916 cash on hand, and he was once lauded by some progressives and has introduced resolutions supporting Obama's gun violence plan, regulating carbon as a pollutant, and supporting marriage equality. But in recent months he’s bizarrely used his seat on the City Council to support tax breaks for millionaire mansion owners and attack the homeless. [This critique of Chang may be a stretch and we'll get into his actual positions more thoroughly next week; he's clearly a much better candidate than any of the others.] He’s also been lured by Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard to co-found the self-described “Post-Partisan” Hawai`i Future Caucus with outspoken anti-gay Republican State Reps. Beth Fukumoto and Richard Fale. The tiny GOP contingent in the state legislature (7 out of 51 in the House; 1 of 25 in the Senate) was derided for its almost uniformly bigoted performance during the special session, but is now getting a credibility boost thanks to Chang and others in the mealy-mouthed Future Caucus (including Anderson).

Anderson and Takai both trail Chang badly, with each reporting only about $100,000 cash on hand. Espero barely registers, at just over $18,000. Conveniently, all three announced their new support for marriage equality right around the time they announced for Congress. They’re all downplaying relatively conservative pasts. Anderson is a former Republican candidate for State House, Takai is interested in drug testing welfare recipients, and Espero has been spotted at libertarian functions and being interviewed by fringe conservative websites. Unlike Chang and Kim, though, they at least seem to recognize it's a good idea to court liberals (no matter how sincerely) when trying to get voters to come out in an early-August Democratic primary. Give the Anderson/Takai/Espero also-rans credit for that, though it's probably not enough to make them competitive.

State Rep. Chris Lee had once been touted as a white knight to carry the progressive banner in this race. But he’s repeatedly denied interest. And, alas, he’s part of the “post-partisan” caucus too.

What will happen in HI-01? Chang and Kim probably have the best chances just because of their past fundraising success, with Kim likely going over the top if she can get EMILY's List's backing. Tellingly, the websites of both Chang and Kim lack issues sections. Chang merely touts his youth, Kim her experience. But ultimately what difference does it make who wins? It's a substance-less, uninspiring choice, at least from the perspective of Honolulu's progressives.

UPDATE: You Thought Nothing Could Be Worse Than Donna Kim? Keep Reading

The weak roster of candidates apparently has proved to be too much of a temptation to former Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann, who has previously lost multiple races for Congress from 1986 through 2012. Ideologically, he fits with this ConservaDem field. He's a former Reagan White House aide and opposes reproductive freedom and marriage equality.

Several Democratic insiders have said over the past few days that former Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann plans to run for Congress.

Hannemann himself, however, is not ready to formally announce for urban Honolulu's 1st Congressional District. "I have nothing definitive to report at this time," he said in a text on Thursday afternoon.

The barrier for Hannemann has been the Democratic primary. He lost to U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard for the 2nd Congressional District last year and to Gov. Neil Abercrombie for governor in 2010 after many insiders believed the former mayor had legitimate chances to prevail.

...Hannemann has been viewed as too conservative to win over a primary electorate that has moved to the left over the past decade.

But the crowded field in the primary to replace U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa-- who is vacating her seat to challenge U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz-- could provide Hannemann with an opening. He would have the highest name recognition in a race where the winner could claim victory with a plurality of votes.

The Battle Over The Honolulu Congressional Seat-- One Progressive And A Whole Lot Of DINOs

So far this cycle, when we've talked about Hawai'i politics it's almost always been about a Senate primary in which corrupt New Dem Colleen Hanabusa is challenging progressive Senator Brian Schatz. But there's another important race in Hawai'i, which is not unrelated-- to fill the Honolulu-based House seat Hanabusa is giving up (HI-01).

For one of the bluest states in the nation-- Hawaii gave Obama 71% of its votes in 2012 and the state legislature is made up of 24 Democrats and just one Republican in the Senate and 44 Democrats and 7 Republicans in the House-- there are an overabundance of conservatives running for the seat. HI-01 has a PVI of D+18. Two very conservative front-runners, each of whom would be a right-wing Republican in any other state, have huge name recognition and been discussed here before, state Senate president Donna Mercado Kim and Mufi Hannemann. And they're not the only awful political hacks offering up their services to the voters. Anti-homeless people jihadi Ikaika Anderson actually is a Republican, opportunistically running as a Democrat. A carpet-bagger, he does;t live in the district, was once registered as a Republican, ran for office as a Republican in the past and is from one of Hawai'i's Big Money GOP families. His uncle, is one of the state's Republican Party mainstays and he's running Anderson's campaign.

As Senate president, Donna Kim has fought against LGBT equality (over and over and over again) and, last year-- before she decided to run for Congress-- against raising the minimum wage. She's a real piece of work and many people say she's far worse even than Hanabusa, already one of the worst Members of Congress and a disgrace to the memory of Patsy Mink. Kim is an Ed Case "Democrat" and is one of the leaders of the Republican wing of Hawai'i's Democratic Party.

State Rep Mark Takai has also thrown his hat into the ring-- and immediately switched his anti-LGBT position to make himself seem less of a right-wing asshole. And state Senator Will Espero, like Anderson, is a "former" Republican. Running as a Republican in 1992, he lost his first bid for the state legislature but then switched parties and was appointed to the House by Governor Ben Cayetano when Paul Oshiro resigned.

Former Honolulu mayor Mufi Hannemann is even worse! A former Reagan aide, he doesn't even male believe he's anything but a right-wing extremist. He's vehemently anti-Choice and one of Hawai'is most dedicated homophobes. He's another "Democrat" of convenience.

There's one progressive in the race, Honolulu City Councilmember Stanley Chang, who wrote a guest post for us early in December explaining why he wants to join the Congressional Progressive Caucus, originally co-founded by Patsy Mink. "I am a lifelong Democrat and a proud progressive," he wrote, "and in my time in public service, I’ve built a strongly progressive record. If elected to Congress, I would be honored to join the Congressional Progressive Caucus to continue fighting for the values I’ve built my public service record around."

A graduate of Harvard Law, Chang also wrote recently that his "inspiration in public service comes from Senator Elizabeth Warren. I’ll never forget my first day of law school, when she burst through the doors of our classroom and immediately started firing questions about our first case-- an intensely Socratic style that one friend called “the most fun I never want to have again.” She has brought the passion of her classroom style to her advocacy work. At one of the many student receptions she hosted at her own home, she told us, 'I’m doing all my work in bankruptcy and advocacy in Washington for the middle class. The middle class are getting squeezed in every direction, and there’s no one fighting for them.' That’s the direct inspiration for our campaign for Congress.

"When my dad came here with nothing, as an immigrant from China in the 1960s, he was able to work his way up from a job as a beach boy to a professor at UH. He was able to buy a home, put my brother and me through school, and give us opportunities we never could have had anywhere else in the world. Today, with home prices at an average $685,000, our middle class stands no chance. As a result, our best and brightest are our biggest export.

"Ensuring that every generation of young people in Hawaii can realize the American dream-- to start a family, have a good career, and buy a home-- is my goal in public service."

And this race for the HI-01 House seat won't be the first time Chang has had to deal with a hidebound Democratic Establishment. This one is shaping up very much like his first run for City Council.

In my 2010 race for Honolulu City Council I was in a crowded primary (not unlike this race) of seven candidates. Our main opponent was a well-known and self-funded lawyer who was heavily backed by party insiders. I was repeatedly told I had “no chance” against the party apparatus and my opponent’s years of relationships and money connections. I was told I was too young and I should wait my turn.

I sincerely felt that the issues that face Honolulu and Hawaii were too important, too urgent, to wait any longer. So I pulled together an amazing team of volunteers and grassroots activists and raised more money than had ever been raised for a Honolulu City Council race. I spent 18 months full time on the campaign, and I personally knocked on over 9,000 doors to make an emotional and personal connection with the voters.

Now I’m doing it again, and hearing all the same suggestions from many in the party establishment. “You’re too young, wait your turn, your opponents have been elected forever-- you can’t compete.” But again I believe we simply cannot wait to address the concerns of not only the 19,000 homes my campaign visited, but also the entire Congressional district and the country.

On its surface, Hawaii is one of the bluest states in the country, but in reality, Democratic politics in Hawaii is complicated. Many of our elected officials are DINOs because in most parts of this state Republicans simply cannot win. It can be frustrating to watch career politicians in this race, including two former Republicans, suddenly discover their progressive beliefs now that it is helpful in winning a Democratic primary. I’m proud not to need to change a single position to win this race as the progressive candidate.

I’m proudly liberal and progressive, not for political convenience, but because I am a true believer.

…Three of our recent issues include marriage equality, protecting our environment by making our beaches smoke free, and fighting for greater gun control in Honolulu.

Even though the issue was not before the City Council, I am proud to have been one of the first elected officials in Hawaii to publicly and enthusiastically support marriage equality. Many state legislators had consistently voted against civil unions, including current Congressional candidates Mark Takai, Will Espero, and Donna Mercado Kim. I introduced a resolution expressing the Council’s support for civil unions. I also participated in rallies, visibility events at the Capitol, and provided quotes and photos to Hawaii United for Marriage, the umbrella group coordinating the marriage equality movement here.

In order to clean up our beaches and public places, I built strong working relationships with Sustainable Coastlines Hawaii, BEACH (Beach Environmental Awareness Campaign Hawaii) and CTFH (Coalition for a Tobacco Free Hawaii). Pushing this legislation through would simply not have been possible without their help. We started small: we just rolled up our sleeves and started cleaning the beaches ourselves. And as we moved around the island cleaning the beaches people took notice. I’m happy to say that after months of hard work the City Council passed (in some cases, over opposition from my CD-1 candidate Ikaika Anderson) and the Mayor signed bills banning smoking on our beaches, in our public parks and at our public bus stops. Thanks to our combined efforts our parks and beaches and cleaner and healthier than ever before.

I have also championed gun control legislation during my time on the City Council. While Hawaii already enjoys statistically low gun-related crimes and deaths per year than many of our other states I will not stop pushing for greater gun violence prevention legislation and hope that our efforts can serve as a model for other cities and states across the country. I worked closely with ALICE to create legislation that could work in Honolulu focusing on Shot Spotter technology that can pinpoint the origin of gunshots. We are currently still researching ways to enhance the gun safety laws of Honolulu.

…Three simple words: Medicare for All. That is the system that will be able to provide healthcare for every American in a cost-effective and efficient way, as most of the developed world found long ago.

I was disappointed with the Democratic strategy with health care reform. Our president took great pains to use a conservative plan and listen to Republicans in Congress and accept 177 Republican amendments only to have them all vote against it and campaign heavily against it. Progressives (and Democrats) need to start playing offense. We need to make clear, contrasting, and convincing arguments and stick to them. We need to have a plan, write it down and refer to it often. Our solutions are better but we find timidity and concession all throughout our ranks. We need to not be afraid to be teachers-- if only 40% of your district agrees with your positions don’t back down-- get yourself out into the community and convince them with the merits of the issue.

If you'd like to chip in to help keep Hawai'i blue, you can contribute to Stanley Chang's campaign here on the DWT Act Blue page.


UPDATE: Is There Really Any Chance Hanabusa Will Change Her Mind Again?

Over the weekend there was a lot of speculation in Honolulu that despite typically dirty politics urged on her by EMILY's List, Hanabusa was on the verge of throwing in the towel and seeing if she could salvage her House seat. Her fundraising is reported to be fairly miserable and polls show Brain Schatz beating her badly.

U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz has raised $3.4 million in his election bid, bringing in $704,600 in the latest election cycle.

That compares with $1.6 million total raised by his opponent in the Senate Democratic primary, Rep. Colleen Hanabusa. She took in $454,700 in the fourth quarter.

Are all the arms manufacturers, war contractors and Big Pharma lobbyists already maxed out to Hanabusa? Or maybe they just don't want to waste more money on a losing candidate?

With yet another bad quarterly report, Hanabusa may be tempted to try sticking with her safe congressional seat. But even that wouldn't be easy with upstart progressive Stanley Chang in the race to win. Or perhaps she'd be less embarrassed to end her career by losing to Schatz than to Chang.

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.

Do You Back Candidates Because They're The Same Color Or Religion As You Are?

If you read DWT much, you know how much we distrust identity politics around here. Voting for someone because they are the same religion or ethnicity of gender, etc seems kind of primitive and politically immature. I always thought it should be about character and policy. I was very happy last week when People for the American Way endorsed Stanley Chang for the Honolulu-based congressional seat that Hanabusa gave up and I had been very happy a couple months before that to see the Congressional Progressive Caucus endorse him. Stanley is, hands down, the most progressive of the 7 Democratic candidates in the race. Stanley is a Chinese-American. I don't recall anyone being of Chinese ancestry on the PFAW Board and I'm willing to bet that he wasn't endorsed by the CPC because of his ethnicity either. In both cases, it was all about his progressive policy positions and the progressive work he's done on the Honolulu City Council. So I was gob-smacked this week when I was told that two Japanese-American progressives I think highly of, Mark Takano and Mike Honda, bucked the CPC and endorsed one of Chang's conservative opponents, Mark Takai.

I bet Takano, who is very serious about his gay identity as well as his Japanese-American identity would be mortified if he knew Takai's anti-gay voting record that conveniently changed just when he announced he would be running for Congress. Takai voted no on civil unions in 2010 and 2011.

And I wonder if Mike Honda, one of Congress' preeminent supporters of the down-and-out, knows that Takai was the lead sponsor of a bill to drug-test recipients of public assistance benefits last year. And he's been a cheerleader for Donna Kim's endless tirades against public employees and institutions.

I suspect neither Takano nor Honda bothered to read the 2012 Hawaii Family Forum survey, in which Takai is clear he backed a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and backs the conservative position that gives religious organizations the right to refuse outside groups from using their facilities for activities related even to civil unions.

On one issue he's even more conservative than the religious-right candidate in the primary, Donna Mercado Kim. She was undecided on voting to include a conscience exemption in laws requiring all Hawaii hospitals to provide abortifacient medication to sex assault victims, but Takai said yes. It's hard to imagine either Takano or Honda backing someone with this kind of a record-- and not from ancient history wither, from the last election cycle!

Takai also happens to be a big nuclear power booster and introduced bills in both 2009 and 2011 that would “direct the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism to develop a permitting process for nuclear energy generation facilities in Hawaii.” Just five days after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan that caused level 7 nuclear meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, he commented, “I still think it’s prudent for us to take a look at whether nuclear energy is a viable option.”

Takai is far more hawkish than either Takano or Honda and openly advocates spending more money on the military. And he is every bit as friendly with the right wing as Donna Kim is. Hawaii has a fringe Koch-affiliated think tank called the Grassroot Institute. It espouses libertarian economics, but is mostly known for its open hostility to Hawaiian sovereignty. When the Grassroot Institute named a new CEO last year, Takai was the only elected official quoted in the press release. Just a few months ago, he sat down for a nearly hour-long videotaped lovefest (and snoozefest) with the CEO, in which they talked about their shared commitment to Christian faith and beliefs that the public-school system should be "run like a business" and "school choice should be de-politicized." On gridlock in Congress, Takai offered this: "You have people on the left who are really dug in..."

So much for being the "progressive" alternative to Kim (which is an idea he and his backers are pushing hard to people who don't know much about history). Blue America endorsed Stanley Chang-- and as far as I know neither John Amato, Digby, Jacquie or myself is Chinese-American, just progressive-American-- and we're helping him raise money for his get out the vote operation for the August 9th primary. Below is a new ad that shows Stanley talking about... well the same issues Takano and Honda talk about all the time.

One Week From Today-- Hawaii Picks Between A Proven Progressive And Two Proven Conservatives

Who fought against LGBT equality? Mark Takai and Donna Kim, the 2 conservatives in the race

"Peace through strength!"-- Reagan’s bellicose slogan emulated by faux-progressive congressional candidate in Hawaii.

"Peace through strength" wasn't thought up by Reagan-- nothing was-- but by Emperor Hadrian around 100 years after the birth of our lord. Mark Takai, candidate for the open seat in Hawaii’s First Congressional District, in a nearly hour-long interview with the Hawaii Independent this week made explicit what’s been obvious to anyone following his 20-year career in politics.

Takai’s a military man, first and foremost.

At the start of the interview, Takai was asked to name his top priorities in Congress. First, he mentioned “climate change” and “sustainability,” without specifying any particular legislative action. He didn’t mention his vision of nuclear-power plants in paradise. Second on the list of priorities (but clearly first in his heart), he talked of his goal to increase military spending. Takai went to express his support for “military use” of drones, with his only caveat being that the weapons should be used on foreign soil.

One of the interviewers, to her credit, noted sustainability and militarism are often at odds. Takai had no counter.

Later in the interview, Takai was pressed on his support for more military spending, which one of the interviewers noted is opposed by the peace community in Hawaii. Takai didn’t back down:

I look at our military strength as a road to peace… I do understand people supporting peace, but I’m a 15-year member of the Hawaii National Guard. I’m a military person.

On this, Takai gets points for consistency. He never misses an opportunity to point out he’s a military man first and foremost. And by that, he means a military-spending man. On his Facebook page a few months ago, Takai lashed out at President Obama for having the nerve to put some modest checks on Pentagon appropriations:

I was disappointed to hear about the cuts announced recently. As a proud member of the Hawaii Army National Guard, I understand the importance of defense spending.

He went running to a right-wing blog to whine about the Commander-in-Chief:

State Rep. Mark Takai, a member of the Hawaii Army National Guard, said he is “shocked and stunned” by the drastic cuts to the defense construction budget for the military.

. . .“Our military bases are in desperate need of upgrades to accommodate this new focus,” said Takai, a Democrat. “This is not the time to eliminate these military construction projects for Hawaii as the Asia-Pacific Region becomes the priority.”

He’s been less consistent on matters of equality.

Same-sex marriage became a major political issue in Hawaii in 1993. Takai was first elected to the state House of Representatives the following year. In each of his 10 campaigns for the legislature, he ran on opposition to marriage equality. He pledged to Hawaii Family Forum in his two most recent campaigns, 2010 and 2012, to not just vote against marriage-equality legislation, but to actually support a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Takai consistently fulfilled his promise to Hawaii Family Forum.

As recently as last year, Takai co-sponsored a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

The state Democratic Party platform has supported marriage equality for most of Takai’s time in office. But Takai was never swayed, until after deciding to run for Congress late last year. He sure fooled openly gay Japanese-American Congressman Mark Takano, though-- who lied to his colleagues at the Congressional Progressive Caucus and persuaded some of them that the demonstrably homophobic Takai is a fabulous progressive. Ugly identity politics.

He’s been rewarded for his anti-LGBT record by receiving substantial contributions to his congressional campaign from local anti-gay leaders like Mitch D’Olier and Republican activists like Dale Evans. I bet Takano didn't explain that to the folks at the CPC.

Democratic activists, however, took issue with Takai’s open defiance of the party platform. One filed a formal complaint with the party (later graciously withdrawn). The Hawaii Christian Coalition's website still boasts of the Religious Right's support for Takai in the fight:

Eleven state House and Senate Democrats face complaints before the Democratic Party of Hawaii for proposing a constitutional amendment on traditional marriage last session. The complaints allege the bills violate the party platform's support for equal rights and brought forth by Michael Golojuch. REALLY? Equal rights should also be afforded to these lawmakers, Senate President Donna Mercado Kim, Sen. Mike Gabbard, House Vice Speaker John Mizuno, and Reps. Calvin Say, Sharon Har, Henry Aquino, Karen Awana, Ty Cullen, Ken Ito, K. Mark Takai, and Clift Tsuji. Don't they have a right to propose an amendment or a bill, regardless of who, what and where?

In the interview, in between his advocacy for more military spending, Takai boasted that he’s the only alternative to openly right-wing Democrat Donna Kim in this race. He contended progressives need to vote strategically and that he’s the sole candidate with meaningful endorsements.

Takai is obviously seeking votes from supporters of Stanley Chang-- a young liberal attorney and Honolulu City Councilmember who’s the only candidate with a cohesive progressive vision for Hawaii's working families and for America.

Takai’s contention that he’s the only serious contender to Kim dismisses the importance of Chang’s support from Blue America, Climate Hawks Vote, Congressman Alan Grayson, the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC, People for the American Way, the state party’s GLBT Caucus and local trade unions.

In his own recent interview with the Hawaii Independent, Chang also talked about peace. But he’s actually for it-- and he spoke at length about the importance of diplomatic solutions to international disputes. He also talked about climate change. Chang spoke with ease-- but distress-- about impacts of climate change both locally and globally, and in contrast to Takai showed a deep understanding of scientific issues and terminology when discussing solutions. He scoffed at those who are touting natural gas as some sort of environmentally friendly answer, and stressed that the renewable-energy future must begin now. Chang went on to emphasize his strong support for labor rights and his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Chang also expressed his dismay at the National Security Agency's “troubling” excesses in spying on Americans and allies.

Chang knocked on nearly 20,000 doors to win an awe-inspiring upset election to the Honolulu City Council as a first-time candidate in 2010. He’s working just as hard and is poised to finish strong leading up to the Aug. 9 Democratic primary. Help him do it.

Stanley kicked ass at the KITV debate last week-- the only televised debate of the campaign. Immediately afterward KITV polled and viewers were very clear about who they want for their next congressmember: