“My Opponent Supports Randall Iwase for Governor!”
At last night’s District 21/22/23 meeting, we got a chance to learn up close and personal, the perspective and strategies of many candidates, and especially those running for statewide as well as county-wide offices for the US Senate and US Representatives. The challenge was finding a way in which to transfer some of that success and momentum of one of the great leaders, politicians and campaigners onto their own efforts -- which I‘m not convinced many people realize can be the strength of their own campaigns -- by which they immediately establish a common bond with many of the voters. “I support and am voting for Linda Lingle for Governor too.”
In that one statement, one is already demonstrating superior judgment, and not just mindless partisanship -- of voting for a candidate because the Party/union leadership demands that you do so blindly -- when all your own senses tell you, “This person is a winner ” -- and will take everybody with her, if we only allow it.
A lot of people are not used to thinking in that way -- especially in Hawaii. Everybody thinks they have to re-invent the wheel first -- just as they are taught in schools that they have to learn the obsolete ideas from the very beginning of time before they can learn the latest state-of-the-art. And so, virtually 99% of what they know is useless, outdated information -- that the powers-that-be insist, you must learn first. That ensures that one start and stay at the back of the pack -- and not immediately assume leadership because one has simply observed which way the pack and the course of history is heading, which way the wind is blowing, if you will.
That allows people to anticipate where society is heading, and intersect with it on its projected course -- which of course cannot be guaranteed, nor can the timing be perfect. Usually visionaries are too far ahead of their time -- however, in a rapidly changing world, that is less likely to be inevitable. But the proven losing formula is to run from the back of the pack hoping to overtake the leaders.
While I understand the need not to get complacent in the governor’s race, the fact is that Governor Lingle’s leadership qualities transcend partisanship to clearly recognize. If people cannot or do not recognize those clearly demonstrated, self-evident realities, then their whole lives are at jeopardy because it is not just an opinion but a fact. At some point, even the most rabid partisan, has to admit that “up” is up, “down” is down, “good” is good, and “bad” is bad. If your opponent cannot recognize that simple truth evident to virtually all but the most blindly partisan, biased persons, they have no right to exercise judgment on any matter, as your representative.
I think many of our “Republican” candidates are overlooking the obvious -- which should be the basis of their strength and recognition -- relative to a well-known, well-established landmark of the Hawaiian political landscape.
One person told me that they’ve contributed to the Lingle campaign, even while thinking, “She should be contributing to mine.” Well, there’s no reason or prohibition that they can’t be advertising that fact prominently in their campaign -- that they can recognize and support superior leadership -- as a testimony to their own good judgment.
posted by Mike Hu @ 7:45 AM
11 comments
11 Comments:
Is it likely to be about some obscure point brought up at the neighborhood board meeting? Is it likely to be a hot topic being discussed in Washington D.C.? That may impress people into the minutia of government -- by which one can exhibit and impress maybe one other person, if that, who is also following and can appreciate that nuance, as proof of one’s intellectual and moral superiority.
It’s like the bureaucrat who goes up in front of a general audience -- and launches into specialized trade jargon he thinks will impress, intimidate, overwhelm -- not realizing that they have disconnected themselves from their entire audience, and the people just want him off as soon as possible.
If there is one skill that should be emulated by just about everyone in thes Islands and in these times, and especially by every politician, it is Governor Lingle’s ability to connect with her audience. In Hawaii, it is still very important to people who they are related to -- even more than what high school they graduated from (Randall Iwase graduated from the same high school at virtually the same time I did) -- and so the advantage every Republican now has, is that they are related to one of the most gifted politicians Hawaii or anyplace is likely to see.
If one hasn’t been exposed to anything else, one takes all these things for granted -- because there is no context, no relationship to anything else. Linda Lingle to politics is what Mozart was to music -- constantly and relentlessly improving. That’s her game -- what she was meant to do and be. Intelligent people recognize that and don’t instinctively compete against that -- or set themselves up against that kind of irresistible, dominating force. In may have been Kamehameha in his time -- or Peter the Great in his. The historical context changes in which great personages flourish because they are the right person for those times -- and place.
But there will always be somebody who is the best at every human activity -- and the first step in success, is being able to recognize and emulate those qualities -- rather than thinking it is just random, pure luck and chance that accounts for that. It’s true in every field -- but the liberal/leftist dogma is to convince us that everything in life is random -- and we should not be looking to see, or make those differences.
* I want to remind people that my opinions are strictly my own observations and not those of anybody else.
*Correction to previous post; the first paragraph was omitted.
I understand the importance of establishing oneself as their own person, in their own right -- but one can’t do it in a vacuum, not related to anything else. But that’s what I see a lot of people doing -- not emphasizing their ties to proven, well-known successes -- as a referent for those who don’t know them well. What are the familiar guideposts -- a common bond?
Is it likely to be about some obscure point brought up at the neighborhood board meeting? Is it likely to be a hot topic being discussed in Washington D.C.? That may impress people into the minutia of government -- by which one can exhibit and impress maybe one other person, if that, who is also following and can appreciate that nuance, as proof of one’s intellectual and moral superiority.
It’s like the bureaucrat who goes up in front of a general audience -- and launches into specialized trade jargon he thinks will impress, intimidate, overwhelm -- not realizing that they have disconnected themselves from their entire audience, and the people just want him off as soon as possible.
If there is one skill that should be emulated by just about everyone in thes Islands and in these times, and especially by every politician, it is Governor Lingle’s ability to connect with her audience. In Hawaii, it is still very important to people who they are related to -- even more than what high school they graduated from (Randall Iwase graduated from the same high school at virtually the same time I did) -- and so the advantage every Republican now has, is that they are related to one of the most gifted politicians Hawaii or anyplace is likely to see.
If one hasn’t been exposed to anything else, one takes all these things for granted -- because there is no context, no relationship to anything else. Linda Lingle to politics is what Mozart was to music -- constantly and relentlessly improving. That’s her game -- what she was meant to do and be. Intelligent people recognize that and don’t instinctively compete against that -- or set themselves up against that kind of irresistible, dominating force. In may have been Kamehameha in his time -- or Peter the Great in his. The historical context changes in which great personages flourish because they are the right person for those times -- and place.
But there will always be somebody who is the best at every human activity -- and the first step in success, is being able to recognize and emulate those qualities -- rather than thinking it is just random, pure luck and chance that accounts for that. It’s true in every field -- but the liberal/leftist dogma is to convince us that everything in life is random -- and we should not be looking to see, or make those differences.
* I want to remind people that my opinions are strictly my own observations and not those of anybody else.
http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1151559267185130.xml&coll=7
And maybe there's still hope for the press too.
Who died and left you president of the United States?
Thursday, June 29, 2006
David Reinhard
Dear Bill Keller:
Remember me? We met in the elevator here at The Oregonian recently. Your decision to expose a secret program to track terrorist funding got me to thinking I had better write and apologize. I don't think I was sufficiently deferential on our brief ride together. I treated you like the executive editor of The New York Times who used to work for The Oregonian. I had no idea I was riding with the man who decides what classified programs will be made public during a war on terror. I had no idea the American people had elected you president and commander in chief.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic. What's that they say -- sarcasm is anger's ugly cousin? I'm angry, Bill.
I get angry when a few unauthorized individuals take it upon themselves to undermine an anti-terror program that even your own paper deems legal and successful. I get angry when the same people decide to blow the lid on a secret program designed to keep Islamic terrorists from killing Americans en masse.
"The disclosure of this program," President Bush said Monday, "is disgraceful."
Strong words, but not strong enough, Bill.
Your decision was contemptible, but your Sunday letter explaining the Times' decision only undermined your case for disclosure.
"It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press . . .," you wrote. "[T]he people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy. . . . They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish."
Too true, but the issue here is your judgment. It would be one thing if you ran this story because the program was illegal, abusive or feckless. Yet your paper established nothing of the kind. In the end, your patronizing and lame letter offered only press-convention bromides ("a matter of public interest").
"Forgive me, I know this is pretty elementary stuff -- but it's the kind of elementary context that sometimes gets lost in the heat of strong disagreements," you write, after providing a tutorial on how the government only wants the press to publish the official line and the press believes "citizens can be entrusted with unpleasant and complicated news."
But this is a false and self-serving choice. The issue is your decision to publish classified information that can only aid our enemies. The founders didn't give the media or unnamed sources a license to expose secret national security operations in wartime. They set up a Congress to pass laws against disclosing state secrets and an executive branch to conduct secret operations so the new nation could actually defend itself from enemies, foreign and domestic.
Forgive me, I know this is pretty elementary stuff -- but it's the kind of elementary stuff that can get lost in the heat of strong disagreements. And get more people killed in the United States or Iraq.
Not to worry, you tell us, terrorists already know we track their funding, and disclosure won't undercut the program. (Contradictory claims, but what the heck.) You at the Times know better. You know better than government officials who said disclosing the program's methods and means would jeopardize a successful enterprise. You know better than the 9/11 Commission chairmen who urged you not to run the story. Better than Republican and Democratic lawmakers who were briefed on the program. Better than the Supreme Court, which has held since 1976 that bank records are not constitutionally protected. Better than Congress, which established the administrative subpoenas used in this program.
Maybe you do. But whether you do or not, there's no accountability. If you're wrong and we fail to stop a terror plot and people die because of your story, who's going to know, much less hold you accountable? No, the government will be blamed -- oh, happy day, maybe Bush's White House! -- for not connecting dots or crippling terror networks. The Times might even run the kind of editorial it ran on Sept. 24, 2001. Remember? The one that said "much more is needed" to track terror loot, including "greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities"?
Keep up the good work -- for al-Qaida.
David Reinhard, associate editor, can be reached at 503-221-8152 or davidreinhard@news.oregonian.com.
Well, it would be a classy thing if the New York Times and other newspapers would stop writing daily editorials, tributes, and high praise to themselves -- and give a little bit of recognition and credit to other people in the world -- other than themselves!
It does tend to get a bit wearying -- which might explain why people are dropping their subscriptions like flies -- just like avoiding any other wholly self-preoccupied people with delusions on the street and unavoidable venues in life.
I just don't see how a person's right to sell a newspaper, trumps another's right to live.
Unless one is one of those Windward Oahu Republican representatives who actually do as well as the Governor has, the key to the election for newcomers and underdogs is identifying the Lingle supporter and voter as one’s own potential base. That’s what Voter Vault training is all about, and since the Governor’s team will not fail to do this, what the enterprising candidate of limited resources should do to maximize their own effectiveness, is to find some easy way to capitalize on this work.
I figure the easiest way to do so, is to obtain a bunch of “Lingle” bumper stickers and merely flash them to prospective citizens to see what their response is. If it is positive, than one merely needs to introduce oneself as the local candidate of your own race. Fortunately, most diehard Democrats will quickly signal their disapproval -- of which one immediately recognizes not to waste one’s time, which is a huge temptation for some novices but disastrous in campaigning.
Once the Lingle supporter is identified, 60% of the work has been done; one merely has to identify oneself as the local Republican candidate in the race. One doesn’t have to deliver his whole campaign platform personally. “Just to remember my name -- after voting for the Governor.” That’s all most people expect -- or want. Identify yourself and ask for their vote once -- and not ten times, or give ten reasons why. That would be the way to ride the wave -- and not reinvent the wheel, or the Republican Party platform.
Some of the Democrats even contribute to your efforts by marginalizing themselves -- as in the case of Neil Abercrombie, who thinks the Democrats and Hawaii is not far enough to the left. Instead of marginalizing oneself with the extreme opposite views, merely grab the moderate center, where most of the voters are.
I think most novice candidates spend far too much time polishing their message and not enough time formulating a strategy for getting out there -- message or not. That will come by just getting out there -- and interacting with the people. People overlook the basics -- while devising elaborate strategies for their success.
Most people are impressed just by meeting the candidate -- and seeing that he doesn’t disqualify himself -- as many do, by introducing hot button topics as their opener. It’s not even a good idea as a conversation starter among good friends. One has to identify the likely point of agreement -- and not the points of controversy and divergence, which is what one is likely to see in the op-ed pages of the newspaper. Those are usually unbalanced and dysfunctional people who don’t do anything else but tell everybody else what to think.
That’s why most people are turned off and tuned out to politics, particularly in Hawaii. They don’t want ideologues as leaders; those people will empty a room and keep people away for generations.
I think reforming education on a national level is one of the best ideas -- otherwise the local teachers unions play each other off each other -- in claiming that the problem is that the teachers in Hawaii are not getting paid as much as the teachers in Connecticut, and that is the problem. It’s not; the public education system is obsolete and dysfunctional in every state. That’s been recognized for the last fifty years at least, and has become embarrassing with the computer age.
Most of education now is done out of the schools -- by those who just want to be informed and engaged -- and that’s pretty nearly everybody who is not discouraged by their experience with the formal education bureaucracy. Those are the middlemen who have become redundant and unnecessary to the learning and information process -- along with the traditional media and the universities. Anybody can do state-of-the-art research -- if they just learn the methodology.
That’s what the old intermediary institutions don’t want people to know -- that now, for most products and services, one can be a principal in the process. That is, one doesn’t simply learn what the self-designated expert tells one is true -- but one can determine what is true themselves, for fully 90% of what they need to know.
In many cases now, students know far more than their teachers -- who are nevertheless insistent that they must learn what the teacher requires them to learn. That is against the basic impulse of a free and independent society and individuals. This is a very fertile and productive area for Republican congressional candidates because the Democrat incumbents will obligingly defend the status quo.
There is a leadership vacuum here.
We talk about exploiting natural advantages: all our Republican congressional candidates have young children and are vitally and passionately involved in these issues -- while the geriatric Democrats, haven’t thought about these things, other than to think that the solution to the challenges of the 21st century, is a return to the days of the ‘60s, in which they can frolic naked , smoking pot, and indulging all their liberal fantasies of irresponsibility and wishful-thinking that if they just send “Aloha,” to the despots of the world, that will ensure world peace.
Here's another unpaid for, unauthorized, unapproved, unsolicited political message from a candidate fine-tuning his election statement -- which some running for public office have actually told me, "Nobody will ever look at it anyway."
Richard Noah Hough -- Leadership into the 21st Century.
A veteran of Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, I know that freedom, independence, the great American vision of life, does not come cheaply -- but must be earned and paid for. As an engineer with the US Army for 16 years, with training in law enforcement and a Master's degree in Public Administration, I can be a responsible, respected voice for Hawaii in Congress -- rather than just one who introduces legislation that nobody else takes seriously.
I think we in Hawaii deserve to be taken seriously. With the emergence of Governor Linda Lingle and the revitalization of Hawaii, it is time to claim our leadership role among the states -- and not just be a backwater state successful only at obtaining federal “pork barrel” handouts -- for failing! At some point, the money is not worth it -- if we have to prove that we are inept failures to obtain it.
Even if we can win such monies, the effect on our self-regard and self-esteem is disastrous. More valuable is developing our own resources and resourcefulness to meet the challenges of the future -- while my Democrat opponent as your “representative,” believes that leading us back into the 1960s, is the hope for the future.
As a past regional organizer for the Army Junior ROTC program, I’m vitally interested in the need for a national reform of an outmoded public education system and philosophy.
Vote for leadership into the 21st Century.
Here we go -- equal time for the other Republican candidate in this race:
Hello! I am Mark Terry, candidate for Congress in the urban district. I ask you for your vote. We need to improve Congress and the national laws. I am very serious about doing a good job for you. So please elect me, Mark Terry.
My platform:
1. Repeal the Jones Act. By restricting shipping, the Jones Act increases our cost of living here in Hawaii.
2. I am pro-life.
3. Rail transit will do little for traffic. We must consider other ways to improve traffic.
4. Secure our borders. Deport illegal aliens.
5. Win the war on terror. Bring the troops home at the proper time.
6. End wasteful government spending so taxes can be cut.
7. Replace the tax code with a fair tax (national sales tax) or flat tax.
8. I will stay in touch with Hawaii, and represent us rather than lobbyists or special interests.
9. Work for the day we can truly say, "The era of big government is over."
My qualifications: In 2002, I won the Republican nomination for Congress in the urban district. For several years, I was chairman of a 17-member neighborhood board. I worked for the preservation of Hanauma Bay and open space in East Honolulu. I am a university graduate, self-employed, and many years in the real estate field.
If you vote for me, Mark Terry, you send a message. We want
something better than what we have in Congress. Please vote for me,
Mark Terry.
Mark Terry, Box 240819, Honolulu HI 96824-0819 (808) 373-3345 or voice mail at (808) 371-4336
I included Mark Terry's mailing address because he's not doing a website.
Richard Hough's contact information is on his website:
http://www.houghforcongress.org/
Best of luck to both!
Post a Comment
<< Home