The Gabbard Follies, Act II
By David Shapiro
It figured that the scrap between Sen. Mike Gabbard and the Democratic Party over gay unions would have a bizarre ending.
The state central committee voted 37 to 31 Saturday to support the O'ahu Democratic Party's reprimand of Gabbard for encouraging senators to oppose HB 444 allowing civil unions — but only after Gabbard snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Insiders say Gabbard, who initiated the appeal, had the votes to overturn the reprimand by a comfortable margin, but angered committee members by making a relatively brief statement and refusing to stay to answer questions.
A number of members reversed their initial inclination to let Gabbard off the hook, resulting in the narrow vote to slap him down for acting in opposition to the Democratic platform on civil unions.
Why file the appeal if he didn't intend to fully participate in the proceedings? If he wanted to tell the party to take a flying leap, why not just ignore the O'ahu reprimand instead of going out of his way to thumb his nose at the state committee that started out mostly on his side?
The outcome only deepened the hole of hypocrisy Democrats have dug themselves into over Gabbard.
Gabbard's switch from the GOP to the Democrats was encouraged by some of the party's highest elected officials, including U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka and state Senate President Colleen Hanabusa, who rewarded Gabbard for coming over with the chairmanship of the Energy and Environment Committee.
Gabbard made clear that he wouldn't change his opposition to gay unions and abortion, positions that run contrary to the Democratic platform on issues dearest to some of the most active members of the party.
While the activists' dismay is understandable, it's absurd to reprimand him now for doing exactly what he said he'd do when he was welcomed with open arms by the party's top dogs.
Excuses are thin for singling out Gabbard from other Democrats who helped stall HB 444 by voting against it, speaking against it or working behind the scenes to prevent a vote.
Does the central committee vote mean that people who actively oppose HB 444 are no longer welcome in the Democratic Party?
As for Gabbard, reprimand is the least of the punishments a Democrat can receive for opposing the platform. When he continues to work against civil unions, will the party move on to his censure and expulsion? Will the Democrats run "approved" candidates against Gabbard and others who oppose civil unions? Will they pressure the Senate to strip him of his committee chairmanship?
The community voted 2 to 1 against same-sex marriage in 1998 and is still deeply divided on civil unions.
By continuing to single out Gabbard for attention, Democrats only enhance his stature among like-minded voters, improve his chances of getting opponents of gay unions active in party politics and increase his visibility for future runs for higher office.
Volcanic Ash
August 31st, 2009 at 6:58 am
Sen. Gabbard’s job is to represent the people of his district who elected him. NOT the Democrat Party platform. This is typical of our state’s political thug mentality. God forbid any politician actually vote their conscious.
August 31st, 2009 at 8:34 am
Sounds so hypocritical. The party reprimands Gabbard for being different from "them". So what makes the party any better than him when it comes to judging people? The civil union backers seem to have a convenient set of double standards. Aren't they the same folks who spoke of civil rights at the same time that they were threatening to out anyone who didn't support them. Seems that the Dem. party, like society, suffers from pandering to the vocal minority.
August 31st, 2009 at 8:59 am
It does seem awfully weird of the Dems to go this far in their reprimand of Sen. Gabbard, but then again, you're talking local politics. It's probably a pretty safe bet that even those who voted for the reprimand have some e-skeletons hiding out in their e-mails.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:39 am
The Democratic Party of Hawaii is all about inclusiveness and compassion so long as it supports the left wing nutter agenda.
August 31st, 2009 at 11:09 am
They soulda never let hiim in - then this issue never would have happened. Whose next, a racist?? The difference between him and others who oppossed HB 444 is that Gabbard is explicitly on the record as the reason for his oposition is his belief that same sex sex is a sin and those who enage in it are morally infeiror. Motives count in court and in the party...
August 31st, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Gabbard does things only for himself and no one esle. The d party was stupid to welcome him to their party knowing his style and philosophy. The d party did not need him in terms of power or votes, he needed them more. The d leaders who openly welcomed him, now are looking like fools. They should strip him of his chairmanship and have a real democrat oppose him for reelection. He is similar to case, who only believes in himself too. Maybe they should form their own party and run together.
August 31st, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Kiluaresident. At least he is honest and on the record about why he did not support the bill, unlike Hanabusa and others who took cover under the guise of not wanting to pull a bill from committee because it is not usually done.
August 31st, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Kailuaresident, I'm not arguing with you, but Gary Okino made some of the strongest statements alleging homosexuality to be ungodly and immoral. Isn't he also a Democrat?
August 31st, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Anyone ever heard of the First Amendment?
Hey, it is also against public policy in Hawaii to discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation which is defined in the employment practices act (378-1) as:
" 'Sexual orientation' means having a preference for heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality, having a history of any one or more of these preferences, or being identified with any one or more of these preferences. "Sexual orientation" shall not be construed to protect conduct otherwise proscribed by law. "
So it looks like Senator Gabbard can make a claim back for discrimination. Why would supporters of homosexual rights not know what the statutes say?
August 31st, 2009 at 1:29 pm
This is just a very minor setback for Senator Gabbard and his guru, Chris Butler.
We need to keep in mind that Mike Gabbard did more than just oppose Civil Unions. In an email he threatened to work for the defeat of Democrats who supported Civil Unions. If that is acceptable to the Hawaii Democratic Party leadership, then there is no hope for the Democratic Party in Hawaii.
If it is true that a majority of committee members wanted to overturn the reprimand, then those committee members are lukewarm and wishy-washy. They should be ashamed of themselves.
August 31st, 2009 at 1:54 pm
David, you are right about Councilmember Okino but there are distinctions. Honolulu City Council races are non-partisan so there are no party concerns. If Okino should run for political office as a Democrat, I suppose at that time any party member could file a complaint as was done in Gabbard's case.
Also, keep in mind if there is no complaint, there is no action. This is why there was no action taken when Sen. Inouye openly supported Republican Sen. Stevens of Alaska.
As far as Dakine's statement that Gabbard represents his district and not the Party; well, yes and no. Gabbard is free to run as an independent at any time. He has chosen a party label for whatever reason but when he runs under a party label, he agrees to abide by the rules and policies of that party. Otherwise, it would be a situation of anyone can run under a party label but continue to do whatevers. (That said, I don't necessarily agree with this action regarding Gabbard.)
August 31st, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Hi Dave,
I appreciate your calm reflections on the Gabbard situation. As you might expect, I differ somewhat from your perspective on this.
All Hawaii's political parties have a requirement that members, including most pointedly, elected officials, support the party platform. This is not unique to the Dems. Nor is it some recent invention by overzealous "activists." The oldest copy of the DPH rules I could find was dated 1908. It had multiple mentions of such a requirement.
Does such a requirement make any sense? Should it be ignored? Should it be deleted from the rules? Those are all valid questions IF people are interested in taking a serious approach to the question.
If the requirement remains in the Rules and is to be taken seriously, what would its enforcement mean in practice? Should ANY deviation from the platform become grounds for a sanction from the Party? Should it be used selectively and only against those out of favor with the leadership of the party organization? Valid questions. Is there someplace where we can have a serious discussion of those questions or does all public discourse on such matters really only happen on Clear Channel talk radio and newspaper discussion boards?
My view, and the view which was adopted first by the Oahu party and then by the State party at Saturday's meeting, is that elected officials must be free to vote their conscience, listen to their constituents, and consider testimony at hearings before coming to the best decision, in their judgment. Those who run for office as a member of a party (or who switch midstream) have an obligation to consider the platform of their party. But they are not obliged to vote that way.
According to his own statements at the time, Mike switched parties because he wanted to join the Senate Majority Caucus in order to get more influence "on behalf of his constituents." In short, he did it because he wanted more power. In order to join the Caucus, he had to become a Democrat. Despite your correct observation of his reception by Akaka and Hanabusa, we should remember the internal governance is democratic. We have an elected leadership for running the Party. The majority of the elected leadership of the Party was overwhelmingly opposed to Gabbard's switch. It was no just a "few activists" as some reports have it. But we had no authority under our Rules to exclude him.
At the time, his entry was made more palatable by Hanabusa, Chair McCartney and even Gabbard himself, that our problems were with the "Old Mike Gabbard." Even though Mike stated he continued to opposed civil unions, we were assured he was eager to move onto a new stage of his life.
Gabbard's opposition to the platform extended far beyond his official duties. There is currently an effort by the Religious Right to try to recreate the passions and divisive climate which colored the 1996 and 1998 elections and continues to intimidate elected officials to this day. Mike is in the middle of that effort and helping develop strategy.
When a party member, who has used his party affiliation to attain office (or enhanced authority, as in Gabbard's case), when such a member works to make other Democrats vulnerable for defeat in future elections because they support the platform of the Party, it is fully appropriate for the Party to consider whether that member should remain a member or if the member should receive a sanction short of expulsion. The Party chose the lightest sanction, a reprimand.
Mike was free to remain a Republican or, my preferred option, to have run as an independent. Hanabusa still could have welcomed him into the Caucus, without Mike having to sign a pledge to support the Party Platform and putting us in the situation we now find ourselves in.
As to why Mike "got picked on," his actions were the most egregious of any elected official. I think there was nothing unfair about how he was treated.
As for your final comment, Mike may very well have desired the reprimand, just as some people break the law for the attention. But this shouldn't deter the Party for enforcing its rules. Had the reprimand been overturned, Mike would have proclaimed a victory. Now that it was upheld, he claims persecution. He would try to find an advantage in either outcome. Once the complaint was filed, we were obliged to make the determination based upon the rules. Had we ignored his violations, we would have forfeited our right to sanction any elected official for working aginst our platform. If that is what is the wisest course of action, our rules should be changed.
Let's see if the Republicans, Libertarians and Greens strip such provisions from their rules also. The "hypocrisy" comes in when we have such a provision in our Rules but nevere enforce it. Members assemble eveery two years to adopt a platform and elect party officers. If the Party officers are not willing to make even a minimal effort (as was done here) to enforce the platform, why should members bother to write on. It becomes an empty set of BS political promises, not worth the paper it is written on. I thought empty political promises was supposed to be a source of public cynicism.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
I went on way to long, but those with an appetite for punishment are able to read my entire rational for the reprimand of Senator Gabbard, posted on the Progressive Democrats of Hawaii blog:
http://pd-hawaii.com/blog
Reasoned disagreement is welcome in the comments. Snarky trolls will be moderated. Thanks
August 31st, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Gabbard is being singled out because he is easy for the radicals to pick on. As has already been noted, there were many other democrats that worked against the civil unions bill. At the very least, Gabbard never misled anybody about his views. The same cannot be said for Hanabusa and others.
August 31st, 2009 at 4:39 pm
This is exactly the sort of situation that happens in what is effectively a one-party state. With few exceptions, anybody who wants to get or stay elected runs as a Democrat. Look how many defections from the Republican party have been made over the years compared to the other way around. Only a strong establish politician can go from Dem to Rep and survive. So, the Dems may have their platform which must largely comply with the DNC but the local party represents a larger variety of viewpoints.
August 31st, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Bart, you're right that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, and I feel your pain. It wasn't the progressive group that initiated the course of action that put the party in this position. But once key members of the party establishment rolled out the red carpet and gave him a committee chairmanship in the full knowledge that he intended to continue working against the platform, there was no way this could play out without the party looking increasingly ridiculous at every step. Sorry, but that's the view from outside eyes.
September 1st, 2009 at 5:41 am
Dave,
Good analysis and I think on the mark.
September 1st, 2009 at 6:54 am
So, the real enemies of the Democratic Party are Hanabusa and Akaka. Thanks for that inside info.
September 1st, 2009 at 10:11 am
HItaxpayer is right. At least with Gabbard you know where he stands, where he has always stood, and where he will be standing for years to come. He's not doing things behind the scenes like the other lawmakers. If all the other Dems were supportive of party platform and HB444 it would have passed. And what about all those red shirts at the anti HB444 rally? Do you really think all of them were Rs or Is? No way, I'm willing to bet $1,000 the majority were card carrying Ds. Let's get Brian Schatz to reprimand them all!
September 1st, 2009 at 2:12 pm
@BobMob,
No one is arguing Akaka and Hanabusa are "the real enemies of the Democratic Party." What I am saying is that Akaka and Hanabusa have their opinions and needs. As high ranking elected officials, their opinions should, and do, carry a lot of weight within the Party. But the Party has democratic internal governance. And we have rules. Even the desires of Hanabusa and Akaka have to be reconciled with our rules and "the best interests of the Party."
The Party is not owned by Akaka or Hanabusa (or Inouye, for that matter). It is owned by the membership, who express their will every two years, re-writing the platform and rules, and electing new officers to follow those rules and advance that platform.
The argument Party policy should be dictated by "key members of the party establishment" is somewhat peculiar, once you stop to think about it. Contrary to recent insinuations, the Party's internal governance is extremely democratic. To a fault, in the eyes of the some of the entrenched elected officials.
Who the heck are the members of the party to think they have the authority to write a platform which should be taken seriously? Who are they to pass rules which can hold elected officials accountable to the pledges we have made? Who the heck are the elected leaders of the party to try to hold US to account on anything?
Too much goll durn democracy, if you ask me. Get them on the phone--we're cutting off their funding! Then we'll see "who owns the Party"!
September 1st, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Are we really supposed to believe that the committee was going to vote to drop the reprimand but changed their minds because the guy had better things to do then sit through all the foaming-at-the-mouth nonsense? He did the right thing to stand up for the reprimand. That's all that matters to me. I've never lived in a place where the political party one votes with creates such animosity, downright hatred and separation amongst the community. Where's da aloha, my friends?
September 1st, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Dave's right. The Democrats decision is hypocrisy at its worst. On the one hand Democrats want to be the Majority Party, and on the other hand they want to punish anyone who has conservative views. Has anybody stopped to think that Filipinos are one of the major components of the Party and are staunchly Catholic? How do you think this makes them feel?
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:45 am
The people who are foaming-at-the-mouth here are Senator Mike Gabbard and his guru, Chris Butler (Jagad Guru). There's a long and on-the-record history of their homophobic hysteria.
There may be Catholic Filipinos in Hawaii Senate District 19, but the legislature cannot legally enact the beliefs of any one religion into law, whether that be Catholic, Hare Krishna, fundamentalist Protestant or any other religious flava.
Some of those Catholic Filipinos may be even be lesbian or gay, themselves.
Whether he likes it or not, Senator Mike Gabbard represents all the various religions in his district, including people who have no religion. Although there are religions that oppose Civil Unions, there are also religions which did not oppose Civil Unions, this year, such as the Mormon church.
There are even lesbian and gay people in Hawaii Senate District 19 and Senator Gabbard has to represent their best interests, as well. The Hawaii State Constitution requires that Hawaii citizens receive the equal protection of the law. Hawaii Senator Mike Gabbard must comply with the Hawaii State Constitution.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Heathen07 – One doesn’t have to be religious to be against civil unions or gay marriage. It’s a moral issue something like the abortion issue. Most of us have morals whether or not we have religion and morality differs from person to person. Just because Gabbard’s moral code coincides with the tenets of his religion, it doesn’t mean that his objection to legislation can’t be based on his moral beliefs. Besides, there’s no way, other than a ballot initiative, to accurately determine how the majority of the people in his district feel about civil unions other than via the ballot box. The fact stands that his convictions were public knowledge and he was elected by the majority of his constituents.
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:38 pm
If you study Senator Gabbard's past, you can learn of his relationship with an extremely homophobic guru named Chris Butler. Butler is also known as Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa. You can read about it here: http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?12,4453,page=272 There is a lot of stuff about the cult at this website.
It may be just a coincidence, but Jagad Guru's teaching, that "sex is for procreation only" is similar to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Out of that teaching comes opposition to homosexuality, abortion and birth control.
The opposition to equal rights for lesbian and gay people is coming primarily from religions, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Mormon Church and evangelical Protestant churches.
As Mike Gabbard said after one Hawaii Supreme Court ruling in 1999: "Thank you to the Hawaii Supreme Court for affirming what we've known all along -- that marriage, by God's definition, is between opposite-sex couples."
September 3rd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Senator Gabbard did the right thing by standing up to the Democratic Party. He did nothing wrong by voting his conscience and opposing civil unions. My guess is the reprimand will backfire and make it even less likely that we'll ever see a civil unions law in our state.
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Senator Gabbard was elected as a Republican. He betrayed his district by switching to the Democratic Party. Then he betrayed the Democratic Party by ignoring its rules and fundamental values and voting against one of its priority bills.
If "freedom of speech" and "voting one's conscience" are so important to Senator Gabbard, he should have run as an Independent where there is no platform. If "representing his constituents" is so important, he should have remained a Republican, since his contituents elected him as a Republican.
Why did he switch parties? He wanted to be part of the Majority Caucus. He wanted to be Chair of a Committee. He wanted power.
With power comes responsibility. If he wants to have the power of the Democratic Party, then he should abide by its rules.
Why does the Democratic Party have so much power? Because the members of the Democratic Party pound the pavement election after election, organize their precincts year after year, develop their platform convention after convention. It is the effort of the party members that allows virtual unknowns to put a (D) after their names and win -- even against well known R's.
When Senator Gabbard chose to change parties, the Party Chair went the extra mile by holding a special meeting for Senator Gabbard. The leaders of the various party caucuses met with Senator Gabbard. The rule about adhering to the party platform was explicitly pointed out to him. Those leaders listened to Senator Gabbard's reasons for wanting to switch parties, many of those leaders then expressed their doubts about the ability for this leopard to change his spots. Many of them seriously questioned whether he shared core democratic values or whether he would change his divisive ways.
Since joining the party, Senator Gabbard has been a part of the majority caucus, where he has threatened members that they may not get re-elected if they support civil unions legislation. He retained his seat on the Judiciary Committee, which he held as a Republican (Senator Slom was then appointed as "the Republican"). During the 18 hours of testimony on civil unions, Senator Gabbard behaved much more like Senator Slom than Senators Taniguchi, Takamine, Nishihara and Bunda by verbally abusing citizens who came to testify in support of the bill; misquoting the text of the Constitutional Amendment on marriage; inflaming passions by falsely claiming that the civil unions bill would alter school curriculum. Senator Gabbard then voted against the bill viewed by party members as a fundamental plank in the platform and a legislative priority.
Senator Gabbard should be grateful that he got a reprimand rather than censure or expulsion.