Reaction to Televised Gubernatorial Debate
Price of Paradise · Hawaii Public Radio · aired 1994-10-16
Guests: Chuck Freedman (Vice President, Hawaiian Electric Company); Jerry Burris (Editorial Page Editor, The Honolulu Advertiser)
Duration: 1:03:55

[00:00:00] Randall Roth: Good morning. This is Randy Roth, host of the Price of Paradise Radio show. For better or worse, the 1994 political campaign is almost pal. With me today to talk about the high points and low points, and maybe even make a prediction or two, are a couple of keen eyed political observers, Jerry Burris, the editorial page editor of the Honolulu advertiser, and Chuck Freedman, a vice president with Hawaiian Electric, who previously served for five years as Governor Wae's communications director. Jerry and Chuck, welcome to the Price of Paradise radio show.
[00:00:33] Jerry Burris: Good morning.
[00:00:34] Chuck Freedman: Good morning.
[00:00:35] Randall Roth: Well, one word descriptions, how are the voters feeling right now? Chuck?
[00:00:41] Chuck Freedman: Unsure, unsteady, still waiting for the magic moment.
[00:00:45] Randall Roth: Jerry?
[00:00:45] Jerry Burris: Absolutely sort of terrified and confused.
[00:00:48] Randall Roth: Terrified and confused. Why are there so many undecided folks out there, Jerry? We're, we're really late into this campaign.
[00:00:54] Jerry Burris: I think there's two reasons. One is, is as a factor of the campaign, the candidates at least in the last couple weeks, have spent so much time trying to convince the voters that there's something wrong with their opponents, but that creates a sense of doubt. I mean, they're not campaign shifted from here's what I'll do to here's what's wrong with the other guys. And then there's an actual functional thing in a two-way race, if you don't like somebody, you're driven automatically to the opponent, and you can say well, I'm for so and so even if your motivation is you don't like candidate A. In a three-way race, you can be very upset or opposed to someone, and still not know where you want to go because there's two other candidates. So some of it I think it's just a natural result of a three-way rather than two-way race.
[00:01:31] Randall Roth: Chuck, you agree with that?
[00:01:32] Chuck Freedman: Yeah, real strongly, particularly the latter point. If you've got two people running against each other, for example, and you switch your vote, you know where that vote's going to go. When when somebody has an 18-point lead, it's really a 9-point lead because because if if somebody is going to change their vote, they're they're going to swing things by by twice the proportion.
[00:01:55] Randall Roth: One comes down and another goes up. It all goes up, but, but in a three-person race, things move around in funny ways, laterally, horizontally, vertically, diagonally, and that's what's going on right now, and I don't think anybody's broken out, clearly, nobody's broken out of the pack.
[00:02:10] Chuck Freedman: No, and and the other thing that's happened too is that is that no one's found the silver bullet. You know, the one statement, the one position that everyone says, aha, that's what we've been looking for. Maybe there isn't a silver bullet, but.
[00:02:20] Randall Roth: What about Jerry's comments on on the negative campaigning that's going on now, Chuck? You've been involved in a lot of campaigns in the past. Is this important that they're distinguishing themselves from their opponents, or is this mudslinging that's simply counterproductive?
[00:02:34] Jerry Burris: Well, the old saying in Hawaii used to be he who slings mud loses ground. Nowadays, I don't think that's so. People aren't staying away from the mudslinging campaign. We've sort of joined the rest of America in that regard. I think that, you know, back in 1986, not so long ago, when we were we were running a political campaign for for Y H, we had a negative ad, mildly negative ad that we never ran, and and if you saw it today, you'd giggle at it. And and the Y H himself was very much against running any negative ads, it was sort of like doing committing a mortal sin. Today it's out there and it's all over the place, and although I guess the Kyatano campaign is making the claim that they haven't gone negative, the argument is that that other groups supporting him have. So every candidate or or supporters of candidates have used some sort of negative ad at this point, and I think it has served to confuse people, and I don't think it it's defined much in terms of whether somebody's really much better or much worse, it's just made kind of all politicians look bad.
[00:03:39] Randall Roth: Jerry, is it tell me, what are your thoughts on it?
[00:03:42] Chuck Freedman: Well, I sort of agree that there's been a lot more negative stuff and and I make sort of a distinction between, I think it's legitimate to to put out some negative information about your opponent if you can ground it in something. If my opponent is anti-labor, or my opponent doesn't care about business, or my opponent, would would raise your taxes and here are the votes and here are the statements that my opponent made that would illustrate this. That's negative and you can, and it sounds confrontational, but I think that's legit. I think where they go off the deep end is where they put two and two together and come up with the number seven, making their opponent the devil and no character and no no class and no anything where you're just attacking the person's character or or sense of values without even really substantiating it, and I think that's where it goes off the deep end.
[00:04:25] Randall Roth: Go ahead, Chuck.
[00:04:26] Chuck Freedman: A real, just a real quick point. I know the Advertiser, at one point tried to do an ad watch in its coverage. I don't know if they did it this year, but they have in prior years where they try to actually evaluate the the truth of the ad, which is sort of what Jerry's talking about here, and channel nine and the League of Women Voters were doing things for a while, but that all seems to poop out in the final periods of a campaign when it's most desired, most needed, and maybe in the in the, in the end, the the fact that beauty and ugliness is in the eyes of the beholder made makes it difficult to do, I don't know.
[00:04:57] Randall Roth: In the eyes of the beholder?
[00:04:58] Chuck Freedman: The beholder. But Jerry, you just said that occasionally they add two and two and get seven. Can you give us some specific examples, and I guess the first question is, has this been kind of even handed? Have all of the campaigns been guilty, equally guilty of this? And, second question is, can you give me some specific examples of where you think two and two were added and something other than four was projected as the answer?
[00:05:20] Jerry Burris: Yeah, and I hope I can do this without, uh, digressing into an hour's worth of explanation of parliamentary procedure and votes and things like that. But both Psychie and Kyatano, specifically, have been victims, I think, of ads that take votes and take statements and kind of package them in a way to create at least a a miss slightly off-center perception of not totally wrong. In Psychie's case, uh, uh, the labor groups who oppose her used a series of votes on the minimum wage. She voted, uh, against a certain minimum wage in Congress because she felt it was too high and would be anti, it would work against job production, when a slightly lower minimum wage came in, she voted for it. The ads say, Pat Psychie doesn't care about the working man, she voted against raising the minimum wage. True in fact, but not true in context. Very misleading. Uh, at least misleading. Uh, and then the Psychie campaign against Kyatano used a series of votes and statements he made about rape legislation to characterize him as being anti-woman and a person who blames the victim, not the perpetrator in rape, and it's true that he has a strong, uh, pro-defense, pro-defendant attitude toward life and toward legislation, but the votes in context were uh just part of the legislative discourse over the evolution of a rape bill, which he finally voted for, as did Pat Psychie at the same time. So, in that case, I think that they were trying to get at his maybe libert- civil civil libertarian sort of approach to things, but they used specific votes in a way to make him look a lot worse than he was. Those are cases of two and two adding up to five, maybe. And then, uh, Mayor Fasi in his radio show, put two and two together and got about 37, when he, uh, took some comments made by somebody about uh, this, uh, restaurant owner, Mr. Kaa who had a struggle with the state and his frustration with trying to get things worked out with the state and somehow managed to convince himself that Kaa was saying that he had tried to bribe him, and Ben Kyatano had accepted a bribe. Uh, even Mr. Fasi says, well, that isn't exactly what he was told, but he went right off with it and that's a case where little, tiny bits and pieces of information were put together to make something wildly off, off track, I thought. And Randy, very early on, interestingly enough, Fasi was a victim in that, uh, the Republicans did a, an advertisement that took, extracted material from a forum, I think this will go down as the only forum that the three of them attended at one time up at the University like six months ago or whenever, and took information, uh, Fasi speaking about, uh, shaking down, I think, and and then extracting money from bad people and made him look like the sort of the Darth Vader of government. When indeed, what he was talking about was the common, the common practice of trying to get people who want to do a development to give something back to the community. So, uh, it started off, uh, if you want to say negatively, and and Frank was actually a victim of that.
[00:08:14] Chuck Freedman: Has any one candidate made a terrible mistake in terms of how they've conducted their campaign, Chuck? Well, I'm I'm sure they'd all do something over. Uh, I, I think What are some of the things that perhaps they'd do over?
[00:08:29] Jerry Burris: I I think I I I think I'd like to believe that that Mayor Fasi would have done a couple of forums, more forums [unintelligible — audio glitch] other candidates. Debates, forums, whatever. I I think why didn't he? He's he's so good on his feet, I think. Why didn't he? I don't know. That's that's to me the $64 question. It it's it there's a strategy in there somewhere, but I'll be doggoned if I can figure it out, particularly given the fact, as you say, that he probably would have performed real well. He's fast on his feet, and he's uh affable when he wants to be and tough when he wants to be, can turn it on and modulate it and do all kinds of things that actually the other candidates aren't as good at as he is. So, I don't understand that, and I overall think that um I think that that was a mistake. In In the case of the Psychie people, I think in the middle of the campaign and again, we we don't exactly know why they, they sort of lost momentum and got involved in in what I've called bogus issues. You know, who's the real air parent of John Burns, and, and who's really a Democrat and who's not and stuff that that's really insider who cares kind of material, as opposed to promoting what she really stood for and the things that she wanted to do, and she, she lost, she lost a couple of strides there, and, and slippage is a tough thing to get back in a campaign. I, I think Ben's probably run the the the the classical smartest campaign. And, um, there's really a, not a lot, I think, that, that he's done wrong, uh, that he would do over. Other, other, perhaps, um, then maybe pushing so hard the point that, uh, that, that, that he's a Democrat. I, I I think he did that at the beginning to preempt strikes. Uh, it's become almost too much of a, too much of an issue. I, I think he has more to offer people than just the fact that he's a Democrat.
[00:12:12] Randall Roth: Let me see if Jerry agrees with any of that.
[00:12:14] Jerry Burris: I know I do. I think I I would have made almost the same speech. I think the one I'd emphasize is is uh I I I was surprised at at how the Psychie campaign sort of flattened out and bottomed out right about in the middle of the going there and and I'm not sure what that was. They tell us that no, we didn't flatten out that we were out there building the grassroots, we were on the neighbor islands, we were doing a lot of basic nuts and bolts work, and just because you guys in Honolulu and the news building don't know about it doesn't mean that it isn't happening. But I think perceptions count here and and I felt that at a time when when she seemed to have the she was on in the lead and she had the upper hand that uh, it didn't take a little bit bolder uh approach right then and kind of capture that and lock it into her campaign. There seemed to be, as someone said, when my friend said, she uh, she was in the lead so she kept the ball on the ground and uh, that was maybe not a good idea.
[00:13:02] Randall Roth: Okay. In case you joined us late, I'm Randy Roth, and my guests in the studio today are the advertiser's editorial page editor, Jerry Burris, and a fellow who has run a number of political campaigns in his day, Chuck Freedman. Listeners are invited to join our conversation by calling 955-8821. We especially like to hear from folks who have never, ever done anything quite so daring as calling in to a radio show like this one. Our topic today is the 1994 political campaign, and the number again is 955-8821.
[00:13:34] Randall Roth: What about the issues? Uh, Chuck, I know you have written in the past about, uh, how candidates need to figure out what community values are, and um, and need to figure out how to plug into those values. Has any of these candidates done that?
[00:13:49] Chuck Freedman: Let me not answer your question for two seconds. I've been talking as a as a pop activist around around town going to meetings where people ask you to show up and talk about what pop's doing. And I've got to say that the that at least what I'm hearing is that the public feels that in terms of issue coverage and and this being an issue-driven campaign, that there's just been a lot more out there than ever before. So, from the total campaign point of view, I think there's been some real gains made overall. Uh, in in terms of the candidate separating themselves on the issues, I think they really have, but I don't think in these final weeks there's been enough comparative distinction either by the by the candidates themselves with where they stand versus the other candidate or the news media. I think that's sort of been a lacking element. Uh Frank has tries to do his little scoreboard charts where he shows you the differences, but you I don't know if you can really depend on his analysis of the opposition and those things. I think they're I think I would hope that people are doing some of that now on their own, that they've kept some of the material that's come out, that they're starting to look at what really separates the candidates both in the way they run government and and and and where they stand on particular positions. Jerry Burris, I'm not sure but I think you were just criticized a little bit.
[00:15:01] Jerry Burris: I think I was, and and it's a point Chuck has made earlier and I think he's right that uh that to to the degree that we listed and stated where where the candidates stand on the issues we've done a fine job in in terms of analyzing the words that they use and then saying what does this really mean in differences, I think we haven't gone completely into it. What is the real difference between the Kyatano and a Fassi, for instance, on taxing? It's not as simple as Frank says, I'll lower taxes, and Ben says, I'm not sure we can, in fact, we might have to raise them for education. It gets more subtle than that. And maybe we haven't done enough of that kind of analysis. Although, you know, the the other point too is that in every campaign in a way, the strongest distinctions on the issues come early in the campaign. By the end, everything has become kind [unintelligible — audio glitch] groaning noise, where they're all basically saying the same thing about every issue. They listen to each other, they hear what works, what doesn't work, and it all gets boiled down to this kind of soundbite, uh, monotonous, even Steven thing that across all candidates and happens in every race.
[00:16:00] Randall Roth: How do you get specific and analyze the differences if they don't give details? I know on Fassi's proposal to lower taxes, for example, I've asked several times for copies of of anything explaining that and going into some detail and and they simply haven't provided it. And I assume the other candidates will do similar things when you press them for details, how do you as a newspaper person deal with that?
[00:16:24] Chuck Freedman: What you do if they won't give you the real hardcore background stuff is as you take it and you extrapolate it. You carry it forward in the way journalistic journalistically you think it would work, and and we we did a little bit of that with the taxing with a few others where um, you look at, okay, you can lower taxes but the money has to come from somewhere, and he's not saying where it's going to be cut from specifically. They're only talking about attrition. Uh, we did a piece that actually uh prompted by the governor on on everyone was attacking the growth in the state workforce and and he made the current governor and he made the point that yes, it has grown, they're correct but where would they cut it back? Pointing out that almost all the growth was in education and health and social welfare. And if they're saying get rid of health and social welfare and education, say so, don't just say attrition. And and it pitch for the advertiser. They they did, in fact, Jerry Burris took a uh at least a big picture run at it in today's focus section. The the issues and where the candidate stands.
[00:17:17] Randall Roth: I was wondering when you were going to say that. We have a caller from Kapahulu, Terry. Terry, you're on the air. Good morning, Terry. Well, we just lost Terry. Um, what about the issues? What do you think, Jerry, is the single most important issue in this campaign?
[00:17:36] Jerry Burris: I'm going to sound vague here, but I think the single most important issue is powerlessness, is people's sense of being disconnected and broken away from government. People sense that government doesn't really connect with them in their lives, and they're looking for someone who atmospherically or in specifics will say, when I'm in office, you will be part of government again, and government will be under your control, and I think that's the dominant issue.
[00:18:01] Randall Roth: And no one candidate has clearly communicated that yet?
[00:18:04] Jerry Burris: They're all trying to. They're all trying like crazy, but I don't think anyone has sold the idea perfectly.
[00:18:08] Randall Roth: Okay. Terry, we have you now. You're on the air.
[00:18:11] Speaker 1: Yes, I'd like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to to be part of the uh campaign and politics. Sure. Okay, as far as negative campaigning, I agree with what the uh the speakers are saying, but don't you think the American public is actually responsible because if you look at as a Jewish people and gay people and blacks know too well, if someone says something negative, people will believe it. And if you look at back to politics, Dukakis Bush race, where Willie Horton and um the ad that that the Bush campaign ran and that um, I can't remember who was responsible, who was the guy down south who uh, played the saxophone so well? Lee Atwater. Right, and he died of cancer. Before he died, he actually called up and apologized for that kind of negative campaigning. And as a gay person, I know too well how a group of people can tell lies and the general public will believe it and thank God for the advertiser for telling the truth. But don't you think it's the American public's responsibility to change uh these dirty politics and all the lies will stop hurting people?
[00:18:35] Randall Roth: I think that's a great question, Chuck, are we our own victim or our own culprit on this thing? Have we gotten kind of what we've asked for?
[00:18:47] Chuck Freedman: I think there's some truth to it. I uh there's the the old saying um that uh for some reason when the Department of Health tells you that the water is safe, unsafe to drink, you believe it. But when the Department of Health uh tells you that the water isn't safe, or the water is safe, that you don't believe it. Uh there's something about the negative that's more believable. Uh Menken, Menken once said, H. L. Menken once said something to the effect of nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American people. I mean, there is something about us that that we we sort of have a uh are drawn to to drawn to the negative and the base and and in the end in confusion uh of a campaign, that that stuff rises to the top. The worst rises to the top.
[00:19:00] Speaker 1: connected the negative stuff and didn't pay any attention to it, it would go away, which is true, but it's also true that that they don't. I mean, the guys who run the campaigns, pragmaticists, and they don't run negative ads just for the fun of it and for the yucks. I mean, they're doing it because they think they've discovered, they've learned, they believe that this thing is productive. It works for their candidate. And uh, and as long as it works, they're going to continue to do it. So they're not
[00:19:07] Randall Roth: It gets our attention whereas the discussing of the issues doesn't.
[00:19:10] Chuck Freedman: That that's right and there's always this high-minded talk about well, it's time for the American people, or the people of Hawaii, to uh to vote against it by voting for the candidates who won't abide by that kind of nonsense. And yet it appears and and it because it has appeal, it's always, I'm afraid, going to be be uh part of the way campaigns go. So you sort of have to expect it. I I I hope that's why on an issues basis that we get that stuff out as early in a campaign as we can. Um get the issue development out early because you can always almost depend that somebody, usually the guy furthest behind, but somebody [unintelligible — audio glitch] hit you negatively in in one of the ways that Jerry described earlier. Either fair criticism or or unfair.
[00:19:22] Speaker 2: How do how do we change that? How do we change ourselves so that it doesn't work with the community at large?
[00:19:28] Speaker 1: I think it's going to take the the this millennial moment where someone runs a campaign that is positive, that's forward-looking, that isn't negative, and ignites people's interest and enthusiasm and this person gets elected and we'll build on that. I mean, there are candidates like that. If you go down into the district races and the legislative races, there are some real wonderful candidates running uh top-notch campaigns, but uh there's has to be more of that where we're everybody, the candidates, the people around them, the supporters, and the voters, see success coming out of a positive campaign. And you know, and and we don't want to get too cream puffy here, but the fact of the matter is if that's what society wants, then that's what society has to work for all the time, not just during campaigns. The notion of of uh taking personal responsibility for the things that you say and do, and sort of American virtues that ought to ought to be translated into daily life, that it shouldn't be just something we test and exercise during the campaign. And and I'm I'm afraid in a way that that's what's going on here. We're sort of focusing in on on a little slice of time. Uh people need to be asking themselves after the campaign, in the now what period when government starts to roll and we start to try to solve problems again, whether people are willing to step back and look for a greater good or whether self-interest will prevail. And if it's purely a matter of self-interest, then by the time campaigns roll around again, campaigns or candidates are going to do what they have to do to appeal to the various interests out there to win.
[00:20:36] Randall Roth: Jerry, what do you think?
[00:20:44] Jerry Burris: Well, one of the points that Terry was making, I think was that uh it it's in a in a way, it's the voter's fault if they respond to it.
[00:20:54] Speaker 2: Terry, are you still there? End of a Sunday morning sermon. Apologies.
[00:20:58] Speaker 3: Terry, you started an interesting conversation here, what do you think?
[00:21:02] Speaker 4: I think that um things like you're doing Mr. Ross, getting the public involved and hopefully we get less petty and more ethical. And again, uh I don't want to tell my own sermon but uh being gay and and listening to uh what people say about us and how they can uh blame us for everything from hurricanes to uh tornadoes to diseases, to everything. I know how negative campaigning can hurt individuals and I think um I agree with this the the eloquence speakers that have been town is probably one of the most run the most positive but I hope that the viewers out there really listen to what the your the um Pop 94 is is saying and that they can get the sift through all the uh myths and get to the true issues. and really what this is I think all about is that we all um work together as a community to make a better place in Hawaii and the United States and in the world. And I think um forms like this allow us more and more to do that. I don't think this happened in Nazi Germany. So thank you for all your work. I know you're doing a lot of work. Thank you. Thank you Terry. I appreciate it.
[00:22:11] Speaker 1: And actually I blame the weather bureau for the hurricanes that That was Jerry Burris by the way. And I think morphing is a badge of honor. I want to be morphed. Thank you Terry.
[00:22:23] Speaker 2: This is the Price of Paradise radio show. Today's topic is the 1994 political campaign. My guests today are Jerry Burris of the advertiser and Chuck Friedman, a fellow who's directed a number of political campaigns in prior years. My name is Randy Roth and one of my jobs is to encourage you to call us at 955-8821 to ask a question or make a comment. The number again, 955-8821. Jerry, what about newspaper endorsements? Your paper has come out in support of Kayatano, the Star Bulletin has come out in support of Psyche, and Frank Fossi has been predicting all along that neither one would support him. Uh tell me a little bit about how you decide, you know, to whom you will give your endorsement and um uh whether you think that has an impact or not.
[00:23:13] Speaker 1: Uh on the impact question, I'm not sure. Uh people who get our endorsements always say, hey, that helped and I think it maybe they mean that in the terms of within the campaign it was nice to get a pat on the back and a little gold for a boys. Uh I have a feeling that out there among the readers, the editorials really don't they don't change any votes. They might help solidify votes or or at least give people second thought about if they're going in another direction, but I think it's it's a very general push in terms of general voters. How do we decide who to endorse? It's um it's a Zen process. It's uh it's a combination of of the issues, where what we've said we believe in, what we stand for, and where we want government to go, and how the candidates fit into that set. It's uh it's part of it is our conversations with the candidates. We we meet them formally and informally during the months of the campaign. It's a subjective, it's what we kind of sense, what we pick up from as any other person would from the from the advertising and what we read and what we see, and out of that we kind of get the a generalized picture in our minds of what what we like. We sit down, uh the editorial board, which is basically the the the they're in the masthead, the people who are uh who work in the editorial section, plus the other managers and kick the thing around and uh and it changes from time to time. I mean, newspapers traditionally, if the publisher or the top person has a very strong feeling, then that That's it. That's it, yeah. And good publishers listen to the advice and the thoughts of those who work for them, but eventually and properly so, publisher says, it's my newspaper and this is who we will endorse. In other occasions, it's more of a collegial thing where this Zen process goes on and finally we come to a decision.
[00:24:51] Speaker 2: Well, the polls tell us that the community is split three ways. Uh was this group of people that made this decision for the advertiser split in different directions or or not?
[00:24:59] Speaker 1: Yeah, but it wasn't uh we didn't sit around and everyone held up a tablet with the name Psyche, Kayatano or Dudley on it. We just uh uh but we all sort of made speeches and some and you know, speeches, here's what I like about this person, here's what I don't like and and uh and the speeches were usually yes, but and on the other hand, sort of speeches, but you could tell by the end of each person's soliloquy, uh basically where they stood and that uh that's how it went.
[00:25:25] Speaker 2: Okay, well I want to come back to find out whether Frank Fossi was close to getting your endorsement. But uh first we have a caller.
[00:25:33] Speaker 5: We have a caller, Charlotte from Hawaii Kai. Charlotte, you're on the air.
[00:25:36] Speaker 6: I hope I don't change the subject in any way, but I I'm feeling that people are more acceptable uh to being negative in these days. Why is Russ Limbo so accepted by so many people?
[00:25:50] Speaker 7: What do you think, Chuck?
[00:25:51] Speaker 7: Yeah, I I think we have become more jaded. I think the the relative speed at which information gets to us uh is is is part of it and I'm not I'm I'm not blaming the media but I just think that things move so quick now. People barely have time to cogitate over a thought before the next new one comes along and boom, uh I think that's part of it. I I think the the the talk radio phenomenon um is interesting and it's it's it's interesting that that Frank is is is using that. There's there's a book uh out now called the um by uh Nasbit and he talks about how this sort of a global paradox out there and he talks about democracy. And he says about democracy that with all this level this level of of information and everybody's accessibility uh being hooked in by computers and technologies that maybe what the reason democracy is failing is because we don't need the middle man anymore. You don't need the representative in there. People feel that they know what's right and if if if they would just be be listened to and if their actions were carried out, things would be fine. And they feel negative when when somebody comes along in the middle who suggests maybe they're they're they're they're not right or that they're out of whack or that the things that they're proposing are not actionable. And I think that that adds to the cynicism and that and that plus um you know, everything that's happened since Watergate has made us a kind of a negative people. And and it it it gets it gets catchy in a in a negative way during campaigns. The and the question was why is talk radio so popular? I think that that they uh Randy Roth and his program has sort of created uh momentum and enthusiasm.
[00:27:35] Speaker 2: Oh, thank you Jerry, I appreciate your thoughts on that, but we have a caller. No, go right ahead. She was asking about Rush Limbaugh and things like that and I think it goes back to what I was saying about people feeling powerless, people feeling disconnected from government, and uh Why do we feel that way though? Well, we feel that way because I think we are. I think government has gotten away from the people and it has gotten self-involved and and interested in its own processes and is interested in its own furtherment. And then you get uh radio announcers like uh Limbaugh or some of the others who go right to that gut feeling and do it in a powerful way and they're good at it. And they say, I'm as angry as you are. I'm as disconnected as you are. And together, we're going to be powerful and we're not going to let them do this to us anymore and people say right on. The only glue they have is that anger? Yeah, and other than that, they don't agree on Other than that, they don't agree on the issue. Well, anger and alienation and uh and and then the 10, right now uh since the ins are the Democrats and more the liberal side of politics, the outs automatically are the Conservatives and the And then the funny thing happens is that that somebody who's like that actually gets elected and gets in there, and then it becomes part of the problem instead of part of the answer and I and I guess for me that's always been the difficulty. I mean, if if is is is government really at fault because the people who are in there are all messed up or is or or have our problems become so complex, all the easy stuff's been taken care of, whatever whatever action you're going to take to try to solve a problem in government uh nowadays is going to be complicated and probably going to bruise somebody, and yet, and particularly in Hawaii, here we are sitting and thinking that still that that government has the answers to our problems. I think it creates tensions and paradoxes that that squeeze people real hard and and they end up listening to to anger and ire instead of uh solutions to what a complex problem.
[00:29:21] Speaker 6: Charlotte, I think our guests agree with you. No, and you've only proven that we're a nation of sheep. Okay, goodbye.
[00:29:30] Speaker 2: We have another caller uh Pelani from Makiki. Pelani, you're on the air.
[00:29:35] Speaker 8: Uh I was so encouraged lately reading a book called Reclaiming Democracy by the head of Sam uh the head of results, Sam Harris, addressing this subject we're talking about, and it really has uh changed my attitude about how to be effective in the system. His his um organization results has has done remarkable things, and I recommend the book to people who have gotten uh hopeless about the system and hope that uh people will become uh encouraged as I am, and I'm hoping Okay. And that's reclaiming democracy? Right, Sam Harris. Okay. All right. Thank you, Pelani, appreciate it.
[00:30:20] Speaker 2: We have another caller uh Diana. Diana from uh Haula. Right. Haula. I think that one of the reasons that people are very, very unhappy with politics is most of the politicians aren't really dealing with the kinds of issues and the kinds of things where people live their fears and because to deal with them means that there's got to be political change. Diana, give me an example. Well, I think you know, the politicians in Hawaii are talking about, for example, the insurance problem where insurance premiums are sometimes more than cost to have a car or the issue of people not being able to afford housing, all of these, but to really deal with them means some kind of radical new way of looking at power and structure. And I know, for example, my daughter's a computer programmer and engineer and most of her friends are unemployed. There's a huge undercurrent of companies that are downsizing and people that are being unemployed who have done all the right things by our society, and they're out there and nobody's dealing with this because right now we've really got too many goods and too many services. We've got a surplus of things and too many people. Diana, is your point that that the candidates have pointed out the problems just fine, but they don't have solutions? No, they're not Both, they're not pointing out the problems and they don't have solutions. Okay. Let me get Jerry Burris's thoughts on that.
[00:31:46] Speaker 1: I I think that that that happens. I mean, I think if you went to a campaign and you said for instance taking the example you used, say insurance, and said, you know, I'm very concerned about this, this is a real problem, this is a practical real-world thing, and you're not talking about it. Uh they'd say, oh yes, we are, and they could haul out some sheet of paper where they said thousands of words about it. But I think what you're saying and I kind of sort of agree with you is they're not connecting with you on how they deal with this. They're not saying, I understand your real-world problem and I have a real-world solution. And part one of the reasons they don't do that is candidates are afraid to be too specific, because when you're too specific, you tend to they they may connect with you, but they're going to hurt they're going to hurt their support on either side of you, on the person who doesn't quite agree with you. So they they always want to be a little bit in the middle and I think it's a frustrating thing, but I think that's the explanation for why they do it. Chuck. And and I think in a way the the the Republican approach and what Pat Pat Psyche has been saying um may address this better than the other candidates and at least she is saying basically government has to back off and and say that it can't do a bunch of things One of the things government does wonderfully well is insurance. I don't think there's a single liberal in in in in I you know, I've lived in and and come from been in other countries and I don't think that America has a political spectrum. I think they're all conservative and moderate conservatives and I'm including the Democrats in that. And there lots of alternatives that are never considered in America because they aren't conservative. And there there are lots of ways of solving these problems, but they're not they're not part of the political spectrum or ideology, and so they'll never be dealt with and the problem. People are just have things fiddled around on the margins and things won't get any better. They may save $5 or $10 or $20 here, but they're still going to be having problems. Thank you, Diana. Well, we'll just just real briefly, I mean if you're looking for a more substantive, uh maybe radical solution, uh Fossi has talked about pay at the pump, I mean which would has a lot of problems with it, but certainly that that's a direct concrete response, isn't it? Right, it is. Yes, no I I agree. In many ways, you know, Fossi has gone right in on it. Diana, I need to uh to move on. I don't want to get bogged down on it. Thank you. That uh insurance by itself could take the rest of our time and we've got Mike from Manoa who's been waiting a long time on line one. Mike, you're on the air.
[00:34:04] Speaker 9: Oh, good morning. Uh I'd like to thank you, Randy, for uh all your efforts with Pop. I think it's uh really brought a lot of uh issues to the forefront and kept the candidates at least arguing something uh on the issues rather than just turning it into a personality contest. Thanks. And I think the advertiser did a good job well as well with the issues in the matrices that they published in the paper showing the candidates' positions on the different issues. I I really feel that I'm the uh the best informed I've been uh for a general election.
[00:34:37] Speaker 2: Oh Mike, so far I think you've you've just said some brilliant things. You've complimented each of us. So, Hawaiian Electric has also done very well this election. That's right and we we agree with whatever you're about to say next. Go go right ahead. Go right ahead.
[00:34:49] Speaker 9: I think it's been a real service and I I think there has been other forums and efforts that have uh there's been a multiplier effect, so I think all in all it's been real good. Um one idea, and I don't know if this would ever work or not what but uh would it be possible to include in the Pop forum uh or Pop process um having the different gubernatorial candidates uh draw up a pro forma budget, 5 year budget, and in that budget deal with the trade-offs between the different issues like how would Mrs. Psyche pay for education and how would Ben expend the social programs, etcetera, etcetera, because that's the true test of course is, you know, where you're going to take the money from uh to pay for this new program or what programs are you going to cut, etcetera, etcetera. Yeah, and since I this is Chuck since I padded padded pad on the back a minute ago with a Republican philosophy I'll I'll give the Kayatano credit for having given us some indication of that in the Pop process, not not the complete budget you're talking about Mike, but giving us a sense of where his budgetary priorities would be kind of hanging it out there a bit and and suggesting, you know, less prisons and more education. Right, but it's really all very incomplete I mean Absolutely And uh, and and one of the real problems I mean is in the within the state is the uh is the condition of the state budget. It's uh uh, it's extremely vague and very few people know how to read the thing. Jerry Burris may be the only person who does, believe it or not. This guy is unbelievable with state budgets. That's right Mike and and and also the what the what are called measures of effectiveness, those elements of the budget by which you're supposed to to measure the effectiveness of your spending are are basically a joke in state government. You know, you know, speaking as a budget wonk I think actually Mike that's that would be a fascinating idea. Maybe, you know, in a abbreviated form, demand from candidates show us how much money you're going to raise from us in taxes and what kind of taxes and basically where that money is going to be spent for the next 2-4 years. But the keyword demand, I think they will do it when they feel they have to do it. Exactly you can't demand it from them but if you if you could get a real stylized, uh you know, pro forma budget, you know, that didn't try to get down [unintelligible — audio glitch] each individual program but gave you know would give some idea generally where they see the budget uh going. Mike sounds like a pop 98, man. Yeah that's right. Mike, you're you're the head of pop 98, that's I'll tuck that idea away and bring it out 2 years now and claim that I thought of it. Okay. Very good. Thank you, Mike. Bye bye.
[00:37:24] Speaker 2: We have another call from Manoa. This is from Phil. Phil, you're on the air. Yes, good morning, Randy. Good morning. Yes, um I was really disappointed not being able to see the candidates in a debate forum on television and [unintelligible — audio glitch] was wondering what about enacting a a a campaign law that requires the candidates to debate?
[00:37:46] Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, I I don't know that we could get a law but uh there are a group of us who are talking the other day about maybe well in advance of the next campaign, trying to get the heads of all the political parties to agree to some set of ground rules in the absence.
[00:38:00] Jerry Burris: tract, so that it would be harder for a candidate to to decline to participate in the heat of of the campaign, but my seasoned political pros are looking at me with less than smiles on their faces. Jerry, is that just not realistic?
[00:38:15] Randall Roth: I don't think it is. I mean, I think it's it's a wonderful idea or the result would be wonderful, but you know, candidates will do what they think is in their best interest and as long as we have any kind of concept of free speech, if they decide that they don't want to be in a room with someone else, they don't have to be there. Uh, I think the key to it is to somehow convince candidates that it is in their best interest to do this stuff because voters won't accept a candidate who won't, and that's the tough job.
[00:38:43] Jerry Burris: You know, the interesting thing is as people have talked to me about what Pop 94 has done and and what they like to talk more about is what we haven't done, is they assume that if we ask for candidates to give us written responses to questions that we will then publicize the newspapers, or we want them to go in interviews that will be on Channel 2 news or whatever. A lot of people seem to think as soon as we ask for it, they say, well sure. Uh it's tough to get those folks to do anything unless each one is convinced that it's going to help that person more than it helps the others. Chuck, am I wrong?
[00:39:13] Chuck Freedman: Now, it it it it's been a hoot to try to get everybody in the same room. No matter what you want to do in that room.
[00:39:19] Jerry Burris: What, yeah, and and the irony is, I guess, that the the only televised uh opportunity turned out to be that one up at the university a good four or five months ago, I think already. A who to who to thunk it? Mhm. Mhm.
[00:39:35] Chuck Freedman: And that was early enough when the issues weren't so sharp that they that they felt it was a high risk. It's really it it's let let's call a spade a spade. It's sinful that we didn't get the major candidates together, uh, after the general election. And you know, we can, we can all sit around and and moan about whose fault it is, but it's it it really left this election without punctuation at the end of the sentence.
[00:39:58] Randall Roth: I appreciate your thoughts. All right. Thank you. Um, what about Mayor Fasy, Jerry Burris? Does he really hate you guys at the advertiser and the star bulletin? Or is that just part of a strategy, uh, to pick on somebody that a lot of folks like to dislike?
[00:40:18] Jerry Burris: I think that over the years it's been more strategy than real gut feelings, but I think it's become I think the strategy has become real. I think, uh, I finally convinced myself that he really is disappointed with how we handle him and his campaign and his politics. And uh, and he genuinely doesn't think we're giving him a fair shake. I obviously, I disagree with that, but I I think that it's become a real feeling on his part. And it's sort of, I mean, someone can do a book about this because I don't think there's any candidate out there or any person in politics who has a greater belief in and uh understanding of the way newspapers work. He he reads newspapers, he understands them. He's a keen analyst of what the papers say and what what the story means, whether it's big or small, or played in the front page, the back pages. I mean, he really understands this and and and and believes in the in the value of papers for moving people's minds. Maybe that's what makes him so angry. Maybe the candidates who don't think papers have any influence don't get upset by what we say.
[00:41:13] Randall Roth: Chuck, what do you think about that?
[00:41:15] Chuck Freedman: I think one thing that makes Frank mad that he's right about, is not the fact that a newspaper on a given day might cover him unfairly, because that's going to happen, you know, once in a while, or even more than once in a while to everybody who's in the public domain. But I think what bothers Frank is that the newspapers so seldom really either apologize or or correct themselves in a significant way when they've made an error. I think I think that the things which newspaper criticize government for most, which is government's inability to correct itself, to admit an error, to change direction, the sort of the the overall calcium deposits of state government, um, that that the same holds true uh by and large for the press for for the news media and and in particular, um, the print media. And I think he's got something there. And I think, I think everybody, uh, who's involved in this business of either doing politics or covering politics, um, would would probably, we could, all boats would rise, uh, if if folks would be willing I think to admit a bit when they have made an error or or when a story uh uh that they break turns out to be wrong, that they that they correct it as clearly as the initial story itself, it's not buried on on A18 or something. Um, without, without going into great detail, we we could discuss probably a whole day or a whole a whole show sometime about this land use commission story uh that broke and made state government look very, very bad, and with leaks coming out of um, federal law enforcement offices, and how that became such a gigantic story, and and even when it wasn't a story, it was always referred to in other stories as the scandal, the Land Use Commission. I give the advertiser credit when when when when when that was basically, the allegations were, or at least when the law enforcement people said they they had concluded that they they didn't have a basis for a case, the advertiser in that instance really did run a pretty big front-page story on it that the Bulletin didn't. And uh, and I and I think that that that adds to the cynicism uh that people feel about government, and it adds to Frank's feeling that the the the papers aren't always fair.
[00:48:02] Randall Roth: show, any four political campaign. My guests are Jerry Burris, the editorial page editor of the Advertiser and Chuck Friedman, a vice president at Hawaiian Electric, who has been Governor Wahae's communications director. Our lines are open. The number is 9558821 and neighbor islanders are invited to call collect. The number again, 9558821. Ted from Kahiohe, you're on the air.
[00:48:27] Randall Roth: Uh, I'd like to address a little different but related subject. People are talking about uh term limits all the time. I think that instead of term limits in office, we should limit the uh terms of uh power, the people in power within like for example, Congress, so that you can only sit on a committee chair for say one term, or you can only be say president of the Senate for one term. I think this would break up the power structure within the Senate, within Congress much more effectively than just throwing everybody out every two terms. Sounds like an idea, Jerry.
[00:48:57] Jerry Burris: An interesting idea, where go ahead and stay in there if you if your constituents want you but uh after two years or four years as Ways and Means Chairman or something, you got to move aside and let someone else do it. Is that what you're saying?
[00:49:06] Randall Roth: Yeah, because I think that that the power truly, from my experience, seems to exist within the committees instead of within the whole body.
[00:49:13] Chuck Freedman: Okay. Course. So that this this way like for example, you know, where Senator Byrd has gotten such an incredible amount of of pork for Virginia, uh this would break up his ability to do that and give different people a shot at it from time to time.
[00:49:26] Jerry Burris: Okay. The the offsetting of that is is is after Danny finally gets to the point where he can bring all this bacon home to Hawaii, do we really want him to be the chairman of the Appropriations Committee? You know, you but he would have had his shot a lot earlier from time to time. Ted, appreciate your call.
[00:49:42] Randall Roth: Okay. Um, I want to save a little bit of time to talk about uh, what these two gentlemen in the studio think is going to happen on Tuesday, but uh we've got another caller on the line and several more as a matter of fact. Larry from Hawaii Kai. Larry, you're on the air.
[00:49:55] Speaker 1: Good morning. Uh, thank you. I'd like to talk about campaign money.
[00:50:07] Jerry Burris: millions and millions and millions of dollars.
[00:50:09] Speaker 1: And where And and where does all this money come from? And And when they, for instance, a candidate, you in the old days just we had let's say stew and rice. Today, uh they have a dinner for $100, or a pop $1,000 a pop.
[00:50:24] Jerry Burris: Larry, let me ask Jerry Burris because uh you've asked where the money is coming from. Some of us think that most of the money is going to the media and uh it creates a little bit of a conflict, I suppose, doesn't it, Jerry?
[00:50:35] Chuck Freedman: It does. I mean, every candidates love to point that out to us that we're always preaching about cutting down on the cost of campaigning and they say, well, why don't you give away your your news printer, why don't you give away your free air space? And and in effect, I think we're on record as saying there should be less spending and in effect, we're saying we're willing to take less advertising money. I mean, Why doesn't it happen then? Why If If the folks who are benefiting from it are saying, we're willing to change or are actually asking for change, Why isn't it changing?
[00:51:01] Jerry Burris: It's goes back to what I was saying about uh candidates and their managers are pragmatic and and uh as as Frank Fossi once said to me in a in a pleasant way when I was asking him, why don't you why don't you just spend less? You know, you're in charge of the thing. He said, what do you think I am? Stupid? All right, the newspapers are and and the news media are not the bad guys on this issue. Who are the bad guys? The bad guys on this issue is the United States Constitution apparently, which prohibits us from slam dunking uh term uh not term limits uh campaign spending limits on on everybody. And and and and and and really that seems I think that's it, because the state tried to do it and failed, and unless we can find out a legal way to do it, uh this this terrible situation we've got ourselves into is going to continue.
[00:51:44] Randall Roth: We're running out of time. Larry, thank you very much for your call.
[00:51:46] Speaker 1: Larry, one quick question. Uh this $1,000, for instance, everybody give Is there is there any Do the people expect something for it?
[00:51:53] Jerry Burris: I think obviously they do, Larry. Even even I can answer that one. And I think your point is a very good point. It's an important point you've made. I've got four people on the line and a few minutes left. Thank you very much, Larry. Next guy on the line, Walter from Sunset Beach. Walter, you're on the air.
[00:52:07] Speaker 2: Uh, good morning. Uh, I thank you for your show. I've I've managed to make up my mind of which of the three crooks to vote for before listening to your show.
[00:52:15] Randall Roth: Or with that rousing uh show of support.
[00:52:22] Speaker 2: Well, first of all, um the negative campaign is an issue because we have three crooks. And um it should be appointed out by one candidate that another candidate is a crook. But there's one candidate that really does address the issues and that's Mr. Fossi, says, we your your problem says what how do people get back into government, and he's supporting initiative referendum and recall. He's the one that's supporting, you know, he's he's the one that really looks at the issues and proposes and solutions to it.
[00:52:48] Randall Roth: And you decided that You decided that this morning listening to our show? Well, while listening. Come on, Walter.
[00:52:53] Speaker 2: While listening to your show, yes. No, I Oh, I'm kidding.
[00:52:56] Randall Roth: I tell you, Walter, appreciate your thoughts. And for him, that's a defining issue. That that's interesting to hear. Yeah. Yeah. I appreciate it, Walter. I I have to get these other folks on the line before we run out of time. Thank you.
[00:53:06] Speaker 3: Jim from Wy Like Kahala. Jim, you're on the air. Yeah, uh I read recently that in uh uh Omaha or somewhere, they had uh a program with two candidates and the ground rules were they couldn't uh mention the other person's name either specifically or by implication and they thought both of them thought it was one of the greatest things they ever did. And they one was a conservative, the other a liberal. How about that for
[00:53:28] Randall Roth: So it had to be positive, the rules prohibited them from It had to be issue-oriented anyway.
[00:53:34] Chuck Freedman: Chuck, what how would that appeal to you as a campaign manager? Hey, I'm as a campaign manager, I I think I would probably have some difficulty with it because you're, you know, you're you're your candidate's going to have a hard time remembering not to say somebody's name. But I would, you know, as an outsider now, not an insider, I would think any any kind of any kind of ground rule at this point would be great if you meant everybody would actually show up.
[00:53:57] Randall Roth: Anything that works, right? Anything that will get them in the same room. I think it's worth trying. Okay. Thank you, Jim.
[00:54:02] Speaker 3: Yeah, thank you.
[00:54:03] Randall Roth: We have a call from Martin from Moiliili. Martin, you're on the air.
[00:54:06] Speaker 4: Good morning.
[00:54:07] Randall Roth: Good morning.
[00:54:08] Speaker 4: Yes, um I wanted to uh you know say that listening to you know, the media that uh they seem to have made honesty, you know, the top issue in this uh campaign.
[00:54:20] Randall Roth: Well, they're saying their polls indicate that the Uh Excuse me. I And yes. Go right ahead.
[00:54:27] Speaker 4: Well, I just wondering you know the other day um when I heard about uh you know, Frank Fossi uh why he why he didn't uh just return that uh you know, $10,000 honorary check and uh then mail it back to uh, you know, the Japan and then put it back in his son's name. And then I want it who who leaked that to to Jerry and all these people?
[00:54:48] Randall Roth: Well, let's ask Jerry. How did you find out about that?
[00:54:51] Jerry Burris: It was brought to us by uh Tony Lacrichio, who said he got it in the mail.
[00:54:55] Randall Roth: And he didn't say He doesn't know where he got it from, yeah.
[00:54:58] Speaker 4: But So So what I what I'm trying to say here it look like um Frank Fossi is too smart for everybody.
[00:55:04] Randall Roth: Okay, interesting. Except for whoever has access to his files.
[00:55:08] Jerry Burris: That's right, who had the original copy of that letter in check, right?
[00:55:12] Randall Roth: Martin, appreciate your call.
[00:55:13] Speaker 4: Aloha.
[00:55:14] Randall Roth: Aloha. Uh Gentlemen, we don't have a lot of time left, and I'm sure many of our listeners would be very upset at me if I didn't ask you to uh make a prediction or two. Um not so much from the standpoint of who you think should be elected, but uh what are we looking for between now and Tuesday? And are we going to get a a big turnout? And are folks going to vote uh for a reason as opposed to um looking for a none of the above possibility, Jerry?
[00:55:42] Jerry Burris: You know, we've uh through our polling and through the people at SMS, we've gone through an enormous exercise in trying to answer that exact question. There's this large group of undecideds, 15 to 30%, depending on how you measure them. And we've gone through this process of analyzing the people who are committed to the candidates, and seeing if there's a set of characteristics that define a Kai tano voter or a Fossi voter or a psyche voter, whatever, a Dudley voter, and then apply that set of characteristics to the undecideds to see which way they're going. And uh it wasn't a very successful exercise because there wasn't a just an absolute number one thing that that you could predict. The sense you get is that the undecideds are a little bit more likely to be like a psyche voter than they are to be like any of the other two. But the other thing is is that a psyche voter also has the characteristics of the person who doesn't turn out and vote on election day as much as a Democrat who supports Kaitano. So they play off against each other. I don't know if you can follow that, but uh
[00:56:39] Randall Roth: I think what you're telling me is that it really is a a flip of the coin, only it's complicated by the fact that we got three candidates instead of two.
[00:56:45] Jerry Burris: That's right. I mean, there there have been years where we've been able to say there's all these undecideds, but everything about them tells us that they're going to go to candidate A. And that isn't the case this year. Aren't we probably going to get a lot of people voting that otherwise wouldn't vote because I mean, more than any other
[00:57:00] Speaker 1: Time in the past, I feel like my vote could really make the difference. Won't other people feel that way?
[00:57:05] Speaker 2: That's worth emphasizing. And I, and I hope that drives people to the polls because this is this really, a couple of votes one way or the other can make the difference.
[00:57:12] Speaker 1: Yeah, and one would hope that so, the other, the other possibility, people say, I really don't know what I want to do here, so I think I won't do anything which, which is sometimes what people do and that would be a crime. I used to believe in the, in the old days, like eight years ago, that that, in the end, the, the one question for people who still hadn't made up their mind that, that they, that they were most likely to answer when they went into the voting booth and it would guide the way, what they punched on that ballot was, does this candidate care about people like me? I think, I think after eight years and a more jaded, skeptical society, I, I, I, I was leaning away from that, but I think now with, with, with, with the crunch on and with, with x number of percentage of people, uh, undecided, that I think that when they go into the voting booth, undecided people are going to think about whether, whether this candidate is, is likely to care about people like them. And I think that's going to win it for somebody.
[00:58:10] Speaker 2: Another way to say that is when you go to the voting booth and you really don't know what you're going to do and you're really confused, you tend to vote like your parents did.
[00:58:17] Speaker 1: Mhm. Is, is there something that I should do assuming that I'm unsure of who I'm going to vote for? Is there something I should do between now and Tuesday? Or do I just get a good night's sleep and then go into the polling booth and vote for that person that my folks would have voted for, Jerry?
[00:58:32] Speaker 2: Well, I, one thing that we, not to tout the Sunday paper, but one thing you might want to do if you haven't is, is go over some of the summaries that we put in there today on where the candidates stand on the issues, to see if there's something that really turns you on. Uh, and we also publish the phone numbers of the four campaigns and if you have something that burns in your own mind, maybe mini, it may not be the big thing, give them a call and say where do the candidates stand on this? I, I got a suggestion. I got a suggestion. My suggestion is even though they say don't talk about politics and, you know, it's one of the things you shouldn't talk about with people, I think since we haven't had a debate with the candidates, that that if you really haven't made up your mind, that you want to find a couple of people who are hopefully friends of yours who might have varying opinions from you and sit down and have your own debate about it. It's Sunday, not a bad thing to do, you know, over a beer and a, and a ball game and talk it out.
[00:59:19] Speaker 1: Mhm. I've intentionally left a few minutes for you guys to tell me what else we should be talking about. Something whether it relates to some other races that are interesting or important, or both or the ballot amendment proposals that uh many people I think don't even know are there, much less just what they say. Uh what are some other things in the last few minutes, Jerry, that we ought to give some thought to?
[00:59:42] Speaker 2: A two things. One is, is uh at the district levels and the and the legislative levels uh people should be thinking about, as they look at who the candidates are. Is there someone there that can bring some fresh thinking, some fresh ideas, some new energy into the legislature? I mean, there's a lot of good incumbents, but there's also a lot of people who are maybe a little bit new to the scene and give them a, a look. Just for the sake of ferment, just for the sake of some energy. Uh and on the ballot amendments, I think uh uh, a little plug for them, I think that there's some good things there, some well thought out. There's a series that have to do with uh appointing judges, and without going into exactly what they are, they the result of a lot of community effort to try to maybe depoliticize and and uh and rationalize this the system by which we choose our judges and that's a good set of amendments. I, I like them.
[01:00:28] Speaker 1: Somebody wrote a column for it yesterday, was it Dan case? Yes. Uh, and if I recall correctly, that column at least was saying we should vote yes on all of those. Do you agree with that? I agree with that. Actually, I, I sat in on the conference that created these amendments and uh and it was a well well-done thing. It represented a whole broad cross-section of opinion from governors, present and former, to lawyers, judges and everyone else. It's a good, it's very sensible set of things. I also like the amendments on the school board. Okay. Chuck, any thoughts on any of those comments or anything else that ought to be raised?
[01:01:00] Speaker 2: Well, I, I think we're, we're again hitting an election where people at the end of uh as the end nears, are saying, you know, this is either the rebirth of the Democrats, or the end of the Republicans, if, if Andy can't do it this time uh, you know, God knows what's going to happen to the Republican Party. I, I think people ought to look real hard at those district races and if they're not that thrilled with the the three can or four candidates, excuse me, uh, Dudley, uh, who are running for a governor, start planning some seeds for tomorrow uh in in one in in one party or the other. If, if you've got some if you got some real good candidates, young people, exciting people, one party or the other [unintelligible — audio glitch] there's four parties, you got to I thought you were going to talk about the worst case scenario. We all wanted to her name is Tony Worst, I think she's a Green Party candidate. If she had run for the on the best party, it would be worse for the best or best for the worst. But I, I I think that's a and I got an opportunity, I mean people know I'm sort of a Democrat by nature. I got an opportunity to go to event the other other day that had all the legislative candidates or most of the legislative candidates of the Republican party. And, you know, they're it's an attractive bunch of people. I, I wish for the Republicans sake they'd done more of a job of of of getting that image out there not just for the governorship. There there are some fresh and interesting people, there also are on the Democratic side. But, but look uh to to till the soil a little bit for the future with with some of those candidates who are in House or Senate or even OHA.
[01:02:34] Speaker 1: Chuck, you said you're sort of a Democrat by nature. That that big red D on your chest that that means something else? I think I'm like a lot of Democrats in this state and that's why I kind of resent [unintelligible — audio glitch] big deal made about Democrats uh that uh you know, yeah, lean democratically, but frequently vote uh another way and I think that's where uh most Democrats in this state are. We're we're not some kind of a monolithic machine. We really have minds of our own and and I and I think that that uh we ought to be looking at the future to whatever whatever party a person comes from to getting some exciting new people into government. So rather than just the impact over the next four years, maybe the impact to our children, our children's children, Jerry?
[01:03:16] Speaker 2: That's right. Build for the future and look for people who have some legs, you know, can last a while. I guess that's what it's all about. Thank you gentlemen. My guests today have been Jerry Burris, who is the editorial page editor of the Honolulu Advertiser and Chuck Friedman, a vice president of Hawaiian Electric and formerly communications director for Governor Waihee. Today's show was produced by Susie Roth with technical support from Jeff Hilardi. One last reminder, please be sure to vote this Tuesday for the candidate of your choice. You've been listening to the Price of Paradise Radio Show. I'm Randy Roth. Hello.
[01:03:21] Randall Roth: I guess that's what it's all about. Thank you gentlemen. My guests today have been Jerry Burris who is the editorial page editor of the Honolulu advertiser, and Chuck Friedman, a vice president of Hawaiian electric and formerly communications director for Governor Waihee. Today's show is produced by Susie Roth, with technical support from Jeff Hilardi. One last reminder, please be sure to vote this Tuesday for the candidate of your choice. You've been listening to the price of Paradise radio show. I'm Randy Roth. Aloha.
[01:03:21] [dead air / no further speech for 1959 s; chunk04 empty on 2 attempts]