Quantcast
  

Thursday, April 17, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 35 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Hanabusa endorsed by UPW, five other labor unions

By Star-Advertiser staff

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 02:26 p.m. HST, Sep 04, 2013


U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa today picked up the endorsements of the United Public Workers Union and five other public and private-sector labor unions.

The 13,000-member UPW was the largest of the endorsements. 

Others included the Hawaii Longshore Division statewide, Hawaii Laborers Union Local 368, Hawaii Masons Union Locals 1 and 630, the Hawaii Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 293, and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Local 121.

"Throughout her career as an attorney, state Senate president and member of Congress, Colleen has stood with organized labor and gone to great lengths to fight for our members and their families," Dayton M. Nakanelua, UPW's state director, said in a news release. "We need a proven, experienced leader serving Hawaii in the U.S. Senate and Colleen has demonstrated, time and again, that she is that individual."

Hanabusa is challenging U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz in the 2014 Democratic primary to fill the remaining two years in the term left by U.S. Sen. Dan Inouye, who died in December.

Schatz has picked up the endorsement of the 42,000-member Hawaii Government Employees Association, the state's largest public-sector labor union. Both HGEA and UPW are units within the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.







 Print   Email   Comment | View 35 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(35)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
allie wrote:
Since Schatz has acted against USA interests in calling for war, I am supporting the wiser hanabusa. Schatz may be more loyal to a different set of interests.
on September 4,2013 | 12:09PM
Skyler wrote:
Agree on supporting Hanabusa over Schatz. At this point, she is on the right side of this unwanted call for war with Syria.
on September 4,2013 | 12:26PM
ISCREAM wrote:
YOUR President is calling for a limited attack...not war. Get a clue.
on September 4,2013 | 01:07PM
ezridah wrote:
it's limited until another red line is crossed..
on September 4,2013 | 01:15PM
allie wrote:
yup
on September 4,2013 | 01:16PM
inverse wrote:
NO such thing as a "limited attack". Once US bombs Syria with missiles, the US is at war with Syria and ALL Muslims sympathizers. The Syrian arm would NEVER make a direct attack against the US as that would be suicide, HOWEVER expect an escalation of terrorism against US citizens. The terrorist attack in the US of Maj Hasan in Fort Hood or those dim wit Boston marathon bombers will pale in comparison in to a new crew in the mold of the 9/11 terrorist crew lead by Atta. And this time they know simultaneous hijacking planes will be all but impossible however their next ultimate attack will be to obtain nuclear material from Iran, Pakistan or N Korea and assemble it into a bomb to be set off in the US, easily killing thousands and contaminating a large chunk of a big US city with high radioactivity and the cancers and horrible deaths that will follow. War mongers Obama, Kerry, McCain and Lindsey Graham are NOT fooling anyone to think a bomb strike in Syria will have NO long term negative consequences to the US and American citizens.
on September 4,2013 | 08:18PM
ISCREAM wrote:
Tell that to those of us who fought in Vietnam...never was a war...
on September 4,2013 | 09:58PM
itoboy wrote:
allie and skyler: Schatz never called for war or even supported the use of military force. He urged for strong action against Syria (e.g. economic sanctions, aid to rebels, etc.) in light of Syria's apparent use of illegal chemicals, which 98% of the Earth's countries have agreed is illegal. He never said that he supports sending troops or even airstrikes.
on September 4,2013 | 04:58PM
baileygirl9631 wrote:
I gues you'll support Hanabusa come he'll or high water, without checking out why the other guy chose military action. I don't want the US in it for any reason, but I'd really like to know whether she's just going along with the program as she usually does or whether she has some other opinion. I don't think so. I think that's why Inouye liked her.
on September 4,2013 | 01:09PM
Skyler wrote:
No need to guess. I don't support unilateral action against Syria at this point. It doesn't matter to me why people are choosing military action: At this point, I don't agree with it.

Well, I guess you'll have to ask her? As it stands, I agree with her and those who are skeptical and want to see concrete evidence - and want to know what the objectives are, and how the weapons will be secured without boots on the ground, and if by bombing Syria we aren't opening yet anther Iraq, etc.

It's not blind following on my part - it's supporting those who feel the way I do. And I feel we should not be involved unilaterally in this action against Syria. She supports that, so I support her, that's all.
on September 4,2013 | 10:35PM
AhiPoke wrote:
Excuse me but hanabusa isn't against starting a war in Syria, the only things she's done is suggest that we not start a war until congress talks about it. That's called posturing. If you think she'll be a vigorous opponent you are fooling yourself. She's a typical politician trying to burn both ends of the candle.
on September 4,2013 | 01:27PM
Skyler wrote:
Politicians get the hate no matter what, eh? If you don't like a politician and they support something (or don't support something) they're "posturing," not actually acting on the best interest of the citizens they represent - am I right? But if you like them? Heck, they can walk on water, etc.

Look, I don't 'hate' Schatz for what he does/doesn't do. At this point, I just prefer Hanabusa, especially on this subject - so I am supporting her over Schatz. It isn't rocket science'; it's my preference, just like you have yours.
on September 4,2013 | 10:43PM
atilter wrote:
NEITHER ONE INTERESTS ME!!!!!
on September 4,2013 | 10:32PM
lynnh wrote:
How about none of the above! They are both useless.
on September 4,2013 | 10:35PM
salsacoquibx wrote:
Cant trust a politician endorsed by so many unions
on September 4,2013 | 12:12PM
Skyler wrote:
They're all supported by unions, in one form or another, doncha know?
on September 4,2013 | 12:22PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
The only one of our DC team who has made a straightforward and clear statement of position on Syria.
on September 4,2013 | 12:23PM
Skyler wrote:
What's the rush? If I was in the shoes of a congresswoman/man, I, too, would be wanting more information so I could make an informed decision whether to support this military action or not. While I respect Hanabusa's position, based upon what limited information I, a member of the public, know, my Congressional Representative has made it clear enough to me that any decision made will be one that is informed and just, and I respect that. Plus, I suspect that after the Congressional hearings, you will have the other's "straightforward and clear' statements.

Personally, I do not wish to see the US go into this alone. If the UN isn't going to do anything, then I'd say, HOLD YOUR FIRE.
on September 4,2013 | 12:34PM
salsacoquibx wrote:
The UN right who's running that..ohh wait the US..puppet
on September 4,2013 | 12:58PM
Skyler wrote:
Well if that's the case, maybe they'd just better get to pulling some strings.
on September 4,2013 | 10:41PM
allie wrote:
Obama should have worked with Russia and Iran, the only two countries Assad would listen to. Sadly, we have no relations with Iran due to our dreadful alliance with Israel so we are stuck again holding the bill.
on September 4,2013 | 01:18PM
Nevadan wrote:
There is bad blood between Obama and Putin. Obama supported Putin's opponent during the Russian election.
on September 4,2013 | 02:29PM
localguy wrote:
Well, good to see Colleen right up front with the unions she would be kow towing to if she were to win the election. Yes, got to know your limitations, work for the highest bidder. Just another "Rent a bureaucrat"
on September 4,2013 | 12:31PM
ISCREAM wrote:
Socialist!
on September 4,2013 | 01:14PM
ISCREAM wrote:
Union owned and operated...
on September 4,2013 | 01:14PM
serious wrote:
It doesn't matter which one is chosen, they are Democrats which means they will walk in lock step in whatever their caucus decides. When has ANY Democratic federal legislator from Hawaii had an original idea? The Jones Act is killing us and they support it because they need the Union votes to get reelected. But THINK--if the Jones Act excluded Hawaii---where would the union jobs be lost??? NONE!!!
on September 4,2013 | 01:17PM
entrkn wrote:
Senator Schatz is by far the best choice for the US Senate and is already proving it, and Tulsi Gabbard should replace Hirono in the next election to give Hawaii a slam dunk dynamic duo in the senate for many years to come.
on September 4,2013 | 02:14PM
bumba wrote:
Hanabusa Hanabata gatta go now.................
on September 4,2013 | 02:58PM
false wrote:
Weathervane wimpy Brian will swing with the prevailing coattail, direction to change anytime. So much like our bozo mayor. Don't much care personally for Hanabusa but she seems the more intellectually mature.
on September 4,2013 | 03:59PM
itoboy wrote:
false: I wouldn't let this one thing sway you. Schatz wanted more time to examine the evidence and debate it before taking further action. At least he didn't dig his heals in without first looking at the evidence. People change their minds, especially politicians. Hanabusa once opposed gay marriage but is now supportive - a 180 degree turn. At least Schatz didn't pull a 180 on the Syria issue.
on September 4,2013 | 05:06PM
Skyler wrote:
Schatz has time to turn - don't sell him short. ;-)
on September 4,2013 | 10:46PM
Mythman wrote:
Like you?
on September 4,2013 | 06:11PM
Mythman wrote:
Barry bombs Syria. Imagine such a thing for a noble peace prize winner who got the prize before doing anything. how did that happen? let's see, we like colleen because her man is attacking syria but she doesn't vote for him to do it. Hmm. Let's see, when the next Al Queda attack on the US of A happens, who are we going to blame?
on September 4,2013 | 06:08PM
atilter wrote:
SIX MORE REASONS TO BEWARE OF HANABUSA!!! it will be very evident of the manner and flow of her votes! time to begin looking for a replacement. just the decision and act of quitting her present seat to run for another seat shows the low level of personal integrity has possesses. to shirk her responsibilities to the voters who supported her in order to aspire to personal aggrandizement - NOT GOOD FOR THE VOTERS!!!
on September 4,2013 | 10:31PM
residenttaxpayer wrote:
With all the union endorsements.....all the more reasons not to vote for her....
on September 5,2013 | 12:14AM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News