Section 8b 1

October 27th, 2010
By

Lt. Gov. James “Duke” Aiona, the Republican candidate for governor, appears to have picked up the support of a sitting Democratic state lawmaker: State Rep. Roland Sagum III of Kauai.

The Aiona campaign claims Sagum, who lost in the Democratic primary to county park worker Daynette “Dee” Morikawa, attended one of its events on the Garden Island.

From the Aiona campaign:

Democratic State Rep. Roland Sagum attended a Connecting Communities event on Kaua‘i.

“Duke is the best person to serve as the next Governor of Hawai‘i,” said Rep. Sagum. “He is a true leader with integrity and good judgment who is not afraid to make tough decisions, and he has bold plans that will move Hawai‘i forward; that’s why I am willing to cross party lines to show my support and help elect Duke as our next Governor.”

Sagum did not return several telephone calls today left directly and though a spokeswoman for House Democrats.

As Honolulu City Councilman Gary Okino has learned, endorsing a Republican is a violation of the Democratic Party of Hawaii’s constitution (Section 8b 1) and can be grounds for reprimand, censure or expulsion.

Sagum, on his campaign website, gives a hint to his philosophy: “Politics, today, should not be about popularity, but rather intention.”

U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, the state’s leading Democrat, got a pass for his loyalty to his friend and strategic ally — the late U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican — but that was a relationship that spanned four decades.

Other local Democrats have had to explain why they crossed party lines.

8 Responses to “Section 8b 1”

  1. Walking Vaughn:

    We must burn the witches!


  2. ohiaforest3400:

    Ahh, just sour grapes for da guy. How could it be otherwise?

    If politics is about intention, not popularity, why did he introduce a resolution validating cockfighting as a cultural practice? What did he intend there? He intended to suck up to constituents who who can’t rise above their lust for this illegal blood sport. Same can be said for Joey Manahan. If politics is about intention, not popularity, why did he oppose civil unions? Again, because he said that’s what his constituents wanted, i.e. that’s what would make him popular with them. And representing “gentleman farmers” in his land use practice who want to build palatial mansions on ag lands, claiming to farm while devoting only a tiny portion of the property to growing, e.g., grass for hotels and high-end second homes? What does that intend?

    So just because his intentions were unpopular does not make them right. We all reap what we sow and the crop he has harvested is banishment back to whence he came.


  3. Michael:

    After we pight chickens, we eat.


  4. Mahina:

    Rep. Sagum was exposed in the Kaua’i newspaper The Garden Island for taking fees to presenting proposals for bogus ‘farms’ to the planning commission. Not illegal, just really, really funky. Not surprising that he lost his bid for re-election.

    It hit the Honolulu online news via Ian Lind’s blog back in June. Roland Sagum lost for a good reason, and his support will not mean much to many voters.


  5. waialuahaole:

    He was “exposed”? That makes it sound like Sagum was trying to cover something up. Was he doing it under an alias or something?


  6. Bart Dame:

    Roland Sagum must have decided he never intends to run for office again as a Democrat. Or, he is pretty obtuse. When he joined the Party, he pledged to obey the Party Rules, including a promise to NEVER actively support a non-Democrat against a fellow Party member.

    This Rule is not a secret. He had to have noticed the complaint filed against Gary Okino for endorsing Republicans. Why does he think he is exempt? Or, more importantly, why does he think it is OK to promise to obey the Party rules and then renege on that promise?

    Where is his integrity?

    “Walking Vaughn” seems to think the Dems are unreasonable to expect Sagum to feel obliged to honor his promise to them. Maybe Vaughn thinks it is OK to lie, if it is to a Democrat?

    If Sagum feels the need to publicly endorse a Republican, he is free to dissolve his membership in the Democratic Party. That would free him from following their rules. That option is always available to him. But he wants to have it both ways. He has benefited from using the Party label in order to get elected. That has been convenient for him. He now wants to endorse Aiona? Fine. Quit the Party. Or maybe he thinks he will never get elected again without the benefit of the Dem label?

    I see no ethical dilemma for Rep Sagum. All I see is a self-centered person seeking only personal advantage and refusing to give anything back in return. I guess the voters felt the same way, as they fired him in the last primary. I suspect the Democratic Party will help him attain the freedom to endorse whomever he wants next election by showing him the door.


  7. charles:

    Should Inouye resign from the party for endorsing Ted Stevens?


  8. Michael:

    Is Section 8 the big conference room in the Capital building?


Leave a Reply