Governor Linda Lingle used the occasion of her latest State of the State speech to pull off another neat political trick.
She tossed out the idea of pursuing a state purchase of the 850-acre Turtle Bay Resort at the end of an otherwise lackluster speech. The move seemed to breath new life into Lingle’s year-old call to move away from an economy based on land development, and produced shock and awe among those on both sides of Turtle Bay’s controversial plan to add thousands of new hotel rooms and condo units in a series of developments originally proposed twenty years ago.
But although Lingle’s idea was dropped in the laps of legislators without the benefit of even the sketchiest outline of an actual plan, consultations with key constituencies, or inclusion in any of the administration’s own budget projections, it instantly created a bind for legislators. Should they somehow manage to create movement towards preservation of the area, Lingle will claim credit. And if no action follows, they’ll risk being perceived as placing partisan roadblocks in the way of the governor’s scheme. Heads you win, tails we lose.
Gov. Lingle and her political spin team are very good at this kind of maneuver, often staking out simultaneous and contradictory positions.
The strategy prompts me to ask: Will the real Linda Lingle please stand up?
Look at how it works.
Early in her speech, Lingle called attention to falling tax revenue estimates that have dropped by $353 million, while proposing a supplemental budget that boosts planned spending another another $307 million. Given that $660 million swing, she properly warned that government simple doesn’t have the resources to do everything or respond to every community problem. So far, so good.
But just minutes later she let loose with her breathtaking Turtle Bay idea that some say could cost another $500 million, without commenting on the obvious clash of perspectives.
Which is the “real” Lingle, the one who suggested lowered public expectations about the ability of a cash-strapped government to solve problems, or the lady bountiful calling for tax cuts and environmental first strikes?
Will the real Lingle stand up? Is she the one using the state of the state to urge personal responsibility, saying the idea also means “government agencies admitting mistakes and working to fix the system”?
Or is it the other Lingle, the one who staunchly backed her Department of Transportation after it managed to turn the Superferry launch in a complete debacle, all the while saying the department had done everything exactly right?
Is the real Lingle the one who advises admitting mistakes or the one who stonewalled the public and the press after Bob Awana, her top appointee and chief of staff, resigned under a cloud as the result of a sexual blackmail episode which, at least by some accounts, involved extracurricular activity during official state travel?
Will the real Linda Lingle stand up? Is she the one who advocates educational autonomy or the one who insists on imposing the governor’s political agenda on Hawaii’s teachers in the form of drug testing, with or without DOE concurrence?
Is the real Lingle the one who ranks drug testing of teachers a top priority or the one who refused to provide resources in her budget to implement the program?
Is the real Lingle the one who blasted Democratic lawmakers last year for being fiscally conservative and declining to approve big tax cuts, or the Lingle who spent a good part of last week’s State of the State singing the praises of a prudent and tight-fisted stance in the face of fiscal uncertainty?
Is the real Lingle the one who quietly refuses to release money appropriated by the Legislature for specific projects, or the one that issues press releases claiming political credit when she finally relents and allows the funds to flow? She creates the funding bottlenecks and then claims credit for solving them, another great trick if you can pull it off.
Lingle and her public relations team have at least been consistent. Keep legislators and potential political opponents off balance by lobbing proposals that are long on glamour but short on details or practical substance, and then, aided by a compliant press, stand aside and portray the other guys as the scrooges and party poopers who for petty partisian reasons won’t go along for the ride.
[A slightly edited version first appeared in Honolulu Weekly on January 30, 2008.]