Fasi's simple, direct approach works best

Of the three candidates who took part in the televised mayoral debate, former Mayor Frank Fasi looked like a mayor and spoke like a mayor.

He had simple and direct answers. What convinced me to vote for Mayor Fasi was his answer to the question on whether he would grant same-sex marriage licenses.

Said the former mayor, "I disagree with that." That was his answer, and I wholeheartedly agree, nothing more can be added to that issue.

That's Frank Fasi and Fasi gets it done!

If the national football team Washington Redskin can bring back senior Joe Gibbs to revive the Redskins, Honolulu should bring back Frank Fasi to revive the city and county of Honolulu.

Bainum knows value of isle environment

One main difference between the two leading mayoral candidates is their track records and visions for the environment.

Duke Bainum has consistently acted in favor of preservation of the environment. The Sierra Club (as well as the Hawaii Women's Political Caucus) recently endorsed him, and in 1998 their City Council scorecard ranked Duke as runner-up "Most Green Council Member" to Steve Holmes. The other leading candidate for mayor --ÊMufi Hannemann -- tied for last in the ranking.

Protecting the environment is closely tied to Bainum's commitment to work for the public interest, not special interests.

I believe most people understand that protecting our natural resources is essential for Hawaii's long-term economic future and quality of life.

Mufi has a clearer vision for Honolulu

I was very disappointed to read that the Star-Bulletin's editorial board chose to endorse mayoral candidate Duke Bainum, not because I support his main opponent, Mufi Hannemann, which I do, but because I am a Star-Bulletin subscriber, and I want to know what you based this endorsement on.

In your Sunday editorial, you cite that Bainum clearly understands that Honolulu "needs to move forward." Yet if you have been following the candidates' campaigns for mayor and attending the forums, televised debate and listening to the media and public commentary, Hannemann is clearly more knowledgeable, experienced and capable of leading our city both today and into the future.

Bainum has never presented a clear vision or realistic plan; neither has he demonstrated the type of leadership or experience necessary to make Honolulu a "livable city" based on his current and past performance.

And even if he has avoided being obliged to the special interest groups, he is his own special interest, which makes me wonder. If he truly has the experience and credentials, why did he have to loan himself $1.9 million (outspending Hannemann 2-to-1) to sell himself? And if he's not able to manage his own money frugally, how will he manage the city's budget with its limited resources?

Bainum's experience makes him best choice

The Star-Bulletin has endorsed Duke Bainum over Mufi Hannemann for mayor.

You endorsed Bainum, who was elected multiple times for state House and the Honolulu City Council -- actually all the offices that he has run for.

You did not endorse Hannemann, who has run for numerous elected seats and lost, except for a seat on the Honolulu City Council, which he subsequently resigned from to run for yet another office.

You endorsed Bainum for his years of work as an elected representative, conducting countless community meetings, making hundreds of decisions supporting governors and mayors and our people. You also noted Bainum as a public health professional who, with his family, has provided health-care services and even donated large sums of his personal resources to immunize and protect children and the elderly.

Hannemann has great experience with collecting big funds from his Mormon and First Hawaiian Bank leaders, his publicly decried campaign against congressional candidate Neil Abercrombie and his attempts to set up a spaceport at South Point on the Big Island.

As a result of his statements against Abercrombie in the '80s, many Democrats turned against him and voted in a Republican, Pat Saiki.

Now we are in a race for Honolulu mayor, and the credible pasts of the two major candidates are important to us all. It is interesting that your competitor (the Advertiser) endorsed Hannemann. I love the fact the Honolulu has such diversity in its community, including in its editorial endorsements. It demonstrates that illustrated values can make a difference in reporting, endorsements and eventual voting decisions.

Anderson's experience will serve Maui well

Michelle Anderson, running for the South Maui County Council seat, is the most experienced and prepared candidate, who will do an incredible job for Maui's people and our future.

Working as Councilman Wayne Nishiki's administrative aide for many years, Anderson researched, analyzed and recommended legislative proposals. She worked with the public and various governmental agencies.

Anderson worked as a planner and environmental specialist for the state Office of Environmental Quality Control.

In addition to being a small-business owner both in Maui and California, Anderson worked with the finance officer in Chico, Calif., where she was responsible for government audits and other areas of financial accountability.

She knows how to get things done for our county, and she has the courage to speak up for Maui's citizens.

Vote for Anderson in the primary election next Saturday.

Professor's program builds understanding

I read the wonderful Aug. 29 article "From Amman to Honolulu with Love" online in the Star-Bulletin, and I think that what R.W. Burniske is doing with the educational exchange World Links Jordan program is such a positive step on the way to human understanding. When hearts and minds connect we are on the road to peace, and his efforts with students in America and the Jordanian Ministry of Education in Amman will help this to take place.

I am an American nurse who has been living and working in Saudi Arabia for the last nine years, after living in Hawaii for 20 years. I read the Star-Bulletin online almost daily.

I really related to that article. Getting to know the Saudis as people has been the best education in the world, and I hope that I too have given them another view of Americans. If we only go by what we see on the news, we can be left with just a very slanted, narrow and negative impression of each other. I see the good hearts of most people I have met here, and have developed many good bonds of friendship.

Burniske is doing a wonderful service to humanity in the work he is doing, and it will help the students in America and Jordan to have an interesting journey into understanding each other better as people.

Why do Swift boat vets speak out now?

I'd like to respond to Jim Fromm's letter on Sept. 1 about how Sen. John Kerry's "behavior hurt fellow veterans."

Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971 may have hurt veterans. Kerry testified representing around 150 honorably discharged and many highly decorated Vietnam veterans who themselves testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. He was reading their words and their accounts.

The accusation that his testimony "hurt" fellow veterans is far too general. He was there that day representing "fellow veterans." More than 30 years ago Kerry felt testifying was the right thing to do, and maybe it was or maybe it wasn't. But it happened more than 30 years ago. Where were the Swift boat veterans 20 years ago or 10 or even last year?

They choose to speak out now because of the election, just like the veterans who accused veteran and multiple-amputee Max Cleland of forgetting about vets during his re-election run for Georgia senator in 2002. And the same kind of attacks were made against Sen. John McCain in the 2000 campaign.

What a great message to send to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan: The same person you serve with today may attack you 30 years from now because they don't like your political party choice.

Waiting 30 years for a presidential election to criticize and attack a brother in arms is not my definition of honorable.