“I believe it is our job as Americans and as leaders of this body to criticize power when power is wrong,” she said during today’s House floor session.

That statement is political gibberish. It can mean anything to anybody. It's the kind of vague ambiguity that these people live off of, never having to be held accountable for anything specific and clear. l want Rep. Fukumoto to provide me with a list of all her criticisms of Obama over the 8 years of his presidency when power was wrong. I'll let you all know when she sends it to me.

Eh. I don't care what label she claims, only her actual record and stances on issues. Republicans already had a weak stance in our government and this only served to weaken it more. We reap what we sow.

Eh. I don't care what label she claims, only her actual record and stances on issues. Republicans already had a weak stance in our government and this only served to weaken it more. We reap what we sow.

Seriously, I don't care so about the label. It is what you do and how you vote that I care about. I am a registered independent and I vote for the best person (whatever party they represent) and not just because they belong to one party or another. JMHO

What gets me is that the GOP gave her a chance to run in 2010 and 2012 as she was up against incumbent Dems.  If she ran as a dem in the primaries she would've lost since her "new" party of inclusion will only back incumbents who tow the line.   So she now turned her back against the party who gave her a start and I'm pretty sure the GOPs stance on many issues haven't changed since 2012.   I don't like RINOs like Thielen and will support local dems who still think like before, BUT I believe this shows her shallow character. If she did get divorced maybe it's screwing up her thinking.

So you would have voted for her (if you lived in that district) in the general election because it was her against a Democratic? Or maybe you'd have voted for the Democrat depending on the particular positions on particular issues? Or you'd have voted for some independent, libertarian, or other candidate?

I would have voted for the best person. Right now I vote for my state rep who is a dem. The dems in the party call her a DINO. My gut feeling tells me she is a registered dem because she wanted to get into politics here. And the only way to be in politics is to be a dem.

One of the "issues" in this case for me is that when she ran as a (Republican) party member she got at least some money from the (Republican) party to run her campaign, which in this case, her election being only four months ago means that Republican Party members who gave money to the Republican party in general helped fund the election of a Democrat. I'm pretty sure that most of those donors didn't want to aid and abet the election of a Democrat, yet for the next nearly two years that's exactly what they paid for. Who knows, maybe the don't care, since I read that she was "primaried" by a more "conservative" candidate but she won handily... I wonder how much Republican party money she spent (as the "incumbent") in the primary compared to the challenger (I'd guess they got zero from the party). Maybe the Republican party itself is at least partially to blame as it's up to them to vet the candidates, and I guess if they believe they can only win by running a RINO, who is really a Democrat, and give that person money to campaign, that that's their business. Who knows, maybe the Democratic party gave her money as well? Wouldn't surprise me, especially in the primary.

I asked Fukumoto in an email if she'd still be a "Republican" if Clinton had won the election, but she hasn't responded (yet?).

I don't disagree with what you said here. The problem I have with most politicians here is that if this is their first time running for a political position, and they have no previous political record (or any record of some sort) how can you tell what they are eventually going to turn into? I am sure many people here voted for Tulsi Gabbard and feel like they got burned after they learned she flip flopped on the second amendment.

I would have voted for the best person. Right now I vote for my state rep who is a dem. The dems in the party call her a DINO. My gut feeling tells me she is a registered dem because she wanted to get into politics here. And the only way to be in politics is to be a dem.

The real problem here is that 1. The two "parties" have made the rules re elections that make anyone outside the two parties (libertarian, independent, etc.) a virtual certain loser ("The system is rigged"), and 2. There is really only the Uniparty, as we see with all the "blurred lines" of DINOS and RINOS and that President Trump is seeing and feeling first hand in a very harsh way. [From: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/03/24/my-final-thoughts-on-the-failed-healthcare-reform/#more-130467  "All DC Republicans and all DC Democrats are the DC UniParty.  The DC UniParty is fueled by special interest donor lobbying money.   The DC UniParty created Obamacare and the DC UniParty wants ObamaCare to remain in place. Those who say there are politicians within DC that want to repeal ObamaCare are absolute liars. It is a 100% false assertion.  This is a narrative of fakery created by specific and intentional design, being utilized as countermeasures to throw you off the trail.  The narrative is intended to keep you from identifying the reality of the DC UniParty and the trillion dollar legislative agenda."]  ]

I don't disagree with what you said here. The problem I have with most politicians here is that if this is their first time running for a political position, and they have no previous political record (or any record of some sort) how can you tell what they are eventually going to turn into? I am sure many people here voted for Tulsi Gabbard and feel like they got burned after they learned she flip flopped on the second amendment.

Yeah, there is no way of knowing what someone will actually do based upon what they say they will do [See: "Marriage Vows"].  One problem with Fukumoto doing what she did when she did it is that Trump didn't say anything different after her election in November, nor even since his official nomination, nor even since his unofficial primary wins that cinched his nomination, so she was being disingenuous in "changing parties" two months into Trump's term of office, as nothing new had happened that would have altered her evaluation of Trump's positions on issues that he had been stating for well over a year, and well over 5 months prior to the election when Fukumoto knew full well that Trump, and his positions, would be the Republican candidate/platform. She could have changed parties at any time during that lengthy period, even in the two months prior to the election itself (yes, she may have been disqualified from the ballot, but aren't her integrity and values primary? You know, like she claimed last week when she left the Party and stated her desire to join the other Party?). And thus the claims by the Republican party that she should have withdrawn from the race, and/or resigned her position once elected and allowed someone else to be appointed rather than stay on and join the official "opposition".

"She sought feedback from her constituents about leaving the Republicans and says three-quarters of the letters she received supported the move."
http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/The-Latest-Some-Hawaii-Democrats-wary-about-11021269.php

This plainly shows  three-quarters of her constituents were dems