When it comes to loyalty, you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who values it more highly than Sen. Daniel K. Inouye.

Inouye’s first point of reference is loyalty, whether it is dealing with his party, his political supporters, the U.S. Senate or his friends.

But when competing demands for loyalty occur, as they must, it is clear that Inouye puts personal relationships above all else. That’s the easy and understandable explanation for Inouye’s decision to host a pricey Washington D.C. fundraiser for his buddy and senate colleague Ted Stevens of Alaska, a Republican.

Ordinarily, Inouye makes almost a fetish of backing Democrats even when just about everyone else has taken a different path. That was the case, for instance, years ago when the dominant Democrats in the state were quietly, but obviously, behind Republican D.G. Andy” Anderson in his challenge to maverick Frank Fasi.

Fasi had done Inouye no particular favors over the years. And Anderson was more than acceptable to most of the party powers. But Inouye, stressing the importance of party loyalty, publicly backed Fasi.

So his support for Republican Stevens transcends even the bedrock principle of party loyalty. Inouye mght not say it, but in addition to friendship, there is another key to his wanting Stevens back. The two work closely together, watching each other’s back and helping the other whenever possible. They split votes on occasional party-line litmus test issues, but day-to-day work cooperatively.

From Inouye’s perspective, Stevens is more than a pal. He is on many occasions a reliable “third vote” for Hawaii in the Senate.

Reason enough to want him back there.

Over the years many have tried to figure out what exactly is it that made the Hawaii Democratic Party so successful.

A good cause: Statehood and then all he economic and social gains that followed certainly helped. So too did the eager and generally faithful backing of the major labor unions.

But a key part, as any longtime Democrat will tell you, was the ability to identify, activate and then motivate the grass roots. Veteran political organizer Bob Oshiro called them the “sparrows” who would sit unnoticed until around election time when they would rise all at once.

But every sparrow needs a mother hen. The most formidable of all, perhaps, was Naomi “Sister” Correa, who died last week at 80. Correa knew how to play politics at just about every level (she served as party vice-chair for years), but her real skill was in making the regular folks, the sparrows, feel they were an important part of a campaign.

She could throw together a mean batch of stew and rice if needed, and that was a skill not to be lightly discounted. But Correa was able, by example and passion, to show everyone in a campaign just how important it was to get the daily, difficult “grunt” work done, and done well.

Sister was not in it for herself. She was in politics because she believed in it. She represented the human core that every campaign needs if it hopes to be successful.

As is so often the case, it takes an outsider to help us see what is right before our face.

That’s the case of a brand-new article in The Nation magazine (read it on line, HERE) by Elinor Langer that tell’s the story of the sovereignty, or Hawaiian self-determination movement in substantial, and mostly quite accurate, detail.

Langer doesn’t tell us all that much we don’t already know, but it is interesting to see this historic and fascinating story viewed by an outsider with fresh eyes.

The article is quite sympathetic to Hawaiians , telling about the overthrow and the ongoing press for restitution for an event that many (including our Courts) believe was illegal. For the most part, it reads the way one would expect from a magazine described as the “flagship of the left.”

But opponents of the self-determination movement in general, and the Hawaiian recognition or Akaka bill in particular,  are also entranced by the article. That’s because it points out correctly that the Akaka bill is quite silent on what would happen if a Hawaiian entity is recognized — a concern central to many opponents of the measure. The article also recognizes the potentially “staggering” implications of the bill on the future of Ceded Lands in the Islands, another driving concern by those in opposition.

So read it for yourself and decide: If an uninvolved bystander read this article and it was the sum total of all he or she understood about the  sovereignty movement, would the reader come away marching with the Hawaiians or would he conclude this is too scary and divisive to contemplate?

So now a group of folks has organized to put an anti-transit propsal on the November ballot.

Just imagine the nightmares that creates around pro-transit circles at City Hall.

The mere fact that such a referendum is being considered, combined with Council waffling, might be enough to cause the people who control federal transit money to begin looking elsewhere. That’s the political reality of the situation.

In addition, it is always easier to vote “no” specifically than “yes” generally. Supporters of the referendum would march out all the familiar arguments: It won’t do much for traffic congestion, it will create an environmental eyesore, it will be expensive and taxpayers will have to pay through the nose for it whether they ride or not, etc. etc.

The other side will have to argue a more general theme that the time will come when we have to have fixed-rail transit, so it is better to begin building now rather than later.  They will also have to convince residents around the Island who would not have direct access to the system that they should support it anyway.

Yes, it will be an uphill battle to get the issue on the ballot. But it will be equally tough to defeat it. Nevermind the fact that this idea has received the green light  from elected representatives from Washington to the Legislature to the City Council, there is a nice “pure democracy” argument to be made.

If this idea goes forward, look for an ugly, very expensive and divisive campaign that will overshadow regular election politics this fall.

The  City brought in former federal Transportation Chairman and longtime Congressman Norman Mineta to help walk its current rail project through the local political minefields.

You have to hope that either publicly or privately, Mineta spent a good amount of time explaining to the City Council the dangers of waffling on matters of this nature.

Both in Congress and as a cabinet official, Mineta witnessed Honolulu walk up to the brink of a transit decision and then back away for any number of reasons. His lesson for Honolulu: Uncle Sam has plenty of places to spend its urban mass transit dollars if Honolulu seems somehow unready or unwilling to go ahead.

That might help explain why Mayor Mufi Hannemann was so exercised when the Council deadlocked on choosing a transit technology this week. Legally  Hannemann said, he has every right to go ahead and make a decision. And that decision, he made clear, would be to start planning on a steel wheel-on-steel-rail transit technology, no matter what the Council does.

If the Council is so irrelevant on this point, then why was the Mayor so upset?

It’s because of that political perception thing. The folks in Washington who sign off on transit funding (including members of Congress who have their own constituencies clamoring for money)  might take the Council’s indecision as a signal that Honolulu isn’t all that read to go ahead with this multi-billion project.

And it would be a fair reading. Elected officials don’t operate in a vacuum. If half the Council is uncertain or unconvinced, that could mean a good chunk of the body politick in Honolulu feels the same.

The Council’s yes-or-no may not be legally needed to proceed with this  project. But ambiguity, for whatever reason, might just be enough to knock the entire thing, so to speak, off the rails.  No wonder Mr. Mayor was upset.