The issue isn't one of partisanship; Chad is simply--and appropriately--examining the actions of an elected representative. There is a valid question why Schatz, a self-proclaimed progressive, voted to block progress on this vital issue. It is inconsistent with his previous positions to argue that the costly and damaging status quo is preferable to pushing forward toward a more responsible stance on foreign engagements. Just as the perfect is the enemy of the good, the lazy is the enemy of the active. Hirono and Hanabusa stepped up, as expected. Gabbard's position is less satisfying, but again largely what we have come to expect from her. This should raise serious questions about why Schatz voted as he did, whether he is truly representing the majority of Hawaii voters, and if there is some pressure pushing him in a troubling new direction.