I admire your convictions to do this. I was thinking of something similar, except I am not going to Hawaii anytime soon so it would be a hollow threat.
I think given the nature of Hawaii's tourism industry which is based on it's environment, and this blatent disregard of the environment by these 2 Democrats no less, that responding as such is entirely justified.
The following is a paragraph from an Op-Ed written by Thomas Friedman in the NT Times this morning. When I read it I thought it may explain somewhat the decision of the Hawaii senators.
<
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/17/opinion/17friedman.html?hp>(registration required)
On energy, the Bush team's obsession with drilling in the Alaskan wilderness to increase supply is mind-boggling. "I am sure China will be thrilled with the Bush decision to drill in Alaska," said the noted energy economist Philip Verleger Jr. "Oil in Alaska cannot easily or efficiently be shipped to our Gulf Coast refineries. The logical markets are on the West Coast of the United States and in Asia. Consumers in China and Japan, not the U.S., will be the real beneficiaries of any big Alaska find.
"With a big find, China and Japan will be able to increase imports from a dependable supplier - the U.S. - while consumers in the U.S. will still be at the mercy of unreliable suppliers, such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. It is simple geography.
, a big find will lead to lower prices in the short term, promoting more emissions and more warming."
Since Hawaii gets a lot of tourism from the Japanese and they are also a west coast state, they may have viewed this as a good thing for their state, a sad perspective in my opinion.
I think the same thing goes for Mary Landrieu, sadly, there is too much oil interest in her state for her to resist this which again I think is a poor excuse.