“At breakfast this morning my nine year old, out of the blue, said, ‘Mom, what are you doing about climate change?’” said Governor Gina Raimondo at a press event in the offices of Newport Solar on Monday, “What a perfect day to ask the question! So I told him all about this and he was proud of me that we were on that.”

Newport Solar in North Kingstown is where Raimondo chose to kick off National Energy Awareness Month with her new Office of Energy Resources (OER) commissioner Carol Grant. Newport Solar is a Rhode Island leader in solar installation, and its successful efforts should be lauded.

“Our clean energy sector in Rhode Island has created a slew of new opportunities for education and jobs, and that will continue as we move forward in building the clean energy industry,” said Raimondo at the event.

Commissioner Grant spoke about Rhode Island’s high ranking in the State Energy Efficiency Scorecard. The American Council on Energy‐Efficient Economy (ACEEE) recently ranked Rhode Island fourth in the country for best energy efficiency programs and policies. “We want to educate Rhode Islanders on the many benefits of the state’s energy efficiency and renewable energy programs,” said Grant, “and we look forward to further developing a future of clean, affordable, reliable and diversified energy.” [italics mine]

Also at the event was Michael Ryan, Vice President of Government Affairs at National Grid, encouraging Rhode Islanders to save energy.

Energy in Rhode Island needs to be “affordable, reliable, and clean” said Raimondo, “It’s got to be all three, and it can be all three.”

Later, Raimondo’s three criteria had mysteriously become four, or more. “So I’m going to continue to lead and push, as your governor, towards more clean, affordable, and reliable and diversified energy sources… to lead the nation in more and more sources of clean, renewable, affordable, sustainable energy.”

Towards the end of the presser, National Grid’s Michael Ryan, ironically standing in front of a large Newport Solar banner emblazoned with the tagline, “Think outside the grid,” mis-repeated Raimondo, saying that the energy must be “efficient, affordable and reliable.

“Those are key with National Grid.”

In the video below you can watch the complete press event. Solar, wind and efficiency were lauded but fracked gas, the third leg of Raimondo’s energy policy, and a key driver of National Grid’s business, was never mentioned except via subtle dog whistles.

These dog whistles are words like reliable, diversified and efficient. These are the words anti-environmentalists use when they want to scare us into accepting fracked gas as a bridge fuel, like when Rush Limbaugh said, “Solar panels are not sustainable, Millennials. May sound good, yes. ‘Clean, renewable energy.’ But what do you do when the sun’s down at night? What do you do when the clouds obscure the sun? We’re not there yet.”

Limbaugh admits that solar panels are clean and renewable. But he’s doubting their reliability and sustainability.

This is how a politician like Raimondo can appease companies like National Grid, which are actively working to expand Rhode Island’s dependence on fossil fuels, while publicly talking only about the work she’s doing on energy that’s actually clean and renewable.

On April 13 Raimondo appeared at a solar farm in East Providence to announce the results of the 2016 Rhode Island Clean Energy Jobs Report released by the Rhode Island OER and the Executive Office of Commerce. At this event Marion Gold, who publicly supported the power plant planned for Burrillville, was still the OER commissioner.

“The clean energy economy is supporting nearly 14,000 jobs,” said Raimondo, “a forty percent increase from last year. That is amazing.”

The press release for this event noted that this job growth was likely the result of the “maturation of the solar industry, start up activity in smart grid technologies, and the progress made on the construction of the Block Island Wind Farm.”

There was no mention at this event of fracked gas, Burrillville, Invenergy, Spectra pipelines, or National Grid’s expansion of LNG at Fields Point, until reporters asked the governor about it directly, at which point Raimondo somewhat reluctantly admitted that she does in fact support Invenergy’s $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant planned for Burrillville.

In Raimondo’s capacity as vice chair of the Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition she was proud to “support the foresight of my colleagues to broaden the Coalition’s focus and include solar energy development as a policy priority. Wind and solar provide complementary benefits to the U.S. electric grid and will help diversify the country’s energy mix. The need for states to take a broader view of renewable power is clear.”

Again, no mention of her support for fracked gas.

Raimondo has consistently touted her support for renewables like wind and solar, only occasionally voicing her support for fracking. Raimondo never holds a press release in front of a fracked gas pipeline or compressor station. She holds them at wind turbines and solar farms, giving the appearance of a strong leader on the environment.

But National Grid and Invenergy need to know she’s on board with their plans, so she signals her support during the press conference with careful phrasing.

And if the governor’s phrasing is off message, National Grid’s Michael Ryan will misquote her. “Clean” energy is out, “reliable” energy is in. In other words, “Let them eat fracked gas.”

Raimondo’s choice of location for her press conferences demonstrates that if she is not embarrassed by her support of fracked gas, she at least is beginning to recognize how history will ultimately judge her support.

As Bill McKibben said in a recent message to Rhode Island, “Five to ten years ago we thought the transition was going to be from coal, to natural gas as some sort of bridge fuel, onto renewables and now, sadly, we realize we can’t do that in good faith, because natural gas… turns out to be a dead end, not a bridge to the future but a kind of rickety pier built out into the lake of hydrocarbons.”

Fracked gas was well known to be a bad idea when Raimondo stood with Invenergy’s CEO Michael Polsky and tried to sell the idea to Rhode Island. Raimondo’s support for Invenergy’s power plant was a massive political blunder with consequences not only for her political career, but for the future of Rhode Island and the world.

A future, and a world, her children will be living in.

“Five to ten years ago we thought the transition was going to be from coal, to natural gas as some sort of bridge fuel, onto renewables,” said 350.org’s Bill McKibben in a message to Rhode Island, “and now, sadly, we realize we can’t do that in good faith, because natural gas turns out not to work that way, as a bridge fuel.”

McKibben, a leading voice on the dangers of climate change, was speaking in a video message to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s annual Rhode Island Energy & Environmental Leaders Day” conference at the Rhode Island Convention Center last Friday.

McKibben started his eight minute message with praise for Whitehouse, calling him an “indefatigable leader,” along with Senator Bernie Sanders, around climate change issues. McKibben called Whitehouse’s Friday dialogues on the Senate floor against climate change and ExxonMobile “relentless” and “remarkable.”

“There are moments when I hope that his last name turns out to be a key to his and our future, but that’s for another day,” said McKibben.

But McKibben was also relentless in his condemnation of natural gas.

Natural gas, said McKibben, “turns out to be a dead end, not a bridge to the future but a kind of rickety pier built out into the lake of hydrocarbons. So we’ve got to make the transition to renewables now, and fast.

“We have to forget about bridges and make that leap.”

Earlier that day, during a question and answer session, Senator Whitehouse once again declined to speak out against the natural gas infrastructure projects currently threatening Rhode Island’s ability to meet carbon and greenhouse gas reduction goals. Greg Gerritt, of ProsperityforRI.com, confronted Whitehouse, saying that the “resistance,” those engaged in front line battles against fossil fuel infrastructure, was ultimately going to have a greater effect than the carbon tax that Whitehouse champions.

“People are saying no more fossil fuel pipelines, no more power plants, no more compressor stations, and they’re putting their bodies out there,” said Gerritt, “I want us to think about how the dark money plays out in a place like Rhode Island where you can talk about climate change, but you can’t actually stop anything.

“The politicians are all saying, ‘even though we know that if we build this we can’t ever meet our carbon goal, we still want to build a power plant.’ And I want to know what are we going to do so that on the ground, here in our own communities, that this power of the fossil fuel industry gets stopped.”

Whitehouse countered that his job in the Senate “is to try to solve this in a place where it will have the most powerful effect that it can, across the board. I will never win this fight, from where I sit, plant by plant. I just won’t, can’t. Too many of them, too much going on, and frankly there are hundreds of others that are being built while some are being protested, there are hundreds of other pipelines being used while one is being protested.

“It’s not effective, to, in my view, uh, it makes a difference, it sends a message, I don’t undercut what people are doing. I think what we did with Keystone helped send a big message, but my job, I think, is two things:

“One, fix that problem of the huge subsidy [for fossil fuel companies] because $700 billion a year or $200 billion a year sends such a powerful message through the entire economy,

“The second is, I see Meg Curran here, the chairman (sic) of the Public Utilities Commission, and we’re working with them, we’re working with FERC, we’re working with the ISO, we’re working with NEPOOL group, to try to make sure that the rules for these siting things, get adjusted. because the rules for these siting plans leave out the enormous cost of carbon.

“So for me, it’s these federal ground rules, to make them responsive to clean energy, to get them to reward the cleanness of clean energy, and to make fossil fuel pay its cost… that’s where I’m focused.”

However, if we are to heed McKibben’s video message, then Whitehouse’s focus seems like a small step, not the leap that McKibben says we need.

“The good news,” said McKibben, “is the distance we have to  leap is shorter than we thought because the engineers have done such a good job with renewable technology. During the last ten years the price of solar panels dropped eighty percent. There’s not an economic statistic on our planet more important than that.

“What it means is that we now have a chance, an outside chance, of getting ahead of the physics of climate change. It would require a serious mobilization and a huge effort.”

McKibben has written about what such a mobilization would look like in the New Republic that is worth a read.

“I think we’re going to need real, powerful leadership in order to help us, as FDR helped us once upon a time to take those steps in the right direction.

“The question is not, ‘Are we going to do this?’ Everyone knows that 75 years from now we’ll power our planet with sun and wind,” said McKibben, “The question is ‘Are we going to do it in time to be able to slow down climate change?’ … It may be the most important question that humans have ever faced.

“I wrote the first book about it all back in 1989. The cheerful title of that book was The End of Nature. I fear that not much has happened since to make me want to change the title.

“We’re in a very deep hole,” said McKibben, “and the first rule of holes is to stop digging for coal, for oil or gas and start instead to take advantage of all that green power coming from above from the sun and the wind that we’ve been wasting for so long.”

Trump for President signs can be found around Cranston, says Aubin, displayed next to signs for the three Republican City Wide City Council candidates. Their names also appear on signs with local GOP standard bearer, Mayor Allan Fung, who told WPRI in August that he supported “the Republican nominee” and said of Trump’s hate speech that the presidential nominee “keeps putting his foot in his mouth.” By aligning themselves with the mayor and not publicly disavowing Trump, Michael Farina, Ken Hopkins, and Louis Petrucci are sending a signal that Trump’s message of racism and division is okay by them.

Farina, reached by email, did not reply directly to Aubin’s call for him to disavow Trump. “I am running for city council not President,” said Farina, “and this is a lame attempt for her to garner attention in a race against 2 incumbents and other more popular candidates herself. She should run on the issues and how she plans on making Cranston better. I stand by my record of positive improvements in the city of Cranston.”

This isn’t enough for Aubin. “When nomination papers were filed in June, Trump was already the presumptive nominee of the Republican party. No one forced Michael Farina to switch parties and become a Republican, and his continued unwillingness to disavow Trump’s racism and bigotry — even when given a direct opportunity — demonstrates a severe lack of judgment, courage, and leadership.

“So this absolutely matters to Cranston and the people of our city deserve to know where Mr. Farina stands on Donald Trump. I believe that Trump’s near constant hateful and incendiary comments are dangerous for America and for Cranston. I have spoken clearly about the issues I am passionate about for our city — improving our neighborhoods by making them more walkable and affordable, protecting our environment, improving our local economy, reducing wasteful spending, and making sure Cranston has top performing schools.”

At the time Farina switched party affiliation from Democrat to Republican he said he believed there had been “efforts to inhibit or obstruct him from taking positions on certain issue contrary to fellow Democratic leaders.”

“As a Democrat I have felt pressure,” said Farina, “to conform to party positions … more about political maneuvering and personal ego than the constituents.”

Aubin says that as a longtime advocate for social justice, she believes in a Cranston that is strong, diverse, and equitable. The America that Donald Trump is selling, based on xenophobia and intolerance, has no place in Cranston or anywhere in our country.

Today, progressives need to re-discover the power of an ideology that can unify us and make us effective. That ideology is democracy itself.  Democracy, the fundamental political philosophy that the US brought back to life two-hundred and 40 years ago, is the most successful progressive accomplishment in recent history. American democracy, despite all its problems and challenges, is still the most effective tool we have ever seen to make people more equal, to allow universal participation, to facilitate community building, and to create an identity that focuses on freedom and justice for all.

Progressives have been without an ideology since the rise and cultural dominance of consumer capitalism, which paralleled the decline of the industrial labor union movement in the US. Before those changes, in the years 1890 to about 1970, the ideology of progressivism was clear – people acting together could use the scientific method to measure the impacts and outcomes of improved social conditions, and use those measurements to create political support for social change. Because improved social conditions for the many allowed greater participation in the democratic process, using the scientific method to spur improved social conditions turned out to strengthen democracy itself.

The fundamental commitment of progressivism is democracy

The use of science and the scientific method represented a significant departure for policy and politics, which until progressivism relied on prevailing belief, religious doctrine, bias, superstition and political calculus for decision making.  With progressivism, policy choices were supported by reference to evidence obtained by disinterested sources, so that some decisions were now cloaked in appearance of objectivity, appearing to free the policy process from bias and constraint by the hegemony of those in power, who too often make decisions in order to support their positions instead of making decisions in the best interests of the community they claimed to serve.

That said, the fundamental commitment of progressivism was never to science itself.  The fundamental commitment of progressivism was and is democracy. We need to use our science, progressives have always said, in the service of the common good, in order to make Democracy stronger and more robust, in order, in the language of the late sixties, to better serve the people.

Thus, Civil Rights was a progressive movement, advocating for equal rights for people who are measurably equal in fact. Public Health was a progressive movement, equating certain choices like clean water, a safe milk supply and decent housing with measurable outcomes like infant mortality and life expectancy. Equal rights for women was a progressive idea, leveraging measurable equality, and allowing women to create the political power needed to defend themselves in a social environment that constrained and too often attacked them, and enfranchising half of the population in the process. Union advocacy for safe working conditions, fair treatment of working people by their employers, decent wages and benefits – health insurance, pensions, time off to be with family –that would allow working people some of the same security as the rich but also the freedom to fully participate in the political process  –came out of this progressive ideology. Government action to protect the poor and elderly – Social Security, Medicaid and welfare — which were conceived, fought for, and won by progressive organizations and progressive political advocacy, allowed more people yet to participate in the democratic process. In addition, progressives have always also been united in a willingness to think critically about the distribution of wealth, and have been clear in the belief that democracy functions best in a society where there isn’t a great divide between the rich and the poor.

Ideologically and intellectually disparate issues

But somehow, beginning in the 1970s, progressivism lost its way. The focused advocacy of right-wing capitalists to create a culture that found greed socially acceptable; science-based improvements in manufacturing and farming technologies, which meant that fewer workers were required  to feed the population and to manufacture its goods – and allowed the owners of the means of production to become distant from the places where food was grown and goods were manufactured, diluting the importance and effectiveness of the industrial union movement; the aging of a generation forced to find common cause in a war against an existential threat; the failure of state socialism in other nations (which de-legitimized thinking about the distribution of wealth); and the evolution of technologies which atomized communities all conspired to distract Americans from the central role democracy had and has in creating social justice and  peace.

During this period, progressivism became a collection of important but ideologically and intellectually disparate issues – health care reform, immigration reform, marriage equity, legalization of marijuana, privacy, internet access and freedom from censorship — that collective action might succeed at advancing, but that had little unifying purpose, despite deriving legitimizing support from social science.

But the lack of a clear unifying ideology made it impossible to bring the majority of Americans– who believe in the value of the common good and democracy itself — together in common cause. We have failed, in recent years, to make American democracy stronger, to enfranchise more people, and we have failed miserably at bringing more of the population to social and political participation in a society in which the whole was greater than the sum of its parts.

Democracy versus freedom

The right, on the other hand, used ideology to give conservatives both an identity and a powerful social lever. The right’s use of freedom as ideology has had powerful resonance in American culture. By cleverly defining freedom as unlimited individual freedom (instead of freedom from oppression and want, which is what most of us mean by freedom after all), and setting up government as the instrument of Freedom’s constraint, the right has been able to dominate the national discussion about social issues of critical importance to the nation. This ideology of individualism and individual freedom made it appear that government is doomed to fail as a social instrument, made it look like the market is the solution to all social problems, and created the widely held belief that the freedom of the rich to further enrich themselves is central  to our national identity. Ergo, corporations are people; death panels; and the move toward privatization of all social services, despite the absence of any evidence showing the effectiveness of that privatization.

The right, understanding the emotional power of democracy, has tried to drive a wedge between progressives and Democracy as ideology. The Democratic Party became the Democrat Party. Democratic ideas became Democrat ideas. And red, the color of life and heat, of blood and toil and struggle, became the color of conservative states, leaving the more progressive states blue — the color of sadness and despair.  The right distorted this important language and these important symbols because the right understands that ideology matters.

Yet democracy as ideology is perhaps more powerful than freedom. Democracy strikes a deep emotional chord in the hearts of most Americans, because democracy is a uniquely American contribution to the modern human identity, because most of us understand how democracy has made us who we are, and because Americans instinctively understand that democracy makes freedom possible. That is, by finding a way to be together that lets us hear and incorporate contending voices, by using our political science to create a platform for social interaction that allows us to re-balance inequities, democracy allows disagreements to be settled peacefully, so we have the expectation of reasonable stability over time, an expectation that allows us to think about and measure our lives in years and decades, instead of the minutes and hours of life we could plan for if we lived in a place that was only a market, or in a nation  at war with itself. If Freedom allows the pursuit of happiness, democracy creates the platform on which freedom becomes meaningful and sustainable. Democracy, as a system of government, our messy, lively, vital experiment in governing ourselves is our life-blood.  Democracy has been our ticket to the social stability and peace, the social stability and peace that gives each of our lives meaning. Democracy lets freedom ring.

Necessary conditions for participation in democracy

Looking backward, we see how the struggles of the past, for civil rights, for equal rights for women, for social security, for the role of unions in protecting the rights of workers, for health care and education, and for the protection of the poor is a powerful history, but that history  doesn’t point us clearly  toward a progressive future. How can we enfranchise all Americans? How can we lead Americans to full participation in a more equal society, and lead fuller lives? How do we take “your hungry, your tired and your poor” and build a just society out of a history of suffering and struggle?

The opportunity for progressivism is to learn from the accomplishments of the past so that we can make this democracy, so battered by the recent cultural conquest by the right, vital again. We can stand and win on child care and universal preschool and on free college education for all Americans, because the education of our children is the future of democracy. We can stand and win on immigration reform, because this nation and its democracy has been built on immigration, built by the  vitality and the imagination immigrants have brought to this continent. We can stand and win on building a health care system that cares for all Americans, because the cost of health insurance is destroying our ability to provide a decent education  and decent housing and a clean environment and good roads and other social infrastructure, which are what matters both for health and democracy itself. We can stand and win on a $15 minimum wage and universal sick time for working people, because having the means and time to breathe is necessary for working people to actively participate in an effective and meaningful democracy. And we can stand and win on income equality, because the over-concentration of wealth creates inequality of access to the public process, and democracy depends on our collective ability to hear all voices.

So the reason to build a health care system isn’t just health care cost, the chaos of the market-place, and the failure of the marketplace to improve the public’s health, although all are real problems. The reason to build a health care system is that health is a necessary condition for participation in democracy, and that the health care market is allowing further concentration of capital, concentration which is impacting the political process, as wealthy individuals and corporations use government to distort the market in a way that favors their self-interest over the common good.

And the reason to fix the student loan crisis, and provide free college education for all Americans isn’t just the national economic paralysis caused by a generation imprisoned by debt, although that economic paralysis is constraining our children’s prosperity and the nation’s hope for widespread freedom. The reason to provide free college education for all is that Democracy depends on an educated electorate that knows its interests and shows up to vote.  Forty-two percent participation in elections is a national disgrace, and inconsistent with a Democracy that is being or can be sustained in a meaningful way.

And the reason to fix the banking system, to curb the power of financial institutions, and to address income inequality isn’t just that it feels unfair for the deck to be stacked in favor of the few. The reason to fix the financial system and to address income inequality is that our Democracy depends on an invested and engaged citizenry, who are owners, not renters, and who are free to participate as free people who don’t live in fear of real or virtual eviction because of what they say or how they think or who they are.

So let’s make democracy progressivism’s clarion call, the standard we hold up to draw Americans together. Let’s stand up together to defend the democracy that has always sustained us, and so that we can together advance the values we all hold dear. Let’s stand on, talk about, preach, and inspire this democracy, without which there is no freedom after all.

And let’s take our color back.  I’m a red.  Let’s make them blue.

There are those who want to give credit for what we accomplished in the September primary to some vague anti-incumbent sentiment, or even tolls. I’m writing this piece to dispel that notion. Progressives won big on Tuesday for two reasons: hard work and Rhode Islanders’ commitment to progressive change.

This victory truly belongs to the women and men who made it happen. Those people include the candidates, but they also include the people who did work behind the scenes, people who never get nearly enough credit. People like Laufton Ascencao-Longo, Kavelle Christie, Grizzel Clemetson, Craig O’Connor, Georgia Hollister-Isman, Abby Godino, Andy Cagen, Judith Finn, Duncan Weinstein, Nate Carpenter, Johanna Harris, and the whole Ranglin-Vassell family.

Laufton Ascencao-Longo, a native Rhode Islander and the son of a Portuguese immigrant who moved from Madeira to Fox Point, he had gone away to Pittsburgh to attend college. There, he became a leader in the Progress Pittsburgh movement, the wildly successful campaign to take back Pittsburgh that progressive activists around the country dream of emulating. He also worked on President Obama’s campaign, Tom Wolf’s successful campaign for Governor of Pennsylvania, a winning state senate race in Virginia, and a host of other smaller races. Laufton had spent half a decade working hard to win races and create change, and in his own words, he “was done.”

He moved back to Rhode Island to “retire.” He was done with working 15 hours a day, seven days a week.  He was done with sleeping on couches he didn’t even own. He was done. To Laufton, Rhode Island was the place where he could kick back and become a bystander again. Thanks in no small part to me, he got dragged back in.

We would meet for the first time in late December when he walked into a Progressive Democrats meeting to drop off Sanders swag he had gathered while in Virginia.

I wanted a political revolution. I’ve long believed that the people of this state have been betrayed by a corrupt, conservative political machine. A machine that is only interested in pursuing the interests of corporations, insiders, and right-wing groups. The machine is allowed to continue to function because it’s never challenged, and earlier this year, I reached my breaking point. People told me I was being “unrealistic,” that change would only come if we played along with the machine. I never agreed, and I refused to give up. I wanted a slate of primary challengers to rise up and give Rhode Island a choice.

But we needed candidates, we needed workers, and we needed money. I knew I couldn’t do it alone.

For far too long, the Rhode Island progressive movement has lacked professional campaign know-how. Sure, I knew all about the kind of campaigns local progressives have always run. I knew loosely what a mail program should look like, and I knew knocking on doors was far and away the most important thing. But when it came to the modern cutting-edge tactics that came largely out of the Obama campaign, I was clueless. And I knew it. That’s why Laufton was exactly what we needed. I wanted him on board, so I bullied him into agreeing to meet with some of the prospects we had who would be running for office.

The first introduction was with Moira Walsh. Moira was one of the earliest to decide to run for office, and she was exactly what we needed to get Laufton hooked.  She had grown up in Smith Hill and had spent the previous year fighting for an increase in the tipped minimum wage. She knew the conservative political machine wasn’t fighting for her neighborhood because she had seen what happens at the State House. She knew something had to be done. So she decided to run. Moira impressed Laufton (and me) with her honesty, her passion, and her unbelievable work ethic. Not fully onboard yet, Laufton agreed to help her once a week.

Both loud and openly dismissive of those who were in charge, Laufton and Moira were a perfect match. Within a week, Laufton had gone from helping on occasion to sitting down with Moira nightly. I was giving them fundraising and volunteer prospects and they were fundraising and recruiting for a few hours every night. Two weeks in, Laufton sat down and drafted a campaign plan, not five pages (as we usually see in Rhode Island) but 28 pages, not counting the appendix. He broke down every piece of the district and examined every single street, mapping out a strategy of what Moira would have to do every week to win. Moira was more than happy to do all of it. She wanted to win poured everything into making it happen.

The plan was working. It was just the first step in the revolution but it was one hell of a step. In just a few months, we had gone from monthly meetings to a well oiled operation ready to score some major upsets.

In early March, while the General Assembly was busy enacting conservative policies, Moira was out knocking doors. Even given her close ties to her district, Moira blew us away with how hard she worked. Usually, campaigns keep track of how many times the candidate has walked the district. Sometimes that number is as low as one or two. With Moira, we quickly lost count. Laufton was at her side every step of the way.

I went back to work on recruiting candidates. I met with people at bars and coffee shops. I worked hard to persuade candidates to make the jump and join a race. I told them that if they wanted to continue on the fight Bernie had started this was the way to do it.  By May, our two candidates had grown to more than ten. Every one of them was working hard to make change. Our revolution was becoming a reality.

Bernie’s surprise Rhode Island win gave us a huge boost of confidence.  I couldn’t have been more excited about Bernie.  In 2008, Hillary Clinton became the first politician I ever voted for. But the man who broke the corrupt, conservative machine that once ran Burlington through its death grip on the Democratic Party has always been my political hero. What he achieved in a town without primaries was the original political revolution. Bernie’s Vermont story inspired me long before he decided to run for president, so I did everything I could to help him win Rhode Island. (The real work, though, was done by the army of volunteers put together by Lauren Niedel, the Deputy State Coordinator of the Progressive Democrats.)  Everyone in Rhode Island political circles predicted that Hillary Clinton would sweep our state.  The whole machine lined up behind Hillary, and one reporter was so confident that he bet me two dollars Bernie would lose. (He still hasn’t paid up.) So when Bernie won, we were beyond ecstatic. At the victory party, I gave a short speech to the crowd, asking folks if they were ready to take the political revolution to the General Assembly.  “Yes!” was the response, and it was resounding.

It was then that we decided to take on our biggest target yet, John DeSimone. John had long been a thorn in Moira’s side, and he was actively supporting Palangio (which Laufton did not like).  Most considered him untouchable. We knew it would be brutally tough, but we thought it was doable.

While others saw a powerful incumbent with one of the largest war chests in Rhode Island and one of the most infamous patronage networks in our state, Laufton saw something else. He saw an incumbent who had lost touch with his district, who cared more about being a politician than fighting for his neighborhood. Laufton saw a target primed for a takedown, and he had the data to prove it. As he always does, he crunched the numbers for every block, walking me through the path to victory. It wasn’t going to be easy, but it could be done. Laufton said if we were serious about change we had to do this.

With DeSimone, I saw a man who was actively promoting the NRA despite his district’s constant struggles with gun violence. I saw a man who happily interfered in a women’s right to control her own body. I saw a man who clearly cared more about wealthy special interests than the people he was supposed to be representing. DeSimone wasn’t just conservative. He was a leader in the most far-right wing of the machine. I knew taking him on was a risk. I knew DeSimone bore grudges, and I knew he would take it out on the progressive movement if we lost. But I also knew that defeating DeSimone would send a shock wave through our political system. It would show that no machine politician, no matter how powerful, no matter how wealthy, no matter how feared, could afford to push policies that hurt his constituents. I also had faith that the people now working in the movement would get it done.

It wasn’t going to be easy to find someone with the courage to go up against the machine, but teachers have always been an important base for the progressive movement, even when their unions won’t always stand up for them. I talked to a friend of mine who was upset with DeSimone’s meddling inside the Providence Teachers’ Union, and I heard about a teacher with a legendary passion for progressive change. Her name was Marcia Ranglin-Vassell. (Concerned about retribution from union leaders, among others, my friend asked to remain anonymous for this piece.)  

My friend took Laufton to meet Marcia at her home. Laufton was thrilled. He said she talked about the students she had lost to guns and incarceration, about the crippling devastation wrought by poverty in her neighborhood. He said her passion blew him away. He said of all the candidates and people he had met over the years, she was easily one of the most impressive. He encouraged her to run right there on the spot. I have to say, I was initially skeptical. But then I finally met Marcia in person. And boy was I sold.

When Marcia made the decision to run, the team got to work. Laufton crafted the winning strategy (another 28 page campaign plan) and Marcia assembled her inner circle. Her sisters Lisa and Val came first. The head of the Rhode Island Black Business Association, Lisa is widely respected around the city. Grizzel Clemetson was a longtime friend with previous campaign experience and deep ties in the Latino community. Andy Cagen would join the team soon after. A Providence attorney, Andy was inspired by Marcia’s story and threw himself into the campaign. Marcia’s husband, Van, was always there for both his wife and the team.

A few days later Laufton recruited Kavelle Christie to the team. Herself a Jamaican immigrant, Kavelle was a longtime friend of Laufton’s and a partner in his work in both Pittsburgh and Virginia.  She had recently relocated to Rhode Island to work on environmental issues. After a meeting with Marcia, Kavelle was also fully committed. Like so many campaigns, Marcia’s lived and breathed around its field operation, which was why Kavelle was so key. As field director, she set her life aside and poured not just her free time but her heart and soul into making Marcia’s earth-shattering win a reality. Kavelle’s true value wasn’t just the unbelievable number of doors she knocked on or the army of volunteers she inspired but making the whole operation run smoothly and efficiently.

Marcia knocked doors literally almost every day from the moment she declared until election night. She wasn’t just knocking random doors either. Laufton had designed a ranking system to target only the most valuable and most persuadable voters. This ranking system incorporated in dozens of variables and was based on a similar model used by President Obama’s team. Her sisters Val and Lisa were always there to support her, and Grizzel immediately established herself as an irreplaceable piece of the team. Reaching pieces of the district that no one else could, Grizzel brought endless enthusiasm to the campaign. Andy always seemed to be doing work, and Kavelle used her experience to ensure nothing fell through the cracks. Every piece of the team was essential, and everyone on the team had a clear role they fully committed to.

By mid July, the team was completing a full pass of the district every week, and at every door, Marcia was getting more and more persuasive. Once a voter gave Marcia their support, they weren’t set aside. Marcia would follow up with a handwritten note and check in every few weeks to ensure they were still onboard. All contact was carefully tracked and carefully maintained.

What we heard on the doors was what we had predicted.  While everyone knew who DeSimone was, very few had met him.  Even among those that had, there was no guarantee that they would support him. The patronage network “Johnny Jobs” was famous for wasn’t enough to get voters to vote against their values. People were hungry for progressive policies. A $15 minimum wage and gun control were both widely popular.

I’m proud to say that the Progressive Democrats were the first to endorse Marcia, and our members were fired up to get her elected. Planned Parenthood, RI NOW, Sierra Club, Our Revolution, Working Families, and other allies soon jumped on board, committing more time and more resources to Marcia and Moira. Led by Craig O’Connor, Planned Parenthood’s political operation has always been at the core of our movement, and Marcia’s campaign was a perfect example of how indispensable they are. Led by legendary Massachusetts progressive operative Georgia Hollister Isman and Abby Godino, Rhode Island Working Families is a new project of the national progressive group, which is excited about investing in Rhode Island.  The mastermind behind Mass Alliance, the powerhouse of progressive politics in our northern neighbor, Georgia jumped enthusiastically onto Marcia’s campaign. With support from these key allies and more, oceans of door knocks and phone calls flooded the district.

Laufton worked with Judith Finn, a local graphic designer, to craft the mail program for both Moira and Marcia. Inspired by the feedback the campaigns were getting on the doors, Judith created gorgeous pieces that resonated beautifully across both districts.  (Judith also did indispensable work for campaigns outside of Providence.) When we started the campaign, we thought DeSimone’s money would mean he’d have a better program. DeSimone may have had way more money, but I really believe the mail program Judith and Laufton put together had a stronger impact. They created pieces that were so specific and targeted that they would sometimes only be sent to 20 or 30 voters.

Exposing DeSimone’s record was crucial to Marcia’s victory, so our research team played a vital role. Duncan Weinstein, who had worked with me on our NRA investigation (and had also done research for former Illinois Governor Pat Quinn), was indispensable, pouring hours into tracking down and exposing what DeSimone had done. Johanna Harris, a prominent Providence anti-corruption activist (and one of Marcia’s most generous donors), published many crucial investigative pieces on her blog and helped guide the overall messaging.  Nate Carpenter, communications director for the Progressive Democrats, worked the media hard to get the message out.

Marcia’s campaign got a huge boost when Rhode Island for Gun Safety, a group funded by Alan Hassenfeld and coordinated by Jerry Belair, launched a major independent expenditure campaign. Fighting the NRA’s death grip on our elected “Democrats” has always been a core priority of our movement, so it was great to see gun control emerge as such an important issue in this race. One of the long-terms effects of Marcia’s win is sending a message that Rhode Islanders reject the NRA’s dangerous agenda.

By the week of the election, Marcia’s team had knocked on over 10,000 doors and had had more than 2,000 conversations with voters. From this work, they had isolated out 823 supporters in the district.

The weekend before the election, while DeSimone was holding a picnic in North Providence (outside the district) with politicians like Nick Mattiello and Jorge Elorza, Marcia’s team was out knocking doors and reminding people to vote. On election day, when John’s supporters were waving signs at polling places, Marcia’s volunteers were working down their lists of carefully cultivated supporters and bringing them one by one to the polls.  With careful targeting, Marcia’s army of volunteers put in hour after hour to talk to as many voters as possible, reminding them to vote.

DeSimone’s strategy hinged on hinting at Marcia’s race.  With his slogan of “From our neighborhood. For our neighborhood,” he subtly implied that Marcia, who had lived in her home for more than two decades, wasn’t really from the community.  He even told voters that Marcia was just “some woman from Jamaica.” Promoted by a piece Johanna wrote, “some woman from Jamaica” became a theme of Marcia’s campaign, perfectly encapsulating how political insiders dismissed her candidacy.

DeSimone focused his get out the vote efforts on, as he described them, “the old Italians.” And he certainly had deep networks in the Italian community. But many Italian voters, after shaking hands with their friends working the polls for DeSimone, whispered to Marcia and her volunteers that they were voting for her.

Throughout the whole campaign, Moira had never once stopped knocking doors, and she was also victorious. This race wasn’t just about defeating DeSimone and Palangio.  It was also about electing Marcia and Moira.  Our city now has two new fiery populist champions committed to fighting for the working families of Providence. That matters.

This victory didn’t just happen. It happened because of every door Moira, Marcia, and their volunteers knocked on and every phone call they made. It happened because of the activists and campaign professionals who guided the campaign. It happened because of strong movement allies. It happened because of hundreds of progressives who reached deep into their pockets to give what they could afford. It happened because two women had the courage to run against a fearsome political machine.

The credit for any revolution belongs to those who fought in it.  And our Providence wins belong to the women and men who fought to make them happen.

A full roster of elected officials and almost 200 people packed the Rhode Island Democratic headquarters in Warwick Saturday morning to kick off a statewide effort to support presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. The storefront office was standing room only as the governor and our congressional delegation energized attendees with their perspectives on the race and the importance of a Clinton win.

The rally, which began at 10:30, lasted about half an hour, after which many of the attendees pulled out cell phones and laptops and began to make calls for Clinton. Governor Gina Raimondo started off the event by talking about the critical nature of November’s choice.

“There’s more at stake in this election than any I can remember in my lifetime, because the consequences of Trump presidency are so terrible that it’s hard to even fathom,” said Raimondo.

She went on to talk about what she says when asked by voters why she supports Hillary, stressing Clinton’s values and experience. “Hillary’s values are what I believe are the right ones: making college affordable, investing in K-12 education and universal preschool, raising the minimum wage, investing in infrastructure and building an economy from the middle out, not from the top down. And she’s the most experienced person ever to run for the US Presidency.”

Sen Jack Reed picked up on the theme of experience. “She is the best prepared individual to lead this country that I have seen in my lifetime. On the other side, we have an individual that lacks the emotional, experiential abilities to be President. That is obvious for all to see.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse drew on American and Rhode Island history to make his case for Clinton. “People say that we have a divided country. Well, we do. But in our history, we had a country so divided that we were fighting a civil war. And in that civil war, we could not have been more divided. What did the President then do? He called us to the ‘better angels of our nature.’ Donald Trump stirs the darkest demons of our nature.”

Whitehouse continued, “Bigotry is deplorable. Period. And that’s a Rhode Island lesson that goes back to when George Washington, when he was campaigning for President, wrote to a Rhode Island synagogue guaranteeing that it would always be the policy of the United States to give ‘to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.’” Said Whitehouse, “Tell that to Donald Trump.”

Rep. Jim Langevin (D-2) echoed Whitehouse, saying that Trump draws on some of his followers’ worst impulses. “I hope that when we go to the polls in November that we speak loud and clear as a nation that we reject that kind of politics.”

“This election,” said Rep. David Cicciline (D-1), “is a referendum on the founding principles of this country. We’re a country that was founded on the ideas that everyone should be treated with dignity, free from discrimination, that everyone should have an opportunity to get ahead, have access to quality education, make decisions about their own healthcare, and in so many ways, this is a referendum on those ideas.” He added a pointed personal observation: “Jim and I know first-hand serving in the House what the country would look like if Donald Trump and the Republican Party have their way.”

Democratic Party Chair Joe McNamara (RI D-19) closed the rally by asking the room to finish a few sentences by reading off cards that were handed out to attendees at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. McNamara led the group in a series of powerful and emotional call-and-response prompts. “We know that we are stronger together,” said McNamara. “Under a Clinton administration, all families will…” The whole room shouted, “Rise Together.”

“And we know that bigotry will never prevail,” said McNamara, “because…” “Love trumps hate.”

“And with a President Clinton, we know that we will have…” “A future to believe in.”

As the attendees broke to make calls, a reporter for RI Future asked Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse specifically about the importance a Clinton win for efforts to combat climate change and protect Rhode Island’s shoreline.

Whitehouse cited two reasons that make a Democratic win essential. “First of all,” said Whitehouse, “Trump has gone down the sort of lunatic path of pretending that climate change is a hoax, and that all the scientists and every American scientific society, all the scientists at NASA and NOAA, the scientists at every American national lab, are all wrong or are in on some evil conspiracy. Which is almost creepy as a point of view, it’s so wrong.”

“And then, second, he’ll be representing a party that basically has become the political wing of the fossil fuel industry. So, for both of those reasons, it makes it far less likely that anything will get done if he’s the President. Now, Nature does not forgive, and sooner or later, it will become clear to everybody that we’ve made a terrible, terrible mistake. We just don’t want that realization to come too late.”

An RI Future reporter caught up with Rep. Cicilline to ask about the reticence of some to throw their support behind Clinton, and what he would say to local progressives who are still on the fence.

“Anyone who examines these two candidates carefully, who shares progressive values, frankly, the values of our Party, will see it’s very clear that there is only one candidate who both has a record of getting things done in this area, and also a set of policies that will really advance our country and move forward on many important progressive priorities. Ultimately, elections are about choices, and while I know there was a lot of enthusiasm for Sen. Sanders — and I’m a huge fan of his, he raised some incredibly important issues in the campaign — I think he would be the first to say that the campaign was not about him as a person, it was about a set of issues and a commitment to move forward on those issues.”

Cicilline continued that a Trump win, “Would set back our movement and our country significantly, and this is going to be a close election. We can’t take anything for granted. We need to work hard to vindicate the progressive values we care about by electing Sec. Clinton.”

The progressive revolution in Rhode Island politics continues beyond Bernie Sanders as no less than seven progressive Democrats won primaries against conservative, often incumbent, opponents in Tuesday’s Democratic primary.

The biggest win for the progressive left was Marcia Ranglin Vassell toppling House Majority Leader John DeSimone in District 5, Providence. She won by just 17 votes, 677 to 660.

But across the state, progressive candidates bested more-conservative candidates. In Narragansett/South Kingstown, incumbent Teresa Tanzi fended off an opponent who had the backing of Mike Stenhouse, a conservative Koch-aligned activist, and the Republican she beat last election. In Portsmouth/Middletown, former legislator Linda Finn handily beat a candidate backed by House leadership. In Bristol/Warren, newcomer Jason Knight knocked out incumbent Jan Malik. And in Warwick, relatively unknown Jeanine Calkin, a Berniecrat, beat Senator William Walaska, a former ALEC member.

Also in Providence, first-time candidate Moira Walsh defeated incumbent Tom Palangio by 21 votes, 299 to 278. All told, five new progressives seem poised for seats in the state legislature. It seems guaranteed there will be more progressive legislators than Republican legislators next session.

But it wasn’t all good news.

In District 13, Providence, community activist Lisa Scorpio lost to house leadership-backed Ramon Perez by a wide margin. He won 512 votes, or 56 percent and she won 352 votes, or 38.5 percent. Anastasia Williams, an incumbent with a checkered past and close ties to leadership, beat Michael Gazdacko, who may have suffered after being pegged as a gentrifying developer. David Norton, whose campaign was often fueled by criticism of house leadership, lost to David Coughlin by 46 votes, 489 to 443. Bill DeWare, who became sick during the campaign, lost handily to William O’Brien.

On the Senate side, incumbent Juan Pichardo lost by about 100 votes to Ana Quezada. Doris de Los Santos, backed by many progressive Democrats, lost to Senator Frank Ciccone, a friend to labor but not so much the rest of the left. In a three-way race in Pawtucket, incumbent Jaime Doyle beat Matt Fecteau 40.3 percent to 37.4 percent.

Of the 12 legislative candidates the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats endorsed (as of mid-August), six won. The Working Families Party endorsed 10 candidates and eight of them won. Incumbent Eileen Naughton lost to Camile Vella-Wilkinson in Warwick/West Warwick and Dennis Lavallee lost to Jena Petrarca-Karampetsos.

“Voters are clearly hungry for bold progressive policy,” said Georgia Hollister Isman, Working Families Party Rhode Island state director. “These victories send a clear message to the legislature—it is time for some big changes.”

Today, September 13, is our first major test of how our RI post Bernie efforts will play out. RI Progressives had an amazing victory in April  with the Presidential primary going to Senator Bernie Sanders  by a staggering 12% and we need that  energy to carry through today.   We encourage everyone to vote for our endorsed candidates so we can keep the momentum up to create a new culture in our state.   There are too many democrats who are unresponsive to the needs of their constituents and there are too many democrats who are entrenched in the corruption that has tarnished the General Assembly for many years.

The RI General Assembly needs fresh blood.  It needs to reflect the progressive movement that was energized by the Bernie Sanders campaign.  And the only way that can happen is if the people in this state vote.   RI Progressive Democrats as well as like minded candidates and organizations throughout the state have been working tirelessly to spread the word about  candidates who will instill a new sense of pride in the General Assembly.   It is time to vote out anti-choice, pro-gun candidates.  It is time to vote out members of the assembly who are beholden to corporate interests and Wall Street.  It is time we have a General Assembly who represents the values and needs of hard working Rhode Islanders across the Ocean State. That has to happen TODAY so in November we can take back the State House and make RI true blue again!

To check out RIPDA Endorsed Candidates please visit our website.

To Find your voting location  please visit the Secretary of State Website.

Lauren Niedel

Deputy State Coordinator of RI Progressive Democrats of America.

Democratic Committeewoman -District 40

More than a dozen people showed up for the event, only to learn from the hastily printed signs that the meeting was cancelled. People told me that they had made great efforts to be at this meeting. One man brought his six year old daughter with him, others arranged to leave work early. A nurse handed off a patient to her co-worker, and lost out a couple of hours of pay.

Several people, expecting a long meeting, paid for two hours of parking, as the on street parking, which used to be free at 6pm, is now free after 9pm. In all I talked to six people who paid for parking, including Sister Mary Pendergast, who said she’s “on a very limited budget.”

Representative Aaron Regunberg showed up. But even he, when asking various City Hall workers, including the Council President Chief of Staff Cyd McKenna, couldn’t get an adequate answer as to why the meeting suffered a last minute cancellation.

Councillor Seth Yurdin arrived ten minutes before the meeting was due to start. He had received a text ten minutes before arriving telling him the meeting was cancelled. He said he didn’t know why the meeting was cancelled. He had no more insight, it seems, than anyone else.

The people who arrived for the meeting were all prepared to give testimony on the resolution concerning the project at Fields Point, a center of toxic industry located in one of the poorest neighborhoods of color in New England. This was Councillor Seth Yurdin’s second resolution in opposition to the facility, and it was a much stronger statement.

Though Yurdin’s resolution was co-sponsored by half the City Council, passage of the resolution was prevented when Councilors Jo-Ann Ryan and Terrence Hassett flipped their votes.

The resolution was sent to the Ordinance Committee which Hassett chairs. Hassett said at the time that, “I co-sponsored it but a committee review is necessary for a proper vetting and discussion before it is transmitted to the full Council.”

When I asked about why he cancelled the Monday evening meeting that would have allowed for “proper vetting and discussion,” Hassett said, in a written statement:

“The LNG ban, as proposed by Councilman Yurdin, has merit. I co-sponsored it on the floor of the City Council Session.

“However, we have not heard sufficient testimony from the energy developers on the plan itself – the productive results, the environmental impact – what is good versus bad. I’m an environmentally sensitive citizen and public servant, as most of us are. A new and productive proposal, as promised, is certainly worthy of discussion.”

Note that the “energy developers” Hassett is referring to is National Grid, a company that had just as much time and notice to make it to this meeting as the environmental advocates who made the effort to show up for the meeting did. In fact, National Grid has more time, if you take into account the fact that the company employs a full time legal staff.

“My difficulty,” continued Hassett, “is simply approving a resolution banning it until proper testimony is presented. Its akin to a court case. We cannot indict until and unless proper and verified evidence is presented and the jury agrees. Legislative language presents an argument.

“In this case I co-sponsored it on the floor of the City Council. My concern or our general concern is this….we need discussions in an open forum from those proposing the LNG and receive any counter testimony on the plan or proposal.

“Many have advocated transparency in government. I believe in it. It’s how the best decisions are made. So we will carefully review this proposal, a $40 million effort  should it meet our needs, our environmental protections and city economy.

“That’s my assessment based on your inquiry. It will be heard. Just better prepared for our decision makers and the public.”

Many who arrived at the City Hall to find the meeting cancelled are convinced that there were some backroom shenanigans involved. But no proof of these speculations will ever materialize. Instead, the blame for cancelling this meeting rests solely on Hassett and his decision, as he explains above.

I asked Hassett a follow up.

“The meeting was cancelled at 4:30. When meetings are scheduled on Friday afternoon and cancelled moments before they are to start on Monday, many people feel that there are shenanigans going on behind the scenes. At the very least, it shows a lack of concern for those who make the effort to attend. Do you have a comment on this?”

I received no answer.

I’ve experienced something like this before. Back in May 2014 a Providence City Council Ordinance Committee meeting that was to discuss the proposed $15 minimum wage for hotel workers was cancelled at the last minute, leaving dozens of working women in the lurch. At the time I wrote, “Working women secured childcare or brought their kids with them. They skipped meals, skipped overtime and traveled to the City Hall on foot, on buses or in carpools, only to find out that the Ordinance Committee meeting had been abruptly cancelled.”

The cancellation of this meeting allowed the General Assembly the time it needed to include an amendment in the State Budget to prevent municipalities like Providence from setting their own minimum wages, frustrating months of activism on the part of the hotel workers. The chair of the Ordinance Committee then was Seth Yurdin.

“I couldn’t care less about that ass,” Malik said about Nugent.

When friends on Facebook noted the Ted Nugent connection, Malik took the photo down, even though he still stands by the meme, saying that the picture and the words make an important point.

The picture is accompanied by the words, “Would the suppressed millionaire, NFL quarterback, who would not stand for the National Anthem please point out which of these guys are black so we can remove the offensive flag.”

Malik says he did not see this meme as racist. To Malik the point was that, “you can’t tell who’s black or white beneath the flag. The [soldiers] should all be respected.”

The meme Malik re-posted was made in response to NFL player Colin Kaepernick.

When Kaepernick announced back in August that he was “not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” he started an important, spiraling conversation about race, police violence, the National Anthem and free speech.

Kaepernick was striving to make point about police killing people of color. “To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way,” Kaepernick said. “There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

Malik maintains that not standing for the National Anthem disrespects our veterans and is a “disgrace.” Taking a knee, he said, “is a little bit better, but not good enough for me.”

The backlash against Kaepernick seems to have emboldened other NFL players to express solidarity, but so far no other players have chosen to remain seated. Instead, over the weekend four Miami Dolphins took a knee during the anthem, and two New England Patriots raised a fist.

“The way they are protesting the flag is a disgrace,” said Malik. “There are other ways to protest the killings of blacks – and whites – by police. Standing arm in arm is better, white and black together.”

Malik was referring to the Kansas City Chiefs and the Seattle Seahawks who locked arms in solidarity during the anthem.  The Seahawks said they wanted to “bring people together” while the Chiefs vowed to “work with local law enforcement officials and leaders to make an impact on the Kansas City Community.”

Football players like Kaepernick need to set the right example, says Malik. “They’re looked up to” by kids.

Malik says he understands the importance of free speech, but he takes not standing for the anthem personally, because he lost a friend last August in the war. “I really do think it’s wrong to not stand for the National Anthem. I believe that Black Lives Matter.”

Kaepernick “made his point,” said Malik, “We Americans don’t need anything else to divide us. We’re all Americans. We have to work together to make this world a better place.”

Malik, who serves as the chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee is facing a challenge from Jason Knight in tomorrow’s primary. Knight served in the U.S. Navy from 1988 to 1996 as an enlisted nuclear power technician.