In many places in the private sector, anything less than a 10-hour day is derisively referred to as working  ”half-a-day”.

Purely by accident, I learned the May 5 is the anniversary of what is called the Bay View Massacre in Milwaukee, Wisc.

The gist is that on May 5, 1886,  seven people, including a 13-year old boy, were shot and killed by National Guardsmen during a strike.  The workers were striking for an 8-hour day.

The account on Wikipedia is pretty short.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_View_Massacre

The strike started on May 1, with about 7000 workers.  By May 4, the number had swollen t0 14,000.  (I’m guessing that both numbers probably included sympathy protesters.)  At that point, the Republican governor brought in 250 Guardsmen.  The next day, he gave the order to “shoot to kill” any workers who tried to enter the grounds 0f the Milwaukee Iron Company, where the strikers worked.

On May 5, the strikers/protesters attempted to enter the grounds, and the Guardsmen opened fire.  Seven people died.

This is the history of labor. Capital and property were often protected by deadly force. Capital held a monopoly on the force of “law and order”, so the latter were used, almost exclusively, to prevent workers from attempting to organize.

Given that Capital had a monopoly on the law, it’s a bit silly to suggest that workers had any sort of leverage or clout to negotiate better conditions on the basis of individual contracts.  Yet this, I believe, is what the ‘right to work’ position suggests: that unions interfere with the ability of a company to enter a contract with an individual worker.  Correct me if I’m wrong.

But the point is, when Capital controls the law, the worker has no basis for negotiation. A real, live, effective negotiation requires that both sides have something the other side wants. If  a company is able to fire any worker asking for a better deal, there is no way to suggest that anything like an equal balance exists between the two negotiating parties. The company holds all the cards.

The only way workers can deal in anything like equal negotiations is if the workers are organized. That way, the company has some incentive to accept that workers have something like a roughly equal bargaining position.

In a world where even lawyers are finding themselves expendable, outsourceable, and lacking in bargaining power as they look for jobs, it’s really kind of silly to suggest that straight wage earners can negotiate with employers for better terms.  In fact, this is one reason Republicans have fought Obama tooth and nail trying to derail any attempt to stimulate the economy: employers love it when unemployment is north of 8%. That effectively kills all ‘wage pressure.’

This means you get circumstances like we have: high unemployment, low wage growth, but phenomenal profits for corporations and executives.  Just like we had in the 1880s.

And, as we’ve seen, Capital was willing to kill to maintain its position of dominance.

This is why I so vehemently object to current Republican policies: we tried it. People died. It didn’t work, unless you were a plutocrat. Create the same conditions, chances are we’ll get the same outcome.

Today, after voting against it yesterday, he penned an op/ed for the Huffington Post today critical of the bill writing, “less than a year after a similar proposal was defeated, the House Republican leadership held a vote on a budget proposal that would extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, make deep cuts to programs that serve middle class families and end the Medicare guarantee for our seniors.”

Cicilline spoke out against the bill earlier in the week saying, “My home state of Rhode Island has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. My constituents need common-sense solutions that will create jobs and get our country back on the right track not another extreme proposal from the House Republican leadership.”

He said the bill would give the richest Americans an average tax break of $150,000 a year.

The top-down budget proposal passed the Republican-controlled House largely along party lines. Politco said of the bill:

“Just 10 Republicans defected, and the 228-191 vote gives the embattled GOP leadership what it most wanted: a show of party unity behind a bold election-year vision that includes new private options for Medicare and a simplified Tax Code. But the price paid by Congress will be big: wrecking havoc with hard-fought bargains under the Budget Control Act and inviting another shutdown fight with Senate Democrats and Obama unless the House again reverses course.”

Now, if you’ve managed to avoid the writings of this Brown graduate, I applaud you. But to give you the idea of his writing, it’s just the right balance of out-of-touch, denigrating, arrogant, and elitist opinion that Brown has a reputation for producing (yes, Brown produces it on the left as well as on the right; their centrists are the same as well).

In Mr. Rowley’s mind, Democrats are socialists. No. Wait. They’re Republicans. Obama’s election? A “far-left takeover of Washington“.

It’s not hard to see why Republicans have been marginalized in this state, only electable in traditional strongholds and where Democrats are failing. With Rowley attempting to channel Glenn Beck, their now-former leader in the House being twice arrested for drug use, their former party chairman lying to them about the state of the party’s coffers, and their candidates for national office flubbing interviews, it’s no wonder few Rhode Islanders trust the Republicans to handle the state’s affairs any better than Democrats have. What are they offering?

Indeed, what are they offering that Democrats can’t also provide? There are Democrats who are just as conservative as any Republican. Social conservatives in Rhode Island are quite happy to vote Democrat; especially given the state’s Catholic nature. Rhode Island’s Democratic Party, largely thanks to its willing embrace of immigrant and Catholic communities during the 19th Century, managed to combine social conservatism and economic interventionism and marry it to pro-interventionist social liberals. When it wants to, the Party embraces free-market principles as well, such as implementing the flat tax.

Republicans paint themselves further into a corner when they lob attacks at the cities. However mismanaged they may be, referring to the metro area where the largest swathes of Rhode Islanders live and work as a “black hole” isn’t a way to make oneself beloved to the voting public. Republicans increasingly portray themselves as the party of country elites (as they long have been). Outflanked by Democrats from the left and right, Republicans have further removed themselves right, a strategy tailor-made to increase their already dangerously poor irrelevance.

Another problem is that they’ve begun mistaking Democrats losing for Republicans winning. John Robataille came in a close second in 2010 when Frank Caprio managed to piss off not only the progressive wing of his own party, but also loyal Democratic partisans with his now infamous “Obama can take his endorsement and shove it.” If there’s one thing Rhode Islanders hate, it’s bad national publicity about our state, and we punish those who bring it on us; alternatively, bring us good publicity, and we reward you. Brendan Doherty, who has revealed himself as a currently-inept candidate, is up in the polls only because U.S. Congressman David Cicilline is so poorly regarded in Congressional District 1.

I think largely this type of thinking is because Republicans in Rhode Island look at the national party and say “we must follow their lead.” But Rhode Island despises the national Republican Party. If Lincoln Chafee had not had an “R” next to his name like a scarlet letter, he would still be a senator in Washington, D.C. today. Tea Party politics may have energized the Republican base in 2010, while the Democratic base was depressed by two-year shellacking during the healthcare debate that failed to win anything beyond a Heritage Foundation-inspired healthcare system, previously supported by Republicans. This was a one-time opportunity for the Republicans. They picked up four seats in Rhode Island’s House and four in the Senate while losing the Governor’s office. The strategy simply doesn’t work.

It would be mean of me to lay out the problems without suggesting up solutions, and I aim to do as much. Simply put, the best way to win is to outflank the Democrats. Ironically, two of the Republican-elected officials pointed out the way to do this, albeit inadvertently. Sen. Bethany Moura (R-Cumberland) and Rep. Dan Gordon (Libertarian-Portsmouth)* blasted Attorney General Peter Kilmartin for joining the robo-signing settlement (although Mr. Gordon made a mistake which undermined the central point). Did anyone take the lawmakers seriously? No. But plenty of progressives have been criticizing this settlement since its inception. Maybe this part of a new Republican strategy to penalize the banks and win populist support. Pat Robertson seems to be getting liberal with age, suggesting bankers should’ve been arrested. In which case, that would be an outflanking of the Democratic Party.

President Eisenhower

Republicans have abandoned their pedigree in favor of a conservatism that’s radically new. Let’s not forget, the Republican Party freed the slaves, joined in fusion with the Populist Party in some states, gave birth to a the Progressive Movement and even some socialist ones. Republicans busted trusts and warned us of the dangers of the military-industrial complex. Their northern wing joined northern Democrats in passing the Civil Rights Act. Even Mr. Conservative himself, Barry Goldwater, has an award named after him for his pro-choice policies.

Republicans in Rhode Island should be drawing on these legacies. Instead of insulting the electorate as “anti-American” whenever it votes against them (saying it doesn’t make it true), Republicans need to embrace an all-Rhode Island strategy. This does not mean throwing aside their libertarian and conservative wings, but rather running candidates to the left of Democrats in districts where that’s feasible. This means, yes, running candidates who will oppose their dogma on immigration policy. Those who will oppose them on tax policy.

This means running on a platform of pro-people values. Radical Randian Objectivism only inspires the greedy. The argument should be that the Republican Party can allow people to transcend their current circumstances. But if the argument is that the poor are leeches and the rich are fleeing the state, well, it’s clear why that argument dooms Republicans to irrelevance. Rowley-style bile isn’t what people respond to. We respond to values we want to associate ourselves with. Republicans can’t win running as the anti-Democrats. They have to stand for values Rhode Islanders want to associate with.

______________________

*Dan Gordon’s political affiliation varies from source to source.

The air of inevitability is off, and though the math still favors Mr. Romney in the delegate race, his path to victory looks increasingly shaky.

Faced by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), and serving Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), Mr. Romney has had all the advantages in this race: money, name recognition, unlimited spending via SuperPACs, endorsements, support of the Republican establishment, and virtual “runner-up” status from the 2008 Republican presidential primary. And yet, he can’t seem to finish off any of his remaining opponents.

As the race continues it seems that the Republican Party’s much-vaunted discipline is falling apart in this presidential primary. Since the 1950s, Republicans have almost reliably nominated candidates at the convention who have been a credible runners-up in a previous primary season or else were vice president. Nixon: vice president; Ford: vice president; Reagan: runner-up in 1968 & 1976; George H. W. Bush: vice president and a runner up in 1980; Dole: runner-up in 1988; and McCain: the runner-up in 2000. The two aberrations have been Barry Goldwater in 1964 and George W. Bush in 2000; but in both those cases no candidate had been a previous runner-up or a vice president.

Interestingly, this begs the question, should Mr. Santorum emerge at the convention as the nominee and then lose, would Mr. Romney get another shot in 2016? I’d say no, simply because having lost two primary races in a row and a loss this year after virtually being the presumptive nominee would probably spell the end of his presidential ambitions. In such a scenario, Mr. Santorum’s ambitions would be over as well, leaving the Republican Party with no obvious nominee in 2016. But should Mr. Romney win, expect to see Mr. Santorum again in 2016 or 2020.

Unless, of course, American politics are about to undergo a sea change. Republicans nationwide appear to be eating themselves. The social agenda of the Tea Party and its politicians have made them the most unpopular group in the country. Less conservative candidates are unable to catch fire with the increasingly conservative base. Meanwhile, moderates continue their exodus from the Republicans while RINO-hunters are after their heads.

Each of the remaining candidates seems to represent a constituency in the Republican party. Mr. Romney represents the elite establishment interests. Mr. Santorum represents religious and social conservatives. Mr. Paul represents libertarians. And Mr. Gingrich represents philandering hypocrites. This may be because parties in America are less political parties than large coalitions of relatively unorganized factions. That the candidates seem to be reliably taking portions of various voters points to an increasing factionalism within the Republican Party.

Trust in the parties to accomplish the task of governing is at an all-time low. In this kind of environment, radical political movements like the Tea Party or Occupy Wall St. can come to the fore. However, with both groups having appeared to have spent their goodwill and life having moved on without them, look for new ones to crop up. Both parties are going to have to reinvent themselves to stay relevant with shifting demographics. But if it’s fair to say there’s a Republican Civil War going on, then it remains to be seen whether it’ll give them a head start or delay the process.

Brendan Doherty, Republican candidate for U.S. Congressional District 1

Would I vote for retired State Police Colonel Brendan Doherty? Not from what I’ve seen (I also don’t believe that the Republicans have governed their half of the Congress well; though I wouldn’t say Democrats have done much better).

But that doesn’t mean I won’t listen to him before I cast my vote this November in the U.S. Congressional District 1 race. So I’m glad Rhode Islanders got a chance to hear the presumptive Republican nominee on WPRI’s Newsmakers. But how did he do?

Well, appearance-wise, Col. Doherty looks like anyone, though with well-groomed hair. But that could easily be said of the race’s incumbent, Congressman David Cicilline. However, Col. Doherty appeared (to me) to be hunched over during the interview; sometimes it felt like he was bobbing and weaving around the bottom half of the screen.

Furthermore, he could put a bit more attention into his collar; his tie seemed to bulge out around his neck, causing what should be a nice straight collar to ripple, making him look less professional than he probably is.

Those are things his media team/person should cover with him, working on keeping the wardrobe neat and his on-camera appearance level. This race will be covered well, which means that it’s likely Col. Doherty will be on television many times more. Nailing how to position yourself for the camera has been part of the strong politician’s repertoire since Kennedy vs. Nixon. But voters don’t care about appearance, right? After all, they’ll decide this on the issues! Well, WPRI’s Tim White and Ted Nesi, joined by RI Public Radio’s Ian Donnis, have those covered.

Col. Doherty isn’t bad on the first question about why he wants to run. Comments about Col. Doherty when John Loughlin was still seeking the Republican nomination often focused on claiming Col. Doherty was a Democrat in Republican clothing, and to his credit, he hasn’t let that get him. Col. Doherty doesn’t shy away from saying he’ll buck his own party and doesn’t back down from that position despite coming out and saying cleanly that’s he a conservative Republican. He’s free to say that he won’t be beholden to his party now, because he won’t face a primary challenge, but it could’ve hurt him with Republican voters had a primary opponent existed. As it is, it’s decent positioning. It casts him as a Lincoln Chafee-style Republican (circa 2004) while not bringing up Governor Chafee’s name, which isn’t as beloved as it once was in the state.

He flubs the Bush tax cuts question pretty badly. Given the heated nature of the extension, that this is likely to be at least a minor campaign issue. I don’t understand why he says he’s for letting them all (or most of them) expire. There’s a few ways to read that answer:

1. Col. Doherty doesn’t understand the issue/simply didn’t listen to or understand the question at that moment.
2. He doesn’t want to stick to Republican orthodoxy.
3. He’s trying the whole “raise taxes on the poor” message that’s come along in some Republican camps (though letting the tax cuts expire wouldn’t do that, really).

Regardless, it’s not his strongest points. Where I’m with the Colonel is on the following issues:

1. The Affordable Health Care Act is confusing as hell.
2. The age for social security kicking in can probably be increased for younger folks, (though I think, at the very least, changing it for high-wage earners might be a good idea).

But then you have the typical avoidance answer of looking at waste and fraud as a way to cut the deficit. Mr. White tries to head that off, but to no avail, that’s the answer Col. Doherty wants to give. Anything else is “on the table” or “for review”. And while that might work for Rhode Island politics, it just doesn’t cut it for national politics. If you’re going to cut, you need to name something. You can practically see the exasperation on the reporters’ faces as Col. Doherty launches into waste and fraud; you can hear it in their responses telling him how often they hear it and just how little it really matters.

His response is pretty typical on Israel. Stock Israel policy; “strongest ally in the Middle East”, “stand with the people of Israel”, etc., etc. Except that he’s been to Israel for a week on counterterrorism training, so that’s at least slightly different. No nuance in the issue.

It’s hard to tell whether his position on President Obama’s contraception policy will hurt him or help him. I’d err towards the former, since a Brown poll found that women and young voters support Obama’s revised policy. Since Doherty is weak with young voters, and since they’ll play a larger part in a presidential election year (though not as strongly as 2008 due to Obama fatigue), he might want to rethink that stance. Couching it as an attack on the Catholic Church is rather nonsensical (Catholics and Democrats have a long-standing historical relationship) but would probably get a lot of support in Cranston. Unfortunately, they vote in CD2.

Col. Doherty appears to inadvertently make a statement which is should hold resonance for recession Rhode Island: that he’s been in hard times. “I know what it’s like to need, I know what it’s like to want,” he says, relating the story of his family becoming poor after being well-off due to family illness, discussing the possibility of losing their house and him being unable to attend then-Bryant College. For people struggling under Rhode Island’s ruined economy, that should be Col. Doherty’s lead-off pitch. Unfortunately, instead of that coming up during a question about the economy, it’s about making compromises and tough choices. While that’s fine, it’s clearly the strongest part of his campaign, and something that could draw a stark line between him and Mr. Cicilline (assuming Mr. Cicilline is the Democratic nominee, as rumblings of a primary challenge still exist).

This is where Col. Doherty could be weak to Mr. Cicilline. Economic arguments should be the focus of this campaign. By weighing in on social issues, Col. Doherty opens himself to attacks along those lines, which distract from the argument that Republicans should be the caretakers of the economy. Take the Tea Party for example. Tea Party members are really just the same social conservatives that have always existed in the Republican Party. But in 2010, they ignored social issues in favor of economic ones, leading to a titanic wave during the midst of the recession. But since that time, the state legislatures they captured have introduced more and more social issues bills, and it’s no surprise that the Tea Party has polled as more unpopular than Atheists and Sarah Palin. Col. Doherty just handed a hammer for any Democrat to hit him with.

Conspicuous in its absence? Providence.

Among the prominent names are Joe Paolino, Myrth York and Ray Rickman as Barack Obama delegates and Don Carcieri, Scott Avedisian and Alan Fung as Mitt Romney delegates.

All 135 candidates now have until Feb. 28 to collect the signatures of at least 150 eligible voters in order to qualify to appear on the ballot. The public can follow the progress they are making achieving the 150-signature threshold on our website at sos.ri.gov.

Fifty-two Rhode Islanders hope to represent President Obama at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC, the week of Sept. 3. Voters will elect 22 delegates on April 24.

Romney led all Republican candidates with 27 delegates hoping to go to the Republican National Convention Aug. 27-30 in the Tampa Bay area of Florida. Twenty-three Rhode Islanders filed to be Ron Paul delegates, followed by 22 for Rick Santorum and 11 for Newt Gingrich. No one filed to run uncommitted or as a Buddy Roemer delegate. Voters will elect 16 delegates and 16 alternates.

April 24’s presidential primary will be the first test of the state’s new Voter ID law. Rhode Islanders must register to vote by March 24 in order to cast a ballot in the presidential primary. April 3 is the deadline to apply for a mail ballot, which do not require Voter ID.

When the police arrived, they saw a white Volvo sedan in the lot, with its rubber tire missing from the rim on the front driver’s side. The driver’s side door was open and a man who identified himself as Robert Watson was standing beside it, according to the police. There were no passengers in the car.

“The officers observed what appeared to be a pipe commonly used to smoke marijuana on the driver’s side floor of the Volvo,” Buckley said. “The officers also discovered a clear sandwich bag containing a green, leafy substance believed to be marijuana in the area of the driver’s seat.”

This is after his April, 2011 arrest in Connecticut for DUI and possession of marijuana when stopped at a sobriety checkpoint.

Police stopped Watson, a Republican state representative from the wealthy town of East Greenwich, Rhode Island at a police checkpoint in East Haven on Friday and there was a “strong odor of marijuana” coming from Watson’s car, East Haven Sgt. Gary DePalma said.

Which was after a comment made that offended the Guatemalan community (anyone who has ever watched Watson perform at his best on the House floor knows that this is pretty typical for him).

“I guess that if you are a Guatemalan gay man who likes to gamble and smoke marijuana, you probably think we are onto some good ideas here.”

Shortly after his April arrest, Rep. Watson was ousted as Minority Leader in the House on a vote of 6 to 2.

Considering this new arrest, his denial of the April charges and his statement regarding that arrest seem, ummm, less than authentic.

I honestly don’t really care whether or not Rep. Watson smokes pot.  And I give him credit for being a sponsor on the 2005 medical marijuana legislation.  I do care, however, that he was driving erratically, under the influence, and could have hurt or killed someone.  That isn’t cool at all.

But with this new arrest, my guess is that his days in the General Assembly are numbered.  While I’m not privy to any information regarding a Republican primary challenger (oddly, Republican Party insiders don’t like talking to me), there is at least one Democrat who formally kicked off his campaign in November, Dr. Mark Schwager.

Schwager served on the East Greenwich Town Council for two terms, from 2006 to 2010. He ran for former Sen. Michael Lenihan’s seat in the Nov. 2010 election, but lost in that contest to North Kingstown’s Dawson Hodgson.

In the 2010 election, Schwager lost to Hodgson by 928 votes (of a total of 11,084 cast).

Dr. Mark Schwager is well-known in East Greenwich politics.  In addition to the two terms he served on the East Greenwich Town Council and was recently appointed as the town’s Fire District Commissioner, by a unanimous vote.  Speaking about his campaign against Watson, he said:

“I just think it’s a better race for me,” he said. “I’m very involved in East Greenwich, in municipal politics and government and community service. I know the area really well, the issues really well. My kids have been through the school system. I have my medical practice here. I was on the Council here. So I’m just very focused on this community.”

Time will tell.

As for money, Bob Watson had $5,167.25 as of September 30, and Mark Schwager had $12,395.75 as of September 30.  The last quarter 2011 reports aren’t due until the 31st, and it will be interesting to see if Rep. Watson catches up.

And how is this for irony…

…released [Watson] at 4:20 a.m. Sunday morning.

4:20… now that’s funny.

The ad says Mr. Santorum voted to “let convicted felons vote” — something the senator says is “explicitly false” because it implies, though it never says, that he wanted felons to be able to vote from jail. The vote Mr. Santorum cast, Senate vote No. 31 in 2002, would have overridden state laws when it comes to federal elections. It would have required them to let felons register to vote once they have completed their prison sentences and any probation or parole.

Romney, at first, beat around the bush.  “I don’t believe people who have committee violent crimes should be given their right to vote.”

Santorum retorted that, while Romney was governor of Massachusetts, the law allowed people on probation and parole (including those who committed violent crimes) could in fact vote.  And Romney did nothing to fight it.

In fact, until 2000, prisoners in Massachusetts could vote- just as they currently can in Maine and Vermont.

The problem here is about creating and underclass in America, a caste of Americans with no stake in the democracy.  A group, millions strong, who are told to pay taxes, abide by the laws, yet have no representation.  How can  a democracy survive with parents barred from the ballot box?  How can such a large group, with further discrimination in employment and housing, be expected to abide by the law?  Most of them will, and most do, but this is a credit to people’s basic human instinct to live in peace and harmony.  It is not due to political leadership.

Was the Commonwealth of Massachusetts somehow saved when prisoners were barred from participation?  Was the state of Rhode Island somehow dismantled when people on probation and parole were granted their voting rights in 2006?  I was part of the latter ballot campaign, going so far as drafting the final constitutional amendment… just one year removed from prison, for a violent crime.  It is ironic that I move to Louisiana for law school and legally lose my right to vote.  It should come as no surprise that I felt much more connected to the democracy, to my responsibilities as a citizen, in the state where I could vote.

Also, even though there has been some speculation about Gemma and Segal jumping in, I can’t imagine either of them being candidates this year, so I think Cicilline won’t have to go through a primary fight either.  Let’s review the circumstances leading up to the 2010 election to explain why:

• On February 11, Patrick Kennedy decided not to run for reelection.
• That set off a seismic shift in the Rhode Island political landscape and Bill Lynch and David Cicilline both immediately jump in to the CD1 race.
• After a few months, on May 12, David Segal announced his candidacy for Congress, followed by Anthony Gemma in early June.

Some may say this proves that Segal and Gemma have plenty of time to announce, but the situation this time around is different.  CD1 is no longer an open seat; now it is occupied by Rep. David Cicilline.  While Gemma or Segal are still wildcards, and could possibly announce, any Democrat who wants to run a strong challenge against Cicilline probably should be in the race by now.  This is why I think the race will be between Cicilline and Doherty.

And I think Cicilline wins.  Here’s why:

Cicilline’s message will be (and should be): vote for me so Republicans don’t have another seat in the House from which to advocate the destruction of the lives of middle-class Americans.  I know that is hyperbolic, that was my intention, especially considering Obama using the legacy of Republican intransigence as the perfect weapon against Republicans.  Judging by the post Rep. Cicilline submitted to the blog, Standing Together for Progressive Values, he has laid out his main key campaign themes for the election season:

• Protect Social Security and Medicare from Republicans who want to destroy them
• Protect the Environment from Republicans who want to destroy it
• Tax People Fairly to pay for these things that Rhode Islanders actually want (that’s pretty important to remember – Cicilline is talking about things that Rhode Islanders care about)

In contrast, Doherty and the Republican and Conservative groups that will be supporting him will look back on Cicilline’s experience as Mayor of Providence (since he is a freshman Congressman in the minority party, there are no accomplishments in Congress to scrutinize).  They’ll bring up the financial problems facing Providence (ignoring the rest of the country) and blame it all on Cicilline.  But this has already been covered and discussed to death after he was elected, and I’m not sure how much airtime rehashing this theme will get.

Moreover, all we have to do is look to Central Falls, East Providence, West Warwick, and to some extent Pawtucket, and realize that Cicilline didn’t cause all these other problems either.  The financial collapse that has destroyed budgets all over the country, and the notable decisions made at the State House to defund cities and town (including Providence), were all far beyond the control of Cicilline.  Also, in spite of what one might think about the way Mayor Angel Taveras handled the “Category 5 Hurricane” Providence faced last year, he handled it.  I don’t believe there will be the same crisis mode environment this year, and Taveras’s decisions will have largely mollified the degree of panic and anger that was being directed at Cicilline last year, to Cicilline’s benefit.  Politically speaking, it happened too soon for it to be as compelling an issue in November as Doherty and his supporters would like.

Two additional thoughts:

• Does Loughlin come out and actively support Doherty?  With a campaign account of about $13,000, there’s not much financial support Loughlin could offer, but there must be more than a few names on his email list from the 2010 campaign.  When you read Loughlin’s press statement, he doesn’t even mention Doherty.  I find that strange and wonder if there is resentment stemming from Doherty jumping in the race and stealing Loughlin’s thunder while he was in Iraq.
• RI redistricting will technically help Cicilline’s victory chances by shifting more “liberal” voters into the CD1 district while moving some “conservative” voters out, but will it come with a backlash of unintended consequence?  Will there be a significant number of voters offended by something that appears to be politically motivated?  I still think the net impact is a positive for Cicilline, but one has to wonder.

Problem solved.

But Paul did something unusual last night. In fact, as Republican candidates go he did something almost unheard of. The candidate obliquely mentioned Atheists and their right not to practice religion. Here’s the link to that part of his speech.

Paul may play the role of a libertarian ideologue, but he’s no fool. He knows that the youth support he enjoys because of his anti-war and anti-war on drugs policies sports the fastest growing non-religious population in the country. His speeches about FREEDOM resonate with that crowd, and indeed he can be a compelling speaker, but is Paul being honest with the crowds about his true beliefs?

In fact, there is plenty of evidence that Ron Paul may be a closeted Christian Fundamentalist of the worst kind. As Alternet reported:

I encourage you to read the article in its entirety, including the bit where Paul spoke to the openly segregationist John Birch Society, and revealed that he is entirely able to speak their language. Paul enjoys the support of such racist groups as Stormfront, as reported by Katha Pollitt at NPR:

Atheists love it when they get mentioned in the larger political sphere. But we should be careful who we support and why. Religious opponents of atheism love to pull out the lie that Stalin, Mao and Hitler were motivated to murder and genocide by their lack of supernatural belief. Do we really want to reinforce that stereotype by supporting a man with racist, homophobic and misogynistic views, just because he uses the right buzzwords and tosses us the occasional shout out?

Hell no.