I’m glad the Rhode Island Democratic party is finally coming together to renounce the incredibly negative campaigning the Republicans have been resorting to. Let’s hope the media picks up on this story.

In my biased opinion, it’s the biggest meta-narrative of the local campaign this year, but I think it has a lot of merit for my brothers and sisters in the unbiased side of the industry as well.

Today at 1pm at Slater Mill all the Democratic heavyweights in the state – Sheldon, Jack Reed, Cicilline, Elizabeth Roberts, Gina Raimondo, Mayor Taveras and Ed Pacheco, among others (Langevin will be taping the WJAR debate) to call upon their Republican counterparts to stop slinging mud and start talking about issues.

It seems like every day either Brendan Doherty, Barry Hinckley or their operatives release a new dirty and misleading advertisement. Hinckley was just given a Pants on Fire by Politifact today for an untrue ad. Doherty’s ads make a pants on fire rating seem like a gold star though. They have literally been among the most atrocious I’ve ever seen. AP writer Michelle Smith does a nice job of summing up the ad here. She writes:

House Republicans are airing a TV ad in Rhode Island linking freshman Democratic Rep. David Cicilline to a child molester and a murderer he defended when he was a lawyer two decades ago.

A Doherty spokesman told Ian Donnis of RIPR earlier in the week that the campaign decided to go negative because Cicilline did first. Tim White chided Doherty when he offered this same flawed logic during a WPRI debate, saying, “you’re basically saying he started it.”

I think it’s laughable that Brendan Doherty calls himself a man of uncommon integrity and then runs this kind of dirty campaign. There’s no reason unbiased political reporters shouldn’t be calling out a candidate for such an obvious contradiction.

This kind of gutter campaigning isn’t good for anybody and Republicans should be held accountable for resorting to such dirty tactics. But, I suppose if they had a message that would resonate with Rhode Islanders, they’d be ringing that bell instead.

The two candidates for Senate had no shortage of differences in their first debate last night – you can read about it here, or watch the full thing here. Most interesting to me was Hinckley’s notion that the United States should no longer be tasked with serving as the world’s super power when it comes to global politics.

Progressive Portsmouth blogger John McDaid was at the debate … here’s what he writes.

Speaking of Sheldon, he’ll be at the Wild Colonial tonight for Drinking Liberally … hope to see you there.

And speaking of Barry Hinckley, doesn’t he remind you a little bit of Bobby Newport?

Mitt Romney may have given a shout out to the Ocean State during the POTUS debate Monday night, but he conveniently neglected to mention that his plan would cut funding to Rhode Island’s Medicaid program.

If Michael Woodmansee doesn’t want to vote, well that’s his right too … I have to wonder why he changed his mind…

Something I missed from Tuesday’s ProJo profile on Abel Collins: it said he was not invited to the WPRI debate because he didn’t score high enough in polls. In fact, WPRI chose not to tell the public why it didn’t include him (and CD1 candidate David Vogel) in their debates. The ProJo corrects the error today. It’s troubling enough when the market’s most trusted TV station can keep a candidate out of a debate, but it’s double trouble when the paper of record doesn’t know why…

WPRO’s Matt Allen has some questions about undecided voters … Saturday Night Live has some answers, humorously disguised as questions:

Here’s a profile on Winter Hames, the liberal Democrat from Narragansett running against popular Republican rookie Dawson Hodgson.

Bob Kerr’s column calls George McGovern “the man we should have listened to.”

File these two stories under the media doing good work: The Des Moines Register chastises Obama for not going on the record with them … and here in Rhode Island the AP and the ProJo join with the New York Times to sue the Catholic Church, which doesn’t want the public to know what happened with a woman’s will, whose niece claims she was defrauded.

Just in case there was any doubt in your mind, it’s all about Ohio. Says Nate Silver: “…Ohio is central enough in the electoral math that it now seems to matter as much as the other 49 states put together. I am not sure whether I should be congratulating you or consoling you if you happen to be reading this in Toledo.”

Today in 1940, Hugo Black’s Fair Labor Standards Act becomes law, it codifies a 40-hour workweek, an eight-hour workday and rules for overtime pay. Black went on to serve on the Supreme Court.

The economy is more than unemployment numbers, GDP and stock prices; it is a measure of our quality of life and participation in society. Let’s start looking at some of the issues that will have a profound impact on our economy and way of life in the future.

First, let’s take a quick trip in our “Way-Back” machine. Clean Water Action hard-wired it into all of our office computers a couple years ago. It is a useful tool for providing some context for the campaign rhetoric we are forced to consume every four years.

Here is an excerpt from a May 2008 speech by The Maverick, John McCain:

We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge… In the years ahead, we are likely to see reduced water supplies…more forest fires than in previous decades…changes in crop production…more heat waves afflicting our cities and a greater intensity in storms. Each one of these consequences of climate change will require policies to protect our citizens, especially those most vulnerable to violent weather.

What a prediction! Can you imagine a Republican Presidential nominee uttering such words? But would he propose a solution to such a national issue?

 To lead in this effort, however, our government must strike at the source of the problem… We know that greenhouse gasses are heavily implicated as a cause of climate change. And we know that among all greenhouse gasses, the worst by far is the carbon-dioxide that results from fossil-fuel combustion… We will cap emissions according to specific goals, measuring progress by reference to past carbon emissions. By the year 2012, we will seek a return to 2005 levels of emission…by 2020, a return to 1990 levels…and so on until we have achieved at least a reduction of sixty percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050… And in pursuit of these objectives, we cannot afford to take economic growth and job creation for granted. A strong and growing economy is essential to all of our goals, and especially the goal of finding alternatives to carbon-based technology. We want to turn the American economy toward cleaner and safer energy sources

Doth my eyes deceive? Was that a plan to address carbon emissions? How would a Democrat respond to such specifics? An upstart Senator from Illinois said this:

And in the long-term, few regions [speech was in Miami] are more imperiled by the stronger storms, higher floodwaters, and devastating droughts that could come with global warming. Whole crops could disappear, putting the food supply at risk for hundreds of millions. While we share this risk, we also share the resources to do something about it. That’s why I’ll bring together the countries of the region in a new Energy Partnership for the Americas. We need to go beyond bilateral agreements. We need a regional approach. Together, we can forge a path toward sustainable growth and clean energy. Leadership must begin at home. That’s why I’ve proposed a cap and trade system to limit our carbon emissions and to invest in alternative sources of energy. We’ll allow industrial emitters to offset a portion of this cost by investing in low carbon energy projects in Latin America and the Caribbean. And we’ll increase research and development across the Americas in clean coal technology, in the next generation of sustainable biofuels not taken from food crops, and in wind and solar energy.

Despite my dismay that President Obama has maintained radio silence on how he will reinvigorate the debate around a cap-and-trade system and reducing carbon emissions, the President has taken action to warrant a reelection endorsement by the environmental community. A short comparison of President Obama and Governor Romney provides the following:

•  Obama’s EPA negotiates with the auto industry to raise fuel standards vs. Romney’s claim that the EPA destroy’s jobs.
• Obama’s EPA begins to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants vs. Romney’s belief that protecting the planet hurts our families.

The President is only one piece of the puzzle. We need a U.S. Senate that is willing to take action. Addressing climate change is not just about wind turbines and solar power; it is about protecting American people and society. Weather patterns are continually more hostile for a much of American and global temperatures continue a steep rise, threatening our ocean and marine habitats. It is for a new path.

Collins campaign manager Dave Fisher said he “absolutely” thought his candidate would poll better, but critiqued the methodology of the poll, saying it relies on people who have landlines and thus overly-samples conservative voters, a theory pollsters deny.

“I would have liked to have seen us in the high teens,” Fisher said, noting that if internet users were better represented, Collins would be doing much better.

Incumbent Jim Langevin received 49.4 percent support in the poll and conservative Mike Riley got 31.5 percent support.

While Collins only got 4.7 percent support, that’s enough to be included to the WJAR debate. The poll has a margin of error of 6.3 percent. WJAR’s debat inclusion rules require a candidate get at 10 percent support.

“Once people see Abel on stage next to his opponents, a lot of people will change their minds,” he said.

The Brown poll is the fifth since the primary to show Congressman David Cicilline enjoying a 5.5 percent lead over his Republican opponent Brendan Doherty.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse did the best among congressional candidates getting 58.6 percent support. His challenger Barry Hinckley only got 29.7 percent.

“Voters also favored President Barack Obama (58.2 percent) over Republican Mitt Romney (32.3 percent) with 9.5 percent of voters still undecided in that race,” according to a press release on the polls results. “Among all registered voters, Obama received a 53.7 percent approval rating, with 45.6 percent disapproving of his performance. A similar number, 55.2 percent, approve of the way Obama is handling the economy, while 39.5 disapprove.”

Here’s a link to the full list of questions for the poll, and the responses.

The simplest theory as to why poll respondents didn’t give Hinckley very high marks is because his ideas are out of step with what Rhode Islanders want.

He’s a supporter of Paul Ryan’s draconian budget proposal, which would bleed Medicare dry and privatize social security.

And if that isn’t out-of-step enough for you, consider his recent statement on WJAR’s Sunday morning News Conference show that he “would abolish the Department of Education.”

Rhode Islanders don’t want that to happen!

The state gets about $230 million a year in federal funds from the Department of Education, or about 12 percent of its overall education dollars, according to Elliot Krieger, a spokesman for the state Department of Education. Both Providence and Central Falls get about 20 percent of their public education budgets from the federal government, he added.

“Federal funds pay for many initiatives, most notably Title I (aid to high-poverty schools and districts), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (funds for students with disabilities, in both public and nonpublic schools), and school nutrition programs (some of which comes from the Dept. of Agriculture),” Krieger said in an email.

Elimination of the Department of Education would be a disaster, though some of Hinckley’s disinterested out-of-state donors who don’t care what happens to Rhode Island might not mind if our children don’t have access to good schools.

And, it should be pointed out, that Barry Hinckley is well within his rights to run for Senate under the mantle of representing the elite rather than the Ocean State.

But he’s applying faulty reasoning when he suggests polls depicting his unpopularity are indicative of anything other than exactly that. Indeed, logical practically dictates that someone who espouses such views wouldn’t poll well here, where we place a high value on retirement security, medical care for the elderly and a quality public education for our kids.

The big news from the new poll for both politicos and progressives is that Congressman David Cicilline leapfrogged Brendan Doherty since the last WPRI poll and the liberal incumbent now leads the conservative challenger by six percentage points.

“The new survey of 250 likely voters in Rhode Island’s 1st Congressional District shows Democrat Cicilline at 44%, Republican Doherty at 38% and independent David Vogel at 6%, with 10% of voters undecided. That’s a 21-point swing since the February WPRI 12 poll, when Doherty led Cicilline 49% to 34%,” wrote Ted Nesi about Cicilline’s surge.

Pollster Joe Fleming said he was “surprised” at the size of the turnaround but I’m not. Rhode Islanders lean left and one of the candidates is and one isn’t liberal. While Doherty will continue to go negative against Cicilline, at the end of the day the incumbent isn’t nearly as toxic as is the Republican brand in the first congressional district.

Similarly, popular progressive Senator Sheldon Whitehouse holds a “commanding” lead over his “little-known” challenger Barry Hinckley. “Whitehouse leads among every subgroup of voters except Republicans,” writes Nesi. “The Democrat has a 26-point lead among women, a 26-point lead among voters ages 60 and older, and a nine-point lead among independents.”

Like the most progressive members of the congressional delegation, progressive policy proposals also fared well in the poll – most notably marriage equality.

“Same-sex marriage enjoys significant support in Rhode Island, with 56% of voters in favor of legalizing it, 36% opposed to doing so and 14% unsure,” according to WPRI. “Support is strongest among Democrats (72% in favor) and voters ages 18 to 39 (64% in favor), while opposition is highest among Republicans (59% opposed) and voters 60 and older (43% opposed).”

The overwhelming support for marriage equality could turn some State House politicians who were on the fence because they may have thought their constituents didn’t support equality.

“Every day more Rhode Islanders are raising a voice in support of marriage equality and this poll should serve as a wake up call to those politicians who continue to oppose equal rights. We look forward to working with legislators from both sides of the aisle when the General Assembly returns in January to finally make Rhode Island a state that honors the commitments and values the worth of all families,” said Ray Sullivan of Marriage Equality Rhode Island in a statement.

One poll question shows Rhode Islanders overwhelmingly supporting protecting Medicare over paying down the national debt by a 64 percent to 32 percent margin.  Another shows that while the economy and jobs is the most important issue to Rhode Islanders, with 54 percent of respondents saying so, more than twice as many (18 percent) said healthcare was the most important issue than said taxes (8 percent).

WPRI does a great job putting all their poll results into an interactive graphic that is really fun to play around with.

Later today, the TV station will release the results of poll questions pertaining to Gov. Linc Chafee, Treasurer Gina Raimondo, Providence Mayor Angel Taveras and President Obama.

Hinckley was endorsed by the Freedomworks PAC on Tuesday, which on its website describes itself as “leading the fight for lower taxes, less government, and more freedom.”

You can say that again.

Freedomworks is the anti-tax astroturfing group that secretly organized the first tea party protests in 2009, according to The Atlantic.

Here’s how a article in The Guaridan described the group:

It was set up by one of America’s richest men, David Koch, an oil tycoon who has funded rightwing causes for decades.

FreedomWorks receives funding from the tobacco conglomerate Philip Morris, as well as from Richard Scaife, another business tycoon, who for years helped fund dirt-digging investigations into Bill Clinton. Local branches of Americans for Prosperity have also received tobacco money; the group has opposed smoke-free workplace laws and cigarette taxes.

In the environmental area, too, there has been an affinity between the groups and the corporate interests that back them. ExxonMobil was a sponsor of Citizens for Sound Economy, and both FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity have campaigned vigorously against Obama’s plans to reduce CO₂ emissions through a cap and trade scheme, working closely with the American Petroleum Institute.

It’s endorsement of Barry Hinckley should speak volumes to Ocean Staters. I’m pretty certain most Rhode Islanders want our Senators to represent Rhode Island, not the Koch Brothers and ExxonMobile.

So far I haven’t heard anything from the Republican candidates running in Rhode Island. I left Dave Layman, from Brendan Doherty’s campaign, a voicemail. I just now left a message for Mike Riley, who is running against Jim Langevin. Patrick Sweeney, spokesman for Barry Hinckley, said he would email a statement by 3 pm, though I haven’t gotten anything from my inbox yet.

According to The Hill, Scott Brown, a Massachusetts incumbent who needs to defend his seat against middle class champion Elizabeth Warren, said, “That’s not the way I view the world. As someone who grew up in tough circumstances, I know that being on public assistance is not a spot that anyone wants to be in. Too many people today who want to work are being forced into public assistance for lack of jobs.”

And according to the Hartford Courant, Linda McMahon said, “I disagree with Governor Romney’s insinuation that 47% of Americans believe they are victims who must depend on the government for their care. I know that the vast majority of those who rely on government are not in that situation because they want to be. People today are struggling because the government has failed to keep America competitive, failed to support job creators, and failed to get our economy back on track.”

She actually posted her statement to her website, but she also has a history with the idea that 47 percent of the population doesn’t pay income taxes. Red the Courant story for details.

Would someone please let me know if the GOP congressional candidates from Rhode Island decide to speak up about this issue? Since both are accused of being too conservative for Rhode Island, and because Romney’s comments shined a light on what many liberals and moderates fear most about conservative Republicans, I think we should know what Brendan Doherty and Barry Hinckley think of Romney’s comment.

I’ll update this post if and when they speak on the matter.

First, right off the bat: anyone who uses the phrase “Democrat Party” is already showing their ignorance of the Democratic Party. You should still read their arguments, but chances are, they’re going to be off-base. And that’s what Donna Perry’s column in GoLocalProv is (the URL says Julia Steiny for some reason).

Ms. Perry tries to set up a scenario of a polarized RI Democratic Party; a “traditional apparatus” Democratic Party under the command of Chairman Ed Pacheco and another “union-social liberal” Democratic party, with NEARI’s Bob Walsh as leader (because, why not, that works). Ms. Perry’s scenario breaks down almost immediately, though she muddles through to the correct conclusion arrived at by the wrong route (that Democratic Primary results “lacking a narrative,” as WPRI’s Ted Nesi put it, are likely to continue). As Ms. Perry points out, there were a number of races where unions and marriage equality supporters worked for different candidates. If Mr. Walsh is to be the head of Ms. Perry’s fictional second Democratic Party, he seems to be doing a piss-poor job of it (no offense meant, Bob, but get your fictional party in line).

Ms. Perry points to two races for Senate; Maryellen Butke vs. Gayle Goldin and Mike McCaffrey vs. Laura Pisaturo. In the interest of space, I’ll focus solely on the former.

In Ms. Perry’s telling, Ms. Butke the marriage equality and education reform “powerhouse” is defeated by Ms. Goldin the union-chosen candidate. This faux narrative completely ignores the fact that Ms. Butke, despite gobs of cash, ran a confusing campaign that both bashed the Democratic Party and retiring Senator Rhoda Perry, and then tried proposing that Ms. Butke was the true “progressive successor” to Rhoda Perry. One mailing had Ms. Butke’s happy campaign on one side, and an attack piece on Ms. Goldin in mock Goldin colors on the other. The attack piece attempted to tie Ms. Goldin to policies she had nothing to do with, citing sources that make zero mention of Ms. Goldin; including one of Mr. Nesi’s blog posts that simply pointed out that the ultimate cost of the $75 million 38 Studios loan guarantee was closer to $112 million.

On top of this, Ms. Perry neglects to mention that Senator-elect Goldin isn’t exactly any kind of right-wing ideologue; she’s worked for an organization that wants to eliminate gender inequity and implement social justice! Oh, the horror! How could liberal Providence East Side Democratic Primary voters dare choose Ms. Goldin? In essence, there wasn’t much difference between the candidates, and Ms. Butke’s semi-negative campaigning was not effective (though she was quite energetic).

Ms. Perry has made the mistake of thinking of groups as monolithic. She’s done well in beginning to not think of the Democratic Party as monolithic. But now she’s gone and begun thinking of her fake “two Democratic Parties” as being monolithic. Or social liberal or union voters as monolithic. Just because you support marriage equality doesn’t mean you always vote for the louder marriage equality candidate. Just because you’re in a union doesn’t mean you’re going to vote the way the union tells you.

The Democratic Party in Rhode Island is not really under the control of anyone. It is a large-scale coalition of disparate groups. You can’t make blanket assumptions about any one group within that coalition. They range from various unions (unions often work against one another), environmental groups, farmers, various minority communities, LGBTQ activists, internet freedom activists, anti-poverty crusaders, pro-life activists, education reformers, corporate leaders, lawyers, neoliberals, etc., etc. Heck, even though he lost, ALEC Democrat Jon Brien is still very much part of the Democratic Party of Rhode Island.

If there is a narrative from primary night, it’s that the Democratic Party is shifting left. Unions and marriage-equality supporters didn’t really lose any ground, they only gained it, knocking off a number of their opponents. Yes, they didn’t win everything, but then, no one does. They all won under the Democratic Party banner, which should be pleasing to the Democratic Party (a displeasing result would be a large organized mass of union and/or social liberal candidate running as independents and not participating in the primary). David Cicilline absolutely crushed Anthony Gemma, which should make many Democrats smile. Going into the general election, Democrats are going to have quite an advantage, with higher turnout rates to support President Barack Obama.

So, no, Ms. Perry, as much as you, or I, might wish it, there are not three parties in Rhode Island. There’s one. It’s called the Democratic Party. It runs the state. It’s in charge. It screws up, it succeeds. How powerful is it, you might ask? Well, let’s see why I didn’t count the Republican Party as a party.

Take a look at the first television ads for Barry Hinckley and Brendan Doherty. They’re only 30 seconds each (and rather benign), so it’ll only take about a minute. Notice anything? Both candidates use the phrase “both parties” when talking about who to blame for America’s economic situation. Both fail to make use of the color red, strongly associated with Republicans, instead opting for blue (strongly associated with Democrats). And most damning of all? Neither mention their party affiliation; only Mr. Doherty shows it (barely) onscreen, I assume because of law forcing him to show that the National Republican Committee helped pay for the ad. That should tell you all you need to know about the Republican Party in Rhode Island.

While Barry Hinckley was inside the Ocean House wining and dining with Steve Forbes, the only man richer than Mitt Romney to run for president since Ross Perot, I was being verbally accosted outside by a security detail while the Raging Grannies sang a catchy tune.

I had shown up at the Ocean House, a posh establishment in the Watch Hill area of Westerly, to take some pictures of the Raging Grannies, who were protesting Barry Hinckley’s fundraiser. Hinckley’s exceptionally wealthy guests happened to include multi-millionaire and two-time failed Republican Presidential candidate Steve Forbes.

I had been asked if I would go down there and make sure the Grannies got some great pictures and video. A chance to be supportive of little old ladies singing protest songs about the 99% in front of one of the wealthiest individuals in the country? I thought, “Count me in!” and headed down there for what was sure to be an enjoyable time.

After taking some pictures and a little video, I decided to wander a little bit. Normally, this wouldn’t be a reason to be alarmed, but it turned out that I had unwittingly wandered onto private property– specifically, I walked into the parking lot across the street from Ocean House. Faster than you can say “DON’T TAZE ME, BRO!” I had two individuals– a man and a woman– charging toward me, demanding to know what I was doing there. I initially greeted them with a smile and a hello, not realizing they were coming at me aggressively. The woman got up in my face, yelling that she had “already told me” that I wasn’t allowed to be there.

I had never met this woman before in my life, so my gut reaction was to explain myself- I didn’t know I wasn’t supposed to be there, I hadn’t been told this prior to that point. She went on, threatening me, shouting that I was on private property, roaring for me to “GET OUT NOW.”

I was entirely baffled, stunned into feeling like I had to tell this woman that I was innocent, that I meant no harm, that I was just meandering. She mocked me, chiding that I wasn’t exiting the premises fast enough, demanding I get out. Was I supposed to leave entirely? Could I go back to where I was before she had decided I was some kind of horrible person, or was I being commanded to leave the entire area? Was I about to be manhandled? Arrested? I gave up trying to explain, let out a confused sound, and walked back to where the grannies were serenading the privileged American aristocracy from afar.

I’m not exactly sure what I did to provoke so much anger from this woman, but a simple “Excuse me, ma’am, you aren’t supposed to be here” would have been more than enough to elicit an apology for being in  the wrong place and my immediate compliance with her rational request that I leave the area. The immediate and overwhelming aggressive posturing displayed toward an innocent citizen was more reminiscent of the modus operandi of the TSA than that of a security detail for a political candidate and his wealthy friends. And we all know how much you hate the TSA, Mr. Hinckley.

I would imagine the explanation for this person’s aggression would be that I was asking for it, that I should have known better, and that I should have immediately complied with her demands, but the truth is that I had no idea what those demands were at the time– I was too overwhelmed with her irrational behavior to understand the situation. Upon reflection, I am quite sure that if this woman had been an armed police officer, I would’ve been tazed (or worse) before I would’ve had a damn clue what she was asking of me.

What rational discourse can be had when dealing with those primarily concerned with protecting their own wealth and privilege rather than being concerned with treating the rest of us as human beings who deserve as much respect as the mighty “job creators”?