RI Future Interview: Calkin Campaign Manager Capri Catanzaro


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Jeanine Calkin’s upset win over Senate President Pro Tem Bill Walaska was a centerpiece of the progressive movement’s wave of victories in this year’s primaries. For a behind the scenes look at the Calkin campaign, RI Future sat down with Campaign Manager Capri Catanzaro.Untitled

How does it feel to unseat Walaska?

If I were to sum up everything, it would be that I am proud of the work that Jeanine did—especially the fact that she was willing to put herself out there and dedicate her time and energy to a new lifestyle. She was very persistent with the work that I gave her, and I am very proud of the result.

What was your strategy?

The most important aspect of Jeanine’s campaign was being approachable and personable. We wanted to create a community of discussion around issues that were important to the constituents. Canvassing enabled us to develop relationships, and earn support.

What inspired you to get involved in politics?

I read Bernie’s platform, and I pretty much immediately decided that if I did not put all of my effort into electing this man, then I would be extremely disappointed in myself. I had never had any interest in politics before, but Bernie changed everything for me.

That’s interesting. Most people discover Bernie through watching him online, but you discovered him by reading his platform. That’s very issues focused.

I am 100% issues oriented. My main focus is always on enacting progressive policy to make peoples’ lives better.

So what did you do for Bernie?

How long do we have? I started by attending local events, was invited to help get out the vote in New Hampshire. I then decided to spend all my money on plane tickets to fly around the country to volunteer for Bernie. Everywhere I went, I wanted to make sure that I was bringing something new and helpful to that state. I did not want show up one day, eat the snacks, and talk to the organizers for fifteen minutes about why Bernie’s great. I wanted to make the biggest possible impact for Bernie that I could.

So what’s an example of something new that you brought to a state?

In New York, no one was touching two congressional districts in upstate New York, and I created a campaign hub for the area, and I opened three additional staging locations.

How did Bernie do in your area?

Oh, he won overwhelmingly, even though it was a very Republican area. It was so Republican that I met a woman who said she had to register as a Republican in order to even be considered for a job!

How many states total did you travel to to volunteer in?

Seven. Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Nevada, Texas, Missouri, New York, and California.

Wow, that’s a lot!

Yeah, I wish I could have done more.

What inspired you to run Jeanine’s campaign?

We had been working together to elect Bernie Sanders for months. She called me one day. I was actually in California. She told me she was running for office, and she really wanted me to be her campaign manager. I was overwhelmed with the fact that someone would actually want me to manager their campaign. I was scared. I was definitely scared.

What made you decide to do it?

I was planning on working on Zephyr Teachout’s congressional campaign, but I knew that I could make a bigger impact by working for Jeanine.

So what were the biggest challenges you faced on the campaign?

The most difficult thing for this campaign was convincing everyone else that she had a shot.

A lot of people assumed that Walaska was going to win. How did you manage to pull off your upset victory?

Having a really dedicated team was the key. We had some amazing volunteers, especially our intern Enzo Cuseo. Jeanine’s husband, Dan, also put in long hours for the campaign after his normal work day. We utilized every moment of Jeanine’s time and our own time to knock on doors, hold events, and make phone calls. Long days and late nights were just part of the job.

What’s the most important result of this race?

To be honest, I think it is showing that your strategy and efficiency can go a long way. People just assume that the person with the most money is going to win, but if you run a strategic and efficient campaign, you can pull it off despite the monetary challenges. Also, I think that Jeanine will be an inspiration to future progressive candidates.

So where are you going next?

I want to continue electing progressive candidates. The Revolution waits for nobody.

Catherine Cool Rumsey- We can do better


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Catherine Cool Rumsey is a candidate for Rhode Island Senate District 34, Charlestown, Exeter, Hopkinton, Richmond, West Greenwich. She has written the following:

Catherine Cool Rumsey
Catherine Cool Rumsey

The people of our community deserve representation that makes them proud. Partisan sniping and a stubborn refusal to collaborate with those who don’t share the same ideology are reasons we so often fail to meet the challenges facing our state. I am running for office because I know we can do better.

As a former senator, from 2012-2014, I successfully brought divergent interests together to address the serious issues impeding Rhode Island. I utilized my business management experience to focus on priorities and solutions needed to ensure state departments and agencies provide better accountability to taxpayers. I put forward real solutions to rebuild our economy, support families, and protect the environment.

I co-chaired the Behavioral Health and Firearms Safety Task Force, which is a great example of how people with different perspectives can come together, listen respectfully to the concerns of others, and find common ground to solve an issue. The Task Force was made up of law enforcement members, Second Amendment supporters, mental health advocates and concerned citizens. We worked together and came to consensus on legislation that made sense for our state. The legislation is now law.

If we can find common ground around an issue as polarizing as firearms, we certainly can work together to meet our other challenges. Making snap judgements or parroting the party line does nothing to solve our problems. It is not what is best for our district; it only sets us back.

My record shows I took the job of state senator very seriously. I worked hard for the benefit of all the citizens of our district. Not only was it an honor and privilege to represent our community in the Senate, I enjoyed rolling up my sleeves and diving into the issues, working together to find solutions. Numerous successes were achieved through this collaborative approach. Among the bills I sponsored or co-sponsored were:

  • Legislation to better equip Rhode Islanders with the skills needed to succeed in a modern economy through the “Rhode to Work” action plan;
  • Legislation to help low-wage parents seeking long-term employment through job training and work readiness programs with child care assistance while completing their training; and
  • A landmark health care cost control law to curb rate hikes, ensure quality, and improve access to care.

Unfortunately, there aren’t many “quick fixes” for the issues facing our state. However, I know that while the challenges may be difficult to solve, they are solvable. I firmly believe that, working together, we can and will put our state on a better path.

I would be honored to return to the senate to work hard for the people of District 34. I respectfully ask for your support in November, because we can do better.

Cranston City Council candidate Kate Aubin calls on Republican opponents to denounce Trump’s hateful rhetoric


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Aubin“The language Donald Trump has used to describe Hispanic Americans, Muslims, women and others is both hateful and dangerous. It is a lot more than ‘putting his foot in his mouth,’ and it must be condemned,” said Democratic candidate for Cranston City Council Kate Aubin. “Incumbent City Councilor Michael Farina made the decision to switch parties from Democrat to Republican in March, when it was already clear that the national GOP would likely be led by Mr. Trump. His failure to denounce the hate ­filled language and ideology coming from the top of his new party shows a lack of judgment, courage, and leadership.”

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.

IMG_20160921_155003Farina, 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.

How progressive activists defeated RI’s Democratic machine


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Marcia Ranglin-VassellThere 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.

Moira Walsh 1The 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.

Marcia's crew

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.

Progressives pick up HUGE legislative wins


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Jeanine Calkin and Marcia Ranglin-Vassell
Jeanine Calkin and Marcia Ranglin Vassell celebrate victory together. (Photo by Steve Ahlquist)

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.

20160913_204032
Moira Walsh checks election results. (Photo by Steve Ahlquist)

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.”

20160913_223310

Vote for Progressive Democrats in Today’s Primary


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Hello Fellow Progressives.

RIPDA logoToday, 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

RI NOW endorses 9 for Senate, 26 for House


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

RI NOWby Amanda Clarke and Melanie Carrazzo

The RI NOW Political Action Committee (RI NOW PAC) announced their endorsements in anticipation of the state primary elections on September, 13 2016.

The RI NOW PAC is excited to have so many candidates committed to improving the lives of women within the state of Rhode Island. Endorsed candidates have pledged their support on the issues of reproductive freedom, economic equality, ending violence against women, constitutional equality, civil rights for all, affirmative action and moving women out of poverty through empowering, non-punitive welfare policies.

“Currently women hold only 31 out of 113 seats in the RI General Assembly. The RI NOW PAC has endorsed 18 women so far in this election and we are thrilled to throw our support behind these candidates to increase gender parity in the General Assembly,” said Amanda Clarke, Chair of the RI NOW PAC. “We are also pleased so many men are willing to stand with women and fight for policy change to improve social and economic conditions for women in Rhode Island.”

The complete list of RI NOW PAC endorsements is as follows:

Rhode Island State Senate

  • Gayle Goldin, Senate District 3
  • Jonathan Hernandez, Senate District 6
  • Doris De Los Santos, Senate District 7
  • Matthew Fecteau, Senate District 8
  • James Seveny, Senate District 11
  • Dennis Lavallee, Senate District 17
  • Margaux Morisseau, Senate District 21
  • Stephen Archambault, Senate District 22
  • Jeanine Calkin, Senate District 30

Rhode Island House of Representatives

  • Edith Ajello, House District 1
  • Christopher Blazejewski, House District 2
  • Moira Walsh, House District 3
  • Aaron Regunberg, House District 4
  • Marcia Ranglin-Vassell, House District 5
  • Anastasia Williams, House District 9
  • Joseph Almeida, House District 12
  • Lisa Scorpio, House District 13
  • Art Handy, House District 18
  • Joseph McNamara, House District 19
  • David Bennett, House District 20
  • Eileen Naughton, House District 21
  • Jennifer Siciliano, House District 22
  • Julie Casimiro, House District 31
  • Carol Hagan McEntee, House District 33
  • Teresa Tanzi, House District 34
  • Kathleen Fogarty, House District 35
  • Larry Valencia, House District 39
  • William Deware, House District 54
  • David Norton, House District 60
  • Katherine Kazarian, House District 63
  • Jason Knight, House District 67
  • Susan Donovan, House District 69
  • Linda Finn, House District 72
  • Deborah Ruggiero, House District 74
  • Lauren Carson, House District 75

Local Races

  • Sandra Cano, Pawtucket City Council, At-Large
  • Meghan Kallman, Pawtucket City Council, Ward 5
  • Suzy Alba, Smithfield Town Council
  • Jeremy Rix, Warwick City Council, Ward 2
  • Elena Vasquez, Pawtucket School Committee

*Amanda Clarke is the RI NOW PAC Chair, Melanie Carrazzo is a member of the RI NOW PAC Board

Langevin and Hamilton have surface similarities but deeper differences


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
hamilton
John Hamilton

In many ways, Congressman Jim Langevin and upstart progressive challenger John Hamilton have a lot in common even as they compete in the Democratic primary for the second congressional district seat.

For example, they both think Langevin is a strong favorite to win.

“It’s an uphill battle,” Hamilton said. “He has a lot of money and he’s the incumbent. All the advantages go to the incumbent.”

Langevin said, “I’m hopeful and optimistic about it. I feel good about the race, but never overconfident.”

And both describe themselves as being progressive.

“I’m a progressive from way back,” Hamilton said, “which used to be known as a liberal.”

Langevin said, “If you look at my voting record I think I have a very progressive voting record.”

On policy matters, too, Langevin and Hamilton agree more often than they disagree. Both cited income inequality as the biggest issue facing America.

“To my view concentrated wealth at the top is the problem,” said Hamilton.

Jim Langevin
Jim Langevin

Langevin said, “We talk about fighting for a living wage and closing the income gap and trying to create an economic system that the vast majority of American families would benefit under, as opposed to the 1 percent, I’m a pretty consistent vote on all of those things.”

It’s the subtle differences in their responses that shows why Hamilton is challenging Langevin, despite conceding that “we’re both pretty good” when asked where the two candidates find agreement.

“I’m seeking to be a change agent in this election,” said Hamilton, who was inspired to run for congress by Bernie Sanders.

Langevin, the eight-term Democrat first elected in 2000, said, “It is my job to reflect the views of my constituents, the people I represent, and I hope I’ve been doing that effectively.”

Both are voting for Hillary Clinton in November, but Langevin is an avid supporter of hers and Hamilton, who served two terms in the state legislature in the early 1980’s, more reluctantly. He says he returned to politics only because “both parties are taking a wrong direction.” For 30 years, less-than-liberal Democrats helped Republicans and corporations ruin the American middle class, according to Hamilton.

“The Democratic Party took a wrong direction in the 1990’s,” he said. “We had the golden years of economics in America … and what happened? Well, we started cutting taxes for the very wealthy – the billionaires, the millionaires and the corporations – so we had less revenue to reinvest in our country. Then we started doing these trade agreements … and then we deregulated the banks, we did away with Glass Steagall, which was an important separation of investment and regular banking. I call those the triad of middle class destruction. We had job sucking trade agreements, we had bank deregulation and we had the trickle down economics and taxation that started with Reagan and then later in the Clinton era.”

On these finer points, Langevin and Hamilton only partially agree.

Both candidates oppose trade deals, in general, and the Trans Pacific Partnership, in particular. But there is a concerted difference in their words.

“I see TPP as nothing more than a corporate takeover of America and I consider anyone who votes for TPP to be voting against the United States of America,” Hamilton said.

Langevin was more measured, saying, “I’m not a supporter of that right now. I’m waiting to see what is going to be negotiated in terms of an agreement. I have not been impressed with many of the trade agreements in the past, including NAFTA, that have worked well for other countries, it seems, and corporations but hasn’t benefited American workers or American companies as much as it has overseas companies.”

They have stronger differences on reinstating the Glass Steagall, which historically prevented lending banks from also being investment banks but was repealed in 1999. It is a favorite policy prescription of  many progressives looking to reign in Wall Street..

“Not that I’m opposed to reinstalling the provisions of Glass-Steagall,” Langevin said, “but the Consumer Protection Division that we just created, I do want to give that a chance to work to see if that could be more effective.”

Both said gun safety and gender equality are important areas for Congress to act on next session. Hamilton is solidly pro choice and Langevin more pro life when it comes to abortion, but it’s hard to imagine legislation that would divide them as Langevin often votes against anti-abortion bills sponsored by Republicans. Langevin voted with Republicans last session on a bill that would have made it more difficult for Syrian refugees to come to the United States and Hamilton criticized him for it. But, for the most part, if Republicans control the House of Representatives again, which Langevin said seems likely, he and Hamilton would probably often vote the same way.

But there are big differences between Langevin’s style and Hamilton’s – and nowhere is that difference more acute than in their approaches to the proposed Burrillville power plant.

“That plant is not needed in Burrillville,” Hamilton said. “If there is any politician who hasn’t come out against it and stood with them against this power plant, they need to send that message that they are never getting their vote again.”

Langevin isn’t taking a position on the issue.

“I think everyone recognizes that we have to do more to meet our state’s energy needs and help bring down the cost of energy and some feel that the Burrillville power plant is something that will help in that area but we also have to mindful of the environmental impacts,” he said. “That’s why I support the whole process and fact finding that’s happening right now. Although it’s not a federal issue, it’s local and state, I’m certainly monitoring the issue very closely.”

Hamilton, whose first political awakening came when protesting against a proposed nuclear power plant in Charlestown in the 1970’s, called Langevin’s hands-off approach “unacceptable.” Remembering how they stopped the proposed nuclear power plant from being developed where Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge is today, he said, “John Chafee and Claiborne Pell did not remain neutral on the Charlestown nuclear power plant.”

State Police investigating calls for Walaska from state phones


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

walaska callThe Rhode Island State Police are investigating campaign phone calls made from Child Support Services, a state agency, on behalf of State Senator William Walaska, a conservative Democrat and 22-year incumbent. Walaska is being challenged by Jeanine Calkin, a progressive Democrat and Bernie Sanders supporter.

State Police Lt. Michael Glynn contacted RI Future, the Warwick doctor who initially told me about the calls, and also contacted Jeanine Calkin, whose husband, Daniel, also received a call. The scope and particulars of the investigation are unknown, but Calkin said that “someone is coming to talk to Dan today and take a look at our phone.”

RI Future broke this story last week. So far no other media organizations have covered it. When called for a comment, Senator Walaska said, “I know you don’t support me. I have no idea. I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

This story will be updated.

Here’s the call:

Patreon

Grim Wisdom talks with Eliza Sher


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Eliza Sher (and her daughter)
Eliza Sher (and her daughter)

This week on the Grim Wisdom podcast I sit down with Eliza Sher, a RI psychotherapist working in Providence. (Yes, I’ve had her on before, but this time we were drinking!) Topics include current events in RI politics, as always, but also the dark places in the human psyche and the stories we tell ourselves about who we are (and who creates those stories? and why?). Did I mention we were drinking? Enjoy!

Where are the down-ballot Republicans?

Eliminating the master lever was supposed to assist the RI Republican Party (and strengthen RI’s democracy) by assisting in one of the most important things a party needs: candidate recruitment. The problem, as it was posed, was that the prevalence of the master lever basically acted as a deterrent for potential Republican candidates for the General Assembly; why put in the effort of running if loyal Democrats, voting for president or US senator or governor at the top of the ticket, would simply pull the master lever and obliterate down-ballot Republicans? Eliminating the option would allow Republican candidates to run without fear of such occurrences, thereby assisting efforts to recruit quality candidates.

The only issue is that the candidates haven’t materialized. Here’s the graph of seats (Republicans in red, independents in grey) contested by Republicans since legislative downsizing ahead of the 2002 elections:

Graph of Seats contested by Republicans and Democrats
Sam G Howard; Sources: RI Board of Elections, RI Secretary of State

This year, Republicans will contest 40 seats in the legislature. If they won all of them, they would barely break the Democratic supermajority in the Senate, and still fail to do so in the House. Keep in mind, 40 would be about twice as many districts as they have won, ever. There are only about 20 districts across the state that Republicans have ever won. Winning 20 districts would actually make this the most successful year the Republicans have ever had since the General Assembly reached its current size in 2002.*

Simply put, the Republican candidates necessary to make their party a functioning opposition haven’t materialized. And it’s noticeable to me that Republican recruitment issues have grown worse since 2010, when a Republican wave election empowered Republicans nationwide and gave them majorities in both chambers of the U.S. Congress.

The grey line is candidates running as Independents, and the point to notice here is that they have increased the number of seats contested over time. And Independents in Rhode Island often caucus with the Republican Party in the State House (e.g., Blake Filippi) or are already Republicans (e.g., perennial Providence candidate Luis Vargas who volunteered for the RI Republican Party). Not all, mind you, but many would’ve been Republicans.

Notably, these developments (the increasing difficulty of the Republicans to recruit candidates, and the increasing number of Independents) have happened pretty much independently of the master lever’s existence.

But these are just seats. What about the number of candidates? If Republicans have only ever been competitive in about 20 districts, then this could undercount candidates in safe Republican seats.

RI GA Contested Seats and Number of Candidates
Party Seats Contested Qualified Candidates
Democratic 108 138
Republican 40 43
Independent 31 35

As you can see, Republicans did fairly well in distributing their candidates for seats; as did the Independents (more remarkable because no one is organizing them). Meanwhile, the Democrats have more than enough candidates to contest all 113 General Assembly seats, but didn’t contest five of them: House Districts 30 (Incumbent: Giarusso – R), 36 (Incumbent: Filippi – I), and 48 (Incumbent: Newberry – R) and Senate Districts 35 (Incumbent: Gee – R) and 38 (Incumbent: Algiere – R).

Democrats’ recruitment advantage continues unabated. In fact, just on the numbers, Democrats could split into three parties that could each match Republican recruitment abilities.

The problem was never going to be the master lever for Republicans. The problem remains (as it has been since 2006) their party’s toxicity to a state that overwhelmingly supports Democratic policies. And even one of the most liberal state Republican Parties can’t overcome that obstacle – especially with Donald Trump on the top of the ticket. At this point, I think Republican hopes for growing their caucus (or even keep it the same size) this election is that the commentary on RI Future here is true: Clinton really is so unpopular that liberals will stay home and they can pick up low-turnout seats. The problem is that the people who dislike Clinton tend to be Republicans, and the people who dislike her as much as Trump aren’t really that big, certain in their choice, or even likely to be Democratic partisans.

Now, am I going to say RI Republicans will be massacred this year? No. I do not have a great track record there. But looking at past presidential elections and RI GA results, I’m going to guess the Democrats should win 100 seats and Republicans should win 12 seats. In each off-year election, Democrats have picked up 96 or 95 seats, and in each presidential year election they’ve picked up 99-102 seats.

The big question for me is what effect Trump will have. RI Republican office-holders have fairly closely embraced their presidential nominee, and nominees can have an effect down the ballot even to state legislatures. Trump seems more of an anathema to the average RI voter than a generic Republican, so theoretically, he could do serious damage to what remains of the RI Republican Party since the Bush years caused the liberal Republican to go extinct.

 

 

* An earlier version of this post inadvertently implied that Republicans have never been successful in GA races, that’s obviously not the case.

Trump hits Minneapolis, the city hits back


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Yusuf Dayur
Yusuf Dayur

Coincidentally, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump came to Minneapolis MN on the same day I made my first visit to the city. This turned a day that I had planned to spend sightseeing into a day of traveling to three different anti-Trump events.

“Trump’s rhetoric is creating an unsafe environment for the Muslim community, for the Somali-American community, and we have seen an increase in Islamaphobia and anti-Muslim efforts across the state of Minnesota,” said Jaylani Hussein, executive director of the Council of American-Islamic Relations- Minnesota (CAIR-MN), “We have seen, just a few weeks ago, an incident involving five young Muslim men who were shot… we believe that incident is a hate crime.”

Hussein believes that Trump’s extremist rhetoric is creating a hostile, unsafe environment for Muslim Americans and immigrants, and the effects are being felt by the most vulnerable.

Hussein introduced 13-year old Yusuf Dayur who has been experiencing bullying in his school because he is a Muslim. Hussein suggested that Dayur might one day be president. Though Dayur’s school is very proactive in providing Dayur time and space in which to pray, some of his fellow students do not trust him because he is a Muslim. Dayur bravely fought back tears as he described the difficulties he faces.

Jaylani Hussein’s full comments:

2016-08-19 Cosecha MN 003After the press conference I headed across town to the Minnesota State Republican Offices where Cosecha Minnesota was holding a “Wall Off Trump” event. Cosecha is “a nonviolent decentralized movement that is focused on activating our immigrant community and the public to guarantee permanent and humane protection for immigrants in this country.”

Estaphania and another woman explained that their protest, in which they painted a wall, like the one Trump is promising on the Texas-Mexico border, is meant to draw attention to Trump’s extremist rhetoric that threatens the health and safety of immigrant Americans.

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 066My last stop was at the Minneapolis Convention Center, where people representing virtually everyone Trump has ever publicly maligned, including immigrants, black Americans, members of the LGBTQ community, women, Muslims, indigenous Americans and more, gathered together to denounce Trump ahead of his visit to a large donor rally.

This protest was organized by MIRAc, the Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee, a group that, “fights for legalization for all, an end to immigration raids & deportations, an end to all anti-immigrant laws, and full equality in all areas of life.”

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 009Trump did not make a public appearance in Minnesota, or even speak to the press. He spoke to donors only at the Convention Center. But his very presence in the city was enough to galvanize this group to come out to speak, sing, dance and chant their opposition to Trump being president.

According to the Minnesota Star Tribune, after this event, as Trump donors left the convention center, they were confronted by angry demonstrators. “The demonstrators who harassed donors were not present earlier on, when the protest was peaceful. Many in the later group hid their faces behind scarves,” writes reporter Patrick Condon, “Minneapolis police spokeswoman Sgt. Catherine Michal said there were no arrests and no reported injuries. There was, however, minor damage, including graffiti on the walls of the Convention Center, and officers had to escort Trump supporters in and out of the lobby because they were being harshly confronted, Michal said.”

Below are the rest of the pictures and video from the three events.

2016-08-19 CAIR-MN 001
Jaylani Hussein, CAIR-MN

2016-08-19 CAIR-MN 002

2016-08-19 Cosecha MN 001

2016-08-19 Cosecha MN 002

2016-08-19 Cosecha MN 003

2016-08-19 Cosecha MN 004

2016-08-19 Cosecha MN 005

2016-08-19 Cosecha MN 006

2016-08-19 Cosecha MN 007

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 001

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 007

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 008

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 009

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 013

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 015

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 018

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 021

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 029

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 031

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 032

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 034

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 038

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 043

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 052

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 054

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 060

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 064

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 066

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 073

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 077

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 084

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 089

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 091

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 094

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 097

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 099

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 100

2016-08-19 MN Convention Center Protest 102

Patreon

Calls in support for Senator Walaska are coming from state phone


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

When a Warwick resident and doctor checked his phone between appointments, he saw an unfamiliar number. Looking it up, he learned that the call came from Child Support Services, a state agency.

“Good afternoon,” said a male voice on his voicemail. “I’m a representative of Senator Walaska. We’re looking for some support this election if you go out and vote in the primary we would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.”

After hearing the call, and believing the use of state phones for partisan campaign calls to be against the law, the Warwick resident, who asked not to be identified, contacted the Attorney General‘s office. They told him that the AG’s office is only interested in issues of campaign fraud. He was referred to the Secretary of State‘s office. The Secretary of State’s office was similarly disinterested, and referred him to the Board of Elections. According to the resident who sent me the call, the person from the Board of Elections searched through the relevant statutes in vain before giving up and telling the resident that he should call back when he learned exactly what law is being broken.

For future reference, that law seems to be:

§ 36-4-52. Restrictions on political activities of classified employees

No classified employee shall during working hours engage to any extent in any form of partisan politics except that he or she may attend and vote at any party caucus, primary, or election held during working hours. Outside of working hours a classified employee may attend any partisan political rally, club, or gathering and privately express his or her partisan political views but any further partisan political activity on his or her part shall be engaged in only in accordance with the personnel rules. A classified employee violating the provisions of § § 36-4-50–36-4-54, or of the personnel rules shall for a first offense be either demoted or dismissed and for a second offense dismissed. All charges of these violations shall be publicly heard by the personnel appeal board.

Robert Kando executive director of the Board of Elections could not be reached for comment.

John Marion of Common Cause said that the issue appears reminiscent of an ethics complaint against Susan Cicilline Buonanno when she ran for the House District 33 seat that Narragansett Democrat Donald Lally resigned. Buonanno, principal of Gladstone Elementary School in Cranston was accused of using school email and phones to advance her political campaign.

This case is different because it’s not the candidate, but someone claiming to represent the candidate who appears to be using state resources for partisan political purposes.

“As you might expect, using state work telephones for campaigning is forbidden, and so we would want to know if this sort of thing was taking place so that the charges could be investigated and suitable disciplinary action taken if warranted,” said Fred Sneesby, an administrator at Children’s & Family Services. The Warwick resident who sent me the call has been put in contact with Sneesby.

Contacted by phone, Senator Walaska, after I identified myself but before I could fully explain what I was calling about, said, “I know you don’t support me. I have no idea. I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

walaska callJeanine Calkin, a progressive Democrat who is running against the 22-year incumbent, said that her husband, Daniel Calkin, received a similar call. A photo of her husband’s phone is on the left. Daniel Calkin, listening to the audio above, said he was “pretty sure it’s the same guy.”

“This looks like a very clear-cut violation,” said Sam Bell, executive director of the RI Progressive Democrats.”Campaign calls should not be made from state numbers. Being able to direct state workers to campaign for a candidate gives an enormously unfair advantage to powerful incumbents.”

Requests for comment from Representative Joseph McNamara and Brandon Bell, respective chairs for the Democratic and Republican parties in Rhode Island have gone unanswered.

As for the Warwick resident and doctor who sent me the call, he says that he is “disinclined to vote for Walaska.”

Patreon

CLF to PUC: Burrillville plant not needed


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Jerry Elmer
Jerry Elmer

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) today presented its arguments against Invenergy’s proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in a brief filed with the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The PUC is charged with rendering an advisory opinion to the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) the board that will have the final say in whether the proposed plant gets built. In putting together their advisory opinion, the PUC will be considering briefs from the CLF, Invenergy, the Town of Burrillville and the Division of Public Utilities and Carriers (Division).

The PUC’s mandate is to “conduct an investigation … and render an advisory opinion” as to the “need for the proposed facility,” says CLF attorneys Max Greene and Jerry Elmer in their brief, quoting Rhode Island General Laws § 42-98-9(d). The CLF “therefore presented unrefuted evidence that shows the plant is not needed, in the form of testimony from expert witness Robert Fagan.”

Though Invenergy’s expert witnesses “profess to disagree” with Fagan, they argue that the plant will provide a “social surplus” of energy and not that the plant is actually needed, says the CLF in their brief. In the recent ISO-NE forward capacity auction, Invenergy only sold half its capacity. If you subtract out Invenergy’s contribution to the energy markets the region still has nearly 1,000 megawatts of excess capacity, says the CLF.

Further, Invenergy and the Division presented no evidence at the hearings that the plant is needed. Instead, Invenergy made the claim that if the power plant sold energy in an ISO-NE forward capacity auction, this proves the plant must be needed.  The CLF argues that this is incorrect, maintaining that “… a CSO is not a showing of need but the result of a complex market mechanism that takes into account other factors such as cost.”

But even if we accept the “CSO equals need” argument, says the CLF, neither Invenergy nor the Division “has presented evidence to show that the proposed Invenergy plant is needed. This is because Invenergy has proposed a two-turbine, 1,000 MW plant but has not obtained a CSO for a two-turbine, 1,000 MW plant.” What Invenergy is defending is a one turbine plant, since that’s what sold at auction.

The PUC must consider the need of the power plant as proposed. What Invenergy has proposed is a two-turbine, 1,000 MW plant. As the CLF brief makes clear, “Invenergy has not obtained a CSO for a two-turbine, 1,000 MW plant,” it has, at best, demonstrated the need for a “485 MW project.”

“Not once does the EFSB Order describe the proposed Invenergy plant under consideration as a single-turbine, 485 MW generator. Instead, the Order says the proposed plant ‘will have a nominal power output at base load of approximately 850-1,000 megawatts” and that the plant will consist of two units. So defined, ‘the proposed facility’ and ‘the Project’ do not have a CSO.”

The PUC’s advisory opinion is due at the EFSB before final hearings start in September. The briefs from all intervenors are due at 4pm today (Thursday).

Patreon

Three progressive groups, three different sets of endorsements


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Moira Walsh and Malcolm
Moira Walsh and Malcolm

Moira Walsh and Susan Donovan were endorsed by all three. Marcia Ranglin-Vassell, Lisa Scorpio, Teresa Tanzi and Jeanine Calkin won the endorsement of two of the three.  While the vast majority – 22 of the 36 endorsed candidates – were only endorsed by one of the three, so far. Such are some of the similarities and differences between the three general interest, progressive-leaning organizations making legislative endorsements this election cycle.

The RI Progressive Democrats, the Young Democrats of Rhode Island and the Working Families Party of Rhode Island have now each announced legislative endorsements. While all three groups say they will be making more endorsements in the days, weeks and months to come, to date it seems each group has different criteria for winning their endorsement.

endorsements
Click on the image for a larger version.

There are structural, rather than political, differences in some cases. For example, the Working Families Party and Progressive Democrats both endorsed candidates with primary opponents while the Young Dems endorsed several candidates who don’t.  But don’t be surprised if by the end of the campaign season if these three groups end up endorsing a slightly different slate of candidates.

Clinton is not a ‘lesser evil’


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

800px-Hillary_Clinton_official_Secretary_of_State_portrait_cropA recent RIF post got us into a “lesser evil” discussion about Hillary Clinton.  While I disagree with her about a few issues, that doesn’t make her “evil.” Its bad enough the right-wing attack machine has smeared Clinton for so long, calling her “crooked” even though determined, relentless investigations going back to Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate and more have never found anything crooked. For liberal/progressive sites to pile on is crazy.

I think there is no doubt Clinton will defend medicare/medicaid/social security, defend the medical insurance expansion of the ACA, stand up for reproductive freedom, the Iran nuclear deal, rights for immigrants, labor, the LGBT community, appoint reasonable Supreme Court justices, and maybe expand gun background checks, child care and family leave programs if Congress allows. Trump and the GOP will do the opposite on all of the above.

Of course Clinton is not perfect. I don’t trust her on trade, she may approve high levels of immigration that depress wages,  she has been too quick to intervene in foreign countries such as Libya and Honduras. But she and Obama did try to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, resisted pressure to do more military stuff in Syria and Iran, and are being criticized for that and for not doing even more killing in opposing ISIS.  So I can’t see how putting these GOP critics in charge who got us into Iraq in the first place will do us any good.

On taxes, Trump is a mainstream GOP trickle-downer, proposing the end of estate taxes, big corporate and personal income tax reductions. We’ve been down that road, it would further transfer wealth to the 1%, further starve government programs. Clinton wouldn’t do that.

On the environment, Clinton would likely continue the mixed record of Obama while Trump and the GOP would be all in for coal and oil and fossil fuels, they even say they are. Clinton would resist the GOP assault on pubic land and on wildlife. And Transport Providence of all people should appreciate the Democratic support for bikes, transit, and trains (by the way, VP choice Tim Kaine promoted downtown Richmond passenger rail revival when he was Mayor), the national GOP wants to eliminate all Federal support for that.

Clinton is not a pacifist, socialist, or radical, so those that are have legit reasons for not backing her, but it still doesn’t make her “evil.”  Not being in those categories, I see it as an easy choice to back Clinton, and not just because of Trump.  Still, in Rhode Island we are so used to civil and reasonable Republicans who often back needed good government programs and watchdog excessive spending, we can forget the extremism of Trump and the national GOP these days.

I also frankly value the idea of finally electing a woman as President.  Eight years ago plenty of progressives said that about a first black President, but its not cool to say that now about a real chance to elect the first woman.

As for the interminable e-mail stuff, nobody cared that previous GOP Secretaries of State used a private e-mail server at times, and rightfully so. While Clinton was ill-advised to do this, it doesn’t make her “evil” it is just a political attack point which Sanders himself thought was a distraction.

To sum up, though far from perfect, she is a reasonable and decent choice to support for President.

The #MaybeHillary movement


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

rs_1024x759-150709052426-1024.Donald-Trump-Hillary-Clinton-JR-70915_copy#NeverHillary is a bit too flippant to me. The point of an election is to pressure a candidate, and get results. We have gotten some movement in the right direction, thanks to Bernie Sanders. Still, for many voters, there are still significant reasons not to want to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton. Instead of yelling “Never Hillary!” let’s take a more nuanced stance. It’s time for #MaybeHillary.

The #MaybeHillary movement is open to the idea that voting for a lesser evil is sometimes the right thing to do, but also seeks to push that lesser evil candidate to the maximum that is possible within the political situation. People who say that that’s already been done are ignoring Hillary Clinton’s very right-leaning (and sometimes rightwing) foreign policy stance, and her tepid stances on climate change.

The #MaybeHillary movement is also open to considering the relative strength or weakness of a Republican challenger. It should be agreed that we can’t allow a rightwing Republican like Donald Trump into office, but part of that equation should be constantly fine-tuning our assessment of just how likely his election is. With Republicans fleeing Trump for Clinton or sometimes even Gary Johnson, there is increasingly an opening to push Clinton to make sure she keeps and extends her progressive message.

The #MaybeHillary movement is also one that supports the idea of flexible strategies to reflect the differences of various states. Yes, it’s true that voting is a collective action, as Samuel G. Howard states, but in 2012, Barack Obama held Rhode Island by 27 points. Jill Stein would have to take that support, without Donald Trump losing any votes at all to the Libertarians, in order to act as a spoiler. And in a world where the Green Party did well enough to take 27 points of an election– even in a blue state– the political conversation on the Wednesday after election day would be one to look forward to.

Saying #MaybeHillary means not being aggressive and nasty to people who are voting for Clinton, because in an election like this one, who can blame voters for not wanting Donald Trump? Saying #MaybeHillary means being open to switching to Clinton if she satisfies enough major progressive pledges (for me, the two I think are most sorely missing are her foreign policy and climate change positions, but you can fill in your own in the comments section). Saying #MaybeHillary means having the kind of conversation with voters that can energize them to press the candidate for more in a viable way. The #NeverHillary movement shuts down conversations, and so does shaming people for voting their consciences. Let’s get people activated around issues, hold Clinton accountable, and get what we need.

Grim Wisdom talks with Jeanine Calkin


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Jeanine Calkin
Jeanine Calkin

After a long break, the Grim Wisdom Podcast is back. In this week’s episode, I sit down with RI State Senate candidate Jeanine Calkin to discuss her candidacy, economic inequality, the slow heat death of American journalism, and the cynical hypocrisy of her opponent. Oh, and we also talk about climate change and economic development. Enjoy the bleakness! :)

 

The tension of the American third party


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

jill steinBecause I grew up in Rhode Island, am below the age of 30, and am a liberal, a lot of my friends this election season have abandoned following Bernie Sanders into the Democratic Party (however briefly) and instead pledged their support to Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate for President.

This strikes me as poorly thought-out. While I can understand that in Rhode Island, the majority of voters are likely to vote Democratic, and thus many feel that it’s not a risk to vote Green (and are likely right) this is a problem of a collective action like voting: we only know the outcome when we know the outcome. Polling can tell us a probability of how our votes will be divided, but often that information is erroneously reported. Everyone works blindly, in a sort of prisoner’s dilemma; if enough people vote a certain way, they could throw the election to a person who would would be even worse.

This has been a factor in U.S. Presidential elections for a long time. Starting in 1828, Henry Clay and John Crawford made the results of that election inconclusive, Martin Van Buren could’ve prevented Lewis Cass from becoming President in 1848, Millard Fillmore likely spoiled the election for John Fremont in 1856, in 1912 William H. Taft spoiled it for Teddy Roosevelt (or possibly vice versa), in 1968 George Wallace arguably did in Hubert Humphrey, just as Ross Perot might’ve done to George H. W. Bush in 1992, and in 2000 Ralph Nader helped make George W. Bush president.

All of these took place in specific circumstances. 1828 was a breakdown of the dominance of the Democratic-Republican Party, and the emergence of true political parties in the United States. 1848 saw the rise of an explicitly anti-slavery party with a former president at its head, whereas in 1856 the former president was leading a nativist party that sought to ignore the issue of slavery. Taft and Roosevelt were both the sitting and the previous president, striving against one another as the Progressive movement sought to move out from merely being a cross-party group. 1968 was the breakdown of the New Deal coalition and the “party switch” that transferred segregationist white southerners into the Republican Party. And 1992 and 2000 were eras of relative prosperity where the presidency simply wasn’t too important.

Majorly, the thing to notice is that except for recently, almost all of these featured establishment politicians making plays for power. Only Perot and Nader are exceptional in lacking political office on that list, and the impact of their parties have been negligible. Clay helped establish the Whigs soon after 1828, Van Buren’s Free Soilers joined the Whigs to become the Republican Party within a decade, Fillmore’s American Party was already on the decline in 1856 after having achieved control of the U.S. House, but was absorbed into the Republicans. The Progressive movement basically had all three major candidates in support of its goals in 1912. Wallace’s pro-segregation supporters have been dog-whistled to for the last fifty years until Donald Trump put down the whistle and starting yelling things at the top of his lungs.

Meanwhile, Perot and Nader’s efforts have come to naught. The Reform Party is spent, and 16 years later, the Green Party is as much of a joke as it’s ever been. Their efforts for the presidency are not turning points in American political history, but rather quixotic ends to otherwise fine careers.

Now, I’ve been highly focused on presidential elections, and I think this highlights the issue of third parties. In the way things are structured in most states, third parties simultaneously must contest the highest possible office. This constantly forces them into the position of spoiler for other candidates more likely to win, making voters resistant to casting their ballot for the third party. This Duverger’s law in action – a system like the United States’, with plurality voting and single-member districts, forces there to be mainly two parties.

What’s the current most successful third party in the United States? It’s not the Greens or the Libertarian Party. It’s the Vermont Progressive Party. The Progressives there have two things going for them: fusion balloting, which allows candidates to run as both a Progressive and a Democrat, and multi-member districts, which means there’s a level of proportionality in how many seats a party gets based on its vote in the districts. Also, there are fairly relaxed rules to establish a political party. It’s a highly local party that was mainly established to support Bernie Sanders as mayor of Burlington, VT; the party’s main power base continues to be located there.

The other major thing the Vermont Progressives have is that they don’t need to contest major offices. As a result, they can persist beyond being a personality-driven organization. And let’s face it, third parties are mostly vehicles for specific individuals’ megalomania.

Take Rhode Island. I have long said that the Moderate Party lacks an identity beyond being the party of Ken Block or Bob Healey. With the former abandoning it, and the latter deceased, it’s now got to find someone new to be its standard-bearer for governor. It’s forced into this position because RI’s ballot access laws require a political party to win more than 5% of the vote for governor or president every four years, depending on when you collected ballots.

This is intentional, and it prevents third parties from spending resources in more easily-winnable races, such as at the school committee level or town council. It means a third party has to exhaust a lot of manpower or cash on a big race it can’t win to achieve ballot access every four years, or else face being dissolved. So they lose, they might cost someone else the election, and drive potential supporters away. Meanwhile, they are unable to conduct meaningful candidate recruitment, unable to attract potential candidates because they appear frivolous, and unable to establish any sort of meaningful governing record.

This drives an incentive to simply be some individual’s ego trip. And that’s exactly what’s happening in the Green Party and its nominee Jill Stein.

You might think this is hypocritical to focus on Stein’s ego when this is an election of egos. But let’s be frank: Stein’s ego far outstrips her actual accomplishments. Her highest office to date is Lexington Town Meeting Representative. And yet, she says her aim is to win “at least a plurality” of votes in November (anything more than a plurality would be a majority). Her current Real Clear Politics polling average is 3.8%.

No other presidential candidate with ballot access to a potential majority of electoral votes is this delusional. Donald Trump actually won a major party’s nomination, despite his ego making him think lying about his success is the same as “sacrifice.” Gary Johnson actually has run a state as a governor – and won reelection. And there’s a strong case that Hilary Clinton is as egotistical as anyone, but then again, she’s earned it. We can definitely criticize her arrogance, but she actually has been U.S. senator and secretary of state. She actually has had to craft and shepherd policy that effected millions of people’s lives. And more importantly, she actually has a political organization that can support and help pass her agenda should she reach the White House. Trump has the latter, and Johnson has done the former, but Stein can’t claim either.

No third party will take the presidency this way. The only way so-called third parties have ever managed to do so is by stepping over the bodies of their predecessors. The next major party of the United States won’t be from the edges of the political system; it will follow Clay and Van Buren, and Lincoln – it will arise from the heart of the establishment, lead by a figures who were once partisans in some deceased major party.

There are, at least, political movements that understand that change happens through political power, not at its fringes. Say what you like about the Progressive Democrats and the Working Families Party – at least they are attempting to shift the dynamics locally of one of the parties, and with a greater potential for impact than all the Greens put together.

If you want change, don’t vote for the star


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Linda Finn
Linda Finn

Rhode Island is one of the most progressive states in the country, at least when it comes to the views of its citizens. Its residents vote Democrat by large margins and generally hold views that are in agreement with—or to the left of—the national Democratic Party. So why is our government so conservative? In my opinion, a big part of the problem is the structure of the state Democratic Party and its cynical endorsement process.

Many RI voters seem not to be aware of this, but the state Democratic Party’s formal endorsement process provides substantial resources to the officially endorsed candidates at all levels of the election. Unendorsed candidates are frozen out of a wide variety of party resources and can only obtain them at significant extra expense, if they can get them at all. In addition, “endorsed” candidates automatically get top billing on the ballot, and a star appears next to their name, as if to suggest that they are the clearly superior choice (even though, as a rule, the opposite is far more likely).

Mattiello at the Grange 001
Nicholas Mattiello

So how does one become an endorsed candidate, you may ask? Well, there are a vast number of local, district, and ward committees who typically award these endorsements (but not always—see below!). In theory, these various ward, town, and district committees serve as a way of ensuring that people who live in an area have the opportunity to endorse the candidate who is most in touch with the needs of their neighborhoods. In practice, however, these ward and district committees are invariably stuffed with the friends, relatives, and even employees of the incumbents. As a result, they serve as little more than a rubber stamp that inevitably endorses the incumbent or their hand-picked successor—even when evidence of their corruption is overwhelming. And if by some chance a new voice manages to impress their local committees and gain their support, the RI Democratic Party chair—a person who is not elected to fill this role, but is merely appointed by prominent insiders such as Speaker Mattiello—can simply overrule the local committees and impose his will on them by fiat, as he recently did to Linda Finn, who earned the endorsements of her local town committees but whose opponent has secured the official party endorsement as well as all the corrupt resources that come with it.

When my fellow Democratic primary voters show up at the ballot box in September, I hope they will remember that a vote for the star is a vote to maintain the status quo. It’s a vote for Speaker Mattiello, and for the anti-democratic, cynical, corrupt, and above all elitist political machine from which he and his ilk draw their power. If you want change from your state and local elected officials next year, the choice is clear: Vote for anyone who doesn’t have Mattiello’s star of approval.


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387