My weekly call-in on John DePetro’s WNRI 1380 AM/95.1 FM show, for December 4, included talk about:
People who are politically active locally in Rhode Island — especially those who aren’t plugged in to the state’s special interest, insider machine — may have noticed that technology and the general direction of our culture are making it increasingly difficult to get information to rise above the noise of social media and its amplification of the old-school rumor mill.
One way in which the Tiverton Taxpayers Association (TTA) is working to address that problem is through its new weekly podcast, Tiverton on Track. Episodes will be available as they’re released on Buzzsprout, iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, TuneIn, and a variety of other services that can be found via the Buzzsprout page. Episodes will also be posted on the group’s blog, Tiverton Fact Check.
For the most recent episode, special guest Richard Rom joined me and Town Council members Donna Cook and Nancy Driggs. Rom is the chairman of the Tiverton Republican Town Committee, a member of the Tiverton Library Board of Trustees, and the initiator of recall petitions to remove council President Patricia Hilton, Vice President Denise deMedeiros, and member John Edwards the Fifth. Rom’s goal is to return the council to the TTA control that voters chose before the political stunt of an unjustified recall election in October that removed me and the council president. (Note that I’m not involved in the second recall, thinking there are more effective ways to spend time holding the power-hungry of Tiverton accountable.)
My weekly call-in on John DePetro’s WNRI 1380 AM/95.1 FM show, for November 25, included talk about:
Rationalizations aside, softening the standards for impeachment to their current level is hugely divisive and dangerous to our nation.
By way of some morning levity, I thought I’d pass along this headline from the Fall River Herald that caught my eye: “For classicists, ‘quid pro quo’ is music to the ears,” for a story from the Washington Post news wire.
They could have chosen “this for that.” Or possibly even “tit for tat.” But instead, Democrats and Republicans alike decided to go with “quid pro quo” as the defining term for the central accusation of the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.
They disagree, of course, on whether an illegal quid pro quo occurred, but have embraced the alliterative Latin phrase as the lingua franca for the debate. Now all that remains is the ultimate political thumbs up or thumbs down decision.
For people thoroughly convinced that the mainstream news media is — to varying degrees depending on region — an active wing of the Democrat Party machine, articles like this appear to be a sly effort to push impeachment. The presentation is of a light article about linguistic fashion, but what it accomplishes, politically, is to give readers the sense that the impeachment effort is about something real (the Democrat position) and to explain a key phrase for people who aren’t familiar with it.
My awareness of this phrase goes back at least 25 years, for a reason that affects my impression of the news media’s efforts. During the presidency of George H.W. Bush, news stories were repeatedly framed so as to make him seem out of touch. One example was a news cycle about how he’d been like a stranger in a strange land at a grocery store, when really he’d been expressing due admiration for some new checkout technology that was cutting edge at the time.
I remember distinctly the coloring of the press when President Bush stated, in response to some faux scandal, “There was no quid pro quo.” The implied commentary of the news media was so strong as to carry across decades of memory: “What is this strange phrase, and who even talks like that?”
Vulpes pilum mutat, non mores.
My weekly call-in on John DePetro’s WNRI 1380 AM/95.1 FM show, for November 18, included talk about:
How much more money can Rhode Island’s political class take from your pocket using green energy as an excuse?
The Ocean State has already signed on to the Transport and Climate Initiative, a cabal of Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states designed to foster a radical change (for the worse) to our economic well-being through costly green energy policies.
Indeed, this very well could be Rhode Island own version of the “Green New Deal,” driving costs higher and higher.
Sometimes a politician answers a question in such a way as to put her political activities (and those of other politicians) in a different light. Such was the case when reporter Tim White asked Democrat Governor Gina Raimondo on WPRI’s Newsmakers program about her continued fundraising, despite being term limited as governor:
I’ll have a legislative agenda that I’d like to get passed. All the legislators are on the ballot next year, and I may decide to support or oppose legislators that I think are doing the right thing or holding Rhode Island back. So, you know, there are plenty of reasons to need a campaign account just to govern.
According to WPRI’s Ted Nesi, Raimondo raised $66,000 in the third quarter of the year, giving her $726,000 to expend as she “governs.”
Put this way, doesn’t something seem… well… off about this arrangement? The governor of the state is collecting money from private interests in order to bully other elected officials into doing what she wants, as if the governor is also the director of an insider PAC. A few thousand dollars is a pretty substantial campaign in local legislative races, so a governor with three quarters of a million dollars in the bank and nothing else to spend it on could be a worrying wildcard.
To be sure, we should be skeptical of efforts to restrict political activity through regulation. The powerful will always find ways around the regulations, at least to a greater extent than the powerless can.
That said, it’s worth being aware that this is going on and maintaining a general sense of aversion to it. What the governor of the state is saying is that she’s going to use money given to her by special interests across the country to reach into your local legislative races to influence who represents you in the General Assembly.
Something doesn’t seem right about that.
My weekly call-in on John DePetro’s WNRI 1380 AM/95.1 FM show, for November 11, included talk about:
“Imagine that! Teachers sending out postcards with a picture of violence to silence others in town.” Tiverton Town Council member Donna Cook makes that statement in a new letter to the editor informing people about some facts from the recent recall election in town (which knocked me out of office).
She’s referring to one of the five mailings that the recall advocates sent to homes in Tiverton. The return address claims that it comes from “Progress RI,” which although not registered appears to be a “doing business as” name of the state’s teachers unions. The return address is that of a middle school teacher in town. And this is the front of the card, which Cook describes as “a violent picture similar to a kidnapping, hijacking, robbery, or a hostage situation.”
Note that the claim at the top of the card is demonstrably false; it’s a lie.
While recording an episode of a soon-to-be-released local podcast, Cook contrasted this card with all of the talk we hear from those in the education system about bullying. That’s an important contrast that isn’t made often enough in our world of hostile politics and toxic social media.
Imagine a high school student sending out something similar on social media about other students. Nobody would have any trouble seeing that as inappropriate bullying, and the student would face consequences, probably including suspension.
Of course, we rightly balance freedom of speech versus the giving of offense differently for children and adults. Grown-ups should be able to handle more, and society has less right to impose restrictions on them, at least in an official way. Still, this card was sent out by teachers in our public schools, behind a thin veil of anonymity and the thin excuse that it actually came from their labor union.
Is that the sort of standard we want for our nation, state, and community?
I’m contributing to a new blog on the Gaspee Project, Sabin Tavern. The name and purpose are explained in the blog’s first post, but basically, Sabin Tavern leans into politics, whereas the Ocean State Current leans into policy.
A post from last night is about a political circumstance that certainly has relevance for policy — namely, Democrat Governor Gina Raimondo’s obvious focus on her national future rather than her present obligations:
If Rhode Island’s governor weren’t more interested in her DGA role than in running her state, she might not be so “ecstatic” [about her party’s apparent victory in the Kentucky governor’s race]. After all, Matt Bevin is one of two governors keeping her from being the least-approved-of governor in the country. (She’s already the most disapproved.)
As the post also points out, Rhode Islanders might rightfully wonder whether our governor is setting policy in her own state so as to advance the interests of her party in other states.
My weekly call-in on John DePetro’s WNRI 1380 AM/95.1 FM show, for November 4, included talk about:
WNRI radio talk host John DePetro posted a bombshell on his Web site Sunday:
[An anonymous Board of Elections officer] described the ballot situation during the 2018 election as “completely void of integrity.” According to O1, there are “no checks and balances” for who is being registered to vote and who is casting the vote.
“It is extremely upsetting, frustrating and frankly I feel terrible about the current conditions, but we simply don’t know what to do. I do my job the best I can and we have very dedicated professionals working to improve the system but it is basically out of our hands. The amount of ballot harvesting has gone to a higher level and we simply are not equipped to handle it or process it to ensure all votes are legitimate. Campaign workers are finding people, registering them to vote, presenting a mail ballot and then delivering the ballot to the BOE. The opportunity for manipulation of the vote is egregious. During the 2018 election season there were thousands of mail ballots being cast, and I mean thousands, that we knew were wrong but there is simply no mechanism in place to take proper corrective measures to stop it. On one street in the city (Providence) there were over 600 mail ballots and I honestly don’t believe one of those votes should have been counted.”
The officer estimates the number at 20,000, which could easily affect the outcome of an election, especially in local or General Assembly races. The question is: What should be done?
First of all, enough people should express their concern that happy talk from a Board of Elections member is not enough. Second, the Board of Elections and maybe the state police should begin an investigation of the mail ballots. Much of this process is new, and it would be reasonable for government officials to allocate some resources to make sure it’s working as intended.
We hear again and again that there is no evidence of voter fraud, but evidence can never be found if officials never look for it. The idea simply is not credible that elections are pristine in a state in which the House speaker’s campaign contractor is currently under indictment for money laundering to affect the outcome of a political race.
We need a transparent investigation, now, so that Rhode Islanders’ trust in their elections doesn’t erode any farther.
My weekly call-in on John DePetro’s WNRI 1380 AM/95.1 FM show, for October 28, included talk about Mayor Elorza’s in-office daycare and climate-plan distraction, warnings about weed corruption, the AG’s Wyatt scorecard, and the governor’s strong arm.
The indictment of Mattiello campaign contractor Jeff Britt raises an important theme that all Rhode Islanders should think about: the importance of political opposition:
The investigation dates back three years, to the fall of 2016, when Mattiello was in the political fight of his life against Republican Steven Frias. Mattiello defeated Frias by just 85 votes after his campaign coordinated a supportive mailer from Frias’s one-time Republican rival Shawna Lawton, who had lost to him in that year’s GOP primary.
But for the political pressure from Frias, Mattiello’s campaign would have felt no need to be so brazen. But for the RIGOP’s pursuit of the matter, the unusual campaign activity never would have become an issue:
As Lawton had only $43.34 in her campaign account at the time, state GOP Chairman Brandon Bell filed a complaint with the Board of Elections questioning how she could have paid for the $2,150 mailer. That led to a two-year, stop-and-start investigation by the elections board, the initiation of contempt proceedings, and now, to the doorstep of the state’s attorney general — and a second look on the now-closed case against Mattiello.
One could go even farther and suggest that Attorney General Peter Neronha has political competition as a reinforcing incentive to pursue these matters. In this episode, we’re getting faint glimpses of the sort of corrections that would be natural and unexceptional in a healthier polity.
This principle extends across government in Rhode Island. Political competition keeps politicians honest and ensures that there is always somebody who benefits by looking for better ways to serve the community and respond to constituents. When everything is locked up in a one-party system with an insider mentality, those in power are freer to serve each other.
My weekly call-in on John DePetro’s WNRI 1380 AM/95.1 FM show, for October 21, included talk about a political operative’s indictment, other political operatives’ hemp biz, Block’s complaint against government operatives, Wyatt protesters, and an unpopular governor.
The 2019 legislative session of the General Assembly had the feel of our freedoms’ letting go, and Rhode Islanders must find hope in the inability of insiders to keep the game going and the ability of non-insiders to organize.
A run-down of items in Rhode Island political news for the week.
Katherine Gregg’s article providing some insight into how political consultants helped IGT get its employees to the State House to testify on its proposed 20-year, no-bid deal with the state provides tremendous insight into the process:
First came a “Dear Colleagues” email from a senior vice president in IGT’s Global Brand, Marketing and Communications division. Provided to The Journal by an employee who asked to remain anonymous, it said, in part:
“As you are aware, this is a critical week for our RI lottery agreement …. Select employees are testifying at the House hearing. But we need as many as possible employees at the State House on Thursday October 3, 2019 …. We are asking employees to bring friends and family along as well.”
The series of emails informs employees that they’ll be able to dress down that day and maybe work from home the next. It promises reimbursement for parking, instructions on how to secure a seat in the hearing room and move around the State House, and assures participants of a free dinner.
Anybody who has made a go at grassroots organization at the State House will see the value of this — and the imbalance it indicates between special interests and the public at large. For the public at large, testifying on legislation is a bear. Where do they park? When should they arrive? What should they wear? The hearing rooms are either frigid or sweltering. There’s no food other than a vending machine tucked in the hallway (which is none too modern, to my recollection).
Ultimately, there’s nothing wrong with a private company hiring political consultants and giving employees incentive to support the organization’s mission. Still, IGT appears to have required managers located in Rhode Island to attend and to have provided amenities of some value to all employees. At what point should these things be reportable as lobbying activities? I remember when unpaid Tea Party members were registering as lobbyists simply so they wouldn’t be tripped up.
My preference is to minimize all such regulation of political activity, but consistency and equal application are crucial if we’re going to have it.
A column by Marc Thiessen in the New York Post and a related post by Glenn Reynolds on Instapundit raise an interesting implication. Here’s Thiessen:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking foreign heads of state or intelligence officials to cooperate with an official Justice Department investigation.
As George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley explains, “It is not uncommon for an attorney general, or even a president, to ask foreign leaders to assist with ongoing investigations. Such calls can shortcut bureaucratic red tape, particularly if the evidence is held, as in this case, by national security or justice officials.”
Taking opponents of President Trump at their word, then, what is the complaint? Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that Joe Biden, whose family is the subject of the investigation, is running for president. This presents the impression of the current president attempting to dig up dirt on an opponent.
Note one thing, here: President Trump didn’t put this in the news; a “whistleblower” did, in order to damage him. The Bidens’ curious activities in the Ukraine may never have become an issue unless there turned out to be evidence of actual corruption on their part.
Put all that aside, though, for the sake of a deeper, nonpartisan question. Should we be wary of a standard by which it is more difficult to investigate people because they’re running for offices of public trust? If President Trump had asked the president of the Ukraine for help investigating some corporate interest — an oil tycoon, for instance — it’s hard to imagine very much outcry, especially from the side of the aisle that periodically cites the International Criminal Court as a legitimate authority over Americans.
Of course, this is all academic, to some extent, because we know we’re observing a one-way standard. Because they’ve done it already, we know that a left-wing president or candidate favored by the news media could work closely with foreign governments to dig up dirt on their opposition and, as Thiessen notes, it would hardly rate as news coverage. One side’s impeachable offense is the other side’s “just the way it’s done.”
Perhaps the most clarifying statement in Rhode Island politics, recently, came from one of the candidates now involved with Matt Brown’s Political Cooperative (which, despite the name, is not an alt-country band):
“Thought I may be the epitome of the American dream I cannot sit around and watch while many of my brothers and sisters are denied a shot at that very dream,″ said Jonathan Acosta, tracing his own story from “first generation American born to undocumented migrants from Colombia″ to the Ivy League.
“I believe that we are not free until we have dismantled structural inequality, developed sustainable clean energy, enacted a $15 minimum wage that pays equal pay for equal work, extended healthcare for all, provide[d] affordable housing, ensured quality public education starting at Pre-K, undergone campaign finance reform, criminal justice reform, and implemented sensible gun control,″ said Acosta, running for the Senate seat currently held by Elizabeth Crowley, D-Central Falls.
So, to Mr. Acosta, we’re not free until we’ve taken from some categories of people to give to others, limited people’s energy options to benefit fashionable technologies, forbidden employers and employees from setting a mutually agreeable value on work to be done, taken money from some people in order to pay for others’ health care (as defined by a vote-buying government) and/or put price controls on what providers can charge, placed restrictions on who can live where and what they can build, tightened the regulation of politics with limits on the donations and privacy of those who become politically active, and reduced the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
If that doesn’t match your understanding of “freedom,” you’re not alone. Indeed, by its mission, this “cooperative” is cooperating against anybody whose understanding of freedom differs, because it cannot possibly cooperate with anybody who disagrees. You simply can’t hold a definition of freedom that doesn’t have satisfactory outcomes for the interest groups that progressives have targeted.
Maybe it’s an echo of my angry-young-man laborer days, but statements like this continue to grate on me:
Former state Rep. J. Aaron Regunberg issued a statement Friday on behalf of Never Again Action: “We are glad to hear that a grand jury is looking into this incident. Our hope is that justice will be served. That means holding accountable the individuals who attacked peaceful protesters with pepper spray and a truck. It also means holding the Wyatt accountable as an institution.”
He continued: “These were Wyatt employees, in uniform and on the job. If they were willing to assault peaceful protesters, in public and on camera, we know that this violence is just a shadow of what happens behind the walls.”
Let’s review who the speaker is, here. Regunberg graduated from an Ivy League school. Since graduation, his work appears to extend to progressive activist and legislator. When he failed to win the lieutenant governor seat (for which he ran with copious help from out-of-state funders), the progressive mayor of Providence gave him an $80,000-a-year job as, it seems, a professional activist to tide him over until he started at Harvard Law.
In short, this is a guy with a golden ticket who is going to be just fine in life. And here he is saying that he knows the working stiffs at Wyatt are perpetrating acts of violence against the inmates. Worse, he’s doing so as an official statement in the state’s major newspaper. Even worse, I haven’t seen anybody, anywhere call him out on it.
Meanwhile, here’s a news tidbit from another prison in Rhode Island:
A guard in the high security unit of Rhode Island’s state prison has been assaulted by an inmate. …
The guard was taken to the hospital, treated for a wound and released.
My 9th grade English teacher, Mrs. Murphy, taught me not to make accusative statements about people or organizations without more-substantial evidence than “everybody knows.” Apparently, it’s possible to get through Brown University without learning that lesson, and apparently, it’s possible to rise to the top of progressives’ activist network while exploiting that educational deficit.
A run-down of items in Rhode Island political news for the week.
My weekly call-in on John DePetro’s WNRI 1380 AM/95.1 FM show, for September 23, included talk about politicians’ school choice, the state’s gambling choice, the motives for a speaker conference, the motives for an announcement, and an inappropriate put-down from a taxpayer-funded spokesman.
Ian Donnis’s article looking into the educational choices of government officials who live in Providence has received much-deserved attention. I don’t think anybody has adequately noted how telling it really is.
The upshot is that, out of 38 officials he reviewed, Donnis found only eight with school-aged children, of whom there were 13 between them. Of these:
That’s not the whole story, though. One of the children in district schools went to charters before entering high school. He and one other politician’s child go to Classical, which has been ranked #1 in the state. Two more go to a particular elementary school, which Erika Sanzi implies is “on the fancy side of town,” with a lottery even for children in the neighborhood.
This scenario illustrates the essence of educational freedom that wealthier families enjoy. If they are interested in utilizing public schools, they’ll move to specific zip codes for that purpose. If that isn’t an option, or if the schools change, they apply for charter schools. If they don’t win that gamble, or if a particular school has an entrance exam and their children don’t succeed on the test, then they’ll turn to private schools. (I’ve long suggested that charter schools’ introduction was in some respects an attempt to capture those families that were escaping to private schools.)
If we consider education to be as critical as politicians like to claim, then it shouldn’t only be families of means who can make these decisions.
A run-down of items in Rhode Island political news for the week.
During a hearing on the state’s takeover of Providence schools, WPRI’s Steph Machado tweeted the following comment from Domingo Morel, who wrote a book on state takeovers of schools and who joined the Johns Hopkins team to review Providence:
“It’s pretty unique” that the mayor, city council and school board haven’t objected to the state taking over the PVD schools
Perhaps these amount to the same thing, but one wonders whether the reason is that they know they aren’t capable of fixing the problem or want to pass the buck for the responsibility.
On most of Rhode Island’s intractable problems, especially those that manifest most significantly at the local level, one gets the sense that the strategy goes something like this:
Of course, this process isn’t purely a function of our elected officials. We the people, after all, allow them to bring things to this point because we’re not willing to elect and support candidates and elected officials who could turn it around.
Rhode Islanders don’t have to look too closely to see the threads that run through various stories about local corruption and to (hopefully) learn a lesson.
My weekly call-in on John DePetro’s WNRI 1380 AM/95.1 FM show, for September 3, included talk about potential gubernatorial candidates for 2022 and the various questions surrounding state-run gambling.
At least five Rhode Island conservatives received Progressive hate letters in the mail to their homes. Chad Callanan, Sean Todd, Andy Deutsch, Rhode Island GOP Chairwoman Sue Cienki, and Senator Gordon Rogers were the targets of the coordinated mailings. The identity of the sender is unknown.