Here are my endorsements for Tuesday's election, with my comments. Note that these are my picks, not the formal endorsements of the Agenda (which don't really exist, at least not formally) or anyone else.
Federal legislative offices:
U.S. Senate: Sheldon Whitehouse
Why: Not a Republican, and can likely win. - Okay, that may sound simple-minded, but let's look at this realistically: Chafee's a nice guy. I like him, I really do. And I completely accept his claim that he's an idependent-minded centrist, in comportment with the vast majority of the electorate. And in many election cycles, that would be enough. But the issue this year, the issue that's bigger than Chafee himself, is control of the Senate. And as long as Chafee retains his Republican membership, his single headcount threatens to maintain Republican control of the Senate. This year, it matters not one whit who or what Chafee the Man is; it matters that just by being there, as a Republican, he helps to empower one of the most reckless, senseless and dangerous regimes in Western history. If Chafee were to get up today and declare his formal disaffiliation, he would easily win this challenge. The majority of his constituency likes him both personally and politically, and would gladly support him, if only it wasn't for that pesky Republican collar around his neck. Few doubt his claims that he will vote his conscience, and not the party line, but that won't matter much if neocons continue to control the congressional agenda. Sure, disaffiliation would piss off hardcore Rhode Island Republicans (maybe even both of them) but it would augur a sure win for him on Tuesday: most Rhode Islanders respond to Whitehouse at best with a disinterested shrug: they don't really care about his ideas or proposals; all that matters is that he could win against Chafee, but much more importantly, he's not a Republican. Mr. Chafee, we have just two words for you today: Jim Jeffords. Think about it, won't you?
Representative, Dist. 1: Patrick Kennedy
Why: Why not? - Okay, so he got high and crashed his car. Who of us hasn't done that? He's done well in office -- I'm pretty sure, anyway -- and what do any of his opponents bring to the table? Sure, they might be more 'sober' or whatever, but really, if you've had to sit through congressional hearings -- and I have, so believe me, I know -- you'd want to do drugs, too.
Rep., Dist. 2: Rod Driver
Why: He's a tell-it-like-it-is, pull-no-punches, royal prick of a straight talker. In other words, he's my kind of guy. I don't ask anyone who represents me to be nice. I want them to speak truth to power, and Driver does, in a way that indeed rubs a lot of people the wrong way, but demanding straight talk about inconvenient truths seems to be asking a lot from the run-of-the-mill congresscritters running around these days. I like Langevin, he seems like a nice guy, although I find his conservatism somewhat restrictive, at least in conventional Rhode Island terms, for my own taste. Driver offers a refreshing change, if only in that he's not afraid to tell us what we don't to hear.
Rhode Island:
Gubernor: Charlie "Mr. Potatohead" Fogarty
Why: Has some goddamned clue about the plight of working people; looks funny - I actually like Carcieri personally, and I honestly believe that he's done some fine things, and may do more. But I was personally infuriated by his active opposition to the minimum wage increase (which campaign he abandoned in the face of overwhelming -- read: veto-proof -- legislative support for the measure), and I've found that anger very hard to shake. If our elected officials cannot appreciate the reality and needs of the least advantaged of their constituency, then they do not represent our interests, and do not deserve the opportunity. Sure, The Don said all the right things in the wake of the Station fire, but does anyone really believe that Myrth York would have done worse? Now, I do have my concerns about Fogarty, especially the patina of Democratic cronyism that must attend anyone with his extensive legislative history. But that's not a dealbreaker on its own, and even though he seems to have done little or nothing as Lt. Gov. (though as candidate Healey stresses, no one in that office ever really does), it seems fair to give the chair to someone else, someone who might, just might, have some appreciation for us assholes who actually generate the wealth. As an added bonus, it would be fun to have a governor we can point to and laugh. (Am I the only one who misses the Kennedy-at-arraignment look of Missing Linc Almond?) - As an aside, I'd like to offer this comment on recent ads criticising Carcieri's vocal support of Bush: It doesn't matter what the Governor of Rhode Island thinks about the President. As a state-level executive, he does not get to vote on federal policy, and so it doesn't matter what he thinks of Bush. There are legitimate arguments against Carcieri, but this isn't among them.
Lt. Gov.: Skip Healey
Why: He's right, the office is obsolete, and an unconscionable drain on needed state resources, as well as a pointless -- indeed, almost entirely symbolic -- stepping stone to higher office. Besides, he's by far the coolest cat ever to run for public office in Rhode Island. Look at that iconic image of him leaning, George Harrison style, against that gigantic hand-shaped sand sculpture on the Uruguayan shore, and ask, how can you not want to vote for him? Can anyone think of a single image of incumbent Fogarty that doesn't suggest we could offset the pointless cost of the office by selling advertising in the space above his amble brow? Cool Moose, all the way, baby.
Secretary of State: Sue Stenhouse
Why: Has not recently been mayor of North Providence, or attended a Mob funeral. - Mollis has a good campaign motto, "Experienced Leadership." A better one would be, "He Knows Some Guys." There's no way in hell that one holds the mayorship of NoPro for more than a couple weeks without getting their hands dirty. Stenhouse is good on her own terms, but up against Mollis she looks more than twice as good, and not just because she doesn't have a tan from the finest salon on Mineral Spring Ave.
Atty. Gen.: Bill Harsch
Why: Not a two-faced douchebag - Lynch almost certainly had his re-election in the bag (so to speak), until the surprise court settlement in the Derderian case -- which, in case anyone has forgotten, or only just came out from under a rock or out of a prolonged coma, is about nothing less than the horribly truncated lives of 100 people due to gross mismanagement and clearly wilfull neglect and oversight by those who owned the place, as well as those whose duty it was to look out for the safety of the club-going public. That the judge in the case might unilaterally, without consideration, impose his own summary judgement on the case is certainly very unusual and unexpected; but for Lynch -- who is, in case anyone forgot, only the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in all of Rhode Island -- to assert that the deal was made without his knowledge and consent stretches credulity well beyond the breaking point. As a recent radio ad for Harsch pointed out, if this is true, then Lynch is the most clueless and incompetent AG in history; as I prefer to put it myself, the only thing that could possibly be worse than this obvious lie would be if it were actually true. It's time for a change; it doesn't even matter very much who wins, as long as Lynch isn't rewarded for lying to all of us. Some critics of Harsch suggest that he might be, well, harsh; okay, so who's asking for a daisies-and-kittens kind of AG anyway? We've seen that already; now let's see some cajones in that plush leather chair down on South Main.
Gen. Treasurer: Frank Caprio
Why: Can you name his opponent, without cheating? Yeah, didn't think so. Me either, and I just looked it up, only a few seconds ago. There's something to be said for at least being known for your ideas, whatever they are.
Mayor of Providence: David Cicilline
Why: See 'Gen. Treas.' above: The Republicans have cajoled some poor sap into running against him. (At least, now that Cianci is gone, he can hope to make it through the campaign without any need for crutches.) And there's the inveterate also-ran Christopher Young, who told me, "I'll never stop running!" (regarding my suggestion that his quixotic persistence is becoming a bit of a droll joke) -- which just goes to show that a fool doesn't know when to quit. Young is an energetic guy with a lot to say. And nothing says 'serious candidate for leader of the second largest city in New England' like a GeoCities website. He asserts that the recent state law banning multiple, mutually-exclusive campaigns was enacted specifically against him, to silence him (or something like that -- one gets lost in the hyperbolic babble after awhile). Unfortunately, his are the tears of an ass-clown, in that he didn't invent the multi-seat campaign, and in fact, he's never once topped the charts on that abuse, either: just this cycle, one Mr. Raposa is running for more offices than him (including for U.S. Senate -- better watch that hinder, Shel!). Young rightfully points out many shortcomings of current incumbancies, including the mayor's; but suggesting that he'd somehow intimidate City Council into submission to his vague but progressive agenda seems far-fetched, at best: There are several legitimate criticisms of Cicillene's record; but if your car is not going the direction you want it to, the solution is not to pass the wheel to a child. I'm willing to give Cicillene the benefit of the doubt: he's got a tough job, after all, running a city that's enjoyed such a long and rich tradition of payoffs, kiss-offs, and jerk-offs; give him more time to find all the bodies, and give our sordid past a decent burial.
Ballot Questions:
1) Casino: What part of NO can I manage to emphasise beyond even manga proportions? Coming from Connecticut, I'd like to project the presumption that I might be able to offer some insights regarding Indian casinos that might -- just might -- be of interest to those pondering this question. There are many things I could say, but one that seems obvious is: take a trek through southeastern Connecticut, and you'll notice that the streets are not paved in gold, and the people are not dancing around in fine fibres, lolling away the days while their property taxes ebb away into nothingness, and their children attend schools with the finest teachers that all that filthy eucre-lucre can buy. In fact, most of us who moved here from Connecticut ten years ago did so because the state's economy collapsed following the end of the Cold War (because half a century ago, we went down to the crossroads and sold our soul, making an obscene fortune on defense contracting). If the two largest casinos in the Western Hemisphere couldn't bail out Connecticut, then why do Rhode Islanders imagine that a casino less than one third the size will somehow solve all our economic woes? And as the incidence of violent crime around the casinos has vastly increased -- in some cases, as much as a staggering 800% (and North Stonington has seen its first murder in over a century) -- who is calculating the projected social costs? Is it for the Indians? Well, if you consider that the Narragansetts stand to own only 5% of the standalone company, and that only of casino take (and not one penny of entertainment, hospitality, banquets, and so on), while it might benefit a small group of people, is it really liberating them in some way, or merely infantilising them, as happened to the Mashantucket Pequots? (They've got a nice museum, we hear -- know anyone who's ever been there and seen it?) There's an obvious dark side to all this, that media heavyweights like the ProJo (who recently -- and inexplicably, given their longstanding casino opposition -- just flipped in favour of the casino) aren't talking about much, which is that casino operations inevitably involve crime, in different ways -- from the petty crime of those who, like other kinds of addicts, need money to feed their habit, to the huge sums involved in organised crime, which is always found wherever money is. To suggest that a casino needn't carry along with it a substantial criminal shadow is no less irrational than to suggest that one might consume a large, sumptuous meal without having to visit the toilet. - Casino proponents keep talking about what the casino "will" do for Rhode Island, as if this was in any way certain; but it is not: none of the fiscal details have been settled, and all of that depends on the assumption that in a state infamous for graft and corruption, our Assembly will not cave to pressure from Harrah's, the largest and most powerful gaming company in the country. Who's willing to bet on that? Moreover, the state is promised (again, not in writing) a portion of slot revenues; this is like a deli promising a portion of potato chip revenues: is it money? sure. a lot? not so much. - Will it benefit the Narragansetts? Undoubtably; practically anything would. But for all the attendent soul staining that comes from big-time gaming, they might as well just sell crack -- it's more honest, and it would at least keep the money in the state. Given that Harrah's is now pouring over $100,000 a day into the pro-casino campaign, one must assume that they expect a return on their investment -- and one shouldn't have to wonder too long about where that money is expected to come from. - Casino proponents point out that we've already got gambling in the state. That's true, but the issue here is one of scale: We've got an airport, too, but no one's suggesting paving over all of Providence-Newport .. er, I mean Warwick. Moreover, all games of chance are currently under strict state control; the proposal would give away most of that control to some very powerful and shrewd out-of-state businessmen. - Coming from a state where gigantic casinos did not save us from fiscal catastrophe, but did permanently alter the landscape of once serene rural towns and invite unprecedented crime, I can't earnestly enough urge anyone who cares about anything to vote this monstrous threat down.
2) Vote for Felons: Let's first clarify the issue, which has confused some people. Right now, former felons can vote -- once they've completed their entire sentence, including all parole time, which can sometimes last many years. The proposed amendment would allow paroled felons to vote, as soon as their incarceration period is up. It may seem a small thing, but for a person working and paying taxes for years after leaving prison, it can be a big deal; inmates don't pay taxes, but parolees can be subject to taxation without representation (just like the law-abiding citizens of America's ten territories, including Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico, but that's a story for another time). How you should vote on this measure depends on how you feel about felons: If you feel that felonious acts should have longstanding repercussions, then vote against; if you feel that paroled felons have earned the trust of society to engage in the political process (something that the vast majority of those legally empowered under current law decline), then vote for. I personally favour the proposal, because it seems logical to me that if the state feels you're okay be out on your own, working and paying taxes and whatnot, then you should also be trusted with the vote. I also agree with proponents that it's part of the vital reintegration process for felons; some of us believe in redemption, after all.
3) Budget Reserve Account: This is both more and less complicated than it seems, but in simplest terms, the proposal would improve the state's emergency readiness and bond rating, both of which are desireable, so you should vote for it; it also has broad bilateral support, so no one's arguing against it, either. One ancillary benefit of the measure is that it also forces the Assembly to manage the state's debt relief within the budget, meaning more transparent and more honest government.
4) Higher Education: This bond measure specifically funds a new college of pharmacy at URI. Historically, investment in higher education pays off many times over, and pharmacy is among the most robust proven growth industries that the Northeast is well suited to. There is every good reason to support this. (Aside: The ProJo supports the casino but opposes this measure, suggesting a long-term fiscal development scheme that can only be described as, well, high-stakes gambling.)
5) Transportation: RIDOT wants more money. They come back every two years with their hand out, every time asking for more. This time, it's $88.5M, which they say will match federal grants, which sounds all well and good, but broken down, we find that the lion's share -- $80M, nearly the whole poke -- is for "highways, road and bridges" -- which we for some reason can't seem to fund either within regular budgeting, or through other means, such as increasing taxes on drivers. One must ask, at what point are we allowed to conclude that motoring is costing us all too much, whether we drive or not, and argue for stricter measures that might inconvenience some drivers, and perhaps encourage more use of mass transit? A RIPTA survey of the last year finds that many drivers won't be encouraged to ride no matter what: could it be that we just make it too easy for them to drive, partly by repeatedly vesting fantastic sums of money in their convenience? Now, after the roadways portion, a few crumbs are left over for mass transit; well sort of: $7M (no matching funds) is vested to 'commuter rail' but as of this writing, no details have come forward; in fact, there is no real plan for commuter rail, just occasional airy chat, and if the money sits around long enough, it can be converted for some other use. (If you're wondering why the area around the Providence River looks so fabulous, while there is still no freeway to Hartford -- well, now you know.) And finally, $1.5M (also unmatched) goes to "buses". Have you priced a public bus lately? This tiny scrap of crust won't do much for RIPTA, and won't do much for Rhode Island's very real problems with increasing traffic. - Sometimes, you have to give up a bit of candy to let the leaders know how far off base they are: vote against this measure to send a message that cars and commuter convenience aren't more important than quality of life, for everyone, whether they drive or not.
6) Roger Williams Park Zoo: You should support this for the same reason you should support the URI pharmacy bond, though this is less critical and less sound -- but still a good bet. The bond vests $11M to vastly improve the Park and Zoo to increase tourism -- a very significant portion of the city and state's vital revenue.
7) Fort Adams State Park: The bond vests $4M to renovate, rehabilitate and improve Fort Adams, a major and important (and very popular) Newport tourist attraction. I've gone back and forth on this, most recently feeling that Newporters can afford it themselves, if pressed, but a visit there over the summer left we wishing it were in better shape and that I could see more, and I now consider that Fort Adams is an asset for the whole state, and thus deserves statewide support.
8) DEM - Local Recreation: This bond vests $3M in a state-level fund to enhance local park and rec funding. The ProJo makes a case that local powers should fund this on their own, and there's some argument for that. But they also oppose the URI pharmacy, which is an obvious good idea, so I find their judgement unsound. I'm still not sure how good an idea this is, but in the grand scheme of things, $3M really isn't so much for what I imagine at worst involves park maintenance, but could also mean purchase and protection of public greenways. Some of us still feel that this is a good thing.
9) Affordable Housing: $50M (over four years) will provide funding for affordable rental and home ownership. We'd like to see more details, especially given the size of the bond. There are also legitimate questions about whether warehousing the poor in carefully crafted, densely packed, cookie-cutter ghettoes is a more prudent solution to low-income housing problems (especially in the long term) than investing in existing mixed-income housing schemes, in a more organic manner that gives some respect to human equality in context of economic disparity. Put another way: Do modern 'affordable housing' schemes really enhance living for the poor, or are they just another way to enforce ancient caste systems? In the short term, I'm for this, because I want to help those who find trouble affording shelter. But before the next go-round, let's have an honest and open discussion about what solutions work best for the most people.
