Cicilline Campaign Engaging in Video Intimidation?

Isn't this charming.

On May 12, I attended the grand opening of First District congressional candidate Bren-dan Doherty’s campaign office in East Providence. It was a well-attended event that inspired the crowd gathered to show support for Mr. Doherty and his positive message.

As the event ended, campaign supporters, volunteers and friends of the candidate filed out of the building and onto the street, where they were met by a young man with a video camera pointed toward the exit of the building. With the video camera mounted on a tripod approximately 15 to 20 feet from the doorway, and the cameraman leaning cross-armed against a telephone pole next to it, supporters of Mr. Doherty had little choice but to have their images captured as they left the event. After the last few attendees exited, the cameraman packed up his tripod and drove off in a car prominently displaying a “Cicilline for Congress” bumper sticker.

Since that day, I have been consumed with questions. For what purpose will those images be used? Who will be reviewing the videotape? Have I made someone’s “enemies list”? Will our respective businesses be blacklisted from participating in government contracts? Will U.S. Rep. David Cicilline (D.-R.I.) now expand his tracking to supporters and their families? ...

Tara Pinsky Providence
The writer is chairwoman of the Providence Republican Committee.

(Thanks to the Providence Journal for printing this letter.)

Ms. Pinsky raises some excellent questions, especially the one about blacklisting businesses from gov't contracts. Oh, perhaps not so much on the federal level. But certainly on the state level. All the congressman or his staff have to do is quietly pass the word back to Rhode Island. Funnelling business to the "right" (not necessarily the best or the most competent or the most competitive) companies is second nature for the RI Democrat party which, of course, also controls the General Assembly and its budget.

Video-taping his opponent's supporters borders on thug behavior. How desperately does David Cicilline want to win re-election?

Contradictions From Cicilline

This would be funny if it weren't so sad. The incumbent Congressman's staff put out press releases on his behalf that contradict each other. According to one, it's a bad thing that out-of-state groups support Republican Brendan Doherty. But then the other hand, Cicilline wants to tout the fact that out-of-state, national groups support his own candidacy. Check out excerpts from two press releases sent out recently.

Included in a release yesterday:

David has also secured endorsements from AFL-CIO and the National Education Association.

If the endorsement is from a group that he likes, such as these two national organizations, then it's a good thing.

But then in today's press release:

an out-of-state Republican-allied group is going up on the air here in Rhode Island today touting David’s Republican opponent

But wait, it gets better:

Thank you for helping us to combat this secret out-of-state money that is trying to influence the outcome of this election.

Quite the contradiction, eh? It's ok for him to get endorsements and money from out-of-state national organizations, but it's not ok when Doherty does? And are they really saying that AFL-CIO and NEA money will not attempt to influence the outcome of the election? Seriously?

I guess when you're dealing with the team that had to apologize for misleading the public, you can't always expect consistency in something as simple as press releases.

Re: Democrats Stay Home

As Patrick points out, with his announcement Sunday, Anthony Gemma feigns disregard for his primary election in September and, in fact, expresses near sympathy for his primary opponent.

"Gemma paused and said "I won't hit a man when he's down." Then later went on to add "This race is between me and Brendan Doherty.""

There's something very strange here. First of all, how did we go from the ferocious primary contender of two years ago to not wanting to "hit a man" - that same reprehensible opponent! - when he's "down"? We should also clarify here that "down", in this case, doesn't mean some fatal disease (unless you count a pathological inability to speak the truth where it would make him look bad). It means that David Cicilline finally had to confront, to a very limited extent, his own lying and covering up of Providence's actual fiscal condition - official conduct which was so bad that it warrants a criminal investigation.

Most importantly, however, Mr. Gemma doesn't get to face off against Colonel Doherty unless he first beats the prevaricator currently representing CD-1. But Mr. Gemma is disregarding this critical fact. There are three possible explanations for this course of action; none of them reflect well on Mr. Gemma:

1.) Under Patrick's post, Jon identifies the first: Mr. Gemma is staying on as a straw candidate to assist David Cicilline.

2.) Mr. Gemma has been told that David Cicilline is going to withdraw from the race. This information would have to come from the candidate himself or a very close surrogate for Mr. Gemma to be guided by it; you don't pull your political punches on the say-so of a campaign underling. Accordingly, if this is the case, Mr. Gemma is making the fatal error of conducting his campaign on the basis of the word of David Cicilline.

3.) Mr. Gemma has seen poll results which give him what he believes to be an insurmountable lead in the primary. But, of course, there is rarely such a thing as an insurmountable lead in a political campaign. "Rarely" becomes non-existent when it comes to an opponent who is willing to utter any lie and do just about anything (as we saw during his tenure as mayor!) for political gain.

It doesn't bother me to watch a Rhode Island Democrat step on a political banana peel. Sometimes, though, it is a fascinatingly perplex-full occurance.

Gemma: Absolutely No Reform to Social Security

Yesterday, Anthony Gemma made his well-telegraphed announcement. As Patrick notes, the announcement was very light on issue substance.

Thanks to the ProJo's John Mulligan, however, we have at least one substantive morsel to gnaw on. Towards the end of Mulligan's article in yesterday's Providence Journal, which went to press before Mr. Gemma made his announcement, we learn about this fascinating and disturbing stance.

For good measure, Gemma embraces a Social Security policy to the left of most Democrats: “no changes, ever” in the tax or benefit structure as a means of ensuring the program’s long-term solvency.

Really? Even though, in 2010, social security began paying out more than it took in and, in 2036, social security benefits will be exhausted?

So Mr. Gemma will disregard the advice of the Treasury Secretary? (For the record, that's not President Bush's Treasury Secretary, but President Obama's.)

"Social Security and Medicare benefits are secure today, but reform will be needed so they will be there for current and future retirees," Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told reporters at a Treasury Department news conference.

Geithner said the report underscores "the need to act sooner rather than later" to make reforms to entitlement programs.

"We should not wait for the Trust Funds to be exhausted to make the reforms necessary to protect our current and future retirees," he said.

In light of the precarious financial condition of social security, is no reform to social security - "no changes, ever" - really a wise and sustainable goal, either as a fiscal policy or a political stance?

Democrats Stay Home

If you live in the First Congressional District, the only race you care about voting in on primary day this fall and you're a Democrat, you can stay home. The race is over, just come vote in November.

Anthony Gemma was on the Helen Glover Show this morning and he repeatedly contrasted himself with Republican Brendan Doherty. At one point, Glover asked Gemma directly, whether he will attack Cicilline at all during the race. Gemma paused and said "I won't hit a man when he's down." Then later went on to add "This race is between me and Brendan Doherty."

So there you have it Dems. It's over, just stay home, there will be no primary in September.

Or maybe Gemma is right. Maybe he knows something that Mark Zaccaria predicted earlier. Will Cicilline drop out of the race due to his sagging poll numbers and clear the field for Gemma to take on Doherty unscathed?

Gemma's Back in the Race

Local businessman Anthony Gemma formally announced his bid for Congress today in CD1. He'll be running as a Democrat and facing off with David Cicilline in a primary this fall, I think. You'd never know who his opponent is though by his speech on Sunday. According to reports filed by Ted Nesi and Ian Donnis, Gemma never named his primary opponent and saved his barbs for Republican Brendan Doherty.

(He) left public service as soon as he became eligible for his state pension. … Brendan Doherty lives in a public sector bubble.

So does the Democrat Gemma oppose public sector pensions? Does he not think that the public employees deserve a pension? Plus, didn't Doherty leave public service as soon as his supervisor, Governor Chafee, expressed the opinion that illegal immigration can actually be a good thing for a community? It seemed the new Governor's stance on Secure Communities might have had more to do with Doherty deciding to leave his position than anything about having a fully vested pension.

How long has Gemma considered running for this seat? I'm assuming it was more than just Sunday. So then why can't he offer any substance to his proposals?

[Gemma] is "most equipped - and therefore most likely - to create thousands of well-paying jobs in Rhode Island and, by extension, in the United States." He promised more details in the weeks to come but said his proposals would include a plan to make college more affordable.

More details in the weeks to come? He's had two years to come up with these details and this is what we get?

Ian Donnis added

Gemma also talked big about creating jobs and transforming how members of Congress do their jobs. The details, he said, will be forthcoming

I'm glad this speech was planned so well ahead. Additionally, Sam Howard noted

Thus Mr. Gemma introduced that his candidacy would run under the theme of the “New Idea”. However, he did not once say what that New Idea would be, leaving the door open to speculation.

Why not wait until you have at least some details to offer in the speech?

Maybe another example of Gemma's lack of preparation was the fact that he refused to take any questions from the media in attendance. Ted Nesi noted

[Gemma] quickly got into his SUV and departed. A supporter criticized members of the media for following Gemma to ask questions, saying they'd "chased him away" from his kickoff event.

So here we have a Congressional candidate that can be "chased away" by a few local media members? I've met Nesi and Donnis and while they may be very scary characters (not really), I would think that if Gemma can't take the heat of a couple questions from them, he may not quite be ready for the spotlight and the heat of the public scrutiny given to a Congressman.

We'll have the next five months to see if he handles the media any better, and to see what those details are on creating jobs, making college more affordable and what is the new idea?

One's Playing Checkers, the Other is Playing Chess

Come on now. When you are the incumbent, shouldn't you usually have the better team and the better responses available? Today's response and then response to the response posted on the RI NPR OnPolitics Blog, between Brendan Doherty and David Cicilline's spokeswoman wasn't even close. If this was a boxing match, it'd easily have been a 10-8 round.

Am I biased? Yes, of course I am, I'm able to admit that. However just about anyone could read these two releases and see it wasn't Nicole Kayner's finest hour.

For starters, the Doherty response to Cicilline's attempt at an apology was concise and very much on point. He continued to reinforce the points that the whole issue isn't as much about the fiscal situation in Providence. I think everyone is fully aware that the problem was not solely caused by David Cicciline. The issue here is how Cicilline handled it, possibly against the by-laws of the city, then concealed those actions, and then told us everything was fine. Worse yet, he tries to tell us that he's taking full responsibility while also telling us that he did not intentionally mislead us on the financial status of the city.

The Cicilline campaign chose to respond to the response. Fortunately, it's short enough to include here.

David Cicilline has accepted responsibility for decisions he made, including the decision to avoid a tax increase during a recession. He explained that he had been hopeful that the Carcieri administration would accept its responsibility to the cities and towns of the district rather than cut 40 million from the Providence budget. Mr. Doherty was Governor Carcieri’s protégé. His desire to defend the Republican administration is understandable if wrongheaded. These drastic cuts really hurt cities and towns all across Rhode Island. While Doherty is busy attacking David, he is silent on the leaders of his party, who are obstructing the passage of a bipartisan transportation bill that passed the Senate with 74 votes which would bring 9,000 jobs to Rhode Island.

Let's take a close look at this. I'll leave aside the semantics of whether it was due to being a recession or an election year that Cicilline chose to not increase taxes. Then it's all attack mode. Put all the blame on Carcieri. What'd Carcieri do? He submitted a budget that could have been the Sunday comics for all the power he had to go along with it. It is the state's General Assembly that controls the budget. The same General Assembly that ripped the current Governor's budget proposal to shreds last year. The Assembly can do whatever they want with the budget, the Governor is virtually powerless to do anything about it. If you want to blame anyone for cuts in state aid, the Speaker (who just happens to be from Providence) and the then-Finance Committee Chairman Steven Costantino, also from Providence, would be a great place to start.

Lastly, I had to laugh at the mention of Doherty not criticizing Congressional Republicans. That is laughable since Doherty isn't even a member of Congress yet, but Cicilline thought it appropriate to lump Doherty in with them. To even suggest that Doherty should be critical of members of his own party is in itself hypocritical. Have we seen a single instance recently where Cicilline has criticized the Obama administration? He can't even bring himself to criticize the Democrat-led Rhode Island General Assembly!

Read both releases and I'm guessing you might agree that this wasn't Kayner's best day as it includes quite a bit of reaching for straws. However, with Sunday night fast approaching, this might be their last chance to pay any attention to Doherty for a few months.

Cicilline "Apologizes"

Now what could I possibly have to say negative about David Cicilline finally admitting that he misled the voters and may not have described Providence's financial picture accurately and is now apologizing? Why am I using the quotes in the title? Well, lets take a look at Tim White's story about the Cicilline apology.

Congressman David Cicilline offered a public apology and expressed regret Tuesday for saying during his 2010 campaign that Providence was in "excellent financial condition."

“I should not have used that word,” Cicilline said in a wide-ranging interview with WPRI 12. “It obviously doesn’t describe the condition the city is in [and] it was never my intention to mislead people intentionally.”

Oh no? It wasn't your intent to mislead people? What was your intent when you said the city was in "excellent financial condition?" I'm trying to figure this one out. What I would ask is was he aware that the city was not in fact, in "excellent financial condition?" Did he believe at the time of the statement that the city was in "excellent financial condition?" If he didn't believe the city was doing so well, then why did he make the statement if it wasn't to intentionally mislead people? It might seem that when he's apologizing for not telling the truth, he might still not be telling the truth.

Sorry, I'm just still stuck on that "mislead people intentionally" part. He's saying that it wasn't a lie. So if he wasn't intentionally misleading people, how did that statement come about? Either he thought Providence was in fine financial shape or he didn't and used the words to intentionally mislead. Which is it? Do we need to cite the multiple examples of how he had to have known that the city was in tough shape? From the blocking of the city auditor to the "tapping into the rainy-day fund – without councilors' approval" and even his own statements about the loss of state funding. How could he not know that the city was in trouble financially? If he didn't, he was clearly the most incompetent mayor in the history of America. So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he isn't that and just leave it that even the apology isn't the most sincere.

And yes, of course we have to question the timing of this "apology." Just like two years ago when he was telling us what we wanted to hear, that everything was all rosy with the finances, he's trying that trick again. Tell people what they want to hear, that he's sorry, he's apologizing, give him another shot. So this is twice now that he's tried this trick. Or is it?

I'm sure Firefighters Local 799 remembers 2002 and dealing with then mayoral candidate Cicilline. Local 799 had their own ongoing dispute with the Providence mayors but then

In a July 2002 email Cicilline sent to the members of Local 799, he indicated that he hoped to resolve their pending contract dispute with the city within 30 days of taking office.

In an election year, exactly what the union wanted to hear! Someone on their side! Their guy! Elect Cicilline and the contract will finally get done, right? Wrong. On March 23, 2010 Ian Donnis wrote:

The long-running dispute between Providence firefighters and City Hall appears headed for resolution.

Right. It was eight years later that the deal was done. And take note of the year it was done. Yes! Another election year!

So there you have it. Quite the pattern of saying one thing during a campaign and either doing something different or not really meaning what you say. Three concrete examples. What more do we need? What's that old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, I must be a Rhode Island voter."

Langevin's Challenger (Riley) Attracts Potential $upport From National Organization

The Providence Journal's John Mulligan reports.

The leader of a conservative group that spent about $165,000 to attack then-congressional candidate David N. Cicilline in 2010 wants to help unseat Rep. James R. Langevin in 2012, he said Monday.

Democrat Langevin is “a tax-and-spend liberal” who faces a “viable” challenger in Republican Michael G. Riley, said Christopher Stenberg of Americans for Common Sense Solutions. Riley has already demonstrated a willingness to tap his personal assets for the race, he said, while incumbent Langevin “has a weakness in his own fundraising.”

What's interesting is not just that a Republican candidate - two, actually, the group will also be supporting Brendan Doherty - would receive support from a national organization. (John Loughlin was also a recipient of this organization last election.) It's that it would happen so early in the campaign.

On behalf of Rhode Islanders who would like to see more domestic oil flowing into the world's supply, who would like far fewer tax dollars flowing from our wallets to fiscally unsustainable green manufacturing, and who don't appreciate being dictated to about light bulbs (to pick just one issue - energy - about which Congressman Langevin is seriously misguided), let me say: thanks, "Americans for Common Sense Solutions". We appreciate all the assistance we can get in dislodging our bad congressmen.

(I'm having a nice, serene day. So for the moment, I'm not going to link to or even think about just HOW BAD the congressman from the first district is. He might be knocked out in a primary - oooohmmm. He might not run at all. Oooooooohmmm.)

Did He Really Go There?

I'm not sure what exactly I would do without Ted Nesi's Twitter feed. Today, he had a link to a Huffington Post OpEd from Congressman David Cicilline titled "They Just Don't Get It" where he bashes the budget passed by the House yesterday.

Did he really state "they just don't get it" and referred to budgeting in the same article? Really? Wouldn't that be akin to Newt Gingrich or John Edwards giving marriage fidelity advice? David Cicilline is seriously criticizing someone over budgeting and anything financial? Just three days after Providence had its bond rating cut yet again in part due to Cicilline's own budgeting issues?

A couple of the head-scratchers from the article include:

I have spoken with families across our state who are tired of the same old political games that got our country into this mess to begin with.

They know that Washington should put politics aside and work on policies that will create jobs, support our middle class, and put the economy back on the right track.

And yet he goes on to attack the Republicans for this budget. How exactly is that putting "politics aside"?

There's also the rehashing of a 2010 election trick:

This Republican budget proposal would also replace the current health care system for our seniors with a voucher program that could allow Medicare to wither on the vine and shift costs to seniors.

I guess on the bright side, he stopped blaming Brendan Doherty for the Congressional budget.

Finally, I have to wonder about the consistency of message in the Cicilline campaign. In this article, he leads off with

Yesterday, less than a year after a similar proposal was defeated, the House Republican leadership held a vote on a budget proposal that would extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans

But just two days ago, I got an email from the Cicilline campaign stating:

David is facing a conservative Republican in this upcoming election who is so out-of-touch, he actually supports repealing the Bush tax cuts

I'm confused here. On one hand, Cicilline blasts the Republicans for wanting to extend the tax cuts and on the other, his campaign is blasting Brendan Doherty for wanting to end the tax cuts. If he's against extending them and he's against ending them, is there anything that Cicilline is for?

Does Lincoln Chafee Support David Cicilline for Congress and, if He Does, is it Actually News?

Chris Fierro, District Director for Rhode Island First District Congressman David Cicilline, tweeted this following a Cicilline fundraiser held last night...

Leaving a fantastic event for @davidcicilline -- strong support; full room with @Angel_Taveras @LincolnChafee @GinaRaimondo and many more!

Mayor Taveras and Treasurer Raimondo were mentioned in earlier news reports (WRNI's Ian Donnis, WPRI's Ted Nesi) as members of the host committee for this event and have declared various level of public support for Cicilline's reelection (in Raimondo's case, her support is not an "endorsement"), but the list of names on the host committee reported by GoLocalProv's Dan McGowan and WRNI's Ian Donnis did not include Governor Chafee and, as far as I know, this is the first mention of Governor Chafee publicly supporting Congressman Cicilline's reelection.

UPDATE:

According to Ted Nesi, fresh from the taping of this week's Newsmakers for WPRI-TV (CBS 12), it's a full-blown endorsement...

Gov. Lincoln Chafee said Friday he’s endorsing the freshman Democrat for reelection, the morning after he attended a Cicilline fundraiser in Providence whose host committee included Providence Mayor Angel Taveras and Treasurer Gina Raimondo.

“A lot of the criticism leveled against Congressman Cicilline’s time as mayor I think is unfounded, because he suffered $30 million in [state aid] cuts, and that’s what we’re talking about,”

Maybe the Worst Kept Secret

The usual federal income tax filing deadline could be another not great news day for Congressman David Cicilline. It appears that local businessman Anthony Gemma will finally throw his hat in the ring for Rhode Island's District 1 Congressional seat. This morning, via his Twitter account Gemma tweeted:

Big things coming my friends! Save the date April 15th 6pm! Pass it on! ~Anthony

It's widely assumed that Gemma will run as a Democrat again and take on Cicilline in a primary. However, the Democrat establishment doesn't seem to be taking too kindly to Gemma and already labeling him as a DINO and someone who isn't playing their game. So this could get interesting to see which path Gemma takes. Does he go for the early high risk/reward and take on the badly damaged Cicilline head-on, or does he guarantee himself a shot in November and go the Independent route. I guess we'll see on April 15.

David Cicilline vs. The Boogeyman

I just got this in my mailbox, which I always find interesting to see how campaigns communicate with those they consider their "friendlys".

Dear Patrick,

The same shadowy right-wing group that aired vile and disgusting ads smearing David in 2010 is back and its leaders are promising to do everything they can to try yet again to tear him down. Among the group's major backers is a Texas billionaire who gave millions to the Swift Boat campaign that trashed John Kerry's service record in 2004 and who is now helping to fund Karl Rove's attacks in races across the country.

We need your help right now to push back against this coordinated far-right attack on David. Please donate $125, $75, $50 or $15 now so we will have the resources to combat their misinformation.

This group said after the 2010 election that David should be "looking over his shoulder for the next two years," and they are gearing up for an all-out assault this campaign. It's not going to be about the issues or who can best bring jobs to Rhode Island and fight for the middle-class. Instead, they are going to run nasty, deceptive character attacks that insult the intelligence of all of us.

There are some big choice facing Rhode Islanders in this upcoming election and we need to make sure we have the resources to make this race about who will best deliver for Rhode Island.

We need you to get David's back. Please donate $125, $75, $50 or $25 today.

Thanks,

Eric Hyers
Campaign Manager

I see a few things missing from this correspondence. First, how about any attribution. Mr. Hyers is claiming that some "shadowy right-wing group" is out to get David. Is that true? I have no idea. I see no evidence of it. Or does Mr. Hyers simply believe that because he says it, it's true? Not even a reference to a newspaper article or a footnote or anything. I guess we're just supposed to trust the Cicilline campaign. How's that worked out for us so far?

Continue reading "David Cicilline vs. The Boogeyman"

Brendan Doherty on the Issues

Ian Donnis has posted a link, at Rhode Island Public Radio's On Politics blog, to a private-channel YouTube video of a Brendan Doherty campaign appearance, plus a summary with a few quotes.

For folks who want to learn more about Doherty's positions on the issues, the video starts off in the midst of a discussion on illegal immigration. At about 3:05, Doherty answers a question from a reflexive-lefty position on working with Congressional Republicans (which he answers by saying he's a conservative and that he'll always do what's in the best interest of the people of Rhode Island and of America), and then answers questions on term-limits (he supports them) and right-to-work (he supports it, and notes in an answer to a subsequent question that some unions are "out of control").

At 10:15, Doherty is asked about the Blunt Amendment, answering that he doesn't support its particular language, but does support an exception in Federal healthcare law for Catholic organizations, and that there wouldn't be a problem at all, if Obamacare were repealed, which is also something he supports.

Also, at about 13 minutes into the video, second-time Second District Congressional candidate Michael Gardiner makes a short presentation to the crowd, where he discusses mostly biography and political tactics.

Will Anthony Gemma Make it Official This Week?

Ian Donnis of Rhode Island Public Radio is reporting that...

Multiple sources tell RIPR that Anthony Gemma, who placed second to David Cicilline in the four-way Democratic First Congressional District primary in 2010, is gearing up to announce a rematch against the freshman congressman. Gemma is expected to make his run formal as soon as this week, sources say.

Gemma did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Cicilline Playing the Blame Game

On 630wpro.com, David Cicilline tries the old "wasn't me" argument with regard to Providence's finances.

Cicilline told the WPRO Morning News with Tara Granahan and Andrew Gobeil that he did not put the “outrageous” cost of living increases for retirees in place

Ok, so he has a point there. He didn't sign a decree to make those happen, that's true. But if that is a benefit that was given to the retirees, it could be taken away. Maybe it couldn't be easily taken away from the people who were already retired, but in the eight years that Cicilline was in the mayor's office, why couldn't he negotiate a change to that benefit with future retirees? Why just the hands in the air and the "Not my fault!" As he was asked on Newsmakers a few weeks back, if Gina Raimondo could get a statewide pension reform bill passed in her first year, why couldn't Cicilline clean up Providence's finances over a span of eight years?

Cicilline highlighted his administration's success in making sustainable contributions to the pension system

Ha! "sustainable"? Seriously? When you raid the rainy day accounts to levels where it gets the city's bond ratings lowered, how in the world is that "sustainable"? If I need to spend my life's savings to buy food this month, I've balanced my budget for the time being, but is that sustainable? What happens next month? We know what was next for Cicilline. A promotion to Washington.

we developed a plan to make our contributions to the pension system and got near 100% for most of those years

My question here is that if his administration was paying "near" 100% for most of the years he was in office, then why is the system a mess? Paying near 100% should mean that he's bringing the fund back to solvency. He said that the prior administrations were paying closer to 60% of what they should have, so that 100% that he quotes should have included making up for the earlier shortfalls. So either he wasn't paying close to 100% of what he should have or the number that he was using for 100% was way off.

So now we have David Cicilline admitting that he knew the system was a mess. If that's true, then why, during the last election cycle, when John Loughlin was sounding the alarms about the fiscal mess that Providence was, why did David Cicilline tell us

Fortunately, the strong fiscal health that Providence has maintained under Mayor Cicilline’s leadership...

Which is it? Did the city maintain strong fiscal health or did he know it was a mess? We're getting conflicting stories from Cicilline now. He's been so outed even indirectly by his own friend in Mayor Taveras that he finally has to come clean. But rather than taking that one on the chin, he passes the buck back to his old political nemesis Buddy Cianci.

Cicilline proves once again that he just doesn't get it. Spinning stories to fit the current narrative doesn't make him look very good. If the city was struggling due to cuts from the Assembly or due to anything else at all, that's fine, just say it. If the city is financially a mess, he should just explain it and do what he has to do. That's exactly what Gina Raimondo and Angel Taveras have done and look at how people view them. The difference between them and Cicilline is startling and obvious. In the end, people want the truth. Unfortunately, that wasn't offered by David Cicilline.

You Can Tell A Lot About David Cicilline By His Press Releases

Thanks to Ian Donnis over at the RI Public Radio Blog for posting a press release from Congressman David Cicilline with regard to his probable Republican opponent in November, Brendan Doherty. The most interesting parts are those that seem either untrue or blatantly hypocritical.

The central theme to the release is Cicilline is trying to paint Doherty a certain way, based on his assumed associations and other instances of putting words in his mouth. Rather than turning this around and trying to judge Cicilline for who he associates with, let's take a look at who Cicilline is and what he says.

The more Paul Ryan (remember him? He’s the guy that wrote the bill to end Medicare)

I guess that's one take on it. Let's see what CNN had to say about it.

the Ryan plan would totally reverse the course of recent fiscal history by lowering federal health care spending from 8% of GDP today to just 5% by 2050. If we remain on the current course, the spending would jump to 14% in that time frame.

That doesn't sound like "the bill to end Medicare." So let's just call that one a "False".

Next up from Cicilline:

Eric Cantor (the chief cheerleader for shutting down the government last summer)

Again, let's see how CNN saw it.

Overall spending levels in the new measure would conform to the outlines of an agreement reached in Congress earlier this year.

"I hope we abide by that deal and move forward in a bipartisan way," Cantor told reporters.

That doesn't sound like a man rooting for a government shutdown. Plus, keep in mind that any time there is a government shutdown or the threat of one, it takes two to tango. It's always easy to not budge from your view of an argument and then just blame the other side for being stubborn. Nonetheless, it shows that Cantor was willing to move forward and not just a "cheerleader" for government shutdown. Another "False" for Cicilline.

Let's continue with the Cicilline's words.

Brendan Doherty’s plan to slash corporate taxes, end the capital gains tax and change Social Security benefits for anyone born after 1960

Wait, what? Hmm, I'd love to read a little more about these plans from Mr. Doherty. So where's the best place to look? How about his Issues page on his campaign web site. I've scanned it a couple times now and I don't see those things anywhere in there. Has anyone heard of Doherty's plans to do those things? Or is that just Cicilline projecting what he wants onto his opponent? Hey, I can do that too. How about this, David Cicilline has a plan to go to war with Canada. David Cicilline will reinstate the 95% tax bracket for anyone earning any amount over the poverty line. David Cicilline has a plan to go back to the days of rationing gas and bread. Is any of this true? Of course not. But it doesn't seem like the things he's attributing to Doherty are true either. So yet again, a "False" for Cicilline.

You can tell a lot about a candidate by who they choose to associate with.

Oh absolutely. This is probably true. David Cicilline associates with Congress, the same Congress with an 82% job disapproval rating and a 12% approval rating. You can tell a lot about Cicilline by who he's associating with. So that tells me one thing, Cicilline must be a terrible Congressman. I'll be fair and give him a "True" for that statement.

Back to Cicilline's press release:

Doherty’s loyalty is being rewarded and national Republicans recently sent out a press release hitting David that was later called a “Pants on Fire” lie by Politifact.

So let me get this straight, first Politifact supports Cicilline against a statement that he supported the federal loan guarantee to Solyndra, due to the fact that Cicilline was not in Congress when those were enacted. Yet then Cicilline wants to do the same thing, attributing Congressional Republicans' actions to Doherty, even though Doherty is not in Congress yet. You can't have it both ways, David. This is starting to sound like a broken record, "False."

Ok, lastly:

We can only expect more of these desperate attacks

Huh? From who? If there is one side in this that is clearly engaging in "desperate attacks" and blatant partisanship, it's clearly the reeling and very nervous David Cicilline through press releases like this one.

Most political analysts will tell you that people hate negative campaigning, but they all say it works. I'd agree. However it really only works when your negative ads are also true. If they're not going to be true, it's just going to backfire. This press release backfired on Cicilline in a big way.

Tom Sgouros Spins for Cicilline

In today's GoLocalProv, columnist and former consultant to David Cicilline, tries to re-paint Cicilline's time as Providence mayor as a positive for the city.

He goes over a few "Yeah, but he..." examples, like:

Why was there $22 million in the rainy day fund in 2008? Here's a hint: It wasn't because Buddy Cianci had left it there. It was because Cicilline's financial management of the city involved putting money aside for a rainy day.

And one of my old favorites, "blame Carcieri", in spite of the fact that in RI the Governor may as well submit a Hallmark birthday card as his budget for all the power he has to get it enacted:

the Council hired Gary Sasse, former Governor Carcieri's Director of Administration, for his sage fiscal advice. Sasse, of course, was part of the state administration that pulled the rug out from under Providence's finances in 2010

However, Sgouros very quickly glances over what is my biggest problem with Cicilline tenure as mayor. To me, it's trust.

I've also reviewed the controversy about whether the city had spent down its "reserves" by October 2010, when the Mayor said there was $30 million in reserve and the City Council was saying the real number was $4.6 million and the city was about to run out of cash. Lots of the stories that talk about Cicilline lying about the budget stem from this episode.

I'm not going to weigh in on this because when I read the stories I think the two sides were talking about different things. So I'll leave it alone, and only observe that "reserves" is not a synonym for "rainy day fund" and whether a city is about to suffer a cash flow crisis likely has nothing at all to do with the rainy day fund, which is a budget reserve, not a cash reserve.

Of course you're not going to weigh in on it Tom, that is the essential issue. Was Cicilline honest with people when he was asked about the fiscal health of the city?

I don't care if you're inept in managing the city. People can do things to fix that, even if it means getting you out of office. I can handle it if you've made mistakes, many can be fixed. The real problem comes up when an elected representative lies through his teeth and bends over backwards to cover it up. Cicilline repeatedly told the people of Rhode Island that Providence was in excellent fiscal health. Was that true? No.

Also remember that when Internal Auditor James Lombardi tried to get access to the records he needed, he was blocked. Lombardi's claims were just waved off as an election year hatchet job.

Sgouros goes on to say that Cicilline couldn't criticize the Speaker, because what good would that do to start a war with the man who controls the city's state funding? Ok, I'll concede that point. However, I'm no politician and never been one but the General Assembly's largest delegation is from Providence. Even the Speaker himself is FROM PROVIDENCE. So if you can't work with the Assembly to get what you need when the deck is stacked in your favor, and instead you tell people things that aren't true, then you're just not that good of a mayor and certainly do not deserve a promotion.

The current District 1 Congressman seems to fall into a pattern of struggling with the truth. During the last election, he got his wrist slapped for using the Brown University insignia on a campaign donation letter. Cicilline is a lawyer, he knows what the law is on using a copy mark like that.

Another article in GoLocalProv also describes two other incidents with the Mayor, one where he used city resources to attend a Congressional campaign function outside of Providence and,

"Cicilline received a pay raise—in violation of city ordinance—and then, “when confronted, stated he was not aware he received a raise.”

He got a raise in his pay, but didn't know it? Really?

We've been over the struggles that Congressman Cicilline has had with the truth before, and someone has even set up a whole web site to illustrate this.

I'm not sure why Tom Sgouros would feel the need to try to spin this in a positive direction for Cicilline, but if you need any more help in trying to figure out how much spin that Sgouros tries to put on people he favors, how about this line from the article as well.

All that said, David Cicilline has been more unfairly tarred than virtually any other politician I can think of, with the possible exception of Al Gore (who never said he discovered Love Canal or invented the Internet or any of the other groaners attributed to him

Really? A groaner? Not true? I guess we'll just have to ask Mr. Gore himself: (Jump to about 48 seconds for the good part)

Thanks for the reminder on that one, Tom. We won't let a silly little video of Gore saying it himself get in the way of a great spin.

Make you wonder how much else that Sgouros says is true?

Loughlin Not Running

John Loughlin's campaign just released this statement:

Two years ago, when I ran for Congress, I said: "The City of Providence is bankrupt and that you (David Cicilline) are deliberately hiding this fact from the people of Rhode Island. I am concerned that for political reasons your campaign for Congress is causing you to act in such a way as to conceal the budget problems facing the city of Providence, making them worse in the process."

I believe its time to hold David Cicciline accountable not just for the mess he left in Providence, but for the more than $300,000 dollars in taxpayer money we paid him to sit in Washington to deliver nothing but more partisan rhetoric, gridlock and empty campaign promises. In fact, I believe that the number one task facing Rhode Islanders voters in the coming election year is to hold all our politicians accountable.

While I had intended to begin my campaign for Congress upon my return from Iraq, it has become abundantly clear to me that the best way for the Rhode Island Republicans to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is to conduct a long and divisive primary election in RI-01. I will, therefore, not seek the nomination of my party for Congress. I will have no part in any activity that would enable David Cicciline to remain my Congressman.

My bid for Congress was motivated by a desire for service, not the desire for a new title. I have a long history of service both politically and in the military — in short, I wasn't running to "be” a Congressman, I was running to fix our state and strengthen our Nation.

I want to publicly thank Mike Napolitano, Eileen Grossman and Scott Morrison for keeping the political flame burning while I was serving in Iraq.

I also want to thank the many prominent Republicans who endorsed my campaign, especially Leader Newberry and his colleagues in the Rhode Island House and Senate. In addition, I want to thank those prominent Republicans who withheld any endorsement until I returned from Iraq and could at least respond, most notably Administrator Almond, Mayor Fontaine, Mayor Fung, Mayor Avedisian, and National Committeeman Joseph Trillo. Their loyalty means a great deal to me and meant a great deal to my family while I was deployed.

Thank you also to the many supporters who have also stayed loyal to me as well. In particular the many Town Republican Chairmen and women who recognize that the way to build a party is to reward hard work and stand with those who have worked shoulder to shoulder with them to save our state. Too often Republicans as a party, trivialize loyalty, dedication to service, and party building.

I want to thank my family who dealt with running the household while I was running for office and later while deployed to Iraq. They supported me, literally, in war and peace.

Most importantly, I want to thank the people of Rhode Island for their support and their belief that we must return accountable government to our state. While I don't know what the future will hold, I know that together we can turn our state around and create the kind of Rhode Island for our children that will make them proud of our service together.

Bending the Truth in Cicilline's Favor

In an illustration of how its methods can serve the politicians that the editors like — covering their fundamental dishonesty with a focus on minutia — PolitiFact Rhode Island has given David Cicilline a "half true" for this:

"Earlier this week, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives -- with the enthusiastic support of Sarah Palin, Texas Governor Rick Perry, and the Tea Partiers -- once again turned their backs on the 14 million unemployed Americans in our country," the letter says, "and instead chose to focus their efforts on expanding the rights of sex offenders, terrorists, child predators, and abusers to carry concealed weapons across state lines."

Reporter Lynn Arditi admits that the part about "choosing to focus their efforts" on these outcomes is completely false. That means that the specifics — on whether the bill would incidentally expand the rights of suspect citizens — must be graded on a curve to split truth down the middle, because she finds that only in some of those cases is there any evidence that Cicilline might have a point.

But the whole exercise of searching for examples of people to whom Cicilline's labels might apply is ridiculous. Under "domestic abusers," for example, Arditi finds a Pennsylvania case in which a killer had a legal handgun after a restraining order had previously been imposed and then withdrawn. It may seem like splitting hairs, but inasmuch as that is precisely what Cicilline's evidence does, one has to ask: Is it appropriate to say that the man was, in a legal sense, an "abuser" before he was a murderer? Ought every man against whom a woman requests and then withdraws a restraining order be considered a perpetrator of domestic abuse? (It's funny, by the way, how liberals' perspective would change were it a question of allowing voting rights.)

And so it goes. When it comes to abusers, predators, and sex offenders, Cicilline points out states with laws that don't count a particular conviction as sufficiently criminal to deny a concealed carry permit. In New Hampshire, for example, "an adult who lures a child into engaging in sex for pornography" is charged with a misdemeanor, which doesn't affect his or her gun rights. (That's Arditi's paraphrase of the law. I'm not sure what "luring" the child technically entails, although it's sure to be despicable, whatever its limits.) For the purposes of the PolitiFact analysis, in other words, the person would be a child predator by Rhode Island standards, New Hampshire would still grant a concealed carry permit, so a federal law allowing such permits to apply across state lines would expand the rights of a child predator.

But when it comes to the "terrorist" label, Cicilline points to Kentucky, which brands a misdemeanor charge of "terroristic threatening" on somebody who (in Arditi's words) "threaten[s] to seriously injure someone or to cause substantial property damage." Cicilline's logic, in this case, is that Kentucky might arguably call somebody a terrorist, whether or not the same definition would apply in Rhode Island, and still grant him or her a concealed carry permit. In other words, he's tilted his logical table always to roll a point in his favor.

Whatever one thinks of the issue (or politician) in question, this "half true" shows precisely why the entire PolitiFact project ought to be dismissed and abandoned. By presenting heated political rhetoric as subject to methodical analysis, the writers gloss over the very thing that makes it insidious. Most unfair accusations have some kernels of truth underlying them; that's what makes them harmful. It's the dishonesty layered on top that causes the problems and deserves the moral objection, and in PolitiFact's analysis that is a secondary consideration... at least when the editors want it to be.

Rep. David Cicilline on Newsmakers

Last week, Congressman David Cicilline was on WPRI's Newsmakers with Tim White, Ian Donnis and Ted Nesi. After watching this episode a couple times, I think it's fair to say that they didn't go lightly on the Congressman, however a few times, he effectively dodged the question and avoided any follow-up. I'm sure WPRI would prefer that I link to their site with the video here but it is sometimes giving me some trouble, so it is also possible to watch it on Youtube here. Below is a not so "live blog" of the episode.

DC: David Cicilline
TW: Tim White
ID: Ian Donnis
TN: Ted Nesi
Numbers are the approximate time in the video when the statements occurred.

1:20 Tim White with the first question about Cicilline's support of the payroll tax cut extension and the fact that the payroll tax is exactly what funds Social Security. Cutting the payroll tax means less money for Social Security, thus harming the system. Isn't this the opposite of what Cicilline campaigned on?

(DC) Blames the Republicans in the House for blocking the compromise sent over from the Senate. Didn't answer the question, simply says it is the Republicans' fault for not passing the bill sent over from the Senate. Explains that the tax cut is exactly what the taxpayers need. (Note: Newsmakers was recorded before the deal was struck to extend the tax cut for two months)

1:58 (TN) Why not make the tax cuts permanent?
(DC) "It should be" and continues blaming the Republicans.

3:05 (TN) When should the payroll tax cut be allowed to expire?
(DC) Disagrees with Obama on extending the tax cuts on the wealthy, but admits to voting for it because "that was part of the entire budget compromise." So he admits that he voted for something that he disagreed with? Congressman David Cicilline admits that he voted for a bill that extended "tax cuts for the rich" and also voted for cuts that decrease the amount of money to the Social Security system. Exactly the opposite of his campaign promises that he would "fight for" and "protect" Social Security. Here is an on-the-record vote that harms Social Security.

Continue reading "Rep. David Cicilline on Newsmakers"

"The Least Disruption To The Voters"

An interesting note today on Ian Donnis' WRNI blog, where he referred back to an article of his from back in June. According to Cicilline spokeswoman Jessica Kershaw:

The redistricting process has not yet begun, but looking ahead, Congressman Cicilline has confidence that this process will be done fairly and in a way that causes the least disruption for voters.

So let's get this right. Back in June, the concern was to cause the least disruption for the voters. Then recently, we saw a map that would displace more than 120,000 voters in order to balance the districts by 7,200. We hear of both the Doherty and Loughlin camps complaining about that map. We hear of Anthony Gemma complaining and most of all, we hear Congressman Jim Langevin complaining. But who do we not hear complaining about it? The person who wanted the least disruption for the voters. If the Cicilline camp still feels this way, I expect that they too will reject the map that shifts more than 120,000 voters between the districts.

"He's a Liar"

Being new to this blogging thing, I always want to tread carefully when throwing around accusations and possible libelous statements. So it's so much easier when someone else throws around the words that I can simply quote. "He's a liar" is a great one.

This was said by Anthony Gemma in reference to Congressman David Cicilline, one of Cicilline's primary opponents in 2010 and possibly a primary opponent again in 2012. Gemma was referring to the recent flap about the Congressional redistricting in Rhode Island.

According to GoLocalProv,

Cicilline’s campaign fired back, making it clear they never suggested that they didn't have a hand in the process.

Gemma added:

“He was a liar then and he is still a liar now,”

Gemma isn't the only one having a hard time believing the explanation from the Cicilline camp. Yesterday, even Congressman Jim Langevin, wasn't buying it. His spokesman called Cicilline's response “blatantly disingenuous." Which is a really nice way of saying "liar." When you have all sides of your own party, the very guys who are supposed to be supportive of you, doubting your honesty and sincerity, you have big problems with public trust.

It's not just the Democrats who are up in arms with these tactics. Yesterday on his WRNI Politics Blog, Ian Donnis quoted John Loughlin's campaign spokesman.

"Most of the Congressional redistricting maps that have been proposed appear to be a blatant attempt to save Congressman David Cicilline."

Napolitano is referring to blatant gerrymandering, a practice as old as politics, but a term that goes back to Massachusetts in the early 1800s.

The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under the then-governor Elbridge Gerry. In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a salamander.

Has Cicilline somehow engaged in gerrymandering? Remember what I said above? I can't say for sure, but here are some facts.

Congressional redistricting occurs after the national census is done every ten years. The result of the census was that approximately 7,200 voters need to be moved from the Second Congressional District to the First. One of the most recent maps rolled out revealed more than 120,000 voters changing districts in order to make the numbers work.

How does that make any sense? If you need to move 7200, I can see moving a few more to make it work, by sticking to boundaries, maybe even going as high as 10,000. But to move seventeen times the necessary number of people? I don't know about you, but if it walks like a duck...

The Hypocrisy of Democrats With Medicare

Earlier in the week, Congressman David Cicilline surprisingly attacked John Loughlin for wanting to destroy Medicare. Back during the campaign, we were told that Loughlin wanted to destroy Social Security and now we're being told it's Medicare. I was a little confused as to why the switch of plans to destroy, but an article in the Washington Post (h/t Ted Nesi) gives a little insight. It turns out that the Democrats' new strategy heading into the election is to paint the Republicans as having tried to destroy Medicare during the "Supercommittee" negotiations. In spite of Democrats like Congressman Steve Israel (D-NY) admitting that they would have "reformed Medicare", they along with David Cicilline want us to believe they are the ones who will save health care for senior citizens. I guess their Social Security checks are now safe, so it's time to protect their health care.

However, one could say that the Democrats (the party of Cicilline) are the ones really trying to destroy Medicare. They are doing this through the passage of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" a.k.a. "Obamacare". According a Washington Post columnist (and President Obama's cousin) Milton Wolf, through Obamacare, the reimbursement rates have been cut by so much, many physicians will not longer accept Medicare reimbursements and are dropping its patients. How exactly does that help the health of seniors?

Just as we saw with the recent RI pension reform, some don't seem to really understand the options. Which seems to make more sense, make changes to ensure the long-term viability of the program, or continue along the same path living up to every promised obligation, even if that means the program will die before the people currently paying into it ever get a single benefit from it? Which stance seems more reasonable and responsible? Reform it or let it die?

In last month's Providence Phoenix article, Cicilline was described as looking to work with both sides of the aisle, willing to be non-partisan. However, based on his comments Congressman Cicilline seems very quick to jump into lockstep with the Democratic strategy of not touching the benefits side and letting the program die sometime in the next thirteen years, and then blaming the Republican for wanting change. Even if that Republican isn't in office yet.