The problem is with getting local voters to think beyond their district (the old folks at high-rises, people who voted the endorsed Dem slate because their parents did, etc.).
I just remember what happened about 10 years ago in Massachusetts when the opposition to Billy Bulger tried to run progressive state Senate candidates in primaries against Bulger supporters. The issue of overthrowing the Corrupt Midget never got traction in local races, though, and all those challengers lost.
Sat what you want about Bulger, but he knew the political value of coffee and doughnuts. I suspect Montalbano does, too. If only a progressive Dem would rise up and challenge him...

This reminds me of the start of the new legislative session that began a few weeks after John Harwood’s wife was appointed a lifetime Magistrate Judge, and at a 100-plus thousand dollars a year to start.

That is was announced, and she was sworn in, all during the week between Christmas and New Years when people were distracted did not seem to bother anyone.

Nor did the fact that former-Democratic officeholder Judge Rogers committed what would appear to be an egregious violation of the Canon of Judicial ethics, i.e., “avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.”

Well, a few short weeks later, the Democratic House overwhelming and enthusiastically re-anointed John Harwood as their leader (and de facto leader of the Rhode Island Democratic Party).

There is such a thing as “institutional culture.” The record indisputably mandates a conclusion that the Rhode Island Democratic Party has an institutional culture in which corruption is not just endemic, but embraced and celebrated.

There is also such a thing as “civic culture.” Rhode Island’s civic culture is one of corruption. It’s sad to say that the majority of Rhode Islanders have adopted the Democrat culture of corruption as their own, but they have. I used to believe the conventional wisdom of the “our guy is OK, the rest are bums” explanation for this State’s voting habits, but after RISDC and all the rest it’s just too much to believe that Rhode Islanders don’t understand the dynamic that a vote for any Democrat is a vote for corruption.

Rather, it seems that Rhode Islanders take a perverse pride in it; witness the embrace of Buddy Cianci. Perhaps it all stems back to our history of Mafia influence – the culture became one of “anyone who’s not putting bodies in the Providence River” is, by comparison, ethical.

Perhaps it’s because the Democratic Party has controlled Rhode Island for so long, and has been corrupt for so long, that Rhode Islanders just think it’s the natural order of things – “always has been, always will be.” After all, eventually a pig farmer stops noticing the smell, and perhaps the majority of Rhode Islanders have become so acclimated to the stench of corruption here that they don’t even notice it.

So sad, for Rhode Island has so much potential … all being squandered.

Good post, Marc.

In addition to fund raising, conveying this message is the most important thing that we, the RIGOP, must do: "High taxes? Poor services? Corruption? Stop voting for the party that brought us all this!"

I never knew that RI politics was so interesting to the Far East! Thanks!

;)

The truly sad observation is that so many Rhode Islanders have been involved with this corrupt system for so long that they no longer regard it as such. Too often, these people can't understand "foreigners'" shocked reaction to "the way we do business here in Rhode Island." Then, of course, comes the usually litany of defensive reactions: "but there's corruption everywhere" and "Rhode Island is no different than anyplace else."

Of course not. I'm sure every state has multiple federal grand juries investigating the workings of its state legislature, lobbyists and union leadership.

On the other hand, there is a sort of evolutionary genius behind the Rhode Island system. By creating so many insiders -- who, either legally or econonically would suffer from the system's demise -- and by its implicit (and sometimes explicit) threats to others who would rock the boat, the leaders of this system (I will leave it to Robert Corrente to determine whether it qualifies as a RICO Conspiracy)have been able to extract literally billions of dollars from businesses, wealth, and all-too-many not-very-wealthy-at-all taxpayers to transfer to themselves and their fellow insiders, via one scheme (or government program, pension, or whatever) or another. That the system has lasted so long testifies to their genius for sustaining it.

Ultimately, however, I think the smartest among them realize their system is on its last legs. On the one hand, the feds are closing in. On the other, the marks have wised up -- just look at the trends in corporate and individual (and, indeed, sales) tax collections. When you have to put so much pressure on the property tax, it isn't a sign that the system is in good shape.

And so we are now in an end-game of sorts, with an increasing scramble to get what's left before the inevitable collapse. That's why some have floated the ridiculous (economically) but predictable (politically) idea of a pension bond to close the $5 billion plus deficit in our public employee retirement benefits programs. And that's why we're going to see an attempt to broaden the sales tax this year (to cover everything except legal, and perhaps medical fees), as well as a desperate fight to preserve and expand social welfare spending programs.

It's going to be very ugly, and even more painful for the people who, for way too many years, have been on the receiving end of this shakedown. But, for better or worse, the end of the story has already been written.

Tom W
Lincoln Almond Jr. also a Federal Judge
(Magistrate) of course that WAS NOT POLITICS.

>>Tom W
Lincoln Almond Jr. also a Federal Judge
(Magistrate) of course that WAS NOT POLITICS.

Yes. And we’ll never eliminate the “it’s who you know / who you’re related to” element from politics and the patronage that goes with it.

But there are major differences. Almond had to be confirmed by Congress, at least a somewhat public process that (theoretically) inhibits total abuse of patronage.

On the other hand, the General Assembly – run by Harwood – engineered a “workaround” of the semi-reformed judicial nomination / selection process. They expanded the number of magistrates not subject to that process, including at least one that was a lifetime appointment.

As part of that process, they left the selection to a 100% behind closed doors unilateral discretion of the non-elected Presiding Justice of the Superior Court. No disclosure of the identity of applicants, no public hearings, no involvement of the public whatsoever.

Then Rogers announces the appointment during the week between Christmas and New Years, and Ms. Harwood was sworn in a few days later. That he chose that time to do this on its face demonstrates that Rogers knew that – at an absolute minimum - it looked suspicious.

Did Rogers have a deal with Harwood, e.g., for a Supreme Court appointment to cap off his career? Was it just the old Rhode Island “wink and nod” and Rogers, as a former Democrat officeholder, knew that he’d have chips that he could cash in later? Did Harwood have some dirt on Rogers and lean on him? Who knows. Perhaps it was none of the above.

But the fact that the questions can be plausibly asked, coupled with the timing of the announcement and swearing in, lends credibility to raising the possibility that Rogers violated the Canon of Judicial Ethics, i.e., he did not avoid “even the appearance of impropriety.”

That the Democrat General Assembly then enthusiastically embraced Harwood marks the whole Party as accomplices.

Little wonder that Irons and Celona did what they did – it’s just the way things are done in the Democratic Party in Rhode Island.

The other difference between the appointments was competency. It was a factor in Mr. Almond's appointment - not in Mrs. Harwood's. For the first year and a half she was on the job, all of her work had to be extensively corrected and re-written.

SusanD -

To paraphrase Clinton (cringe): "it depends upon the meaning of what 'competency' is."

Here in corrupt Little Rhody, "competency" is not defined by ability to perform the job, but where you stand in the "who are you related to?" hierarchy.