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.”