Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island is trailing Cranston, R.I., Mayor Stephen Laffey in a bitterly divisive primary contest that offers Democrats their best shot at picking up a seat in one of the nation’s bluest states.
Internal campaign polls show the conservative mayor’s campaign attacks on Mr. Chafee’s liberal voting record — including the incumbent’s opposition to President Bush’s tax cuts and to Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s nomination — have struck a responsive chord among Republican voters.
So sayeth Don Lambro of the Washington Times. The question is, whose poll? And is this just counting Republicans or does it include independents?
(Tip via Dan Yorke, who’ll have Mr. Lambro on later this afternoon.)
UPDATE: Lambro told Yorke he interviewed people on both sides, but he can’t tell you who exactly gave him the info. He said Washington GOP folks tell him it’s “really close”, which means (based on his experience) that Chafee is in trouble. He’s also not sure of the type of sample of the internal polls, apparently meaning that he doesn’t know if they included independents.
Lambro said that when he talke to Ian Lang, Lang didn’t argue with the point that conservatives are definitely leaning against Chafee. He also pointed out that the primary race was “competitive” and then Lang always steers the discussion to Laffey’s purported gap against Whitehouse.
Yorke brought up the the GOP Senatorial bunch have really beaten up Laffey and also that the purported 20-30 point gap between Laffey and Whitehouse isn’t that realistic. Yorke asked what the Washington GOP would do if Laffey won?
Lambro said they’d support him, but the depth of that support will be interesting. Given the controversy over tacit GOP support for Lieberman in CT, he doesn’t think they’d be to keen on NOT supporting Laffey. In short, he thinks the national GOP would support Laffey if he should win the primary.
Yorke also asked what the Beltway take on this race was. Lambro said that the feeling is that the Dems could pick up 4-6 seats, which is why Elizabeth Dole is focusing on RI and her committee is going to help Chafee as much as they can.
Interesting point, Andrew:
Starting Line eschews any serious discussion of education reforms — like public school choice or charter schools — that could be implemented in relatively short order in favor of advocating for large-scale social spending in non-educational areas, in a rejection of the idea that education reform should focus on education.
The trap in such arguments (theirs, not yours) is that downplaying the ability of education to improve children’s lives lessens the justification for spending so much on teachers. The cold strategist in me can’t help but wonder whether there’s an opportunity to divide and conquer, here. (Of course, in discussion with the general public, one must first persuade that we can’t just keep pouring money into both.)
[Open full post]A major debate about education is underway in Rhode Island. The debate is bigger than just a debate about how to fix education; the debate is about the fundamental importance of education.
One side in this great debate (see Julia Steiny or Valerie Forti for examples) begins from the premise that the best way to help people achieve their potential is to provide them with an education. The other side considers this position to be too quaint for the modern world, believing that impersonal societal forces beyond the control of the individual will primarily determine what individuals can achieve. In this view, education is just a bit of window dressing that correlates accidentally to socio-economic status.
For those skeptical that this second view exists in such stark form, I refer you to Peniel Joseph‘s Washington Post review of Juan Williams’ new book, Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America — and What We Can Do About It (h/t Power Line)…
Unlike The Covenant With Black America, a bestselling anthology with concrete proposals for community empowerment, Enough concludes with a flurry of righteous condescension, preaching that youngsters can best avoid poverty by finishing high school, getting a job and postponing marriage and child-bearing until at least 21.Dr. Joseph’s belief that the relationship between education and achievement is overstated has been expressed locally by the Rhode Island union establishment in their education reform document, The Shape of the Starting Line. Starting Line eschews any serious discussion of education reforms — like public school choice or charter schools — that could be implemented in relatively short order in favor of advocating for large-scale social spending in non-educational areas, in a rejection of the idea that education reform should focus on education. [Open full post]
Many Rhode Islanders have been surprised to learn, as reported by Amanda Milkovits in the Projo, that “prostitution isn’t illegal in Rhode Island as long as it occurs indoors”. The issue was brought to light by a Federal law-enforcement multi-state raid against a thriving network of spa-brothels that included at least one site in Providence.
A previous article by Ms. Milkovits from last year described how legalized prostitution in Rhode Island evolved out of change in state law and an unexpected court decision…
There are clusters of massage parlors, which the police say are actually brothels, operating throughout the state. The police raid them, but charges of prostitution don’t stick because of a [26]-year-old loophole in the law.(The bracketed numerals indicate where I’ve advanced the relative dates by one year, since the above excerpt is now about one year old).
The state’s law criminalizing prostitution was changed then after a group of female prostitutes sued in federal court with claims that the Providence police were discriminating against women in their arrests.
The law at the time made prostitution a felony. The General Assembly amended the law to the current version of loitering for indecent purposes, a misdemeanor. The law targets the streetwalkers, their pimps, and customers who solicit them from their vehicles. But there is no provision for prostitutes working for escort services and brothels.
Up until [3] 1/2 years ago, the Providence police were charging women for prostitution inside massage parlors. They stopped after Warwick lawyer Michael J. Kiselica persuaded District Court judges to dismiss the cases based on the wording of the current law.
Last year, legislators proposed outlawing prostitution in a straightforward way, while still keeping it as a misdemeanor. The new law would have read…
A person is guilty of prostitution when such person engages or agrees or offers to engage in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee. Any person found guilty under this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor…The above language would have superseded the existing section 11-34-8 of Rhode Island’s General Laws, the section judged not to apply to indoor prostitution…
It shall be unlawful for any person to stand or wander in or near any public highway or street, or any public or private place, and attempt to engage passersby in conversation, or stop or attempt to stop motor vehicles, for the purpose of prostitution or other indecent act, or to patronize, induce, or otherwise secure a person to commit any indecent act. Any person found guilty under this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor…Other sections of existing state law already outlaw pimping and human trafficking in Rhode Island in all circumstances, indoors or out.
The proposed change would not have set Rhode Island onto an uncharted path regarding prostitution law, but simply have brought Rhode Island into line with the 48 other states that make prostitution illegal. Still, progressive lobbyists objected to changing the law arguing, as is their habit, that a law that functions smoothly in 48 other states would create untenable conditions if passed in Rhode Island. Leading the charge, the Rhode Island chapter of the ACLU cited two issues. One was the original argument that the law could be used to punish women who might themselves be victims. The second objection was more indirect: enforcing a law against indoor prostitution might create local police contact with illegal immigrants, thus leading local police towards working with Federal authorities…
There is yet another reason to oppose what has happened here and that involves the inappropriate collaboration between the local police and federal immigration agents to address a local community crime issue….The ACLU, apparently, opposes communication between different law enforcement authorities. Blinded by their institutional hostility towards law enforcement, the ACLU has reached the erroneous and destructive conclusion that trust can be built between a community and its police officers when police officers are required to stand helpless in the face of the violation of basic, decent community norms (i.e. that prostitution should be illegal). I’ve been critical of Providence Mayor David Cicilline on other issues, but he’s right to pursue this change in the law, even if changing the law involves taking the “drastic” step of allowing different branches of law enforcement to work together.
However, if local law enforcement officers become, for all intents and purposes, INS agents in the minds of the immigrant community, any trust that currently exists will be shattered. Victims of crimes, witnesses, and others in tight-knit immigrant communities will refuse to cooperate with police for fear that they, or close friends and family members, could face deportation due to their interaction with police. It is of little solace that the women who were the victims of these raids may have been violating the criminal law. Once the police department believes that it can use federal immigration officials as a shortcut for local criminal law enforcement, the bonds of trust are inevitably weakened.
Finally, to finish up on a mostly inappropriate note in Bill Reynolds-style: There’s no truth to the rumor that Senate President Joseph Montalbano will argue that his unreported business with the town of West Warwick did not violate current state law because all of the agreements were made indoors. [Open full post]
In a comment to my previous post, Rhody writes:
… go to 401(k) first. Then we can sort out the seniority/merit issues.
Who decides who gets the merit raises? The only way you can do this fairly is have teachers teach to a test – whoever has the highest number of students pass gets the biggest raise. Not sure that’s the best thing for the kids, and the political can of worms you open…
Before all else, I’ll speak from experience and suggest that the current step system hardly eliminates unfairness. At best, it merely consolidates it at the beginning of the teacher’s career — when jobs are doled out in the manner of lifetime appointments. More importantly, though, when did it enter the unwritten laws of the land that teachers must be treated as if they are a bunch of vulnerable children?
The working world that most of us inhabit has few explicit and standardized tests to determine the raises of employees. Managers and administrators grant raises and promotions according to whatever formulas they believe will bring the best results to them in their own capacity. Sure, sometimes the criteria seem unfair (e.g., the ability to stroke the manager’s ego and tattle on other employees), but overall, a system of hierarchical accountability strikes me as exponentially more fair than one in which a mediocre employee making minimal effort follows the same path as an exceptional employee making extra effort.
That last — the current state of affairs — is certainly not the best thing for the kids.
I wonder how public union employees feel when they read such pieces as this editorial in the Providence Journal:
Taxpayers may face a daunting future because of the pension benefits that politicians have promised public employees.
States and cities across America confront huge liabilities, with shrinking assets, and the shortfall threatens both to hammer taxpayers and to hurt public services, The New York Times reported this month (“Public Pension Plans Face Billions in Shortages”).
No one knows precisely how much has been promised to public employees or what it will cost the taxpayers; statistics are not kept uniformly. But estimates of the liabilities range from about $375 billion to $800 billion. That’s a lot of money for state and local taxpayers to pony up.
Sadly, I don’t suspect most of them struggle with the guilt of being complicit in one of the major problems looming over our state and nation. More likely, the majority’s reaction is, “They’d better not take away my benefits!”
[Open full post]On a quiet East Side street yesterday morning, police dug bullet slugs from the vinyl siding on a house and the fender of a nearby car. A teenager walked by with a bloody bandage on his elbow. And mothers complained about the stupidity of young people shooting each other for no good reason.
The night before, five people were shot as they sat in front of 94 Pleasant St., waiting to go to a club. Witnesses said they heard 15 shots. …
“It’s an East Side-South Side thing and they’re fighting over nothing,” said Denise Taylor, who lives on Pleasant Street. She said she has a 17-year-old son who has been shot once and shot at several times.
“I can’t take him to the mall because he’ll get jumped,” she said.
Most of the massage parlors in Rhode Island are operating in office buildings in the capital city — some just blocks from City Hall — but the mayor says the state’s weak law on prostitution hampers the police in shutting down the brothels. …
A quirk in current state law makes prostitution legal in Rhode Island, as long as it takes place indoors. Only the streetwalkers, their pimps, and the customers flagging them down from vehicles can be charged. …
Last year, legislators rejected an attempt to strengthen the prostitution law, saying it would punish women who may be working as prostitutes against their will.
At the last session of the General Assembly, two bills that targeted human-trafficking also died.
I don’t know what to say, except maybe this: Hey, yeah, let’s throw a casino into the mix. That’ll help.
[Open full post]I know there’s no way to explain anything comprehensively in the “letter to the editor” format. Still, Thomas Sager‘s letter in today’s Projo concerning the questionable charitable contributions made by DuPont as part of the Rhode Island lead paint case leaves a significant gap in the story.
Mr. Sager, the chief litigation counsel for DuPont, begins by saying that DuPont’s dismissal from the lead-paint suit was on the basis of merit…
DuPont was dismissed with prejudice, on the basis of the facts produced in discovery. The dismissal was not pursuant to a settlement. There was no settlement agreement between Attorney General Lynch and DuPont, and DuPont paid no money to either the state or the attorney general’s outside contingency-fee lawyers.He then goes on to discuss DuPont’s charitable contributions…
DuPont agreed to make contributions to three charities: the Children’s Health Forum, Brown University Medical Center, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in Boston. We will honor each of these commitments. Suggestions to the contrary are just wrong.Here’s the missing step: DuPont doesn’t need the Rhode Island Attorney General’s permission to make charitable contributions; they are free to give their available money to charities whenever they so choose. So, if there is no connection between DuPont’s dismissal from the lead paint suit and the charitable contributions the corporation made, as Mr. Sager implies, then how did the Office of the Rhode Island Attorney General become entangled in DuPont’s charitable giving in the first place? [Open full post]
Last night, the Warwick Teacher’s Union overwhelmingly approved the contract that had been tentatively agreed upon by their negotiators and the Warwick School Committee. The School Committee will meet today at 4:15 PM to vote on final approval, which is fully expected. Because the teachers had been working without a contract for 3 years, this new contract is actually a 2-for-1. One covering the years 2003-2006, and the other for 2006-2009.
Here’s the breakdown in numbers, according to the ProJo’s sources. First, the “just expired” (never actually worked under) contract of 2003-2006:
2003-2004 : No retroactive pay, but a 1% “on paper” salary increase for the purpose of calculating future salaries.
2004-2005: “…teachers would receive 2-percent retroactive pay for the first half of the school year, and 1.5 percent for the second half. That money would not be paid, however, until Sept. 1, 2007.”
2005-2006: same as 2004-2005, with money paid on Sept. 1, 2008.
By delaying payments for the retroactive pay, it is hpoed that the City of Warwick will be better able to plan and budget for school expenditures in the future, thus alleviating the need for a big, one-time cash hit.
The retroactive pay is a hard pill to swallow for many. During the contract strife of the last three years, the teachers were engaged in an unofficial “work-to-rule” policy, which included no teacher participation in open houses, no field trips, scaled back extracurriculars, etc. Thus, they did less work than they supposedly would have done if working under a contract. Now, despite that, they have been rewarded with retroactive pay–albeit less than they would have normally wanted, I suppose–as if they had continued to work normally. This should be remembered the next time there is a Warwick Teachers’ contract dispute. No retroactive pay if work to rule is instituted.
The new contract (2006-2009) offers pay raises and a first time requirement for teachers to participate in paying for their own medical care. However, as has often been the case in other recent new teacher contracts (North Kingstown, Cranston), the pay increases easily offset any new medical co-pays and premiums. Nonetheless, the philosophical victory of getting teachers to agree to share the burden of paying some of their own medical expenses is a definite gain.
For the 2006-2007 school year, beginning Aug. 31, teachers would receive a 2-percent salary increase in the first half of the year, and an additional 2 percent in the second half.
In the 2007-2008 school year, teachers would receive a 3-percent salary increase, and in the 2008-2009 year, they would receive 3.5 percent…
For the first time, teachers would pay a percentage of their health-care costs. Teachers would pay a flat fee, as Warwick’s other municipal employee unions do, of $11 a week, or $572 annually, and the payment begins this school year.
Retirees under the age of 65 would also now contribute to the cost of their health care. Retirees over 65 are not covered by the city.
Emergency-room visit co-pays would be increased from $25 to $100, and prescription co-pays would be increased from the current $5 to a staggered $7-$25-$40 co-pay, depending on whether the drug is generic or name-brand.
My kids began going to school during this contract dispute and have only known a “work-to-rule” environment. It will be interesting to see the difference in a school environment full of teachers working under contract. I’m glad it’s over.
[Open full post]Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, has an op-ed in today’s Projo where he objects to President Bush’s use of the term “Islamic fascists” to describe fascists who are Islamic (or maybe he denies that fascists who are Islamic can even exist; I can’t quite tell)…
The phrase “Islamic fascists” has drawn the ire of the American Muslim community. We use “Islamic ethics” to mean ethics based on Islamic teachings that guide our behavior. Similarly, Islamic art draws its inspiration from Islamic teachings that discourage certain types of art (immodest imagery or certain life forms). When the president uses “Islamic fascists,” it conveys that fascism is rooted in or inspired by Islam. This is the way the Muslims see it, regardless of what Mr. Bush may claim he really means.But the term “Islamic Fascism” is no more beyond the pale than terms like “German Fascism” or “Italian Fascism”, terms universally accepted by the historical and political science communities because they meaningfully distinguish the movements they describe from other forms of socio-political organization. More importantly…
- No one conflates the acceptance of the terms German Fascism or Italian Fascism with an assumption that there is something intrinsically wrong with Germans or Italians.
- And the fact that many Germans and Italians did not approve of the actions of their early-to-mid 20th Century governments does not change the fact that fascist leaders of the period manipulated German and Italian nationalism as part of organizing a violent fascist movement. In the same way, that fact that a majority of Muslims do not approve of terrorism does not change the fact that modern day fascist leaders are manipulating the Islamic religion as part of their organization of a violent fascist movement.
Fascism is distinguished from the broader category of extreme right-wing politics by its willingness to defy public civility and openly violate the law. As such it represents a radical departure from the tradition of ultra-conservatism. The latter aims to preserve established social relations, through enforcement of law and reinforcement of authority. But the fascist organizations of Mussolini and Hitler, in their conquests of power, showed no reluctance to rupture peace and repudiate parliamentary and other institutions; the fascists employed terror against both the existing political structure and society at large…[Open full post]
Islamofascism similarly pursues its aims through the willful, arbitrary, and gratuitous disruption of global society, either by terrorist conspiracies or by violation of peace between states. Al Qaeda has recourse to the former weapon; Hezbollah, in assaulting northern Israel, used the latter. These are not acts of protest, but calculated strategies for political advantage through undiluted violence.
