This is a topic that I have written on before, but  the latest surge of support for Bernie Sanders has truly  boggled my imagination, especially now that the Green Party's Jill Stein has officially entered the 2016 Presidential race. While from a progressive standpoint, Sanders is a FAR superior candidate to Hillary Clinton, but both of their progressive creds PALE in comparison to Dr. Stein's.

Sanders has vowed not to take corporate donations to his campaign, but lest we forget that he is running as a Democrat. Therefore any PARTY monies spent on his campaign will not come with the same guarantee of "corporation-free."  If Sanders takes the nomination, and  that is a BIG if, his campaign will see corporate money, albeit indirectly. The Green Party, on the other hand, HAS never taken corporate contributions. In fact, it is clearly stated in the by-laws of the party. You can vote for a candidate who won't take corporate money - running under the auspices of a party that gets the MAJORITY of its funding from corporations- or you can vote for a candidate, and party, that has not, does not, and will not ever allow itself to be influenced by corporate contributions. The first step to getting big money out of politics is the get big money out of your party. In this respect, big corporate dollars are to the Green Party what caffeine is to 7-Up: Never had it, never will. 

15 - Love, Stein/Greens.

Sanders has also already stated publicly that he will endorse whomever happens to be the eventual Democratic nominee (read: Hillary Clinton). This alone should be enough reason to think twice about supporting Sanders. For all of his populist rhetoric, he still seems to be content to default to the "lesser of two evils" in the inevitable eventuality of losing the primary. This is neither a display of spinal fortitude nor one of the principled stands that he has taken over the years. If Sanders had stated that he'd endorse a candidate that more closely resembled his populist rhetoric, I might have reconsidered supporting him in the Democratic primary. 

30 - Love, Stein/Greens.

The Green Party is founded on four pillars and ten key values. The four pillars are: Ecological Wisdom, Social Justice, Grassroots democracy, and nonviolence. While Sanders scores on the first three pillars, his pro-Israel stance runs in direct opposition to a policy  of nonviolence.

The Ten Key Values, listed on the left, better address the social, environmental, economic, and political concerns of the so-called "progressive" left, but progressives can't seem to let go of party identification with the Democrats. Again, I find this baffling as a recovering Democrat who shuffled off the party 15 years ago after too many ethical and policy failures. The whole thing smacks of equal parts battered wife and Stockholm syndromes. Progressive Dems seem to have begun identifying with their captors and tormentors, and at the same time, wonder "how we'll ever make it with out them." 
40 - Love, Stein/Greens.

Many Green Party members have vowed support to Sanders in the primary, but say that they will vote for Jill Stein in the general election. This is a truly short-sighted approach to the 2016 presidential, and runs completely counter to the party's key value of 'Future Focus.' Your party needs you,  and yet, you  would exert your efforts in support of a candidate that has already told you that he's shifting his support to a candidate that DOES NOT REPRESENT YOU. Again, the mind is boggled.

If that's not enough to convince you, please, for your own sake, watch this interview with Dr. Stein on Larry King's PoliticKing.

In closing, here is my message to Progressive Democrats and Greens that are supporting Bernie Sanders in the primary. If you allow yourself to be herded by the sheepdog, YOU WILL GET FLEECED!

Game, Set, Match. Dr. Jill Stein/Green Party #Jill2016

I've had a rough week. 

On Monday evening, I came home to an avalanche of posts in my facebook newsfeed regarding the latest installment of the PawSox ownership's tour of the state. Apparently there was a police detail hired by the PawSox ownership - at the most recent stop on the "We're not listening" tour, which took place at the Cranston Public Library a venue - I might add, that is  already funded by taxpayer dollars - which has a benefit to all Cranstonians, and any Rhode Islander that has a library card, for that matter.

One of the more disturbing posts I saw was a video of the removal of a US citizen and Cranston, Rhode Island resident from the "discussion."

Not because he became violent. Not because he advanced on Steinberg and his cronies. He did not appear to be mentally unstable. He was removed from the meeting for speaking his mind; for letting the rich, powerful, and politically connected know that he was, to use a tired quote, "mad as hell, and wasn't going to take it anymore."

What I saw - in the video evidence - was a man being denied his right to question authority, and not even elected or legal authority. An alleged public meeting, held on publicly owned real estate, where a member of the public was SILENCED by the rich and powerful who had deemed speech in support of a miserable and short-sighted idea appropriate, and speech against a miserable and short-sighted idea, inappropriate.

Seeing this action for the SEVERE breach of the First Amendment rights of a fellow Rhode Islander- and one that I take personally as a writer and journalist - I decided to take action. I got in touch with the gentleman that was removed from the meeting, and had a rather lengthy conversation with him. When we finished, I had one simple question, "Who put the cop in the room? Was this officer hired by the PawSox management team, or was he there in his capacity as law enforcement for the City of Cranston?"

It was now just before 9 p.m. on a Monday evening, and that question kept popping into my head. I needed to know. At this point, I used a thing called an internet search engine to search for a contact phone number for Allan Fung, residing in Cranston, RI. As I typed his name into my browser's search bar, I thought, "This is a shot in the dark. There is no way that the mayor of one of Rhode Island's largest communities has a listed phone number," but sure enough, he does. at 8:57 p.m. on Monday night, I called Mr. Fung at his publicly listed phone number. Here's a screenshot from my cellphone's call log.

I'll try to reconstruct the conversation that I had with the mayor to the best of my recollection.

Me: Hello. Is this Mayor Allan Fung?

Fung: Yes.

Me: Hello, mayor. My name is Dave Fisher. I am the co-host of The Coalition airing  Saturday nights on WPRO. I just have a couple of questions regarding the PawSox meeting that took place tonight at the Cranston Public Library. 

Fung: You're calling me at home? This is inappropriate. 

Me: With all due respect, mayor, you are a publicly elected official with a publicly listed number. 

Fung: I've never heard of you or your show. 

Me: I understand. I'd be glad to have an off-the-record conversation if you're more comfortable with that. 

Fung: How do I know you are who you say you are? If you want to speak to me, call my office and speak to my press secretary. 

Me: Thank you, mayor. I'll do just that. 

Fung: This is harassment. (Hangs up.) 

At this point, I finished up some work, planned my journalistic course for the following day, and went to bed around 10:30. 

Well, I never got around to calling Fung the next day because I felt that a second call, even if placed through the so-called "proper" channels, might be construed as harassment. Why, you might ask? 

When I checked my phone the next morning, I noticed that I had received two new voicemails overnight. The first was received at 11:16 p.m. Monday night  from a Sgt. Michael Gates, who identified himself as a member of the Cranston Police Department's Criminal Investigation Unit. He asked that I call him on his cellphone within a half hour because "his night was coming to an end." The second was received at 8:23 a.m. on Tuesday, from Capt. Sean Carmody of the Cranston PD who said he was calling to "verify a conversation that (I) had with the mayor."

To say that I was intimidated by these calls is an understatement. To use the local vernacular: I was scared shitless.

Frightened, but knowing that nothing I had done rose to the legal definition of harassment, I did what journalists do when there is a story to tell, but in the telling, one's objectivity may be questioned. I called another journalist. Then I called a lawyer. I can't thank Kate Nagle of GoLocalProv.com enough for the care and commitment she demonstrated in ferreting out, and publishing the story.

I'll also say that the urgency that the Cranston PD displayed after my phone call to Fung seems to have diminished. I never returned their calls, and have not received a follow-up call since. I will continue to check in with the Providence District Courthouse to see if an arrest warrant is issued, however.

Tune in tomorrow for the second installment of this unfolding saga. I'll call it Haters gonna hate: The Fallout. 

You read that right, folks. Every year, Rhode Island representatives and senators buy votes with your tax dollars. As a matter of fact, in fiscal year 2015, members of the House and Senate spent $2,174,730 of your hard earned dollars buying votes all across the state.

"But Dave, how does this not qualify as election rigging," you may ask? 

Well, it's all part of a little scam called the Legislative Grants. Each year, the Rhode Island budget contains earmarks for these grants, which are distributed to organizations all across the state: from police departments to Little Leagues. Even to churches and religious organizations - which seems a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and decades of legal precedent.

Here's how it works. Let's say that you work for an organization, any organization. It doesn't have to be a non-profit, it could be an organization that is already funded through your taxes like a police or fire department. You approach your state representative or senator, and ask him or her to appropriate some of this do-re-mi for your organization. He or she submits the request to the General Assembly on your behalf, and nine times out of ten, you'll get that sweet moolah for your organization. And I do mean nine times out of ten.This year, RI House members proposed $1,112,250 in legislative grants, and $1,022,250 in grants were approved - just under 92 percent. Senators proposed $1,310,230 in grants, and $1,152,480 were approved - just under 88 percent.

Some of the money does go to worthy causes like food banks, homeless shelters, drug treatment programs, but most of it goes to things like little leagues, VFW posts, public schools, police and fire departments, churches, and Rotary Clubs. (Side note: Does anyone know what Rotary Clubs actually do?) 

Here's my beef, and it should be yours, too. Donating money to these organizations should be YOUR decision. At least when you make a donation directly to one of these outfits, you can write it off your taxes.

If you are an atheist, why should your tax dollars be donated to churches? If you are not a sports fan, why should your money be donated to youth sports programs? If you are any color but white, why should your tax dollars go to police departments?

You may find my headline hyperbolic, but  it isn't. Think about it. If a particular elected official carves out a few thousand dollars for your social club, PTO, or your kids' soccer league, are you more or less likely to vote for that person?

If state elected officials think these organizations are worthy of these funds, they should either a) take it out of their own damn pockets or b) take that money from their campaign accounts, which is perfectly legal in the case of non-profit outfits. Not surprisingly, House Speaker Nick "Pauly Walnuts" Mattiello and Senate President Theresa "The" Paiva-Weed had every one of their proposed grants funded in full.

This is just another example of the perfectly legal corruption that continues to put Rhode Island at the bottom of so many rankings. It's time to start taking this stuff personally, folks.

Below you can download a spreadsheet of all of the FY 2015 Legislative grants. It is indexed alphabetically by last name of the sponsoring representative or senator, and the totals of the proposed, approved, and combined House and Senate grants are included. Which is more than I can say for the static PDF version that is published on the GA website. You're welcome.

Today, one of RI's Good Smaritan laws expired. This law has - and would - protect people from formal charges based upon evidence gathered during police interaction following a 911 emergency call in the case of a drug overdose. Unfortunately, our "leaders" in the Rhode Island General Assembly saw fit to let this law sunset, as of July 1, 2015, largely due to the testimony of State Attorney General, Peter Kilmartin.

Kilmartin saw fit to testify before our legislature to the fact that he would rather score a few more drug arrests and prosecutions than save the lives of Rhode Islanders. He would rather see our sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, and friends DIE, than to sacrifice a few points on crime statistics, in a futile attempt to continue a MISERABLY failed war on drugs. A war which - much like our modern interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East - has absolutely NO exit strategy. This man, Kilmartin, dares to call himself a capital-D Democrat, and his broad acceptance into that party, on a state level, is a big reason why this writer no longer considers himself a Democrat. I didn't leave the party; the party left me - and high and dry, at that.

WOONSOCKET, RI - In October of 2013, a young, first-time candidate by the name of Dave Fisher beat out incumbent mayor Leo Fontaine in Woonsocket's non-partisan primary election. Then, in November - despite being outspent 100-to-1 by former state representative Lisa Baldelli-Hunt, he eked out a victory in the city's general election to take the city's executive office. At the time, in a rare moment of political honesty and humility, Fisher told local  reporters, "I'm in way over my head."

It seems that Fisher has gotten his sea legs. Woonsocket's bond rating was just rated an A by Moody's, and despite continuing difficulty in addressing the city's pension liability and adhering to the state appointed budget commission's draconian 5-year plan, Woonsocket seems to be turning a corner. When asked what made this transformation possible, Fisher stated bluntly, " I kept my campaign promises."

Immediately after taking office, Fisher hired a full time grant writer for the city. While some local radio talk show hosts skewered him for, "spending money we don't have, on a position we don't need," it seems that it was the right move for the city. Since the position was created, the city has received grants to update the city's aging infrastructure, increase public safety and education budgets, and drive down the overhead costs of the city's government itself.

"It was really a  no-brainer," says Fisher, "I knew that there were literally billions of dollars available in grants from the federal and state government, as well as private grants available to municipalities.  I  thought: Why are we not taking advantage of these sources of revenue?" 

The city has received grants in the last 18 months to replace broken and missing fire hydrants across the city, institute 21st century, renewable energy education programs at the city's vocational school, and to institute community-based policing across the city. "I think my proudest moment so far has been replacing those hydrants," said Fisher, "after the job was done, I asked the ISO (Insurance Service Organization) to come to the city and update our insurance profile." After the city was re-rated, homeowners insurance rates went down across the city. "That's a win for every homeowner in the city," he said, "not only did we make our city safer, we saved folks a bit of money in the process." The grant writer position has been revenue neutral so far. Most large grants come with built in administrative costs, which means that the city may be cutting the checks, but the money is not dependent on the taxpayer.

Woonsocket had struggled for the last two decades to draw businesses into the city, but that seems to be changing due to Fisher's progressive - and totally transparent - tax incentive policy. Both strip malls on Diamond Hill Road have seen renewed vigor in the last eighteen months, with mostly locally owned businesses filling long vacant storefronts in what was once Woonsocket's prime retail area. 

"When I started thinking about tax policy, I couldn't believe that no one had thought of this before. The only way to incentivize a strip mall owner to keep rents low is to offer them a tax break based on the percentage of square footage occupied. It seemed so simple." Since then, Woonsocket's Walnut Hill development has gone from a 30 percent occupancy rate to a 90 percent occupancy rate. But don't think Fisher is some type of business-desperate softie. "These development owners are required to keep an 85 percent occupancy rate to get the tax break from the city," says Fisher, continuing, "If you're going to  dangle a carrot, you should have a damn big stick to back it up."

Fisher's tax policy also extended to existing businesses. In a bold move, he instituted a policy that rewarded existing and new businesses for employing Woonsocket residents. Currently, any business whose workforce is comprised of 20 percent Woonsocket residents gets a 20 percent tangible tax break. "Look, if you're going to run a business in this city, and employ city residents, you should be rewarded," he said, " I don't care if you're CVS or Ciro's Tavern. Put us to work, and this city will work with you, and for you. If you  have 10 employees, and two live in the city, that's something."

Far and away, Fisher's most bold and laudable accomplishment has been lowering the costs within Woonsocket's school system. After taking office, he immediately began to solicit bids from solar energy companies to install massive solar arrays on the roofs of the city's most modern buildings: the middle school complex and Harris School. Both of these developments have been constructed in the last ten years, and while they both have some degree of energy efficiency, the solar arrays have decreased energy costs in the buildings by 40 percent. "Again, a no-brainer," says Fisher, "Our schools use a tremendous amount of energy for 9 months out of the year. The other three months, they lie relatively dormant. Why not offset the usage while they're open, and make some serious money selling power back to National Grid during peak demand season?"

Fisher's  fourth campaign platform point is proving to be a bit more difficult to realize. Restoring pride in a city that has - for the most part - lost pride in itself, is a Herculean ans Sisyphean task. He attributes this to a local  media presence that does little more than to accentuate the negative. "The Woonsocket media makes it difficult to raise any sort of community pride. When you have a local newspaper, and two local radio stations,  it could - and should - be a tremendous value to the city," he opines, "Unfortunately, one of those outlets seems hellbent on accentuating the negative aspects of the city with ill-informed vitriol and personal attacks on local elected officials and residents of the city. In my view, anyone who participates in this type of clearly short-sighted and biased journalism is in breach of contract with the American people. The airwaves are ours. Their job is to curate them on our behalf."

Last week, PawSox owner, Larry Lucchino was interviewed by WPRI. In that interview, he claimed that the state of Rhode Island needed "to be flexible" when it came to publicly financing a new Providence waterfront  stadium for the team.

Anyone who reads this blog on a regular knows that one of my favorite things to do is to point out irony, and moreover, when people can't seem to grasp their own particular brand  of it. The irony here, and what Lucchino seems to completely fail to grasp is this: He asks, we, the State of RI for "flexibility", when the ownership group has demonstrated a rigidity Viagra users would envy. Let me explain.


Although the term "everything is on the table" has been bandied about when it comes to keeping the PawSox in Rhode Island, team ownership has clearly indicated that is not the case.

Would they consider upgrades to McCoy to keep the team in Pawtucket? Absolutely not.

Would they consider attempting to add the "amenities" that Pawtucket lacks around McCoy to create a more lively business community? Absolutely not.

Would they consider another parcel in Providence outside of the prime parcel that they're drooling over? Absolutely not.

Would  they consider building the stadium completely on their own billions of dimes? Absolutely not.

Would they be willing to release their own internal feasibility study regarding upgrades to McCoy to the public,or at the very least, state and city leadership? Absolutely not.

So, you see, while Lucchino may be asking the state for "flexibility" team ownership has demonstrated the flexibility of a window display mannequin, which is to say, none. Now negotiations have moved underground, so we, the people, don't even have an idea just how "flexible" we will have to be.

My advice is to limber up and stretch - maybe take a couple of yoga classes - because chances are, Lucchino et al. will ask us to have the flexibility of a prima ballerina. While you're at it, stop by your local drugstore and grab some personal lube. Even in light of the flaccid nature of our collective sphincters - due to frequent and vigorous penetrations by the state - this one's going to hurt.

Yeah! Beat the drum and raise your voice! We're ready for Hillary Clinton as POTUS!  Why, you may ask? I'll explain.

No other candidate in the race represents the crony capitalist, pay-to-play, back-door dealing candidate as much as Hillary Clinton. Rhode Islander's have accepted our own crony capitalist, pay-to-play, back-door dealing candidates  for a generation or more - most times without electoral opposition - so why shouldn't we accept the same on a national level?

Hillary Clinton represents everything wrong with the "Democrats" in the U.S. Too focused on the wants of the business "community", and ZERO focus on what is good for the people of this once great (on paper) country. To put one's faith in the corporations that control and guide elections - sometimes down to the local level - whose priorities lie not with the welfare or will of the people, but with the profits of shareholders and CEO's of large multi-national corporations, is beyond ludicrous.

"But Dave, Bernie Sanders is also running for President as a Democrat. Isn't he the anti-Hillary vote," you may ask? Yes, Senator Sanders is definitely a shift  away from the "democratic" policies of the past, but the fact that he thinks he can declare as a Democrat, and clean the party form the inside out is irrational. I'm reminded of a Ralph Nader quote from 2000. When asked why he wasn't running as a Democrat, he said something to the effect of, 'You can't clean a trash can if you're standing in it.' 

The modern Republican and Democratic parties exist for one goal: To propagate the existence of the party. That's it. They don't care about actually solving problems, they care about driving wedges between us on non-essential or non-existent issues to  "solidify the base." 

I suppose my frustration with so-called "progressive" democrats is this : 

The Green Party has represented your values for far longer that any "democrat' and yet you refuse to acknowledge them; Green party presidential candidates like Ralph Nader (2000), Pat LaMarche (2004), Cynthia McKinney (2008), and Jill Stein (2012). Instead, you continue to waste your vote on "the lesser of two evils" simply out of fear of a Republican in the White House.

So, go ahead, rally the cry for the sheepdog, Bernie Sanders. Progressivism is dead in the U.S. with Hillary at the helm, and Sanders declaration will only funnel votes to Clinton when he inevitably loses the primary.

I'll be voting for whomever is the Green party candidate  after the national caucus in July. I'm voting my values.

In an age when the Rhode Island electorate is clamoring for more transparency and government accountability, our esteemed Speaker of the House, Nick Mattiello, seems to be moving in the opposite direction from public opinion.

Last Thursday, April 30, Mattiello held a closed door meeting with Governor Gina Raimondo and the managing partners of the PawSox ownership group, Jim “Moral Obligation” Skeffington and Larry “Corporate Welfare Queen” Lucchino. Mattiello has also announced that the state Democrats will caucus in a closed door session today, May 6. Given that our House has only 11 Republican members, this is a de facto GA session without the votes. Oh, to be a fly on that wall…

Also in the news this week, Mattiello hired a consultant — at a rate of $225 per hour — to advise the members of the General Assembly on the merits of any proposal to spend taxpayer dollars on the construction of a new ballpark on the I-195 land on the Providence waterfront.

Unfortunately for the residents and taxpayers of this state, the consultant hired is sports economist Andrew Zimbalist, who was recently quoted on Rhode Island Public Radio as saying, “This ballpark is spectacularly situated. It’s close to downtown, it’s on the river, coming along with a riverwalk, it probably will promote hotel development there, there’s going to be a miniature baseball field, lots and lots of parking. It’s just a wonderful synergy possibility.”

Clearly, Zimbalist has already made his determination about the heavily taxpayer subsidized stadium proposal, and insofar, cannot be an impartial judge of the proposal on its merits.

I, for one, never questioned Mattiello’s commitment to government transparency. Bluntly, he has none.

What is transparent about Mr. Mattiello, however, is his clear disdain for the will of the people of this state, a complete disconnection from the financial realities faced by the vast majority of Rhode Islanders,  and commitment to the shady ‘that’s the way we’ve always done it’ deals that invariably soak the taxpayer. 

Today, in a full-plumage display of ignorance, Mattiello said that there are people in this state who wouldn't spend a dime of taxpayer money on this stadium and that approach, "... is a race to the bottom, and we're not going to do that."  Just go ahead and Google tax subsidies race to the bottom, and you will see that the preponderance of evidence shows that, at best, massive tax subsidies put competing states and municipalities on an economic "see-saw", and at worst, are the real race to the bottom.

To even entertain the idea of a taxpayer subsidized stadium in Providence should be a poison pill to any elected Senator or Representative in the General Assembly. I imagine that there are people all over the state that are seriously considering running against any elected official that supports this absurd proposal. One does not have to search far and wide to find a person who is vehemently opposed to this project. Finding supporters, on the other hand, is the proverbial needle in the haystack.

Let we, the voters of Rhode Island, make a commitment to transparency on this one issue. The choice has to be clear to members of the General Assembly. Zero public dollars spent on this project, or zero chance of reelection. Call your Representatives and Senators and tell them as much.

Baltimore is in flames. In the wake of the death of Freddie Gray at the hands of Baltimore police, protest devolved into riot. The typical news bloviators have - as they did in Ferguson - ignored the forest, preferring to concentrate on the trees.

Why do we applaud violent uprisings against oppressive regimes in other countries, but can't seem to wrap our heads around the fact that what we saw in Ferguson - and now in Baltimore - is exactly that? A marginalized and abused minority rising up against a government and their agents that would prefer to keep their collective jackboot squarely on the throats of the oppressed.

Violent uprisings in places like Iran, Syria, Egypt, China, and Pakistan are touted by our leaders and media as "witnessing the birth of democracy," and yet, when it happens on U.S. soil, they seem to be more concerned with property rights than human rights. Why are Ferguson and Baltimore not viewed as "the exercise of democracy?"

More maddening is the fact that many, if not all, of the critics of these violent reactions to oppression are the same Second Amendment absolutists that would arm every man, woman, and child in America to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. They advocate for a bloody coup using firearms on U.S. soil, but denounce the actions of rioters in Baltimore and Ferguson who, in my opinion, are doing exactly what these armchair patriots say is necessary to prevent systemic oppression. If you shoot people, it's a revolution, but if you burn a building it's terrorism. I guess a rose by any other name DOESN'T smell as sweet.

We denounce the acts of "ethnic cleansing" by dictatorial regimes in Eastern Europe, sometimes even lending military support to those ethnic minorities, but ignore the same "ethnic cleansing" happening in our own country.

Then there are the cro-magnons who say things like, "Slavery ended 150  years ago. When are black people going to get their act together?" Newsflash, genius: Slavery was the most egregious tool of oppression, but it was not the only one. Those other tools of oppression continue to this day in the form of "broken windows" policing, stop-and-frisk tactics, and a society that, from the top down, is designed to keep blacks down.

Another nugget that I just love is, "We have a black president. How can there still be racism?" While true, that is, how we say, the exception and not the rule. Despite the skin color of our president, life for everyday black folks hasn't really gotten a hell of a lot better since the days of Martin Luther King Jr. It's still harder for blacks to find employment, and still easier for them to be harassed, arrested, prosecuted, and jailed for crimes committed - and in many cases - crimes NOT committed. You don't have to search far and wide to find cases where blacks are straight up MURDERED by police before the due process of law has even begun. Add to that an increasingly militarized police force whose jackbooted thuggery seems to know no bounds, and you've got an award-winning recipe for violent protest.

You will hear countless people, some in positions of power, say, " I/We don't condone what's happening in Baltimore," but WE DO condone it; in any and every other country except our own. It is the stratospheric height of hypocrisy, and just another indicator that bigotry is still alive, well, and thoroughly ingrained in the U.S. of A.

It seems that Jim Skeffington and his cohorts in the PawSox ownership team are suffering from a bit of buyer's remorse this week. Despite Skeffington et al.'s massive contributions to Gina Raimondo's gubernatorial campaign, it apparently wasn't enough to get the governor to fall for SkeffCo.'s first outrageous offer hook, line, and sinker.

In a delicious twist, Governor Gina Raimondo issued the following statement on Monday.

I've worked on a few political campaigns, and I can tell you this: the wording of this statement is the political equivalent of, "You've gotta be f***ing kidding me?!? If I want a second term as governor, I can't even begin to entertain the idea of this deal as even the most remote possibility." To add insult to SkeffCo's injury, Raimondo issued this statement IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR PITCH to the I-195 Redevelopment Commission!

While this statement offers a bit of hope, again the language is crafted in a very particular way. I find it disturbing that Gina's "commitment" is to, "...working with Mayor Elorza, the Speaker, and the Senate President," with no mention of the will of the people, which from my vantage point ranges from "No" to "Jumping Jesus in a Jam Jar! No effing way!"

It seems that SkeffCo's campaign contributions in the last election cycle didn't buy them the influence that they thought it did. More interestingly, Skeffington's Law firm, Edwards, Angell, Palmer &Dodge, prior to being swallowed up by international law firm Locke Lord, contributed over $13,000 dollars to then-treasurer now- governor Gina Raimondo. Caveat emptor!