
A Lively Experiment 1/31/2025
Season 37 Episode 32 | 28m 59sVideo has Closed Captions
Are funds to fix the Washington Bridge in jeopardy as a result of a larger federal pause?
This week on A Lively Experiment, confusion reigns during Trump's first week in office. Are funds to fix the Washington Bridge in jeopardy as a result of a larger federal pause? Plus, news on Johnston's affordable housing fight. Moderator Jim Hummel is joined by RI GOP National Committeewoman Sue Cienki, Bill Bartholomew of the Bartholomewtown Podcast, and Democratic strategist Rob Horowitz.
A Lively Experiment is a local public television program presented by Rhode Island PBS
A Lively Experiment is generously underwritten by Taco Comfort Solutions.

A Lively Experiment 1/31/2025
Season 37 Episode 32 | 28m 59sVideo has Closed Captions
This week on A Lively Experiment, confusion reigns during Trump's first week in office. Are funds to fix the Washington Bridge in jeopardy as a result of a larger federal pause? Plus, news on Johnston's affordable housing fight. Moderator Jim Hummel is joined by RI GOP National Committeewoman Sue Cienki, Bill Bartholomew of the Bartholomewtown Podcast, and Democratic strategist Rob Horowitz.
How to Watch A Lively Experiment
A Lively Experiment is available to stream on pbs.org and the free PBS App, available on iPhone, Apple TV, Android TV, Android smartphones, Amazon Fire TV, Amazon Fire Tablet, Roku, Samsung Smart TV, and Vizio.
Providing Support for PBS.org
Learn Moreabout PBS online sponsorship- [Jim] This week on "A Lively Experiment," Mixed messages coming out of Washington have left state officials, including those in Rhode Island, confused.
And the mayor of Johnston moves to end a controversial affordable housing project in his town.
We'll tell you how.
- [Announcer] "A Lively Experiment" is generously underwritten by: - Hi, I'm John Hazen White Jr. For over 30 years, "A Lively Experiment" has provided insight and analysis of the political issues that face Rhode Islanders.
I'm a proud supporter of this great program and Rhode Island PBS.
- [Jim] Join us on the panel.
Sue Cienki, national committeewoman for the Rhode Island Republican Party.
Bill Bartholomew, political contributor and founder of the Bartholomewtown Podcast.
And Democratic strategist, Rob Horowitz.
Hello, everyone, and thanks for joining us for this week's "Lively."
I'm Jim Hummel.
Miss a day, miss a lot.
In the first two weeks of the Trump administration, an executive order earlier this week implementing a federal funding freeze, had Democrats and some Republicans crying foul, and attorneys general across the country sprinting to court.
By the end of the week though, the blowback forced the administration to pull back on the order, but it has many people wondering what is next.
Sue, I have told a lot of people who I've talked to this week, we need to pace ourselves.
We have four years of this administration.
What do you see is unfolded the first couple of weeks?
- Buckle up.
That's what I see.
And as far as the funding for the Washington Bridge goes, you know, it's unfortunate.
This was all due to negligence on the administration's part.
Nobody was paying attention to this bridge.
So from an administration standpoint, you look and you go, "You know, this was really your problem."
But as taxpayers, we have to look and say, it's coming out of our pocket anyway.
So whether it comes from federal funds or state funds, the taxpayers are ultimately the ones that are hurt.
And this is a major artery that goes between Rhode Island and Massachusetts, the people on the East Bay.
But I just wish people would wake up and hold their elected officials accountable for absolute negligence and not paying attention to the bridge.
And the Washington Bridge isn't the only one that's impacted.
I mean, you look across the street, even Newport, a lot of the Sekonic river bridges, they're not in good shape.
We don't take care of our infrastructure.
And Rhode Island so depends on the federal government to support us.
I mean, the COVID funds that came in, that should have gone to support the pensions, which are way underfunded for our municipal workers and our teachers.
And they pissed away that money.
- So the Washington Bridge was the tip of the iceberg about what was gonna happen the rest of the week.
We got rumors about that last weekend.
- Right.
I mean, it's interesting that we go from this macro story about everything that's happening with Donald Trump 2.0, and all of a sudden, we're talking about the Washington Bridge again.
And look, clearly, that funding is gonna be critical for the future of Rhode Island.
There's no doubt about it.
In terms of the blame on the Washington Bridge, look, this thing probably goes back many administrations.
The communications rollout by the McKee administration has been a brutal, Peter Alviti in particular.
But that's just one small piece of what you're asking, which is, seeds of chaos have been planted across a variety of spectrums.
Nonprofits, governmental, individual.
That's what we're experiencing right now.
The Washington Bridge is just part of that.
- Well, yes, and two things can be true at once.
And I agree with Sue on how the Washington Bridge has been handled on the state level.
On the other hand, the way that the Trump administration has handled this rollout with complete disregard of federal law, complete indifference to the consequences of their actions.
This was supposed to be Trump 2.0.
It feels a lot like Trump 1.0, which is chaos, confusion and indifference to the consequences of the policies.
- You know, I also wonder though, a lot of people voted, clearly, the Democrats are doing an awful job on immigration at the border.
That was key.
The the economy was awful.
I mean, eggs are a whole different... We joke about the price of eggs.
But you wonder whether some people who weren't paying attention to the rest of it said, "Is this really the government that I voted for?"
- Well, yes, it's exactly.
He told you what he was going to do.
He targeted certain areas.
The economy, immigration.
He targeted of the government.
You know, I'm a limited government type of person, but I'm also a fiscal conservative.
So, stop the government spending.
We've become a regulatory state.
Congress is not doing their job at all.
They're not legislating.
They're passing it off to regulatory agencies.
And we've seen the court push back on that with the Loper decision.
Regulations cannot come and be dependent on these regulatory agencies.
So when Trump came in, he said, "We're going to look at all these things that we're spending money on."
I mean, $50 million to buy condoms for Gaza.
Is that really where taxpayers want their money spent?
Because then you lose what the government's essential things that they should be doing.
You know, we're not taking care of our citizens.
We're not educating our kids.
We're not doing the essential services of taking care of the infrastructure.
So let's look at how government is spending their money.
- Well, for example, what you just referenced there, that's just one of the many misrepresentations of what's actually happening.
That expenditure is actually all US AID birth control expenditures worldwide, none of which went to the Palestinians.
But I don't think this is what people... Or let me put it this way.
Many of the coalition, members of the coalition that voted Trump, I think they voted on, in fact, we know poll data shows us they voted on a level of economic populism, right?
They voted on what they saw as a return to practical ideals, right?
For example, with transgender sports.
Whether that's an issue or not, which it really isn't a major issue, it's something that impacted people's decisions.
I think more and more time is gonna move along and more and more people are gonna say, "Wait a minute, this is an economic populism.
This is just a shift towards oligarchy."
And it's a scenario where it's actually unnatural how much trauma we're inducing into the community with not even necessarily the specifics of these ICE raids, but the fact that they're happening to begin with.
Things like this are going to add up and there's gonna be more and more of a populist distaste for the MAGA coalition, and I think it's gonna impact them big time in two years.
- Let me just ask, Sue, I have heard nothing about what are we gonna do to bring prices down.
Now, I understand the long range energy plan is drilling, even though we're producing a lot of oil.
I haven't heard anything in the first two weeks, "This is what's gonna help you with the supermarket."
When's that gonna come?
- Yeah, and I think that that takes time.
And certainly there are things that a president can and cannot do.
I mean, even, let's be fair to President Biden when he was the president.
A lot of the things that people complained about, the president really has no control over.
What the president does have control over is what's your energy policy?
Which way are we going?
Are we gonna rely on wind and solar?
No, it's not sustainable, it's not reliable, it's not cost-effective.
That is not a good energy policy.
Should we diversify from just oil and gas?
Yes, but we have to look at everything.
So I think when you talk about bringing prices down, you have to talk about how do the goods get to your store?
And that takes time.
If he's going to open up pipelines, if he's going to drill more, are you going to rely on nuclear and hydro?
You cannot rely on solar and wind.
- But the promise was, "I'm gonna bring the prices down day one."
- Yeah, but that takes a while.
- He said day one those prices are gonna come down.
- Fair enough, but realize Donald Trump won the election 'cause he was not Joe Biden, not because he was popular.
He wasn't popular on election day.
His job approval right now is 49%, which for him is great.
But your average president, only a week in, even Biden was at 55, 60.
So he's not popular in the country, has never been popular in the country.
He does have a very strong base.
And in terms of energy, his policy is nonsensical.
First of all, he's held up wind.
Two is we're gonna- - Which is an awful energy policy.
- Well, you may think so.
I completely disagree with you.
- You show me how that that is sustainable.
- Let me finish first, Sue, and then you can argue it.
- Sorry, it's my big issue.
- Well, it may be.
- Wind is awful.
- It may be, but he's held up wind for no reason if your goal is to have more energy.
We're drilling... We're the world's largest oil producer.
There's no problem with the oil.
The world is going to move and transition to renewable energy.
That's gonna happen.
China's ahead of us on all that.
- Oh, they're coal plants.
- Let me finish.
- Oh, they're coal plants.
- Let me finish.
They are ahead of us on all that.
Let me finish.
The other point is, his policy is heat up the planet in any way possible.
We all just saw what happened in California.
And his policy is, let's reward up his oil company buddies.
His energy policy makes no sense.
If you're gonna be all above energy, be all the above energy.
Solar is less expensive now than oil.
You wanna be for everything, be for everything.
That's not what he's doing.
He's favoring his oil company buddies, and he has this thing about wind that's irrational.
- And we even see that with, they know climate change is real, right?
And that's why they want to take Greenland.
Because under those ice sheets, as they continue to melt, it'll be much the same as we saw in the Middle East, where you'll be able to divvy up oil and other precious minerals that exist on Greenland.
And look, wind, you can make an argument that the corporate nature of the way that we've managed wind, offshore wind, and even from a visual standpoint, just a vibe standpoint, you can make an argument that there's problems there.
But if you wanna look at wind, take a look at Rotterdam and tell me... Take a look outside of the US and tell me that it's not effective.
- By the way, take a look at Texas, take a look at Montana.
That's why his wind policy's not gonna work because red states are where most of the wind is.
- [Jim] So jump in on the wind.
- The biggest problem with the wind is we don't have a system yet that actually can store the energy produced by wind.
We don't.
So what happens in Rotterdam?
They have to sell off that very quickly because it is not sustainable.
Look what just happened in Nantucket.
An environmental disaster.
- A turbine fell into the water, yeah.
- Not good.
- Not good.
Environmental disaster, and we are still feeling that impact.
Look at all the whales.
We are killing the environment.
We are killing the marine life.
We are killing the fishing industry.
- Not proven.
- Come on.
- Not proven.
You can make the same argument about cargo ship.
You wanna talk about marine disasters from an environmental standpoint, the amount of oil that's transported either by sea or pipeline, and we have not been able to prove with fact that it's not cargo ships that are careening into whales, so on and so forth.
Its not proven.
- And look- - But here's the broader point, Sue.
We have a climate crisis.
The issue is we have to produce less greenhouse gases.
So, yeah, are there some issues with wind?
Yes, the environmental damage windows compared to what oil does is, you're in a different- - But we are not even...
There is a prohibition against offshore wind off the East Coast.
Absolute prohibition.
We protected Cox Ledge off the coast of Rhode Island.
And what do we do?
Sheldon Whitehouse, Jack Reed, they all sat back where they are now putting turbines in Cox Ledge, which was supposed to be protected.
That is an environmental disaster.
- It may be but there's a broader issue.
- Broader issue?
You are ignoring the issue.
I'm all for sustainable energy.
Let's look at everything.
But wind is not, it's not sustainable, it's not reliable.
- [Jim] All right, we'll stipulate to that.
Final point on that?
- Yeah, yeah.
The broader issue is greenhouse gas emissions.
That's the existential threat to the planet.
Wind is a key piece of it.
Solar's even a larger piece of it.
Trump's policy is heat up the earth any way possible.
And also, it's not an energy security policy.
It's go back to the '50s and let's just drill, baby drill.
- Well, it's not gonna work.
- Let's talk about solar then.
What a great idea to completely deforest the western side of the state.
Let's take our farmland and let's put solar there.
That, again, is not reliable, not sustainable and not cost-effective, and it leches lithium into the soil so it becomes unusable.
- I would agree with that because there are other places in the state.
I did all those...
There's the Johnston that they beat back.
- They should be there.
But what do we do?
We take down trees.
- You're still missing the larger point here.
- No, I'm not missing the point.
- Here's the larger point.
You have a guy who's almost 80 years old, who's not gonna be alive in 10, 15, 20 years.
What he sees is right in front of him.
And I'm not talking just Donald Trump.
You got a lot of people in the senate, Chuck Grassley.
These guys are like 110 years old.
Your perspective on climate change is different if you're 25, 30, 50 years old and you're gonna be here in 20 years.
- You have to look at long range.
- You have to look at the survival of the species.
- They're not looking... Nobody's really in the older generation, some are, looking at the long run when it's like, "Look, what's it gonna do for me today?"
I think that's the (indistinct).
- And the least we can expect from a president, though, he called climate change a hoax.
The least we could expect from a president... And by the way, Biden is his age.
He's got a foresighted view on it.
And I'm not saying every one of his policies worked, but he has a foresighted view of it.
The least we could expect from a president is to tell us the truth, which this guy has never done, not day one, not ever, and to think about all the people and to make a policy that makes sense for all the people.
We can disagree about what that policy is.
But in his first eight or nine days, that's not what we're seeing... We didn't see it for four years.
And I agree with Sue, people shouldn't be surprised, but this is not what they voted for.
- Right.
I mean, just broadening it out to all of the policies.
I mean, you talked to, there was an ICE raid earlier this week in Newport.
Now, was it one targeted looking like an individual that took place?
Yes.
Nonetheless, you've got military clad mass ICE agents in Downtown Newport.
And what happened?
Immediately, text messages, rumor mills started to spread, not only in the immigrant community in Newport, but more broadly.
And I've been speaking with parents, I've been speaking with nonprofit organizers.
People are terrified, students were terrified that ICE agents were going to turn up at their school and detain them.
There's a large undocumented population in Newport.
And those people, in many cases, they work the jobs that nobody else wants to work to prop up the oligarchy that run the restaurants and so on and so forth in that city.
And they are terrified, and that is outrageous.
I do think some of the immigration- - So now they know how the pro-life people felt when the federal marshals came and arrested them.
How David Adalian felt in California.
How even Roger... - [Rob] That's a non-secretor argument.
- No, it's not a non-secretor.
The federal marshal showed up and arrested these people.
For what?
For praying outside an abortion clinic?
I mean, really.
And Roger Stone at six o'clock in the morning when he was arrested?
So I think there's been an overstep on the federal, you know, the prosecutors, everybody.
We have to take a step back and really look at what our policies are.
- I do wonder what the chilling effect that you talked about is all across the country.
There are now people doing these jobs.
And whether it's picking crops in California or doing cleaning jobs or whatever, who were going to be nervous about leaving their house, whether it's perception or reality, how that's... We don't know.
We're two weeks into this.
How that's gonna affect the workforce ultimately.
I don't know.
- Yeah, I think what people are looking for is, certainly, a key piece of why Trump was the border and people sensed that it was outta control.
It is also true that they blocked the Republicans at Trump's behest.
Blocked an actual comprehensive solution.
- Oh, that was bad.
That was a bad legislation.
- Sue, let me finish.
- Okay.
- Let me finish.
You will get your say, you'll get more than your say 'cause you're very good at this.
It was not (indistinct) is actually supported by the border guards.
But you need a whole policy here.
And for Trump, part of this is the cruelty is the point.
And the idea was to target criminals first, right?
Actually, more people that are now being deported are not criminals.
And there's also a need for a sensible immigration policy.
We are a nation of immigrants.
The reason why we're economically successful, despite the fact that our education system is pretty mediocre, is because of immigrants.
They're good chunk of Fortune 500 companies, et cetera.
So you gotta expand legal immigration.
I agree with on the illegal immigration, but there needs to be some transition here, some fairness.
And there's a way to get there.
Not his way.
- I think you need...
This is where I'll agree with you on.
You need a clean immigration bill.
You need Congress to actually do the job of Congress.
I think a lot of these members of Congress sit back.
What do they do all day?
This is something that the American people voted for.
They wanted a closed border.
They want a comprehensive immigration reform.
And a couple of years ago, they did have a bipartisan act.
You know, Marco Rubio was part of that.
What was it?
The gang of 12 got together.
- Gotcha.
- And they couldn't get it passed.
They really need to take their job seriously.
It is one of the reasons why I think President Trump was successful 'cause he said we need to close the boarder.
- I totally agree with that.
- You cannot let 10 million people in over four years.
- I think even you would agree that Biden was so late to the game on this.
Should have addressed it.
Did not listen to...
He was listening to the progressives a year in, two years in.
If for no other reason, Robin, you're a political strategist, to take the issue away from your opposition, and then last year they came up with this, "Okay, was it a good bill?
I don't know."
Too little, too late, right?
- Well, here's what I would say.
Yes, Biden should've addressed the border.
(indistinct) should have addressed earlier.
I have no disagreement with that.
The bill was negotiated by a very smart, very conservative senator from Oklahoma- - [Jim] Agreed.
Too late.
Too late.
- Too little, too late, politically, yes.
- Yes, and that's what mattered at the ballot box.
- No disagreement, but let's talk, but let's remember why that bill got blocked.
It was 'cause of Donald Trump.
- [Jim] Of course, of course.
- Who was in his political interest.
So, no disagreement, it was too little, too late.
But going forward, that doesn't mean what we do is how they were approaching the issue.
- I want to get local, but final thoughts on this.
- I'll tell you this much.
What a chilling thought.
And let's be honest about it, folks.
You've got Guantanamo Bay, a place that is as legally dubious as any black site around the world, now being touted as a location for up to 30,000 people to be taken as detainees, maybe as an internment camp.
And that facility, it'll be more than just undocumented folks.
You're gonna see dissidents in there, you're gonna see all sorts of marginalized people in these types of sites.
You think of the Trail of Tears, you think about the Japanese internment camps, and now you think about Trump at Guantanamo Bay.
- Okay, I do want to...
The show is moving very quickly.
It's always lively.
Locally in Johnston, there has been a big controversy going on.
The Mayor Joseph Polisena Jr. this week is stepping in the way of an affordable housing complex.
He says he wants to build town hall and a public safety complex and take it by eminent domain.
Bill, let me stay with you 'cause I know we talked about this a lot on the radio.
Just some initial thoughts about this, about how it's gone about.
- Thoughts?
I mean, here's- - We could do an entire show, I know.
- Oh yeah.
I mean, wow.
First of all, I doubt he came up with this idea himself.
Essentially, he decided that... Look, the town of Johnston has made it clear they don't want more poor people in their town.
They don't wanna prioritize public education, plain and simple.
So in order to facilitate that goal in an effort to blockade an affordable housing development, 252 units on a plot of land that was really moving toward, the developers were basically ready to begin the project.
The mayor approached the town council, declared eminent domain on that parcel of land, and now they're going to use $40 million in cash reserves, pause, in fact, just stop their brand new school from being constructed, and build a municipal facility.
I mean, look, this is...
It couldn't be more clear.
Joe Polisena Jr., all right?
This is...
I mean, he's a Democrat, but this is straight out of the MAGA playbook.
Squash poor people, squash public education, and deny the will of the people by forcing people outside of- - He would argue it's this location.
We have other affordable things going up in town.
The issue I have is eminent domain.
- Not a fan.
- You're a lawyer.
- Yeah, I'm not a fan of eminent domain.
- Does that hold up legally?
'Cause you know the developers are gonna sue.
They're so far into this project, right?
- Yeah, I am not a fan of government coming in and using eminent domain to take land.
I'm just not.
So, I mean, that is my biggest issue.
In terms of affordable housing, and, as Bill says, poor people, but people that can't afford housing, we've got a problem here.
And one of the biggest problems is our ability not to build housing, I think.
And one of the reasons is that the overregulation that we have.
We can't even get those pallet shelters up.
It has been freezing here.
Why?
The government put it up and we can't even get them open because of the regulations we have in.
So I do feel for developers in this state that they cannot actually get things built here, but I am absolutely not a fan of eminent domain.
But I disagree with Bill in terms of, you know, how conservatives feel about education.
You know, one of the most important things we do is educate our kids, and we are failing in this state when we cannot get kids.
Is school choice the way to go?
Maybe not in the long term.
But in the short term, we cannot keep losing generations of kids who cannot read, cannot do math.
So why not give the parents the ability to move their kids elsewhere?
- Just as you were saying that, I was thinking, where does Johnston have 40 million of cash reserves?
Let's talk about that.
What do you think?
- That that would be a very interesting long-term investigation.
- How did that accrue?
- Usually, the... Not to be mean about Johnson's history.
Usually, the money goes the other way.
Not into the government but out to the politicians.
But what I would say about this is to step back for a second.
This is a miniature one of the problems.
And Sue and I will actually agree on this.
One of the problems that we have in building sufficient affordable housing around the state for low and middle income people is each community puts big roadblocks in place.
Any individual case, you can make the case.
But there's a state interest and interest of all of us in more affordable housing.
The housing practice here are crazy.
And, you know, I think the legislature has done a pretty good job.
I think (indistinct) taking the lead on this.
But there's still more to do and it's this whole local control versus state here.
- And I wonder at some point where the local...
He had hinted that a little bit.
Maybe we need to challenge the law.
Not just the most recent ones, but the ones that go back years and years.
'Cause some of these laws are on the books 20 years.
When it gets to this point, what's gonna bend, and are these things gonna start reaching court?
- But then I think you have to look at some of the communities.
And Johnson may be not a good example of this, but some of these communities, as a whole in the state, we don't have a great transportation system.
So if you're talking about people with low income that may not have the ability to have a car, so how are they gonna get to work?
- [Jim] How are they gonna get to foster?
- How are they gonna get, yeah.
And foster, they're not even on the line for RIPTA.
So we don't have a great transportation system.
So you wanna put low income housing in some of these suburban districts, but yet you don't have the services for these people to be able to get to work, to be able to sustain.
You just don't.
So there's onions to this.
- I agree with you there but local communities also oppose things like just allowing grandparent apartments.
Everything gets opposed.
- But I don't think there's one district that doesn't allow a family member to be- - Right.
But, say, it's non-family.
- (indistinct) pass the law.
- Say it's a non-family member.
All I'm saying is, every one of these things is a fight, understandably.
But it's a fight, and it requires a change of mindset, and it may require a constitutional amendment, at the end of the day, for the points you- - You can't even get a constitutional convention on the ballot here.
- Yeah, wait 10 years.
- 10 years.
- Legislatures can still pass- - All right, we only have a couple minutes left, so let's keep these tight.
Bill, you have an outrage or a kudo this week?
- I've got an outrage.
And look, what we saw yesterday from President Trump during that press conference about the aviation disaster was one of the most disgraceful things that I've ever seen.
To turn a disaster into a political rant and, really, just go on a bender of that sort, I think it also speaks to concerns about his mental competency.
The fact that this is an individual who would do something as seemingly evil and bizarre as that.
It hurt me to watch, it makes me sad.
I'm scared for my country, I'm scared for my planet, and I hope that we're able to turn the tide here.
- Rob, what do you have?
Donald Trump is the gift that keeps giving the lively 'cause of the (indistinct) of outrageous we could select.
Mine is we're removing the security clearance, space (indistinct) clearance, removing security detail from General Mark Milley and then investigating him to lower his star.
That was Pete Hegseth's most important stuff on day one.
Goes with removing John Bolton's security clearances and removing Secret Services protection from a number of people.
What they all have in common?
They were critics of Donald Trump.
- It makes realize how many people have secrets.
I didn't realize all this protection was going on.
So, that's a side issue.
What do you have, Sue?
- I'm gonna liven it up a little bit here and congratulate Billy (indistinct).
He's going to have his number raised.
I think that's great for Providence College and kudos to him.
- Yeah, I think, especially with what's going on with this year locally, some of the basketball has been up and down.
I was down to see your URI Rams the other day.
- You know, they might be the darlings of the state.
We'll have to see how things play out here.
It's certainly not gonna be the friars this year, sad to say.
- You know, I said this last just to put a kind of a bow on what you were talking about and what we opened up with.
There was a great column in the Washington Post, the column that said, "Look, you gotta pay attention to what Trump does, not necessarily what he says."
And every time he says something, maybe it's to get a rise out of us not presidential, but that, you know, social media blows up and then he's looking at that and maybe that kind of satisfies some inner, you know, I'm kind of giving it, you know, owning the libs or whatever it is.
But I think we have to look at what he's doing, not what he's saying necessarily.
- Absolutely.
- Okay.
That is all the time we have this week folks.
Thank you so much for joining us.
Rob and Bill and Sue, always lively.
You're gonna do an after show, right?
Rob and Sue afterwards?
- Oh, absolutely.
- I'm filming it on my phone.
- We always do.
- Bill, you can be the moderator.
- Exactly.
- All right, if you don't catch just Friday at seven or Sunday at noon, we archive all of our shows at ripbs.org/lively.
We're on Facebook and X and wherever you get your favorite podcast.
Take us along with you along the way.
We hope you come back here next week.
Every day, something new.
We will have a full analysis and breakdown next week as "A Lively Experiment" continues.
We hope you have a great weekend.
(bright music) - [Announcer] "A Lively Experiment" is generously underwritten by: - Hi, I'm John Hazen White Jr. For over 30 years, "A Lively Experiment" has provided insight and analysis of the political issues that face Rhode Islanders.
I'm a proud supporter of this great program and Rhode Island PBS.
A Lively Experiment is a local public television program presented by Rhode Island PBS
A Lively Experiment is generously underwritten by Taco Comfort Solutions.