It was a crowded stage at Roger Williams University last Thursday, Aug. 17, as moderators Ed Fitzpatrick and Steph Machado of the Boston Globe put ten of the 12 democratic hopefuls contending to serve as the next U.S. Representative in Rhode Island’s 1st Congressional District through their paces.

It was a fast-moving debate with several lightning rounds, ensuring that everyone got a chance to flash a little personality, attempt to differentiate themselves from the other members of their party onstage, and, for better or worse, increase their name recognition.

The candidates present, in alphabetical order, were Gabe Amo, a former White House aide; Stephanie Beaute, a senior program manager in the tech industry; Walter Berwick, a former Naval War College professor; Sandra Cano, a state senator from Pawtucket; Don Carlson, a staff member at Yale Law School; Stephen Casey, a state representative from Woonsocket; John Goncalves, a member of the Providence City Council; Sabina Matos, Lieutenant Governor of Rhode Island; Ana Quezada, a state senator from Providence; and Aaron Regunberg, a former state representative from Providence.

For the first question, candidates were asked to name a single issue that they would prioritize, were they elected. Their answers ran the gamut from maintaining our democracy (Cano) and maintaining it amid the existential threat of AI being used to disrupt democracy (Beaute); to controlling assault weapons (Matos), taking on corporate power (Regunberg), the environment in general (Quezada) to climate change specifically (Carlson); building a strong middle class was cited by Berwick; investing in the care economy will be a priority for Amo; Goncalves would address income inequality and poverty, while Casey would advocate for a reduction in foreign aid spending coupled with a 10% takeback to reallocate to support veterans, seniors, and people experiencing homelessness.

On Cicilline’s tenure
After a strong start, several candidates fumbled the next question. Asked to name one policy disagreement they had with Cicilline, several candidates (Mator, Regunberg, Quezada, Carlson, and Cano) asserted there was not one issue, in Cicilline’s 12 years of service in the U.S. House, on which they might disagree with the former Representative’s position.

“Someone up here must have had a policy disagreement,” said Fitzpatrick.

“I wouldn't call it disagreement. I call it a handicap and a blind spot,” said Beaute. “I know that David Cicilline really wanted to take on big tech and corporations, but when you don't really understand the technology behind that, and you're attacking from a personal standpoint while not really understanding those limitations, that's a blocker for him.”

“I think for me it's probably on the defense budget,” said Berwick. “We need to get a handle on defense spending. I think we can spend smarter…I would have been one of two democrats to have voted against the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) because it doesn't address the biggest urgent threat, and that's the threat of Russia right now.”

Like Beaute, Amo also stopped short of characterizing his issue with Cicilline’s record as a disagreement, blaming his concern on the Democratic caucus as a whole, for not keeping investment in housing in the final version of Biden’s “Build Back Better” plan.

Goncalves’ disagreement with Cicilline was that he wished the representative had been a lead sponsor on the Green New Deal, while saying that he “did a really good job as a co-sponsor.” Goncalves went on to add that he wished Cicilline had stayed in office.

“We do not agree on gun control,” said Casey of Cicilline. “I think banning all the weapons is not the answer to the problems that we have here in the United States.”

Climate change, energy and spending
A question about what one thing a candidate would do about climate change drew a range of thoughtful answers, including from Amo, who suggested we unlock the capacity of local government to act; Carlson, who suggested turning the private sector loose on solving the problem; and Berwick, who advocated bringing in more clean energy jobs.

“Rhode Island is an island, so we need to be more protective of our environment, more than any other state,” said Quezada.

Candidates were split on the issue of military spending with Quezada, Goncalves, Carlson and Regunberg saying that we need to cut, Beaute suggesting we can allocate more to domestic issues without dramatic cuts, and everyone else agreeing that we need a strong military in these volatile times and, last but not least, that Rhode Island needs the nearly 34,000 jobs that the defense industry currently contributes to our collective bottom line.

The candidates were mostly in lockstep in disagreeing with Biden’s March decision to approve a huge oil drilling project on Alaska’s North Slope, with Casey agreeing with Biden’s decision and Berwick disagreeing but pointing out that the Alaskan economy depends on oil drilling and we cannot just flip a switch and turn it off.

In contrast, most were in agreement with the Biden administration’s plan to forgive student debt, mainly just differing in the amount to be forgiven, with Berwick suggesting it should be means tested and Carlson suggesting forgiveness should go to those whose education and subsequent careers were in helping professions. “Who’s going to pay?” asked Casey, the lone dissenter.

Getting to know them, and testing their mettle
A couple of lightning round questions were amusing (and a little edifying). Quizzed about their political role models, Quezada named Cicilline, Berwick and Casey went with JFK, Amo said Truman, Carlson said FDR, Obama has fans in Goncalves and Cano, while Matos cited Shirley Chisholm, the first black woman to be elected to Congress. Regunberg named the late senator Paul Wellstone who died in a 2002 plane crash, and Beaute chose Nancy Pelosi.

The candidates were asked to say who they would vote for, if not for themselves. Most gamely took the opportunity to flatter a competitor. Goncalves initially refused to name a name, though once Quezada and Matos both offered the anodyne non-answer “woman of color” (with Matos’ vote specifically for the woman of color who is polling the highest), Goncalves decided to also vote for that unnamed individual. The final tally was one vote for Beaute, two each for Berwick, Cano, and Quezada, and three votes for identity politics.

The most interesting part of the evening came near the end.

“We're now going to give the candidates an opportunity to respond to some of the criticism about their campaigns,” said Machado, encouraging the candidates to debate amongst themselves respectfully. The moderators began chumming the waters, beginning with the active criminal investigation into nomination papers submitted by Matos’ campaign.

“You say you were the victim of a vendor that you hired but do you take any responsibility for the signatures that were submitted on your behalf?” asked Machado.

“Of course I do,” said Matos, noting that she has more than enough signatures. “No other candidate has gone through the level of scrutiny that I have. Nobody has been vetted more than me.”

“Every candidate had signatures that were rejected,” she said, specifically calling out Carlson and Regunberg.

Carlson was the first to bite.

“It's one thing to get rejected because somebody fills out the wrong form and they signed on the wrong page, used the wrong address or maybe they forgot to register,” he said. “It's another thing to have dead people sign the forms. That's actually forgery and fraud.”

It was Regunberg’s turn next.

“What do you say to Rhode Islanders who remain skeptical that you've had no idea that your father-in-law [was] funding a super pac that's pouring tens of thousands of dollars into helping your campaign?” asked Fitzpatrick.

Nobody was left unscathed in this round. It was suggested that Carlson is buying his way into the seat by self-funding much of his campaign, it was noted Cano received endorsements from a Trump supporter and an a fellow legislator who doesn’t support abortion rights, while Goncalves was called out for remaining unendorsed by politicians he has worked closely with since 2020. Beaute and Berwick were charged with having no relevant experience, while it was pointed out that Casey’s voting record on bills that would seek to restrict abortion access is at odds with his claim that he supports choice. Amo was accused of lobbying for Home Depot, a business that has been accused of supporting anti-progressive stances. (Amo asserts he worked against organized retail crime, not in support of a right-wing agenda.)

“I don't think it's a controversial topic that someone worked in a Home Depot store,” said Amo, who was also accused of taking credit for the work of former Governor Gina Raimondo as well as Presidents Obama and Biden. “I am proud of every opportunity I have had to work for the President,” said Amo. “It requires people who get stuff done, and there's a reason that the trust of these leaders has come to me.

“So, yes, my name has not been on the ballot before, but it is now.”

The evening wrapped up with a question about what each candidate’s hypothetical first bill introduced would be, if elected — and there was a wide variety. Regunberg would end federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry; Beaute would cut the cost of prescription drugs; Quezada would raise the minimum wage; Berwick would sign “common sense” gun legislation; Amo would expand access to home care for seniors; Carlson would propose an assault weapons ban; Goncalves would introduce a Social Security expansion act; Casey would propose a 10% takeback of foreign aid to reallocate to vets, seniors, and the homeless; Cano would make childcare affordable; and Matos would codify the right to abortion at the federal level.

The full debate is available on the “RWUEDU” YouTube channel.