One point that may not be accurate:

"Bring our welfare benefits in line with neighboring states."

I believe this happened a couple of years ago. Kudos to the General Assembly and the Governor for doing so.

The writers cannot be faulted, however, for including this item in view of the fact that it took over a decade (about ten years too long) for the necessary reform in this area to take place.

What is missing from this laundry list is a simple, compelling vision of state and local government that provides superior value to its citizens. To wit, what ends do we want government to achieve? How do we measure progress toward them? What is the maximum we are willing to pay to achieve these ends (e.g., do we want to make our tax burden per $1,000 of personal income equal to Massachusetts'?). And how will we use these means to achieve the ends we seek? (Hint: this goes way beyond "The Big Audit", and involves the total reengineering -- to use a private sector term -- of government's processes and systems, and reorganizing/restaffing the people who operate them). That vision would no doubt cause many current officeholders and their puppeteers to scream bloody murder. It would be a high risk bet that with such a pitch, you could win over enough people who are finally feeling sufficient pain from the current situation to make much larger changes than they have in the past. And you may find that there aren't enough of those people left in the state to win elections. But what is the choice? This laundry list invites death by 100 cuts, picking over each of these points, personalizing the attacks, playing endless rounds of gotcha politics until by next November we end up with the same result, and the state continues its accelerating downward slide.

Just for the record, I did not leak it. Not that there is much to leak. I will be voting against it.

John,

I don't see where you're going, when you say that it's a laundry list lacking a simple compelling vision at the same time you're saying it needs to include implementation metrics for measuring progress towards specific goals. Isn't that asking it to be both more and less detailed than it currently is? Also, what do you think should be in the "mission statement" paragraphs at the top that aren't there now?

I do think this has the right scope for a platform, even if I don't like every point. As written, it allows state GOP members to make lots of clear statements, such as the party being in favor of more rigorous teacher evaluations, to which the Dems can say they either agree or they don't. And the planks are focused enough so that a candidate can disagree on one or two of the economic and governance issues (which is inevitably going to happen) without having to disassociate himself or herself from the overall direction of the party.

This is why the people dont have respect for the RIGOP. They dont have the courage of their convictions to stand up for pro marriage and anti abortion initiatives. Im really getting sick of voting for RINOs. Maybe they will get some real candidates that can show some testicular fortitude once the atrocious reign of Gio is gone.

Mixed bag.

They duck on social issues. A party burying its head in the sand is a losing proposition (since the Democrats are not burying their heads in the sand on these). Besides, the Moderate Party has already laid claim to the "we're liberal so as a party we'll pretend not to care about social issue" turf.

Some good stuff (e.g., about the unions, who won't support Republicans anyway so this falls into the "it's about time" category). But most is feel-good pabulum that nobody would argue with.

Missing is the bold stuff. How about matching NH for taxes - no sales or income tax?

How about universal vouchers that follow the child to public or private schools?

How about outlawing tenure and seniority?

Or better yet, repealing the statute that allows teacher unionization and ridding the state of teachers unions?

Hi!
I need to look this over. Just skimmed through it. This as I understand it is not a finished product.
As a voting committee member of R.I State Central Committee, I will have a vote, and at present will not take a stand. I will however bring this to the attention of my fellow Hopkinton Republicans and others.
I do hope that all members of the platform agreed to the platform and fashioned it, and it was NOT dominated by the Chairman and all committee members had input. I have heard at least some grumbling about the committee.
Gio is far better than Pat Morgan, his predecessor. I am curious what Mr. "Rory" Smith will be saying on this!
Regards,
Scott
scottbillhirst@yahoo.com
401-377-4643

As we all are keenly aware, the house of cards that has been RI has begun to fall to the ground. I applaud the platform committee for putting together a platform that lets RIers know that our only goal must be to correct the fiscal mess that the Democrats have gotten us into.

We can debate the social issues all day long but without fixing the fiscal mess first we will have no state to regulate them in.

I will be strongly supporting the platform.

Are the rumors true that the Platform Committee wants to add a plank about merging with the Moderate Party so both can sing the same tune in unison and both can join in silence regarding social issues (which in turn means that they agree with the Democrats?

Would the Moderate Party want to take the RIGOP under its wing, given that the moderate RIGOP has continued to show over the decades that moderate Republicanism is a loser, as evidenced by the ever-shrinking rank of moderate Republican politicians in RI?

I did not leak the platform but I'd like five minutes alone with whomever did. Publicizing a work in progress is a juvenile stunt that should rain dishonor on the perpetrator.

That said, I am against this platform. It is timid and weak where it should be bold and strong. It is small-minded and can't see the forest for the trees. The environment section advocates government dirigisme which is antithetical free-market Republican principles. The government spending section fails to address the largest categories of wasted spending: social programs, including support for illegal aliens.

I have other objections to this platform but will not air them in this forum. I believe the Republicans can put forth a better document that more fully reflects their values and principles.

"I believe the Republicans can put forth a better document that more fully reflects their values and principles."

Not these Republicans BobN.

Any committee that harbors Avedisian and went all-out for Chafee in very recent history, does not have the capacity to articulate, document or endorse any beliefs that are "bold" and "strong".

George, if you are a Democrat this conversation must end here. If you are a disillusioned Republican who has been turned off by the RINO-Chafee wing of the party, I think you may find comfort and inspiration, as well as a means of effecting the improvements you seek, by joining the Rhode Island Republican Assembly.

See www.ri-ra.org

Bob,

I may be overly idealistic here, but presenting a fait accompli to a group of people that don’t agree on everything tends to create more problems in the long term than does allowing some general opportunities for people to air their positions, before everything has been decided. In fact, I would submit that a major cause of the so-called Republican rift is the moderate-to-liberal wing’s unwillingness to discuss conservative ideas, in favor of practicing a kind of identity politics (i.e. we have to support this because we’re "New England Republicans") or focusing on particular personalities instead. Keeping the substance coming that’s needed to keep the focus on ideas is one way to dissuade this.

Plus, I hate the pattern that I occasionally run into, when covering politics and government, of…

Can’t discuss the details, until the committee completes its work.
Can’t discuss the details, until the committee completes its work.
Can’t discuss the details, until the committee completes its work.
Why do you want to discuss the details? Everything’s already been decided in committee.

Finally, I’ll add, only half-tongue in cheek, that a rating of “mixed bag” from Ragin’ Rhode Islander comes as high praise when a state-level product of the RI Republican Party is the topic of discussion.

>>"Finally, I’ll add, only half-tongue in cheek, that a rating of “mixed bag” from Ragin’ Rhode Islander comes as high praise when a state-level product of the RI Republican Party is the topic of discussion."

I don't know if I'd say high praise. But at least (unlike recent years) it appears that the RIGOP may actually publicly disclose the platform, instead of requiring a super-secret handshake and knowing the secret code before being allowed to look at it (no notes or copies allowed).

Plus it at least mentions realistic minimum retirement ages and a defined contribution plan for ALL state employees, not just new hires. [How did THAT slip by Scott Avedesian or NEA Representative Savage, uh, I mean Representative Savage?]

But, overall, BobN is correct.

"Can’t discuss the details, until the committee completes its work.

Can’t discuss the details, until the committee completes its work.

Can’t discuss the details, until the committee completes its work.

Why do you want to discuss the details? Everything’s already been decided in committee."

lol

BobN, it's the latter. I'll consider your invitation seriously. But I'm sitting tight on all commitments until I see how the 2010 field unfolds.

didn't mean to sign that last one as BobN... really tired!

Just for the record, I agree with virtually all of these. I'm not sure exactly how low we're going to have to cut taxes to be competitive (read: slight advantage over neighbors), but 'low enough to attract jobs' is all I can vouch for as long as we're not meeting our obligations of a balanced budget and realistically funding our pension program.

That said, we need to totally revamp the pension program so it's easier to get from here to there.

I chat-up state workers at the pub all the time, and it's like they think they're under attack. What I hear a lot is, "I put $120,000 into the retirement plan... Now they want to cut my pension", unfortunately, $120,000 is chump-change to retire drawing 2/3rd of your salary... Most state workers would have to have about $650,000 put away for their investment to cover their footprint, and that doesn't cover medical. With medical it looks more like a million in the bank to cover each retiree, assuming a 5% draw-down. If we're not putting (or forcing state employees to put) one dollar aside for every five we send out in payroll, there's going to be hell to pay down the line.

Monique and Andrew:

I understand your point. I am not criticizing AR for putting out something it had received - that's what the press does.

I do think that the platform while still a work in progress is not a public document and that a loyal member would not have leaked it. I am confident that under a different process from the one used, the platform could have been widely debated within the party and much improved, avoiding the scenario that Monique painted.

I do a lot of writing in my job. I can't imagine sending my clients my first draft of a piece.

"atrocious reign of Gio" - Damn - I'm not even sure what to make of that...

In any case, I don't have any problem with this being posted and/or discussed on AR. This is the document that is going to the full committee, and no one should have to see it thirty minutes before they are asked to vote on it. And, as a practical matter, anybody who thinks that there are political secrets in RI is fooling themselves (Steve?)

That aside, I can't say I support every point in the document. I do, however, support the process that led to the draft, and I support the hard work of the committee who met over the course of many months to debate every single word that is in it. I will be voting for it not because it is perfect, but because it is the collective best effort of a diverse and thoughtful group of my partisans.

I get that it is not in our nature to support collectives or decisions made by committee, but that is what a party does. Once you win an election, then you get to make the rules. Getting there is a democratic process and requires consensus. (And, by the way, if the RIGOP was a dictatorship, it would have read like some anarcho-capitalist white paper from the Cato Institute.)

I am also comfortable that it will be a good tool for our candidates. You should all know by now that I enjoy taking a hard line on issues, and I agree that Rhode Island voters are ready for Republicans to act like Republicans when it comes to rolling back the size of government. It will be up to the RIGOP to impose that sort of message discipline on our candidates, and without a platform to work from, that becomes extremely difficult.

A platform is tool to help win elections, not an encyclopedia of republican values. I hope you will all consider supporting it, if for no other reason than that a committee of your Republican peers thinks it will help us win some seats next year. (And, perhaps, will help make my reign a little less atrocious . . . )

Gio

Hi!
Let's give Gio some slack. I do not get the vibes he think he is better than the regular Republicans. I detect that trait in Rob Manning, who assuming the scuttlebut circulating the platform was his or nearly all his.
I am concerned how the platform committee was run and how ALL members were allowed to put forth their ideas.
Regards,
Scott

This platform does not mention Illegal Immigration. Does the Rhode Island Republican Party consider illegal immigration to be a social issue ? Illegal Immigrants cost Rhode Island hundreds of millions of dollars each and every year. Do the authors of this platform not have the intestinal fortitude to take a stand on this critical issue ? (Perhaps it is because they or their cronies have illegal immigrants working for them.) This is a total disgrace. No wonder why the RIGOP
is on the endangered species list. How about the issue of Life ? Republicans are the Party of Life. We are opposed to abortion, euthanasia, and stem cell research. While we tolerate differing views on these matters, we need to take a stand ON THE SIDE OF LIFE.