What is really fascinating about Mr. Block’s proposal for a third “moderate” party is what it says about the Democrats; and apparently what he is afraid to say about the Democrats. He decries the RIGOP’s unwillingness to denounce the national party’s conservative stances on certain social issues – as if one should expect a state party to denounce fundamental tenets of the national party. Moreover, few rational observers would brand the RIGOP as being conservative. Like many state Republican parties in the Northeast it is essentially “Democrat Lite” and so continues to shrink as it doesn’t offer a conservative alternative to Democrats, and so isn’t particularly distinguishable from the Democrats, and so voters quite rationally go for the real thing (which is why liberal Lincoln Chafee lost to liberal Sheldon Whitehouse; nobody associated Chafee with the “social conservative” national party). The “moderate” Republicans of the Northeast continue to decline in number, while their conservative brethren in other parts of the country have been the wings of the party that has shown growth in recent decades. Mr. Block’s admittedly liberal social views are in accord with that of the national Democratic Party. (He assumes – probably incorrectly – that his liberal views are the overwhelming dominant ones held by “a majority of voters” in Rhode Island and so explain the RIGOP’s lack of success; certainly his liberal views are dominant on the “East Side” and such, but not among “blue collar” Democrats. Witness the dichotomy in PA between Obama and Clinton supporters.) So one would think that as a social liberal he would find a natural home in the Rhode Island Democratic Party and try to push his fiscal reform from within it – particularly since it is already in power and looks to remain so – instead of trying to… Read more »

{Suggestion of abetting multiple felonies deleted.}

Ken: I am sorry that I have not had the chance to respond. I have been in meetings and on the road all day. You seem to have latched on to one thing that I said in my role as Platform Chairman for the RI GOP and ignored my entire campaign of ’06 – strange for a person who is ostensibly trying to build a coalition movement. If you had bothered to ask, you might have found that you and I agree on a myriad of ideas and that I not only support your attempts but once thought of doing something similar – only I would have named it differently. I chose to support the Republican Party, however, because there was an existing mechanism for getting candidates elected and, though you can argue that the track record has not been good, an existing national network, as well. You have chosen to take one line, as many will do, and wrap an argument around it that was not the central theme of the overall. As Platform Chair, I have a responsibility to the Party. A Party’s job is to get candidates elected. My Party has an existing ideology and my job is to work within the framework of that ideology to craft a message. Inside of that narrow framework, my job is not to pass legislation or to help sitting Democrats solidify their seats. Sorry if that offends your non-partisan partisan sensibilities (yes that was two partisans). Your job is to build a Party from scratch – a movement, if you will – and you will do that based on your beliefs of what will garner the most support. You must also take into account, however, that your movement has no record to stand on. You are free to call your… Read more »

“So your claim is that the state GOP is not winning many legislative seats because the state GOP is not conservative enough??” In so many words … Hell, YES! The party has for a long time lacked a basic conservative / populist message, as well as the ability to finance candidates. The problem isn’t conservatism, it’s that too many Republicans here have been unable, or simply unwilling to plainly convey to voters how the application of conservative principles actually gives everyone the ability to get ahead in life. You simply don’t attract people to run (and certainly, not to vote), when you’re running on a watered-down version your opponent’s ideas. The Rhode Island Republican Party has not to my knowledge ever been a conservative party — at least in the lifetime of anyone still alive. To attempt to describe it as such would be intellectually dishonest. Most Republicans are able to intellectually differentiate between the national Republican Party, and the various state parties. Many also don’t have a visceral a reaction to social conservatives having a place at the table, or a fear that someone, somewhere might be reading a Bible and actually believes what it says. We know that what flies in Mississippi might not fly completely in Rhode Island, so we can adjust the message as necessary, while maintaining a core set of principles. You win by focusing on unifying principles, not by arguing over minutia. We understand that in our form of government, that one needs to be able to form majority coalitions in order to win elections. However, that’s not a license to ignore the core conservative values of the party. You build out from a core … but you still need a core to begin with. Many of us would like our party to be… Read more »