Don Roach

Nancy Green – a usual recipient of an askew glance by your blog’s writer – writes about hoping to see universal healthcare passed over at Kmareka. Here are  few of the more interesting lines:

I’m driving around making nursing visits, listening to the health care news on the radio. It hurts to have my hopes raised again. This whole debate has been painful and deeply disillusioning. Not only with my politicians, but with my fellow Rhode Islanders who told me face to face that an America where some people just have to die needlessly for lack of health care is acceptable to them.

There’s a lot to digest here. First, is there any common decent American who believes “some people just have to [emphasis added] die needless for lack of healthcare is acceptable to them”? Of course not.

What this boils down to are two pretty critical questions:

1. Should the government provide universal healthcare? Arguments favoring universal healthcare rely upon many of the underpinnings espoused by Green tugging at the heartstrings such as everyone is entitled to healthcare, people should not have to die because they can’t afford healthcare, as the richest nation in the world no one should have to suffer because of a lack of health care coverage, etc. While I believe that as the world’s richest nation theoretically no one should be without much of anything, yet I don’t always look to the government and/or hold them responsible for fixing the nations ills. What if we common-decent Americans tried to figure this one out ourselves instead of asking Big Brother to come in and “rescue” us and I use the quotes because any governmental system is likely to be a false rescue because…

2. How much will universal healthcare cost the average taxpayer? Universal healthcare is another step towards a more socialist environment that I’m not so sure America is ready for. It is welath redistributed and gives people another reason to heavily rely on the government for their day-to-day sustenance. I’m not so sure Green would have a problem with that, but I do believe most Americans would. Green noted how three people stopped to help a woman who had fallen on the street and no doubt our country is filled with people willing to help others. But the keyword is help. Imagine that same scenario but instead all of us must carry a person on our backs indefinitely without requiring them to at least think about helping themselves. That’s a problem.

So it’s not about “no we can’t”  which is how many on the left like to reduce opposition to the universal healthcare proposals the president has put forth. Instead it’s “we can do this the right way” and anything less would be foolhardy and birthed out of a compassion not measured against common sense. And when it comes to our nation’s future we must possess the ability to see beyond our heart and think with our heads as well.

One of my favorite songs as a kid was LL Cool J’s, Mama said knock you out. In the song LL says:

Don’t call it a comeback
I been here for years
Rockin my peers and puttin suckas in fear
Makin the tears rain down like a MON-soon
Listen to the bass go BOOM
Explosion, overpowerin
Over the competition, I’m towerin

This song should definitely be the background music every time a Rhode Island Young Republican walks in a room.

“Ah, here comes Travis Rowley”

Don’t call it a comeback…I been here for years

“I think those Young Republicans are looking to shake things up here in Rhode Island.”

Rockin’ my peers and puttin’ suckas in fear

That’s essentially what we’re trying to do as the Young Republicans. We’re trying to – as they say – change the game. I have never been excited about the Republican party in this state until now. Despite what you read in the Projo about internal strife at the state party level, I can tell you that there is a growing number of Young Republicans who are very intelligent and are mobilizing in an attempt to bring core Republican ideals to Rhode Island in tangible ways.

Progressives be on alert because…Mama said knock you out!

So I learned that Dan Harrop is running for mayor from, guess who, Rhode Island’s Future. You know the left wing blog begun by Matt Jerzyk and personal vomit-zone for Pat Crowley. This got me thinking.

Anchor Rising is certainly the conservative Rhode Island blog. But, where is the Rhode Island GOP blog? Where’s the blog telling you all the news that comes from the Republican party? Who’s running for this? What issue needs to be supported?

RI Future has done an excellent job of pushing the progressive agenda and keeping it front and center even if their positions are not held by a majority of Rhode Islanders much less RI Democrats. They are doing analysis on Democratic candidates in this year’s races, but where can I go to find the GOP info? Apparently, RI Future (first reported by the projo FWIW).

And thus far, the only comment to Harrop’s announcement post on RI Future deals with him favoring marriage as it is currently defined. RI GOP, we have to do better. I’m going to make some inquiries to see if we can’t start shaping the conversation a bit better.

Images of the devastation in Haiti have brought many stories to light. One such story are the many people who have been moved with compassion to adopt orphaned children. It’s a heartwarming story, needless to say, but what has intrigued me is that many of the adoptive parents are white. Race shouldn’t matter, you say, and I agree. I think a loving home is better, way better, than no home at all. I have no problem with people adopting children outside of their race.

My point is this, you never see an African American or Latino family adopting a white or Asian child. It’s so rare, I was hardly able to dig up any information on it through my Google search. What I did find was a question posed by a blogger that merits discussion:

I’m compelled to [take] a closer look and publicly wonder if good parents partaking in good parenting trumps race. Or does race yet again play a bigger role in our lives than we are willing to admit?

Quick: If you see a black man holding a young white child, what’s the first thing that comes to mind? No, don’t let your politically correct sensors get the best of your gut reaction, just imagine the scenario. Better yet, imagine the black man admonishing the white child as you pass them in the supermarket aisle. What was your reaction? That the guy was some kind of kidnapper or that he was any other parent dealing with a child who didn’t feel like shopping for broccoli and pasta?

You can keep the answer to yourself if you like, but Newsweek ran a story last year that explored the uncommon but real case of black parents with a white child. Here is just a sampling of what these parents, Mark and Terri, have encountered with their daughter, Katie.

…the time when well-intentioned shoppers followed Mark and Katie out of the mall to make sure she wasn’t being kidnapped. Or when would-be heroes come up to Katie in the cereal aisle and ask, “Are you OK?”—even though Terri is standing right there.

If the child had been black and the parents white, you have to wonder if the “would-be heroes” would have felt inclined to take action? I doubt they would have. It seems that in our alleged post-racially polarized 21^st century, interracial adoption when the parents are black still remains a taboo subject. We have not come to the point, as a country, where we are race blind to parents. And the question is, should we ever get to that point? Should Haitian children be raised by parents who don’t share the same melanin concentration they do? Should Mark and Terri be forced to give up their daughter because of the stares, comments, and potential trauma Katie will (not may) go through as she gets older?

My answer is that we must not stop loving parents from providing needy children homes because they do not share the same racial profile. I don’t discount race as a non-factor but, in my opinion, the need for the child to have a loving home outweighs the resultant difficult situations these parents and children will ultimately face throughout their lives.

Love does conquer all, doesn’t it?

Schwing:  An expression of immense satisfaction, to be used in the event of exteme good fortune.

That’s the feeling Rhode Island Republicans must be feeling right now with the announcement that Patrick Kennedy will not seek reelection. A few months ago, I wondered if the RI GOP could maintain its scant representation in the General Assembly much less having an opportunity to take Congressional seats from the Democrats. Thanks to the ineptitude in Washington by a Democratic President and overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, they’ve opened the door for a Republican comeback much sooner than I imagined.

However, I’m still left wondering if such national angst can translate at the local level and cause a revolution in the General Assembly where the Democrats have been running the show for seven plus decades and still find time to blame the Governor for most of the problems in Rhode Island.

Could this be the year that all changes?

Could this be the year Rhode Island Republicans become relevant again?

Could this be the year Republicans win a Congressional seat in Rhode Island?

Could this be the year voters reject Democrats en masse?

We’ll have to wait and see.

Jumping off from Tuesday’s contentious RI GOP meeting, I decided to dive a bit deeper into the situation. Here’s the issue from both sides:

The case for closing the primary

First, with a closed primary you’ll have Republicans electing Republican candidates. It’s not a stretch to see why Republicans would want members of their own party to elect their candidates, no? In fact, after moving here and realizing Rhode Island had an open primary I always thought it was a bit odd and a little dubious as each side could try to influence the other in certain elections.

We definitely saw this in the 2006 Senatorial race between Lincoln Chafee and Steve Laffey. In my opinion, there are no philosophical holes with this argument. To get the most supported Republican candidate elected, the primary should only be open to those who are Republicans. Period. Again, I don’t find fault in this principle at all.

Oh, but it may not be that simple

The case against closing the primary

There’s a political reality in Rhode Island. Namely, independent voters outnumber Republican, Democratic, Moderate, and Green affiliated voters. Elections do not hinge on affiliated voters but the independents. And Rhode Islanders have demonstrated independence in that they have voted for Republican governors in recent years all the while allowing the Democrats to maintain a choke hold in the General Assembly and Congressional delegations.

So pragmatically, it doesn’t make sense for Republicans to close their primaries because while a candidate may be able to win amongst the 72,000+ Republican members they still need to convince about another 600k+ voters most of whom are unaffiliated. An open primary allows for the candidate with the broadest appeal – the theory goes – to win and give the Republicans the best chance of winning statewide. Closing the primary may get you virtuoso Republicans who are not electable in such a diverse populous.

My thoughts

There’s the issue in a nutshell and you can see why there is such a divide within the RI GOP. There are competing interests on either side of the argument and while I thought I was in the closed primary camp the more I think about the issue the more interested I am in actually winning November elections versus September ones. But, that may be the cynic in me in thinking that a true conservative Republican can’t win statewide. I think it would be difficult but certainly not impossible. However, you can get a decent gauge of a candidate’s statewide appeal via the open primary and I think that’s worth something. But, the question is is it worth diluting the Republican-ness of the primary?

…despite teetering on the verge of the same.

Last night, I was in attendance at the State Central Committee meeting. Not my first foray into state party politics and probably not my last either. However, I was amazed at the cast of characters in the room.  You had the governor, formerCranston Mayor Steve Laffey, current Cranston Mayor Allan Fung, Warwick Mayor Avedesian, and a veritable who’s who of Republicans. I hadn’t ever seen so many high profile Republicans at this meeting before. Ever.

The topic as many of you know surrounded closing the primary and removing Gio Ciccione from his office as State Party chair. The meeting started off with a bang as motions were made to suspend the rules and allow the vice-chair to run the meeting. This debate went on for about 20 minutes and resulted in the state’s Parliamentarian resigning. Next, the agenda was not approved by the members and so Ciccione stated that we were in for a free for all. Ultimately, he followed the agenda – based upon the recently resigned Parliamentarians opinion on meetings without approved agendas – and the meeting was able to move forward.

The Governor spoke about party unity, his successes in office – namely reducing the size of government and co-shares for government workers, and that he believed the primary should be open. The Governor received respectful applause but left the meeting after his comments.

Next, we had committee chairs present and everything was pretty ho-hum until the report from the committee chairs caucus arrived. And that’s when things got really interesting.

First though, I made a comment on my Facebook page that asked if Republicans would cut out their heart to spite their eyebrow. I am of the opinion that battling this issue right now is just a bad idea. It’s just way too easy to be spun and in a moment in time when Northeast Republicans have an actual shot at winning elections this cycle couldn’t come at a worst time. Again, my opinion but what’s also evident is that Ciccione has made some enemies within the party and it doesn’t appear that he’s too concerned about placating them…at all.

Ok, well after some interesting debate which you may here on the Dan Yorke show (he was in attendance) a vote was taken to determine if the state delegates had confidence in Ciccione as chairman. The results were 48 had no confidence and 75 had confidence…or didn’t lack confidence I should say. You could hear collective sighs from portions of the crowd whereas the Young Repbulicans, myself included, were please with the results.

As to the matter of closed primaries, it requires two meetings one where the amendment is read and another where it is voted upon. This was the meeting where the amendment was read. In April it will be voted upon, however, that may be too late to actually close this year’s primary because of some rule I’m unaware of regarding changes being made within 180 days of the primary. So, in effect, the issue is dead for this year so it would appear.

However, I spoke to Will Ricci an ardent proponent of closed primaries and one you all know well in the blogosphere. He advised there may yet be ways to get this measure done this year. We’ll see.

What’s your opinion on this? Should primaries be closed? Is Ciccione a good chairman?