I should emphasize, right up front, that what follows is my own opinion, in no way connected with any individual or organization with whom or which I am associated. I put the thoughts down, here, because my opinion is more of a critique as I consider the unfolding gubernatorial campaign than a political act, and shorter venues, like Twitter, don’t really allow for that distinction.

When Jim Taricani asked him on 10 News Conference what “kind of Republican” he is, Ken Block replied, “I’m a Republican with a plan.” What that means is subject to interpretation, but based on his performances on channel 10, as well as on Newsmakers, it’s difficult not to think that it means he’s got a plan, as in he’s all set. One gets the sense that he wants to “join forces with the newly energized and rejuvenated Rhode Island Republican Party,” as he wrote in the Providence Journal, in the sense that he’s got the plan, and the Republicans have the established infrastructure and voting base (and convenient reality of not splitting the center-right vote).

Any analysis of Block’s primary strategy — most especially his own analysis — has to begin with the fact that he’s presuming to enter the Republican Party at its highest statewide slot, that of gubernatorial candidate. Moreover, he was a candidate for governor before he was a Republican. In other words, he’s spent absolutely no time, since his Moderate Party adventure, as a rank-and-file Republican.

That tells you something important, and prudent Republicans ought to take note of it and be wary. And yet, when Ted Nesi asked what Block would say to Republicans who feel he was a major part of the formula that brought us Independent Governor Chafee, rather than Republican Governor Robitaille, Block likened them to people from Kosovo holding a 400-year-old grudge. If his intention was to paint those inclined to hesitate about supporting him to unthinking sectarians who produce scenes like this, then he’s an excellent communicator, indeed.

My own humble opinion is that a better reply would have been something like: “My assessment of those results differs, but it’s definitely not irrational to put some blame on me, and I know I’ve got a lot of work to do winning the trust and support of the people who’ve been keeping the party going in this state against daunting odds.”

A better answer would have included some statement of Republicans’ beliefs and principles, which he ostensibly shares, in contrast with the Democrats. Instead, when asked what governor he’d look to as a model, he skipped back two decades to the last person elected to the office as a member of the other party.

Asked about a major tax reform discussion that’s already underway — the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity’s proposal to eliminate the sales tax — he didn’t say that he’s not sold yet, but was open to persuasion, or mention the ongoing legislative commission looking into the possibility. Instead, he explained that he doesn’t think it’s the way to go.  He’s got a different plan.

Asked about education and some of the conservative reforms on the table — around which there’s already been legislation, research work, and coalition formation — he makes the absurd statement that total school choice would not be a “game-changing reform.”  Rather, a real game changer would be to shift some emphasis to the early grades.  That’s what’s in his plan.

Nevermind that 65% of RI Republicans favor school vouchers.

It appears, in brief, that his strategy for winning the Republican primary is to dismiss the party stalwarts and to offer plans that compete with those of the conservative grassroots.

And what about his plans?  That’s the really damning aspect of his 2012 support for Obama: the fact that he based it (he says) largely on ObamaCare, arguably one of the greatest, most partisan, and most predictable policy debacles in American history.  In the eyes of most Republicans (I venture to guess), a 2012 vote for Obama shows bad judgment of itself, but doing so on the basis of that particular plan doesn’t inspire confidence in his own.

None of this, take note, steps into the area of social issues, on which Block appears to be about as far left as any likely candidate.  His dodge is to imply that the law is “settled” in all those areas and that he’d veto any legislation in them.  Even if one trusts him to follow through on that pledge, it means that the balance of power shifts even more decisively to the side that can patch together a veto-proof majority, rather than a simple majority.

Which side is that?

Governing and politics in a representative democracy are not technocratic exercises; they’re more about coalition-building, they’re about accepting responsibility and spreading personal investment and credit.  As much as we all profess to want a different kind of candidate, the nature of governing and politics is such that a conventional politician can often be preferable to another smart guy with plans of his own.