Thursday Thoughts: Rhode Island’s Problems Deserve More Than a Trump Answer

Photo taken By George Sisca II

By George Sisca II | SNN Commentary

Donald Trump was not on either debate stage, but he got plenty of speaking time through the candidates who were.

Aaron Guckian pitched his ability to work with him. Sabina Matos kept pointing to him when pressed about Rhode Island’s problems. I wanted to hear what the people actually asking for our votes intended to do themselves.

Gene Valicenti, moderating alone, kept pressing for those answers. Ken Block generally sounded prepared and comfortable explaining his objections. Helena Foulkes gave me reasons to credit her and reasons to challenge her. Guckian’s repeated emphasis on his ability to work with Trump became particularly tiresome.

Every governor needs a working relationship with Washington. Sharing the president’s party does not tell me whether a candidate can manage an agency, scrutinize a contract or recognize when the public is being handed another excuse.

Housing produced one of the more forceful exchanges. Foulkes offered a specific proposal, and her opponents challenged it. That scrutiny was appropriate. An ambitious plan still has to survive questions about its financing, assumptions and execution.

But criticism carries an obligation of its own. If her proposal will not work, explain how yours will produce the housing Rhode Island needs. Block offered an alternative, but I wanted it developed with the same intensity he devoted to attacking hers. Foulkes gave voters something more concrete to evaluate.

That did not make every answer she gave persuasive.

Her answer on Gaza deserves more scrutiny than a passing mention in a debate recap. Foulkes said what is happening there is not genocide. I strongly disagree, and for voters who consider Palestinian freedom a fundamental human rights issue, that answer carries substantial weight.

In September 2025, the United Nations’ independent commission of inquiry concluded that Israel had committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Israel rejected the finding. The commission’s conclusion is distinct from a court judgment, but it gives candidates a substantial body of evidence to address before dismissing the term.

My frustration extends to former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris. Biden explicitly rejected the genocide characterization in May 2024. Harris called for a ceasefire and acknowledged Palestinian suffering, but during her August 2024 CNN interview, she rejected changing course on supplying Israel with weapons. To me, expressions of concern were inadequate alongside that continued support.

I believe Palestinians should be free, just like other human beings. Their freedom, safety and right to determine their future should carry the same moral weight we assign to anyone else’s.

A candidate can perform well in a debate and still give an answer that demands serious criticism. Foulkes’ answer on Gaza was one of those moments.

Her answer on transgender participation in women’s sports frustrated me as well. She deferred to local teams while emphasizing protections for transgender people. I wanted a clearer explanation of how she would protect competitive fairness in women’s sports.

I do not assume that every man can beat every woman. As a teenager, I learned that lesson playing one-on-one basketball against Karen Harper. She destroyed me. That experience gave me some perspective about skill, ability and my own limitations.

But individual results do not settle the question of eligibility rules. Respect for transgender people and a serious discussion of fairness should both be possible. Candidates should be able to explain their position without avoiding the difficult part.

The Washington Bridge discussion brought the debate back to a failure Rhode Islanders have endured firsthand. I wanted more than another promise to fix the system. I wanted to hear how the next governor would ensure that inspection findings produce action, that warnings reach the right people and that someone remains accountable when they do not.

Bringing in outside expertise may help. It still requires officials who can evaluate that expertise, ask informed questions and hold contractors responsible. Hiring another firm cannot become the point at which government stops owning the result.

Valicenti’s question about Rhode Island’s other bridges was especially important. The Washington Bridge should have made us demand a broader accounting of what inspectors know, what officials have done with that information and what remains unresolved.

Then came his memorable observation about the Newport Bridge: “I do go to car shows, the antique cars are lucky to get over and back.”

It was a joke, not an engineering assessment. But the laughter pointed to a serious problem: public confidence. Rhode Islanders deserve enough reliable information about their bridges that they do not have to substitute nervous humor for reassurance.

That demand for accountability carried directly into the lieutenant governor debate.

My criticism of Sabina Matos concerns the substance of her answers: too often, a question about Rhode Island became an answer about Trump.

During the primaries, Sen. Thompson asked statewide candidates a question at a forum hosted by the Democratic Town Committee that remains useful here: “Does RI have a spending problem or a revenue problem?” 

That question deserves an answer grounded in what the state collects, what it spends and what residents receive in return.

When John Loughlin challenged Matos about infrastructure spending, I wanted her to explain whether the money was sufficient, how it had been used and where the failures occurred. Returning to Trump and Republican tax cuts did not resolve those questions.

A president’s decisions can affect Rhode Island’s finances. But state officials remain responsible for the decisions they make with the money available to them. 

Loughlin had the stronger argument when he brought the discussion back to that responsibility. More money may be necessary. It still cannot substitute for an accounting of what happened to the money already spent.

The energy exchange exposed another weakness. Loughlin was discussing natural gas and pipeline capacity. Matos responded by invoking prices at the gas station.

“Natural gas, Sabina, there’s a difference,” he replied.

The difference matters when discussing how to lower utility bills. His broader argument still deserves scrutiny, but her response did not address the fuel or policy question he was discussing. Candidates cannot offer a useful solution while talking past the problem.

My reactions did not fall neatly along party lines. Foulkes impressed me in some exchanges and frustrated me in others. Block showed preparation, though I wanted more detail behind some of his alternatives. Loughlin made a stronger case for local accountability. Guckian did little to convince me that his repeated promises of access to Trump would compensate for the weaknesses I saw.

That is why I watched for myself.

I wanted to hear who understood Rhode Island’s problems, who could explain a solution and who could answer a difficult question without retreating into a familiar political argument.

Whoever wins will inherit those problems. Rhode Islanders deserve to know what that person intends to do about them.