Anthony's viewpoint is perfectly illustrative of what's wrong with how many Rhode Island Republicans think.

The problem here is that we try to be a pale immitation of our political opposition, instead of actually being in opposition. We've totally given up on the concept of the two-party model. We need to know what we believe in, and then stand up for it.

When politics stops being about principle, and we get so caught up about retaining power at all costs in place of that, that's what leads to trouble. We need not only to have better ideas, but also actively recruit and financially back better candidates to run on those principles, not run away from them.

Maybe it's time for Republicans to return to their roots? Let's go back to the start, decide what we believe in, and build a whole new platform.

Do we really need to be anti-gay? How does that really help us?

Do we really need to prevent people from buying marijuana? Especially people that use it for medicinal reasons? How does that help us?

Do we care more for making big agriculture happy, or securing our borders?

Is it really right for credit card companies and big pharm to be writing laws? How does that help anybody?

Are we really on the right side of the cloning debate? Are we saving babies or just stifling technological growth?

How can we properly frame the debate on social programs so that we can all come to an understanding and a middle ground?

Most of these things aren't hard if we put politics aside and start talking to each other like people that want to SOLVE problems.

Let the flames begin.

Will -

In theory, you're right. Principles shouldn't be compromised just to win an extra election here or there. However, if by maintaining the same principles you become completely irrelevant, then something needs to change.

The Republican party in RI is pathetic. Pat Morgan is dreadful, and I stopped by RI GOP HQ this weekend, but there was nobody there, except for a group of people phone banking for Chafee. How do you give the RI GOP staff the weekend off before election day? You mean to tell me there was nothing they could've done to help in any race? Allan Fung couldn't have used a little extra help?

The problem with the RI GOP is that the people in power positions are in those positions because the group has become irrelevant, especially now that Chafee has been voted out of office. Do you honestly think Dave Talan should be the face of the Providence GOP?

The party needs to recruit some moderate, smart, energetic young people to make them relevant. When you can only count on 10% of the state to vote in lockstep with your ideal principles, it's time to make that tent quite a bit bigger.

I tried to post earlier, but for some reason it didn't go through.

Justin, you're taking my comments out of context, particularly with regards to causal relationships.

I did not say that Democrats moved right because conservative Republicans abandoned their philosophies. I believe both a.) Democrats moved right and b.) the conservative Congressional leadership abandoned their ideal. I do not think the one caused the other. In fact, if I were to point to a causal relationship, I think the Democrats were able to draw moderate candidates because of Iraq, not because of economic issues.

The economy is doing well, despite Congressional overspending and glib sound bites like "The Bridge to Nowhere".

I was responding to the assertion that moderates were the source of their own demise--which is untrue--so let's put my comments in context.

Most of the Republican moderates who lost were not in toss-up states and districts. They were in heavy Democrat areas. Republican moderates running in areas where registration is about even tended to win. However, conservatives running in toss-up areas lost: Talent, Allen, Burns, Harris, Santorum etc. We nearly lost Tennessee, too.

The GOP can not be a national party if we lose states like Virginia, Montana, Florida and Missouri.

My other point was that while some conservatives were submarining so-called RINO's in blue states and districts, Democrats were nominating what liberals would call DINO's--like former Repbulican Webb in VA, pro-gun Talent in Montana and pro-life Casey in PA.

The sad part is that these moderate Democrats are the most junior members of Congress. The senior members of the Democrat party who will actually control things are left-wingers like Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, Ted Kennedy, etc.

The way to advance the conservative agenda is to get the majority first. There were very few Republican moderates in Congress and those that were in office didn't chair important committees or hold leadership positions. Conservatives did. Now maybe these self-proclaimed conservatives didn't govern like conservatives, but regardless they were the ones responsible for Tuesday's results.

I don't believe Tuesday was a negative reflection on conservative ideology. But I do believe it was a very negative reflection on some of the methods (targeting GOP incumbents in Democrat areas) used to advance the conservative agenda.

I tried to post earlier, but for some reason it didn't go through.

Justin, you're taking my comments out of context, particularly with regards to causal relationships.

I did not say that Democrats moved right because conservative Republicans abandoned their philosophies. I believe both a.) Democrats moved right and b.) the conservative Congressional leadership abandoned their ideal. I do not think the one caused the other. In fact, if I were to point to a causal relationship, I think the Democrats were able to draw moderate candidates because of Iraq, not because of economic issues.

The economy is doing well, despite Congressional overspending and glib sound bites like "The Bridge to Nowhere".

I was responding to the assertion that moderates were the source of their own demise--which is untrue--so let's put my comments in context.

Most of the Republican moderates who lost were not in toss-up states and districts. They were in heavy Democrat areas. Republican moderates running in areas where registration is about even tended to win. However, conservatives running in toss-up areas lost: Talent, Allen, Burns, Harris, Santorum etc. We nearly lost Tennessee, too.

The GOP can not be a national party if we lose states like Virginia, Montana, Florida and Missouri.

My other point was that while some conservatives were submarining so-called RINO's in blue states and districts, Democrats were nominating what liberals would call DINO's--like former Repbulican Webb in VA, pro-gun Talent in Montana and pro-life Casey in PA.

The sad part is that these moderate Democrats are the most junior members of Congress. The senior members of the Democrat party who will actually control things are left-wingers like Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, Ted Kennedy, etc.

The way to advance the conservative agenda is to get the majority first. There were very few Republican moderates in Congress and those that were in office didn't chair important committees or hold leadership positions. Conservatives did. Now maybe these self-proclaimed conservatives didn't govern like conservatives, but regardless they were the ones responsible for Tuesday's results.

I don't believe Tuesday was a negative reflection on conservative ideology. But I do believe it was a very negative reflection on some of the methods (targeting GOP incumbents in Democrat areas) used to advance the conservative agenda.

I'm so depressed and demoralized, I haven't even been able to approach analysis yet. We lost a lot of races by a little margin, which adds up to a big loss but not a repudiation. But that's not how it'll spin, is it?

I'm going to get rained on or stuck in a traffic jam for sure...I haven't been able to bear turning on a radio since yesterday.

First, let me take the opportunity to say thank you to those that cast votes for me on Tuesday and to those who supported my candidacy in other ways, as well.

Where we go from here certainly affects me in the future and I am unhappy with the support (or lack thereof) that came from the Party on both a national and statewide level – although I do understand why there was none.

The question that needs to be answered and placed into the record is one of how we define conservatism. What makes a conservative a conservative? I am a Republican because:
1) I believe in low taxes
2) I believe in small government
3) I believe in a strong national defense (to include secure borders).

Instead of flames, Greg, I will support you in your statement that we need to put aside our differences and come to some sort of agreement on flashpoint issues that divide the Party and pull us away from forward progress. That was one of the central tenets of my campaign.

In his comments, Hayden wrote: “The party needs to recruit some moderate, smart, energetic young people to make them relevant” and I couldn’t agree more as long as those recruits agree that taxes should be low, government should be small, and the US should have a strong national defense.

Some on this board will bristle at that sentiment because their definition of conservative is somewhat different. The problem is that those three principles are our core beliefs as a Party and we have abandoned them for social conservatism. It is fine to be socially conservative but we cannot be so at the expense of our core beliefs and that is what has happened in Washington.

There is a bit of a struggle forming in the House right now that I wish I was a part of. As Speaker Hastert announced that he would not seek the Minority Leadership, those still standing after Tuesday night began to line-up in an attempt to secure their chance at the helm. The first was Mike Pence, a social conservative from Indiana. The heir-apparent, of course, is John Boehner of Ohio who is sometimes at odds with the Christian wing of the Party. The third name mentioned has been Joe Barton of Texas who is an oil industry insider.

Who would I have supported had I unseated Kennedy? I am not a social conservative in any true sense of the definition but there is no question that I would have gotten behind Pence. Why? Because in a statement that he sent out yesterday, the Congressman, who leads the conservative caucus called the Republican Study Committee, stated that we have not only lost our majority but “we have lost our way”.

In abandoning their commitment to limited government, the Party has lost their foundation. It is OK to argue the flashpoints but we have to get our central ideals back first. Those central tenets need to be the rally point for a re-building and re-energizing process in RI, as well. Without those ideals at our center we will continue to be lost.

Greg and Jon have the right idea. The GOP needs to be open to disaffected liberals like me who are tired of the good 'ol boys running the R.I. Democratic Party. We're willing to consider moderate Republicans who are more interested in keeping government small and taxes low rather than simply demonizing "interest groups." We may sometime disagree on those goals, but we're willing to listen. No straight-ticket voting here.
I actually voted for more Republicans than Democrats this time. I don't need a legbreaker in the secretary of state's office or a corporate prostitute in the AG's chair, and I am so over Patrick Kennedy. I don't need more acolytes for Bill Murphy or Joe Montalbano, either.
As for Congress, if the Democrats handle being in the majority in a responsible manner, they'll keep the numbers. If they don't, their stay will be pretty short.

Jon,
I agree with some of what you said and disgree with other parts.

Being a Republican is about more than just fiscal conservatism. If all we stood for is small government and lower taxes, we might as well all be libertarians.

And I take issue with the assertion that we abandoned our core principles for social conservatism. Social conservatism is PART of our core values. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that were it not for social conservatives, Bush wouldn't be president (recall Bush's close Ohio win in '04 is universally atttributed to the presence of a same-sex marriage amendment on the ballot). Personally, I would not support a party that was pro-abortion.

Now I do agree with Jon on several other points. The GOP Congressional leadership lost its bearing and this led to many disaffected conservatives. I also agree with Jon that we need to focus on what unites us, not what divides us.

This is why I can support individual Republican candidates whose views differ from my own. I'm under no illusion. While I'm socially conservative, I realize it is a rare social conservative who can win in RI.

But let's talk about the elephant in the room. We lost this election, not because of overspending, but because 1. voters wanted to see something, anything, different in our approach to Iraq and 2. voters were tired of hearing about scandals.

Congressional overspending had little to do with the average voter choosing the Democrats. Perhaps it had an indirect effect. Maybe congressional overspending disaffected some conservatives who sat out the race. In a year when Republicans needed all hands on deck, those hands weren't there. Or they were too busy attacking RINO Republicans. But we won't know that until the turnout numbers are studied.

"We lost this election, not because of overspending, but because 1. voters wanted to see something, anything, different in our approach to Iraq and 2. voters were tired of hearing about scandals."

Yes. And I for one am peeved about that.

At every level (local, state, national), Republican candidates, regardless of conservative or moderate, were voted against by an additional 6%-7%. To take this personally for a minute, that means I lost at least one Republican Town Council candidate, one state legislator and a good Secretary of State. Because voters refused to distinguish between our foreign policy and our candidates. Exhibit A is Lincoln Chafee. No one could take him for a war monger.

Chafee, Stenhouse, Haldeman and others did not come in second because they ran bad campaigns. They came in second because they started six percentage points down.

Keep your damn foreign policy away from our local and state candidates.

Thank you. I'll try to stop being selfish now.