Marc,
This was a very insightful post. Within the RI, the corruption issue will draw a lot of voters. But beyond saying, "I'm for clean government and against corruption", there needs to be a generally agreed set of policies emphaizing unifying as opposed to divisive issues as you correctly point out.

The foreign entanglement issue is a little tricky. Most moderates favor strong international involvement while it's usually conservatives like Pat Buchanan who want to pull back militarily or liberals who want to pull back economically. Regardless, I don't think that Rhode Island Republicans need to address foreign policy issues when there is so much to be addressed inside the state.

I would also caution you about using Chafee to define moderate positions. Make no mistake, his overall voting record comes out as a moderate, but he is well the the left of 99.9% of moderate Republicans on several issues. It is important to understand that many moderates, as well as some conservatives, supported Chafee because he was key to holding the GOP majority that could advance the Republican agenda. The party does not need to be so broad as to attract Myrth York.

I would say the RI GOP needs to be broad enough to reflect the beliefs of 55-60% of Rhode Islanders in order to be successful. This will mean that the party must be able to attract conservatives and right-leaning independents.

Thanks Anthony, and I realize that using Senator Chafee as my moderate example may be a bit "extreme", but I think using him as such will help many other moderates realize that they may be closer to conservatives than they are to the person who has been held up as the moderate prototype here in Rhode Island.

I understand your point re: foreign policy and I originally wasn't going to pay it much attention, but the fact is that the RI GOP does need to stake out positions for both its local and national candidates. It is a secondary issue, but still needs to be discussed.

As I implied, I have more thoughts on party building, but more on that in the future.

Incidentally, I would also like to make it clear that I don't mean to imply that if the RI GOP determines philosophical approach "A" as the best way to address problem "A", it shouldn't follow that they won't tolerate those within the party who espouse philosophical approach "B". Individual candidates should be able to disagree with their party on an issue or two (the over under would be around 3 I'd say ;) and not worry about being called either a RINO or a radical right-winger.

My assertion that small government, low taxes and strong national defense be the rally point comes from two places. The first is a belief that these three points are universally supported by Republicans. They are also historic positions for the party in as much as abortion, stem cell research and environmental issues were not anywhere on the radar screen for Lincoln when the Party was first conceptualized. By first finding the things that we agree on we can find the common ground that will serve as the foundation for the rebuild..

The Dems in RI are actually two parties, not one. The entire entity consists of a dual headed monster alliance between the social Democrats and the labour Democrats. The agreed upon premise is the redistribution of private wealth - only the recipient of the redistribution changes. For the rest of the discussion, they put aside their differences and trudge on. We can not seem to find our common ground and thus lose our way.

Is there anyone out there who disagrees with a small government approach? Is there any one in opposition to a low tax burden? Does any man or woman in our Party rise to say that we should not have a strong national defense. Good. Then we have our common ground. We move forward from here.

Anthony,
There was one reason and one reason only for staying with Chafee at all - that he would help keep the Senate in Republican hands. Now, there remains NO reason for a conservative or a Republican for sticking with Chafee, ie. the Bolton nomination.

Boy am I glad I didn't let him betray me.

Jim,
I don't feel betrayed by Chafee at all. I knew exactly where Chafee stood on the issues and I assume that he knows that much of the Republican support he received was because of his pivotal position in retaining the majority.

I still feel far more betrayed by Steve Laffey who was willing to kiss the GOP Senate majority goodbye in a self-aggrandizing run. I just hope that a Supreme Court justice doesn't die in the next few years.

But that is now in the past and it's time to move forward.

I think the key to building the RIGOP will be to draw a distinction between policies aimed at Providence and those aimed at the rest of the state. Ultimately, the Democrats are moving towards being an urban party in this state, and that finally offers the Republicans an exploitable opportunity.

We should realize, however, that a successful Republican party here will almost necessarily contain a fair amount of former Democrats, so any attempt to espouse and maintain a formal ideology will only make the transition more difficult.

The only message should be pragmatic, responsible leadership, and we should target the suburban middle class. We already have a little success with winning the executive branch, so we should build on that by focusing our building efforts on Mayorships and Town Councils.

That's what I think, anyway.

Mario,
What you're referring to is actually an oft-tried (and often succesful) method of appealing to the country over the city, so to speak. In fact, the GOP dominance of RI politics from roughly the Civil War to the 1920's or so was because they successfully exploited this tension. (They relied on nativism and political gerrymandering to accomplish this, so I'm not advocating that approach!) The rise of the Democrat party in this state is directly tied to their appeal to the urban minorities.

A formal ideology isn't really what we're talking about, more a general philosophy. Conservatism is an ideology. A nascent Rhode Island Republicanism would be more like a political theory. Again, I stress (as does Jon Scott) that the areas of common ground that can be agreed upon by the various groups comprising the RI GOP are what need to be highlighted.

Nonetheless, while I'm all for pragmatism, sometimes the pragmatic "solution" is really only just a delaying action. There does need to be some sort of ideological underpinning to the party rhetoric or the party will be nothing but an exercise in political style over substance. This is the trap that liberalism has fallen into: they've prioritized making talking points and sound bytes that will be broadly appealling over coming up with meaningful solutions based on a set of sound political principles.

The first is a belief that these three points are universally supported by Republicans. They are also historic positions for the party in as much as abortion, stem cell research and environmental issues were not anywhere on the radar screen for Lincoln when the Party was first conceptualized.

Yeah, good thing that slavery mess wasn't a social issue...

Let us not forget social conservatives. R.I. has a large Catholic population. Social conservatives have NO representation in R.I. and there are social issues coming our way that can help us build our party. The cover story of National Review discusses the key constituencies in the Republican Party this month. It is authored by Ramesh Ponnuru and is an important read.

Believe it or not, I've voted for more than a few Reps over the last few election cycles. One-party rule is inherently corrupt, regardless of the party.

My fear is that RI may be very difficult to reform. There are too few independent centers of power due to the small size of the state. I've lived in several, and RI more closely resembles a big city than a state.

So, while reform is a great issue, what's beyond that? I ask in all sincerity with the Laffey debacle fresh in my mind. Someone that conservative probably has no chance of getting elected here, or anywhere in the Northeast. You can disagree, but I suggest you look at the environment around you. Red-meat Republicans don't have much of a market in these parts.

So you can insist on ideological purity, or you can try and get elected.

We need only look at the concerns of RIers to know that conservatives can get elected in this state. Klaus is right, that is won't be easy.

Social issues won't make or break a candidate. Lawless ran strictly on the abortion issue, but up against a good candidate had no traction.

Conservatives need to focus on the economic issues. Most RIers would agree that our taxes are too high, our government too big, and corruption is rampant. A plan to combat these issues, and a well-groomed legion of Assembly candidates willing to tout this message, would be a good start.

Today, it seems Republican candidates must run on their own. There was no GOP bus criss-crossing the state the week before election. In a state where you can be anywhere in 20 minutes, the governor should have been knocking on doors in districts were Republicans had a shot. And Sue Stenhouse should have been with him to increase her support.

Leftists like Klaus say, give us candidates like our own and maybe we'll elect one or two. This is exactly what the GOP shouldn't do. Offering more of the the same gives RIers no reason to elect Republicans.