As a brand new member, I hope this is not considered divisive though I realize there will be differing opinions.  There is a lot of soul searching on the election loss and I think everything should be on the table for discussion.

I believe conservatism is basically belief in:

a limited government with minimum role in people's lives,
a strong government in areas where required such as national defense,
a government that facilitates an environment that supports individual initiative and facilitates private sector growth

The Republican Party was basically a party that believed in these conservative values. In the distant past, religious organizations became allied with the Republican Party.  It was a win-win situation. The Republican Party gained a block of votes, and the religious organizations gained a national political structure advocating its social values.

I believe the country is better when it adheres to strong social values. But I think these values driving public policy is not conservatism, which advocates a more limited role of government in people's lives.

In my opinion, this election has demonstrated that the alliance of religious organizations with the Republican Party is no longer a win-win situation. The difference between the two major political parties should be the difference between liberalism and conservatism.  I think advocating and encouraging social values should be the focus of the many outstanding religious and other advocacy organizations.

I want to emphasize I do not think the GOP should repudiate any positions, just not include them in official platforms.  There have been studies, even from religious organizations within the past few weeks that show voters, especially in the younger demographics, have considered the GOP too rigid, not accepting, and have been driven away.  I'm very concerned that the demographic situation will become even more pronounced, and I don't want to see us cede future elections to the Democrats.

QuoteIn the distant past....

Damn those backward Christians and their backward social values!  When will they join the enlightened Democrat Party and the modern wing of the Obama Democrat Party which gave America the 30 hour/pat-time work week -- whether you want it or not! (sarcastica font)

No, those were AMERICAN values, abandoned by the Demonrats 40 years ago and now the push is on to force those beliefs on all of America because nobody likes to be "judged" to be wrong about so much, so the great push to lecture the Republican Party to follow the Demonrat lead to cultural Hell & suicide.

Not to worry, the establishment already agrees with you and is in the process of neutering that "far right" conservative wing of the Republican Party.  Once you successfully drive out the Conservatives of the last generation and thy go 3rd party, for forever maintain control of all branches of government--oh happy day!

I've got things I want to say on this subject. I'll try to address them after work today.

Welcome aboard. And don't worry about being divisive.

Anyone else noticing a concerted effort by Paulbots and their message of a supposedly "New and Reformed Republican" party?
Not that I don't agree in part, but we know what they really want...

Just some thought?
So the Republican party should change why ? because Romney ran a horrible campaign. He could have just ran all of Obama's lies and promises of the last 4 years and did better and saved millions of dollars. When he mentioned the deficit the MSM defended Obama(It's Bush's fault), when Benghazi was mentioned it was buried by the MSM. Still today it's gone, no retaliation nothing. Point is he should of HAMMERED HOME OBAMA'S own words!
Are we to cave in to the 47%?  That was the truest thing he said all campaign and I agree because there are people who will never vote for a Republican, they were paid off with promises and when they don't get them it will be blamed on the Republicans by the MSM. I think the caving was a reason we lost, Romney should of stood up said I was successful and the end of it instead of being embarrasses of it, we caved to much. 
He only lost by 3% or so.

I believe that Romney had the best of intentions, but i also believe that he was not a strong enough candidate to run in this election.  So, we lost the election but I'll never believe that the loss was all due to romney not being vocal enough or aggressive enough.  He could have been superman and lost against santa claus.

Pay-up time for the vulnerable is on its way.  The illiterates that voted for this fraud-Obama, should not be surprised when their new taxes kick in, their utility costs skyrocket, their expenses for food, travel, lodging,medical and insurance go off the chart.  What the conservatives have been screaming for the last 4 years will finally reach these hapless minions but it'll be just too darn late.  I personally hope that i can get to witness one of the libs at some place that all patronize for their needs and hear so much as one complaint.  i won't be able to stop my outrage.  BTW, where is all the outrage, besides the one in Michigan where the governor has just signed the right to work bill?  Y'all know we can't be messing with the union thugs on account of Obama and besides, didn't all of them vote for that rascal anyway?  See?  That's what I'm fussing about.  The protestors should just suck it up and pay the unions for their whatevers.  Why complain now? 

Quote from: The Stranger on December 12, 2012, 07:49:56 AM
Just some thought?
So the Republican party should change why ? because Romney ran a horrible campaign. He could have just ran all of Obama's lies and promises of the last 4 years and did better and saved millions of dollars. When he mentioned the deficit the MSM defended Obama(It's Bush's fault), when Benghazi was mentioned it was buried by the MSM. Still today it's gone, no retaliation nothing. Point is he should of HAMMERED HOME OBAMA'S own words!
Are we to cave in to the 47%?  That was the truest thing he said all campaign and I agree because there are people who will never vote for a Republican, they were paid off with promises and when they don't get them it will be blamed on the Republicans by the MSM. I think the caving was a reason we lost, Romney should of stood up said I was successful and the end of it instead of being embarrasses of it, we caved to much. 
He only lost by 3% or so.

I agree with your points except for the notion that the party should not change. I did mention in the OP that I thought there were several factors involved in the loss. This thread was just a focus on one of those issues and not to suggest that it was the only issue or the main issue or that there should be any single scapegoats. A few points:

1) There is data that supports the premise that the focus or perceived focus on social values is not helping the party among an increasing number of people, especially younger people. I could point to some links with studies and also opinion pieces from religious organizations that say the same thing.

2) Some say the problem is Romney wasn't conservative enough. Fiscally he was clearly conservative. He also adopted social positions that should've satisfied the more religious members of the party. But it was reported that over 3 million stayed home and did not vote. What a shame. Even if he wasn't an appropriate pedigreed conservative, it didn't matter because the Democrats still painted him as one or beholden to right-wing positions.  I believe the 3 million would only be satisfied with someone who would have extreme difficulty getting the votes of the independents.

3) The Republican primary process was very damaging.  During this time the Republican popularity took a nosedive, not just from the divisiveness but when Santorum was getting publicity the popularity was at an all time low.

4) I share your frustration that Romney did not run an aggressive enough campaign. He did point out Obama's lies but he was up against a media that continually covered for Obama. I think there was a concern that focusing too much on that would be negative and turn off some of the independents. It's a tough balancing act when you're against the media. A good example was the mid-east. Remember when Romney first commented about the situation in Egypt, while Obama was quiet, huddled with his advisers to figure out how to spin it politically, the media crucified Romney. They couldn't stand that Romney took the initiative and went after him in a big way.  It had an impact because Romney's popularity fell. I had wished Romney really nailed Obama about Libya during the third debate. I don't think Romney was personally timid but I think the campaign made a calculated decision that with the media backing Obama such a tactic would open Romney to being crucified again.

5) Another factor is the ground game. Obama's campaign team never went out of business from 2008, continuing to work planning to get out the vote. (In fact they're still in business campaigning on the fiscal cliff issues.) The Republicans started late and I think that needs to be addressed.

6) Just a focus on the media again, I think this was the first time the media did not just demonstrate bias but became willing accomplices in a campaign of deceit. I think it had a huge impact. Another topic but I found a couple of domains punishthemedia.com and.org. I don't like boycotts but I think that's what needs to be done regarding the sponsors of some of the worst media offenders. I would give those domains to an established organization interested in pursuing something but so far no takers.

7) The Republican message is inherently more difficult when dealing with Santa Claus giving children gifts versus encouraging them to save for a rainy day. Preaching to the choir but I think you know we all agree that the party has to do do better at getting this message across. Some say it will never happen and we are doomed but I'd like to be optimistic and think that we can be more effective.

Here's the deal, you can keep the social cons and the independents happy by making this the conservative mantra "this is not a federal issue, it is a state issue, my personal feelings have no bearing on the conversation".  Do not elaborate further, the one who shuts up the debate first, wins. 

I hate to be a fly in the ointment, but has anybody stopped to realize that the Republican Party owes it very existence to so-called Social Issues?

The Abolition of Slavery!

Quote from: Darth Fife on December 12, 2012, 06:11:07 PM
I hate to be a fly in the ointment, but has anybody stopped to realize that the Republican Party owes it very existence to so-called Social Issues?

The Abolition of Slavery!

No, that would be an Constitutional issue.

When the Republican Party was founded, Slavery was specifically authorized by the Constitution.

No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.

A perfect example of which is the "Fugitive Slave Clause" (Article 2, Section 4, Clause 3)clause of the Constitution which wasn't vacated until the passage of the 13th Amendment in 1865 - by which time the Republican Party was well established, having won the White House.

And, while it doesn't specifically mention slaves or slavery, there is no doubt that that is what the Fugitive Slave clause is talking about.

From Wikipedia...

Founded in the Northern states in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs and ex-Free Soilers, the Republican Party quickly became the principal opposition to the dominant Southern Democratic Party and the briefly popular Know Nothing Party. The main cause was opposition to the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise by which slavery was kept out of Kansas. The Northern Republicans saw the expansion of slavery as a great evil.

Quote from: USAPatriot on December 11, 2012, 07:08:40 PM
As a brand new member, I hope this is not considered divisive though I realize there will be differing opinions.  There is a lot of soul searching on the election loss and I think everything should be on the table for discussion.

I believe conservatism is basically belief in:

a limited government with minimum role in people's lives,
a strong government in areas where required such as national defense,
a government that facilitates an environment that supports individual initiative and facilitates private sector growth

The Republican Party was basically a party that believed in these conservative values. In the distant past, religious organizations became allied with the Republican Party.  It was a win-win situation. The Republican Party gained a block of votes, and the religious organizations gained a national political structure advocating its social values.

I believe the country is better when it adheres to strong social values. But I think these values driving public policy is not conservatism, which advocates a more limited role of government in people's lives.

In my opinion, this election has demonstrated that the alliance of religious organizations with the Republican Party is no longer a win-win situation. The difference between the two major political parties should be the difference between liberalism and conservatism.  I think advocating and encouraging social values should be the focus of the many outstanding religious and other advocacy organizations.

I want to emphasize I do not think the GOP should repudiate any positions, just not include them in official platforms.  There have been studies, even from religious organizations within the past few weeks that show voters, especially in the younger demographics, have considered the GOP too rigid, not accepting, and have been driven away.  I'm very concerned that the demographic situation will become even more pronounced, and I don't want to see us cede future elections to the Democrats.

I believe that the government should not get into imposing social views, since the result is always that one group will use the government to try and force its views on everyone else.

I also feel that, given the issues of the debt and deficit, which are basically screwing over the future generations, using the government sphere to fight social battles is kind of a distraction. 

Quote from: Darth Fife on December 13, 2012, 07:36:41 AM
When the Republican Party was founded, Slavery was specifically authorized by the Constitution.

No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.

A perfect example of which is the "Fugitive Slave Clause" (Article 2, Section 4, Clause 3)clause of the Constitution which wasn't vacated until the passage of the 13th Amendment in 1865 - by which time the Republican Party was well established, having won the White House.

And, while it doesn't specifically mention slaves or slavery, there is no doubt that that is what the Fugitive Slave clause is talking about.

From Wikipedia...

Founded in the Northern states in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs and ex-Free Soilers, the Republican Party quickly became the principal opposition to the dominant Southern Democratic Party and the briefly popular Know Nothing Party. The main cause was opposition to the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise by which slavery was kept out of Kansas. The Northern Republicans saw the expansion of slavery as a great evil.

As I stated, it was unconstitutional.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Quote from: Solar on December 13, 2012, 11:15:03 AM
As I stated, it was unconstitutional.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

At the time the Declaration of Independence was written, black slaves, as well as Indians were not considered the equal of white men. This is amply proven in the notorious 3/5ths Compromise found in Article 1 Section 2 Paragraph 3 of the U.S Constitution

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Importation of new slaves was illegal under the Constitution, however, slavery itself was legal and was one of the socials issues which the Republican Party was formed to fight.

Quote from: Darth Fife on December 13, 2012, 01:37:23 PM
At the time the Declaration of Independence was written, black slaves, as well as Indians were not considered the equal of white men. This is amply proven in the notorious 3/5ths Compromise found in Article 1 Section 2 Paragraph 3 of the U.S Constitution

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Importation of new slaves was illegal under the Constitution, however, slavery itself was legal and was one of the socials issues which the Republican Party was formed to fight.

Yet you still haven't made your case that it was a social issue.