In response to:

Social Conservatives: GOP Can't Live Without Them

Chip. Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 3:54 AM
I am not aware of the "case for purging social conservatism from the Republican Party", but perhaps the author of this column is suggesting that we should just get used to the Akin and Mourdock type of quotations, because the number of times they will recur will not get any less, and Republicans need social conservatives. I'd rather like to think that we just had a couple of social conservative candidates who made bad mistakes in their choices of words during recent months and the socially conservative movement won't make the same mistakes again. If you don't know enough to avoid saying things that will offend most people listening to you, and so lose your election, what is the point of your cause?
Think Freely Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 8:12 AM
Chip. Wrote:
Only a strong defense - along the same lines that Obama is willing to give to his VP will stop these types of exaggerations. While Akin and Mourdock may not have spoken well - according to the current climate - they were far more reasonable than many statements we have heard from the left. I remember Bork. I remember watching Reagan speak and then the commentators lie about what he had just said. We need a strong reasonable defense when one of the GOP mis-speaks.
One of the largest elephants in the GOP's post-election room is the fate of Christian and other social conservatives. Party honchos can't just wish this problem away -- or, maybe they can.

There has been increasing hostility toward Christian involvement in politics, and the animus hasn't been solely from the left. To be sure, Democrats have taken the lead, demonizing conservative Christians as science-challenged scolds who don't care about women's "reproductive rights," but there is plenty of antipathy from certain elements within the Republican Party, as well.

Many establishment and some libertarian Republicans have long looked upon Christian conservatives with mild, condescending...