You are either missing what I'm trying to say, or your avoiding it. Look at the words in my post, I didn't use the words you are trying to force on me. I didn't say "party leaders" or "legislative leaders" etc. I have no idea whether Gillespie or Rove are pro-life. Even if they were, Rove has already said he isn't going to be running a candidate in the next presidential election, and Gillespie is retiring. I'm not saying their replacements are this or that, but the fact is the "leadership" you highlight comes and goes, but the people who have long term control over the party are still there.
A handful of leaders don't pick the next presidential candidate. They can try to advance someone, but there are an awful lot of people that put up the money and backing a candidate needs who also have a big say in things.
That was and is my point. And you can't claim they are in the main the type of people who care more for pro-life issues than for fiscal issues.
patent
Ahhhh, you're talking about the "smoky backroom" folks. : ) Just kidding, I know who you mean. Yes, any successful presidential candidate has to have his group of financiers. And, yes some may be pro-choice, but, at the same time all of the presidential candidates that are being mentioned have been in elected office before and have already stated their beliefs on this issue. If they were to change now, they'll get the John Kerry treatment of being flip-floppers. I'd say it's safe to say all will stick with what they have been for years, despite whatever their financiers' opinions are.
They may well have more of a fiscal than social concern. Doesn't automatically make them pro-abortion!