But the point swheats raises is a valid one. You can disagree with her point all you want, but it remains valid.
I suppose many can't get past the outward appearance of being a black female. That trips many up.You know, over the last couple years I've read dozens upon dozens of threads about Condi the presidential candidate. On nearly everyone of them the race card gets played: "people don't want condi because she's black" or the gender card: "republicans aren't ready for a female president."
If Condi runs and loses it won't be becuase she's black or female, though if you claim that's what happened, the media will quite gleefully quote you. She will lose because she is pro-choice. I couldn't give a rat's behind what color or gender she was. Before I learned she was pro-choice I thought she was perfect: smart, photogenic, disciplined, pro-2A, you name it. I liked her, and still do, but I won't vote for a pro-choicer or a tepid pro-lifer, which is about as far as she can credibly move at this point. People work their buts off to try to claim she is not pro-choice, but I've read the quotes and she isn't convincing, not to the pro-life volunteers that make things happen. Pro-choice appears to be where her heart lies, from her comments, and pro-lifers will not campaign for her. I spent a ton of time on the last campaign. I don't care if its Condi, Rudy, or whomever. I won't bother if they are the nominee, it just isn't worth the personal sacrifice to make someone like that president.
No Republican becomes president without the pro-lifers. Just doesn't happen, and race has nothing to do with it.
patent
Her views on abortion mirror almost exactly those of President Bush. And he certainly got elected.
Yes! What you said.
But the point swheats raises is a valid one. You can disagree with her point all you want, but it remains valid.