[RedWing9]

She says, for example, that it's possible to be pro-choice

her ideological stances were pretty conservative to begin with.

Democrat=Pro-choice, especially in CA. I might have misunderstood your sentence, but I sure as hell am not at fault. You did not specify her beliefs, exactly, so I took leave with my assumption given her life long membership to the Democrat party.

Next time someone posts tongue-in-cheek (aka semi-serious), maybe you shouldn't attack so quickly.

Just did I write that allows you to conclude she's a moderate?

Once again, it's an assumption based on your written description of her life long membership to the Democrat party. Oh, I forgot to mention her many toils for Democrat candidates.

And NO, I'm not oblivious to Conservative Democrats. Although given the evidence you provided, her party line would be moderate and not Conservative.

[John Jorsett]

I certainly wouldn't characterize my reply as an 'attack'. If you perceived a spirited rejoinder that way, then accept my apology. That said, it's not wise to assume that you can determine a person's stance solely by their (prior) political affiliations. Just as an example, she's owned guns since the age of 18, even using one to fend off someone attacking another woman, and there's no bigger bunch of gun-grabbing lefties on the planet than the California Democrats. She may not meet every test for ideological purity, but then again how many would? I choose to think of her joining the Republicans as an asset rather than a contaminant.