The answer is the Republican Party has been ready for that for years, the problem is she thinks it's great that mother's have the right to kill their own children. The Republican Party isn't ready for that.
I seriously doubt that she thinks "it's great that mothers have the right tp kill their kids".
I do believe she realizes that "this is reality!!!!!!!" People do this is today's society
Party is voters aren't! Look at two of the parties stars, olympia snowe and susie collins, neither has ever seen a pro homosexual bill they could vote against or a pro-baby in the womb bill they could vote for.
Oh? And these are the same who tolerated the likes of Jim Jeffords for quite some time before he jumped ship, no? I don't think the issue is "pro-choice". I don't see the party doing much to fight that issue, IMHO.
It's a source of wonder to me that when people are put forward as viable Republican candidates, suddenly there is a rush to verify the person's credentials IF he/she is not part of the "in crowd". Just try to let a Brett Schundler go forward (or Alan Keyes) and we work overtime to blunt the sharp edges of their uncompromising conservatism so as to continue to prop up the "big tent". The GOP readily swallows a camel of a candidate in Bloomberg, but strains at Schundler? Please...
Speaking of Keyes, seems that everytime Keyes gets mentioned for office, the same old tired things get pulled out: "he's never held elective office (as if that helped Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, or Gray Davis, or hindered Senator Hillah "The Hun" Clinton); "he stands for ". The irony is that in Keyes' case, he's rejected because he's often said to be TOO pro-life.
I think it has very little to do with a candidate's stand on a given issue (within a BROAD spectrum of acceptable possibilities ranging from hardcore pro-life to pro-choice (Christine Whitman)); it has a great deal more to do with the party's perception of a given candidate's elective potential and that DOES, by the way, encompass race.