"Yeah, you're going to make a lot of headway calling the overwhelming majority of the Republican party extremists."
You guys need some reading skills and/or a thicker skin.
When I used the phrase "pro-life extremists" you could infer either that:
A) all people who are "pro-life" are "extreme"
B) there are *some* people in the set of "pro-life" people who are "extreme", and I'm referring to that proper subset.
The very fact that you jump to inference A) is exactly the kind of problem I'm talking about. In fact, I don't think it's even reasonable, in the context of a Republican oriented site, to do anything other than infer B).
I have *seen* the kind of people I'm talking about here before-- possibly I'm talking about you two, in fact-- people who say "if he's not pro-life, then I don't care if he is Republican-- he has to go". THAT is the problem.
"You" guys-- the ones willing to fracture the Republican party over ideological purity-- are the people I'm talking about.
In case there's still any confusion, I am NOT saying that to be "pro-life" is to be "extreme". For God's sake, peeps. I am saying that you don't influence policy by losing elections-- you don't serve "our" best interest by fracturing the *majority* over *one issue*. I am saying that if "rare but legal" is not good enough for you, then it damn well should be, or you're not helping reduce the number of abortions if Condi is willing to run. OK?
Those who worry about condi's lack of political experience might consider that she is a world class political scientist. Where do you think these revolutionary new foreign policy ideas are coming from, anyway?
It is you RINOs who are seeking to fracture the party over ideological purity...we "extremists" were here first!
The false assumptions you make about me personally could have been avoided had you followed the thread a little further.
I understood what you meant the first time around, before the lengthy explanation. I just didn't agree. I still don't.