At that time(if it exists at all and not just in the mind of tin-foilers), we are all free to re-visit the issue and discuss it maturely.If Cheney steps down due to his poor health, his replacement willbe named at the same press conference. At that time, it will be too late and we will have a pro-abortion VP. And believe me, when that happens there will be very little mature discussion around here.
At this point, I don't really see what difference it would make if the GOP were to run "mildly" pro-choice candidates at the national level. The party is already operationally pro-abortion (it does nothing to even discourage abortion, while claiming it is pro-life). This whole issue is complicated by the fact that so many people evidently see abortion far too simplistically. For example, it is possible for a pro-choice politician who supports serious abortion controls to be much more effective in saving unborn babies than a "pro-life" politician who won't act on his position due to fear of political consequences, or due simply to the fact that he is not really pro-life at all. I mean, isn't the goal here to save lives and cut this dirty practice out of our cultural mainstream, or is it to simply elect politicians who claim to be pro-life to public office? I would challenge any of you to explain to me the benefit of electing "pro-lifers" who do nothing to save the unborn?
And, by the way. I would do a thousand jumping jacks in the nude while on a highway overpass as the 70's classic "Macho Man" blares from my boombox before I would vote for Colin Powell for dog catcher. So, no one should interpret this post as a defense of these RINOs. I'm simply saying they're not really much worse than what we have now.