But we've all been pretending since Reagan that the Republican party was conservative even with the Bushes and the globalists and the corporations leading the party. A pro-choice candidate would break the fantasy world that we've all lived in.
Maybe for you, I’ve been living in the ‘real world’ my entire life, and as such understand a false premise when I see it.
IIRC, “Roe vs Wade” was a decision of the Supreme Court. I don’t see how electing a “pro-life” President will change that fact.
IMHO, we need two more “strict constructionist” Justices on the Supreme Court if:
(1) “Roe vs Wade” is to overturned.
(2) The ACLU’s attacks on Christianity are to be stopped.
(3) The destruction of public education by special interest groups is to be stopped.
(4) The power of blood-sucking trial lawyers is to be diminished.
So I think that a voter should not ask, “Which candidate is the most “pro-life”?”
Instead, I think the question should be “Which Republican can SUCCEED in our 2008 NATIONAL election for President?”
It should be clear that Queen Hillary will NOT appoint the kind of Justices needed to reverse the destruction of our Constitutional rights.
And I think that Queen Hillary has always planned to use a “divide-and-conquer” strategy against all Republican opponents to her “coronation”. IMHO, Ron Paul’s “campaign” is a “dirty trick”, funded by her minions.
And I think Queen Hillary would like nothing better than to campaign against Mike Huckabee in the national election.
Think for minute.
How hard would it be for Hillary to claim that Huckabee is actually running to be America’s “High-Priest” — and then remind us that Americans have always feared a “theocracy”?