This statement you made kind of sounded to me like a generalization of the way all GOP members think. The logic is if one thinks that way, they must all think that way. Nothing could be further from the truth and the logic is flawed. If I am a member of the GOP and I do not think this way, then endowing me with the characteristics you believe all GOP members have means you have a prejudice (which Merriam Webster defines as a "preconceived judgment or opinion") in your thoughts about the way I am. People who steadfastly adhere to their prejudices are bigots. I did not infer that you were a bigot, if that is what you thought, you have my sincerest apologies. What I did mean to say is that bigotry, in a sense is colorblind. You are certainly a bigot if you are prejudice against people because of the color of their skin, but thats not the only criteria for bigotry. All you need to be a bigot is to be "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices" (again according to Webster). Hence, "broad and sweeping generalizations" (preconceived judgement) "are the foundations of bigotry" (obstinate prejudice). This, by the way, is the way liberals like to paint the GOP. Political statements made to these ends only confirm the bigotry of the author, not the subject.

ok, would it be correct to say "Most GOP members wont let a woman......" ?

thought this was real cool

http://www.victorystore.com/gifts/de...ace-bumper.jpg

Okay, I understand where you coming from, but by no means did I mean all GOP members are against the idea of a female as President. However, I do think as a party the GOP doesn't want a female as President. As a matter of fact several Repubs here at the state capital have expressed that point of view on more than one occasion in conversation with them. That's why I say the GOP will not allow a woman to win the Primary. Yes my statement was a generalization, but remember it was just that, a generalization. I was speaking in general terms. I was not saying every single member of the GOP it’s avidly against a female president.

seretogis,

You’re right on the abortion issue. “Partial birth” and the stem cell research ban has become the proxy for the pro-life cause. Pro-life is just not a winning issue; however, it’s still important for a Republican candidate be pro-life in principle while not having an explicit desire to make abortion illegal.

You and I are both wrong on affirmative action. Many Republicans aren’t necessarily for affirmative action but remain “soft” on the issue. Here’s Bush’s response to the Supreme Court decision:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20030623.html

I think it’s a sign that affirmative action, like abortion, isn’t a cause that the Rep. strategists want to fight head on.

Maybe Condi would be a promising candidate. Would she be able to appeal to the Religious Right? I have a hard time seeing her make the Bob Jones University type campaign stop.

When it comes to Hillary running in '08, Republicans would rather that a black female lesbian single mother professional wrestler cough-syrup addict missing one leg, who is Republican, be in the White House than Hillary Clinton.

Affirmative action meant to solve a legitimate problem through illegitimate means. "Reverse racism" will not solve the problem of ethnic diversity, and I don't think that the Republican party or Bushy stepped down in that regard. You do have to compromise on some issues, and pick your battles though, which is a good thing for a party to do. Those who cannot (*cough*dems*cough*) will only see themselves losing more and more seats, and more and more chances at the presidency.