>>I recall reading something a few months ago that was talking about Florina criticizing Hillary on women's rights. I agree that when it comes to talk about the 'war on women' Florina would probably do better than any of the other republican candidates, but it would still be an uphill battle just because of the party she's in.
>>
>>Please re-read my original statement:
>>
>> the dems can't point to her and talk about a war on women :) Well, I guess they could, but they would look pretty stupid...
>>
>>Typical dem behavior - they have all been to school on Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals".
>
>Have you seen info on how the GOP has been voting on women's issues? The Republican party has a real problem with this. Frankly I'm surprised that they get any women voters at all sometimes. Just read though this for some examples: http://www.politicususa.com/proof-war-women-2 So any Republican running against a dem isn't going to fair too well when this subject comes up because it's just to easy to point out all these examples.

Victor, I suggest you read through all the references and fact check them. I only had to read this for 10 minutes to find several instances of "link-baiting" where the actual proposed bill was different than what was referenced. . Also found some references to crackpot proposed bill drafts that never made it out of committee because they were so poorly worded (or so insane) that they never in a million years would have become legislation. (And believe me, that happens with the 'D' party as well).

You know that I do not defend the R party. They've held many untenable positions and have said plenty of ridiculous things. Mike Huckabee recently echoed the views of Sarah Palin, that he would oppose abortion even in the case of a young teen rape victim. I find these monstrous.

But... I also don't defend presenting link-baiting as evidence.