Noemie Emery writes to comment on our post “A new, softer litmus test?” on her Weekly Standard article “Let’s make a deal.” Noemie writes:
I’d like to differentiate here between the proper pressure put by pro-life and pro-choice interests on their various parties, and the absolute vetoes imposed on the parties, which I consider disproportionate, dangerous, and close to obscene. I have no problem with there being a more pro-life, and a more-pro-choice party, or with these groups having proportionate influence. What I do object to is that these groups, whose views never poll more than the low to high 20s on issues that never reach the top tier of concerns of the American people, have absolute veto power over who does and does not run for president, an office that impacts the lives directly of 300 million Americans, and indirectly millions of others around the globe.
As a more or less normal voter in my pre-pundit days, and as someone moving from being pro-choice to pro-life, I was repelled by the antics of both of these factions, who seemed to enjoy tormenting the candidates. I feel a pro-choice Republican or a pro-life Democrat should and must concede something to the feelings of most of his backers. But this grip can’t be broken too soon.
To comment on this post, go here.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.