So, what to do when you've been exposed as a terror apologist with no discernable conservative record who stands accused of lying her way into the nomination?
Never apologize, never explain.
I'm sure one of the papers - or a whole bunch of nervous supporters - will get a letter explaining how
- She really wants to get along (see video below for evidence to the contrary)
- She really is pro-life, yes, she really is, despite having wished to a reporter for a pro-choice president in 2004.
Her evidence for #2 will be to cite Muslim law on the issue, which tends to be pro-life. Fair enough.
And completely irrelevant. Because we're not electing an Imam, as the saying goes, we're electing a state representative.
When John Kerry gave that answer, it didn't help him. Hell, when Jeff Hecht gave that answer at District Assembly, it didn't help him. The only question for pro-lifers that matters is, "What's your public policy position on abortion?" And from that point of view, Rima has exactly one data point and it's not pro-life.
That's how the best ones do it. They look you in the eye, deliver a line that they've justified to themselves, that they know you'll interpret however they like, and then move on. They wouldn't even move the needle on a polygraph.