That isn't the point.
You were extremely condescening to Rudy critics with that post. For having the gall to look at Rudy's past actions, when he did not need our votes, as opposed to his current claims, when he does. And that is rank cynical opportunism. Rudy now wants to pretend he can shift to a pro-PBA ban position and have people believe him, when he still says he is pro-choice and he was AGGRESSIVELY pro-abort in the past. And you have the nerve to say we're wrong when we are right in questioning the veracity of Rudy's shift, GIVEN HIS PAST.
Yeah, yeah. Whatever. Fred Thompson co-sponsored McCain-Feingold when he didn't need my vote, either. And I have no doubt that if he runs, he'll try to gloss it over. There is nothing particularly alarming about it.
It's like the guy in the movie Casablanca: "I'm shocked, SHOCKED that there is gambling going on here." Sheesh this is politics. What the heck do you expect?
That's one of the problems. The religious right expects their candidates to be so squeaky clean, that no one could possibly live up to their expectations. For example, no one in the senate was more supportive of the religious right than Rick Santorum here in PA. He supported you guys straight down the line. But he made one mistke, backing Specter in the prmary, and you guys were all over him like a bad suit. RINO this and RINO that. People are getting very tired of it and will be quite happy when Rudy Giuliani dispels the myth once and for all that Republicans can't win without the nutjobs.