I'm not attacking Rudy boosters for being pro-abortion.
However, I question their station to challenge the pro-life views of others (and their own commitment to being pro-life when they say they are) when they apparently don't care that their guy has a 100 percent NARAL rating.
I completely agree with you on that point -- it seems quite hypocritical to attack others for being pro-abortion when your candidate is more, or for attacking Thompson for being a "career politician" when your own candidate has the same record of multiple assignments in government AND lobbying.
(and their own commitment to being pro-life when they say they are)
I feel uncomfortable challenging others "commitment to being pro-life". I have no problem telling them they are failing their own cause by their actions, but I won't question their motives or commitment, only their ignorance and illogic. I'm not even saying that it is wrong to question their commitment or not -- I'm saying that arguing that an opponent lacks commitment doesn't seem like it will persuade that person, or anybody else reading, to my position, and it likely will garner sympathy for my opponent.
as a debate tactic, I find staying away from such questioning helps keep people listening to what I have to say. Strategy, yes, but in my case it's also just the way I am. I try to give everybody wide lattitude to have their own opinion of their motives, so long as I can still attack them for acting in opposition to their own principles.
Kind of like an extension of "love the sinner, hate the sin". Plus I kind of like the threads where we trash the policies of Rudy and show the vapidness of the supporters arguments much better than threads that turn into shouting matches and personal insults. I guess that's just my opinion.