I know a lot of people who endorsed him early in 2008 who later either lost interest or decided to move to another candidate. When it became clear that the only way to head off a McCain victory was for Romney to win the California Primary, I voted for Romney in the hopes of trying to push the nomination to the convention floor. Unfortunately Romney lost and McCain grabbed the nomination.
Does that mean I supported every Romney position? No, I didn't support any of them. I just wanted him to win California.
The fact of the matter is that other than Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, there weren't any serious conservatives running in 2008. This year's line up is one in which everyone is vying to be seen as the most conservative. The only candidate I would not support is Romney.
Perry endorsed Rudy in October of 2007. Fred Thompson announced on Sept. 5, 2007.
We're talking about a major early endorsement by a sitting governor, not some schmoe like you or me working to stave off McCain in the late-in-the-game California primary.
All the other major candidates in 2008--Huckabee, McCain, and Romney--as well as all the backbenchers were pro-life.
So again, what's Perry's excuse for endorsing a pro-choice, pro-same sex unions supporter of partial birth abortion for president?
I mean, come on now, if you're gonna hold McCain against Palin, then be consistent in the standards you set. Unless, of course, you don't happen to believe that being pro-life is a fundamental position for the nominee of a pro-life party.
FWIW, the Tea Party has changed everything. Whomever gets the nomination and wins will not have control over the Party the way they have in the past. They will have to steer right or they won't survive for a 2nd term.