Patrick Ruffini makes the case that Rudy or Condi could conceivably win the Republican nomination in spite of their pro-choice positions, although it would make it more difficult for them. He makes the comparison to the Democrats nominating Kerry in spite of his vote to authorize the Iraq War. I think there is a difference in that Democrats knew that Kerry voted that way as an obvious political move since polls at the time showed Americans in favor of the war. On the other hand, Rudy and Condi are pro-choice. They are not saying they are in an effort to win votes. In other words, voters know that Rudy and Condi would be pro-life if elected. Kerry voters knew that if elected he would be nuanced, squishy and pro-France, in spite of his Iraq War vote. And, of course, he voted against the funding of the war prior to the election to establish his anti-war credentials.
Other than the nit picking above, I agree completely with Ruffini’s well thought out analysis. He points out that pro-life possible candidate McCain would have even more problems than Rudy or Condi because of positions he has taken on other issues. One possibility that Ruffini raises excites me the most — that the Republicans may very well nominate someone we have not even mentioned as a candidate thus far. This is the fun time to speculate. It is still early enough that anything can happen.