It’s certainly fair to point out, as Ramesh does, that John McCain does not explicitly condemn or disdain social conservatives as whole. Perhaps I should have referred to McCain’s obvious disdain for social conservatives’ leaders and institutions, including National Right to Life (which in 2000 he blasted as “turning a cause into a business”). From that, plenty of rank-and-file social conservatives might well conclude, and have indeed concluded according to polling, that he is not really one of them.

My email box is full of messages of social conservatives questioning McCain’s commitments on the issues they care about, particularly evidenced during his “Straight Talk Express” days of 2000. For example:

* He told the San Francisco Chronicle in 2000: “I’d love to see a point where it (Roe v. Wade) is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” That may well be a reasonable position to take, but isn’t the social conservative position as I understand it.

* McCain’s strong embrace of former Sen. Warren Rudman, whom he said might be attorney general in a McCain administration, rubbed lots of social conservatives the wrong way back then, too. Remember that Rudman had condemned “anti-abortion zealots” and “the Christian Right” in very strong language.

Will social-conservative voters overlook the history, pay attention to McCain’s more-measured rhetoric today, and trust him to appoint conservative judges, the main way that a president can influence social policy? Perhaps, but they can get the same deal from Rudy Giuliani, who is clearly motivated, and much more from Mitt Romney if they are so inclined.