That was an interesting email, Warren, but I think that the predictive value of the analogy is low. For it to work, pro-lifers have to be equally flexible, fearful, etc., as pro-choicers; they have to be perfect mirror images of each other. Maybe they are, but we won’t know that from the 2006 Senate results in Pennsylvania. As for his point about pro-lifers’ unrealistic expectations–I think your emailer is conflating two different things: “muddled” histories and muddled or unsatisfactory positions. A lot of pro-lifers are willing to support a candidate who has been pro-choice in the past, especially if they trust his conversion to have stuck. But a Giuliani, for example, is still pro-choice; Romney’s history is pretty recent and his current position is somewhat confusing; and some pro-lifers question McCain’s durability as a pro-lifer. On this last point: I’m not necessarily saying McCain should be unacceptable to pro-lifers. But it’s not as though he once voted pro-choice and subsequently has changed his mind. Quite the reverse: In 2000, he said he was against embryonic stem-cell research and then later flipped. His current position on the issue is less pro-life, as pro-lifers define the term, than Bush’s. Of course pro-lifers are going to take that into account.