if I know that X candidate is claiming to be anti-Y, but voted FOR it in the past, X is suspect unless X had a darn good reason.
I actually had an experience similar to that. I had e-mailed my congressman (or was it my senator? I can never remember which person is which) about a bill that would fund healthcare for poor children. I got a response back saying that he'd voted against renewing the bill, because it had basically changed so that it was funding healthcare for more middle-class children than for truly poor children.
The League of Women voters was pushing for this bill to get renewed, so I e-mailed them and asked why that was, if what my congressman/senator said was true. I never got a response.
So, that's all a round-about way of saying that even though he voted against the issue he'd been saying he was always FOR, he DID have a really good reason--or it seemed he did to me. It would've been great if I could've gotten the LWV's perspective on it, seen it from a different angle.
But without their input, I can only conclude that he was telling the truth, and I'd probably vote him back into office if his term is coming to an end during this election. I can't remember whether or not I actually voted for him in the first place.
