For me... I find, personally, that there's something deeply wrong with the entire set up of that interview, even if cuts didn't take place. It's taking somebodies stance on one thing, and spreading it around to things it's not meant to be spread to. The term 'pro choice' sounds good, is nice, solid, and supports the parties platform... but it is not meant for everything. Personally, I am pro choice... when it comes to abortion. I am not pro choice when it comes to making, using, and spreading highly dangerous and addictive drugs, even if it is each persons choice whether to use them or not.
Their views are not conflicting; they're oversimplified, and the people don't want to sound contridictory. It would be faily easy to do the same with the republican view of 'pro-life'.
(The following conversation never happened and is not meant to offend anybody who is a republican or agrees with some republican ideas.)
"So... you're pro-life?"
"That's right. I believe that no women should kill a soul growing inside her body, for any reason."
"Does that mean, since you are pro-life, you're against capitale punishment?"
"Now now... I didn't say that. Clearly, people who have done horrible, cruel, inhumane acts deserve the capitale punishment."
"So... then, you're not pro-life?"
"No no... see, it's like this. I am for the creation of life, as whoever he or she may be... but, clearly, if they've done somthing that deserves punishment, they need to be punished."
"Oh, okay, then. So you're pro-life."
"Yes sir, I am."
"So, then, you're for stricter gun control laws?"
"I... what? No, of course not. Every American deserves the right to bear arms."
"But it's been statistically proven that drawing a gun during, say, a burglarly, is more likely to result in serious injury and death then if you didn't..."
...And so on and so on and so on. It's easy to find contridiction in views when you take them out of context.
...And, ah, again, I don't mean to insult any republicans, or democrats, or anybody else. I apologize deeply if I did.