2010: Rep. Cory Gardner embraces Colorado's personhood measure.

2013: He cosponsors federal personhood legislation.

2014: As a Senate candidate, he tries to flip-flop.

Shortly after entering the race against Democratic Sen. Mark Udall in February, Mr. Gardner disavowed his past support for the idea at the heart of the personhood movement, which is to give a fertilized egg the same rights as a person, thereby outlawing abortion and some forms of birth control. In backing away, he even called for the sale of birth control over the counter.

Mr. Gardner is listed as a co-sponsor of a House bill that says life begins at conception.

"There are a lot more pressing issues that we need to be focused on," said Ryan Call, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party. "This race is about Mark Udall voting 99% of the time with Obama. "

A recent NBC News/Marist poll found that 70% of Colorado voters were less likely to vote for a candidate who supports limits on contraception, while also showing that 52% view the Affordable Care Act as a bad idea.

The Wall Street Journal's Beth Reinhard takes a look at Colorado GOP Senate nominee Rep. Cory Gardner's election-year conversion on the "Personhood" debate:On the one hand, Gardner's move is transparently political—waiting until a run for statewide office to convert his position—but on the other hand, at least he's shifting to the right position and acknowledging that his support for personhood also meant supporting some forms of birth control. That would be true enough if his conversion were credible, but as Reinhard notes (and as we've noted before ):Gardner added his name as a co-sponsor last year. It literally only took him a matter of months to claim that he'd flip-flopped, but he still hasn't removed his name. So he is, quite literally, claiming to support and oppose personhood at the same time. And how is the Colorado state Republican party trying to deal with his waffling? By changing the topic:Well, if that were true, then why did Gardner try to pull off a flip-flop on personhood? Because:That actually understates the problem for Gardner because you can't really compare the two questions. A lot of people aren't enthusiastic about Obamacare because they don't think it goes far enough—those folks aren't going to vote for Gardner. And not only do 70 percent of voters say they are less likely to support someone who supports parenthood, 67 percent say they are less likely to support a candidate who supports restricting access to abortions, a position still held by Gardner (at least for now).

Bottom line: Gardner's problem isn't just his history of supporting right-wing social policy, it's that his attempt to flip-flop away from it isn't credible. Gardner has put himself in no man's land: To people who believe women should control their own bodies, Gardner seems like a weasel, and to social conservatives who supported him in the past, he seems like a turncoat.