Well, that's certainly the way the GOPe tells the story. I seem to remember it differently, especially the part about how Cuccinelli was head-and-shoulders above Bolling (who has always been a moderate in actions, if not words) in his conservative bona fides. Also how the grass-roots of the party was tired of "next turn" candidates (like Dole and McCain were at the national level), and wanted a principled conservative for the offices, which led to several people running who were little known... because the known candidates were "next turn" moderates and wouldn't talk or walk conservatism. I also seem to remember a lot of discussion about how the Dems would register as Repubs in order to vote in our primary... and how that led to weak candidates (like... say... Bolling) in previous elections.
But, then again, I guess if you care more about winning than conservatism, Bolling's narrative might be plausible. The only problem is, if you run a moderate so they'll win... even if they do win, they never vote as a conservative...
But Cuccinelli did tell Bolling he was supporting him for Governor early into the current term, and Cuccinelli has never denied that. Bolling chose not to run against McDonnell for the nomination last time and McDonnell then endorsed Bolling for governor the next time, which Cuccinelli was on board with. Bolling was a very conservative state senator and Lt. Governor and has only been sounding like McCain et al since the double cross. No doubt in my mind Bolling would be elected governor this November if he were the nominee. Instead we will get a crook, liar, nimcompoop Clinton liberal.
Now I do believe in conservatism, and I think Bolling would be a far better governor than a crook, liar, nimcompoop Clinton liberal. But you cannot forget the ultimate effect this will have on our Constitution, among other things, as I mentioned in my original post.