Does Romney actually think anybody's going to believe this? More evasions and re-writing of history...

Frist!

I don't think that the past is going to change anything.

So Romney gave money for Dick Swett? Was that a lot of money for Dick Swett? Do you really need to give money for Dick Swett? Why did Romney like Dick Swett so much? Did he just have a thing for Dick Swett? Would the Mormon Church condone giving money for Dick Swett?

So in other words... Romney was FOR Democrats before he was AGAINST them.

Yet another Romney flipflop. Not that it matters: God himself couldn't win in 2008 if he ran as a Republican.

I never cease to be amazed at what Romney will say or do to get elected. This is laughable and pathetic.

note to Professor William Mayer:
check the 04 and john kerry.
how many unenrolled(independents
in ma) raided to vote against him?
the number was far higher that 3-4%
tell the globe to keep their eye
on their new hero deval patrick.
their silence speaks volumes.
joe costa

This is actually considered news-worthy?

Tsongas...gahh!!! Could you imagine him talking about today's issues? He'd be like the priest in The Princess Bride: "GAY MAWWIAGE IS WHAT DIVIDES US IN THIS PWESIDENTIAL DEBATE...."

Although I dismiss the media foolishness about Romney's religion, tge man disgusts me the way he seems to be trying to suggest his religion is well- not his religion.

In one interview he actually used the words "the religion one grew up in" to distance himself from the Mormon label somewhat.
In another he said he wasn't going to quibble over what about the religion to believe. Obviously Mitt realizes that some of the more troublesome views of Mormonism can be hard to explain.

Personally the man's religion is of no consequence to me...but to dance around the issue like that raises questions of integrity-or lack--about Mitt.

It's a year away from any elections and we are talking about who Romney voted for in a primary 15 years ago? There has got to be something better than this... Tell me he had a DUI or something. Didn't he get a speeding ticket back in '85?

Note to Random at 7:22--Clinton was ripe for defeat after 1994, also. Mitt Romney has an absolutely superb record of private and public service. This Texas Republican is proud to stand behind him 100% (and no, I am not Mormon...one can be non-Mormon and support an excellent leader who happens to be Mormon).

There's nothing to see here--keep moving!

I see no conflict between what was said 12 years ago, and what is being said this week.

He voted for Bush in '92 and voted for the weaker Tsongas in the primaries. He didn't want Tsongas simply to win, he wanted him to make a strong showing because that would carry over into other states and potentially lead to a nomination.

He ultimately disliked Bill Clinton and was in a position (as an independent) to make a statement against him--that's what he did.

This article is basically another hatchet-job attack at a very attractive conservative candidate the left would hate to face off against in the general election. In essence, the left-leaning media is doing the same thing to Romney that they claim he did in '92.

I think if you are digging this deep to try and find "dirt" on Romney you are showing you fear his potential more than you let on. First of all...the dude has built and run several successful companies and operations....find me another candidate who has made real money outside of the practice of law or medicine....because those businesses are "easy" by comparrison...and whose closet has so few skeletons that you toss this limp noodle onto the net....you're just funny!!

Rudy or McCain will win in 08. Besides Kerry has to support McCain, remember? McCain was his first choice as running mate. Sorry, Edwards.

I think that romney is full of it. That being said I "raided" for Howard Dean in the open 2004 Va primary. It didn't work.

I'm as conservative as they come but I registered online as a dem and voted for Howard Dean in the Michigan 2004 Presidential Primary.

Sorry liberals...we've been doing this for years.

Big Daddy
Registered Democrat

Dick Swett is Mormon, which would explain why Romney donated to him. Most likely personal friendship. Who wouldn't donate to a friend, even if one doesn't agree with his or her politics?

Truly, one of the dumbest stories I have read in awhile.

Who cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Take a look at the Michigan republican primary in 2000 too. Democrats raided against George W. Bush in the primary election, pushing McCain to victory in the race.

Does it really matter who he supported back then? Why is he being drilled about it? Sometimes politicians have different reasons for supporting something or someone then than what we do now. Get over it. Move on. Geeze.. We have been through this with Kerry, Bush, and now Romeny.

Romney is a phoney. Look at his politics while he was governor in Massachusetts. He is a Republican in name only.

Romney is so pathetic, even his bashing of gay marriage still leaves him looking like Ted Kennedy next to, of all people, Rudy.

I would take Rudy or even McCain over Romney in 08. I just wish we could give the Veep a new ticker, a diet and some charm school lessons. Cheney really is what this nation needs in 2008.

So Romney was more liberal in '92, nearly 16 years ago, so what? While in office, he certainly governed as the most conservative gov. MA has had in 60 years. If anything, I think he was running left to get elected in MA rather than running right now. If actions matter more than words, his background, family, and history as a businessman and governor, all tell a story of someone who is much more conservative than MA believed. All the better, if you ask me.

Do you know what would be more shocking than a Republican winning in 2008? A Democrat describing anything any Republican does as something other than an evil intentioned abject failure. George Bush could cure cancer and Democrats would be having a problem with it.

He voted for him, because he is as dull and un-interesting as Good ole Paul was...Good God, what a complete waste of time and space for actually posting this as news!!!

Its funny that all the Republican front-runners (Romney, McCain, & Giuliani) are undesirable to the GOP conservative base.

Why does it matter who he supported in 1992? For those who remember, it was Tsongas who identified Clinton as the "Pander Bear". Eventually Clinton co-opted (i.e. stole) Tsongas' pro-business platform. Before that, Clinton said anything to appease the audience he addressed. Say or do anything will be the same for Clinton#2. After 16 years of hostile partisianship, this country does not need another vis-a-vis Hillary Clinton. ANYONE BUT CLINTON.

You're darn RIGHT this is newsworthy!! This candidate is SO transparent that SOME CAN'T SEE IT! Ya know, "the big

1. There is nothing contradictory. We have a report from two Boston Globe employees as to why Romney voted for someone 15 years ago. There is no direct quote.
2. I bet if you asked Scott Lehigh, Frank Phillips, or Mitt Romney that those weren’t the only reasons why Romney voted for Tsongas (the fact that Tsongas was from Massachusetts, and that he was better than Bill Clinton). Do you vote for someone because of only two issues? You might only give two issues, when you have limited time, but no one votes for a candidate because of only two issues.
3. Why don’t we take Romney at his word. He voted for Paul Tsongas because he liked him better than Clinton, and that he didn’t think that he would win the general election against Bush? Are these somehow mutually exclusive.

So what's the big deal? I did the very same thing, except I ended up voting for Perot in the Nov. election. I had visceral reaction to Clinton from the moment I first was exposed to him, and felt I had to do everything possible (in vain) to keep him out. I am a conservative who voted for Anderson in '80, and was out of the country in '84 and '88. In addition to voting in the Texas primary as a Democrat to block Clinton, I read up on Tsongas' economics positions, and selected him as the Democrat I could most live with as an alternative to a Republican. I probably would have still voted for Perot, even if Tsongas had won the Dem. primary, but I still think he would have been a better President than Clinton.
Oh, and I did vote for W twice.

This isn't newsworthy. The only thing that is different is that it is a Republican who made the comment this time. Nice double-standard. Keep up the good work on your agenda ABC.

Does this story matter at all? I'd rather Mitt just say he liked Tsongas at the time. If anything, an explanation like that would show his openness to ideas. He missed an opportunity. Ronald Reagon, one of the greatest presidents of our time, was a Democrat before he switched! He never played word games about it. It must be a slow news cycle...

It's interesting to watch Mitt Romney's campaign unfold because I want to like the guy, but all I hear is constant explaining of his decisions to pander to the far right, but he had very different explanations for things only a few years ago. It's as if you cannot get a good grasp on him because he isn't consistant. Stick to a story, at least!

First, there is nothing contradictory here. We have a report from two Boston Globe employees as to why Romney voted for someone 15 years ago. There is no direct quote.

Second, I bet if you asked Scott Lehigh, Frank Phillips, or Mitt Romney that those weren’t the only reasons why Romney voted for Tsongas (the fact that Tsongas was from Massachusetts, and that he was better than Bill Clinton). Do you vote for someone because of only two issues? You might only give two issues, when you have limited time, but no one votes for a candidate because of only two issues.

Third, why don’t we take Romney at his word. He voted for Paul Tsongas because he liked him better than Clinton, and that he didn’t think that he would win the general election against Bush? Are these somehow mutually exclusive.

Fourth, the democrats and MSM is going to take everything Romney ever said 10 years ago, tell us it, and then say "however today he says..." blank. They are going to use this tactic weather it contradicted the previous statement or not. They will use this tactic every time Mitt Romney does not repeat his previous statement verbatim.

Lastly, there was NO GOP PRIMARY in 1992. There was only one place to vote. As one political guru told me "he does it all the time".

As a Republican I would have no problem with anyone who supported Paul Tsongas. I was thinking of supporting Romney, but not now! He should have proudly defended why he supported Tsongas instead of this ridiculous excuse of voting for the weakest candidate for Bush. I really think both Democrats and Republicans are pathetic. They are more interested in doing what it takes to keep their party in power rather than what is best for the country. Both major parties are united in keeping a viable 3rd party from ever getting started.

Taking an article from the Boston Globe and using it as a basis for indicating that Romney has changed his position is like asking the DNC and Howard Dean what they think of Romney's explaination. You never seem to quote any other point of view in your article. Quoted are: George Stephanopoulos, Scot Lehigh, Frank Phillips and Professor William Mayer; all liberal Democrats. Fairness? Also, Mayer's contention that 3-4 percent of voters engage in "raiding" is way off base. Typically, in Massachusetts, Republicans registered as Independents are used to having their candidates lose elections, Governors notwithstanding, and routinely vote in the Democratic primaries. This phenomenon has been going on since the 1970's, and the effect on elections is not clearly understood. What Romney claims to have done is a common occurance here in Massachusetts during elections by Independents who realize that the Republican candidate doesn't really matter; it's the opponent who matters. By law, an Independent can help to sway the election if he/she chooses by voting for the weaker Democrat. Maybe Mayer should use actual statistics to study this cause and effect in elections here in Massachusetts where there are only 16 percent registered Republicans and 35 percent registered Independents. Then he can speak with confidence when he make baseless contentions about Massachusetts elections and Mitt Romney. I suspect he is only trying to make Romney look bad. Maybe Romney cut the funding from one of his useless pet projects.

I'm sick to death of these RINOS (Republicans In Name Only).

Why can't the Republicans nominate a REAL CONSERVATIVE, and the Democrats an OPEN LEFTIST, and let the chips fall where they may.

The Democrats are already starting to try to smear Romney. I'm not surprised. The Democrats will stoop to anything to win in 2008.

Despite some apparent past inconsistencies (most over 10 years ago), Romney is still by far the best candidate on either side running for President in '08. He is the best public speaker, most charismatic, most intelligent, strongest fiscal and small govt. advocate, best looking, strongest "protect the family" advocate, a strong leader with proven public and private experience, and he's an outsider who's not tied into Washington's problems. Every candidate running will have inconsistencies. And people are starting to realized the "Mormon issue" is no problem at all and maybe even a strength (such an overblown issue!) - Mormons are some of the most respectable people I know. Let's look at the big issues and candidates' platforms. Which matters more, a vote for Tsongas 14 years ago or one's stance on immigration or govt. spending? When you consider the big issues, Romney trouces everyone else.

What heppend to a secret ballot!! Nobody should be expected to say (or explain) who or what they vote for (if they dont want to).

RINOS, like Romney, are nothing but frustrated Democrats who use the Republican party to gain power. Our Rep. Jim Ramstad (RINO, MN)is someone like that: vote with the Dems EVERY time but too cowardly to call himself one of them. WAKE UP CONSERVATIVE VOTERS and stick with Duncan Hunter!

Kind of agree with the "God himself couldn't win as a Republican" post.

With the media now, it is always:

Heads- Democrats did the right thing. Tails- Republicans did the wrong thing.

It's a simple meme, and the public eats it up.

This is s shining example again of media bias. Has any reporter asked Obama about ANY of his previous votes in the illinois senate yet? How about any questions about specifics on ANYTHING? NO!!! The first thing they do to GPO candidates is immediately ask real questions.

Romney, no way, this country doesn't need another theocratic politician. Theocratic crusading Bush was a dishonest, lawless, reckless disaster. We need another rational, sensible philosopher president like Thomas Jefferson.

In Massachusetts, almost everyone I know, Republicans and Democrats, registers as an independent so that they can pick which primary to vote in. Sometimes I vote in the Republican primary. Sometimes I vote in the Democratic primary. It depends which one is more interesting or competitive, and it's really not a big deal.

15 years ago, ? (Isn't that A bit FAR WAY) And out there people are shouting rino? I suppose that politicians are not allowed to change their position on some issues right? show me one ONE POLITICIAN, come on liberals and democrats everywhere, ONE POLITICIAN who at one point or another their views did not change at some point. Even you right wingers tooo, GET A LIFE. It is rediculous that a person is not allowed to change their views on something, and you yell rino?

Mitt Romney is your greatest hope AHEM MY FELLOW Conservatives. Cause let me tell you Mitt is far more than "Clean, good looking and articulate, I promise you his integrity. This is a person you see who I believe would rather lose elections than lose his character and integrity. He will do what he says, and no more. He is more than just smart, he is brilliant, and genius at that. Another thing about Mitt, he has had the same wife for the last 25 or more years of his life, can all of the other sapppy candiates say the same on the right? I don't think so.

oh, and for all you liberals out there, Mitt Roomney has a business mind, AND I guarandamnteeya that if you help elect Mccain, He will spend money on this war more than probably someone with sharp business mind would be willing to spend after notoriously looking at all the options himself. IE Mitt Romney, so if you want us out, At least Romney has a plan, and I tell you liberals, that Mitt Romney Will not spend more or add more troops than he thinks he needs to have have success in iraq or any other place in the world. The guy did become a billionire off office supplies and pizza, I mean, come on this is stuff you buy! so he's not an oil freak like bush is, and best of all, he is an ENTREPENEUR.

If the writer already could get the infomation on why Romney previously said he voted for Tsongas, why'd he ask? It's certainly plausible that Romney was aware Tsongas was the weakest candidate (ever? Wait, there's Kucinich). One thing's for sure. Romney sure seems to be getting a lot of attention for a third polling, relatively unknown candidate. I smell dark horse.

"Raiding" is a common practice in some areas. In the South, when there use to not be enough Republican candidates to eliminate through a primary, we would even register as a Democrat to select the weakest candidates.

Being a Mormon is in itself not a bad thing. However, the Church tenants dictate that to be a "Good Mormon" one must take their marching orders from the Prophet. Every year all elected mormon officials meet with the Councel of Twelve and the Prophet to get their instructions for the new season. Hatch, Reid, and even Mit, as a state govenor, along with all others that the Church guide along, participate inthese meetings. It is said; "Once the prophet has spoken, there is nothing more to be said"

Romney has been under assault from a desperate John McCain camp since he made his intentions known. Remember the Evangelical kook who jumped all over Mitt in SC? As far as Guliani, I think there are many hypocritical conservatives out there who damned Bill Clinton for his infidelities but seem to have amnesia about Rudy's daliances while in the Mayor's office. I think it is funny that out of Mitt, Rudy, and McCain the Mormon is the only one who hasn't had multiple wives.

I raided for Al Sharpton in the '04 primary.

The democrats DESERVE him.

Bring it on. Compile the longest most exhaustive list of Mitt Romney's weaknesses, flip-flops, reversals, questionable behavior, questionable relationships, alliances, mistakes, biases, failures, opinions, and missteps. Leave nothing out. Then let's compare that list line for line to an equally exhaustive list of the weaknesses, flip-flops, reversals, questionable behavior, questionable relationships, alliances, mistakes, biases, failures, opinions, and missteps of ANY OTHER CANDIDATE, Democrat or Republican. Romney's list will pale by comparison and will clearly reveal the true intents and values of those who focus on such drivel as concern over the Tsongas vote or Romney's "nuanced" policy of opposing discrimination against gays while being against gay marriage--as if the two have anything to do with each other--those being to win at all costs--truth, honor, wisdom, cooperation, and humanity be damned.

Wow! At the rate we're going here with these liberal Republican candidates that hopelessly try to explain away their true left wing ideology, we'll be left with a race between a Socialist Democrat and Socialist Republican. Hmmmmm.....What a choice America.

How many votes has Obama cast in his life? How much experience does he have? What positions does he take? Does he think the federal government spends to little or too much? What would his economic plan look like? Has he ever studied economics? Does he have a clue about foreign policy? Has he ever served in the military? Does he want to win the war on terrorism? --- oh! Let's forget all that and focus on a vote cast in a primary back in 1992. If the media isn't biased then many of them are just plain stupid. Or most likely, it's both.

Hmm, so let me get this right. Someone in the media is concerned about a vote cast in 1992? Is it just me, but I seem to recall Hillary Clinton making something like $100,000 dollars on a $1,000 purchase of cattle futures? Now, if I remember correctly, the media didn't seem all that interested in the story, despite the fact that it was well documented. But we are concerned about a vote, yes a VOTE! back in 1992. One seems rather trivial, the other seems quite serious. And they say the media isn't biased.

So far it's a sure thing for liberals in 08. They have Hillary, Obama, McCain, Giuliani, and Romney...

Dave wrote: It is said; "Once the prophet has spoken, there is nothing more to be said" and "Every year all elected mormon officials meet with the Councel of Twelve and the Prophet to get their instructions for the new season." What a joke, every major politician for the past 50 years has met with the Mormon prophet as well. He leads a church with 12 million members, of course politicians will meet with him. The Mommon church does not tell it's members how to vote or coduct public policy, it tells it's members how to live good "spiritual lives." Things like; Wait until marriage to have sex, don't drink alchohol or do drugs, read the scriptures, pray. Every year the church comes out with a political nuetrality statement. It seems ok for a democrat to speak from every black church pulpit in the south without being accused of following their leaders but a Mormon cannot say antyhing without being accused of pandering to his church. Harry Reid is a Mormon, Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Which one is going against the teacings of his church and if he is why has'nt the church excommunicated Harry Reid, the answere is they don't care.

In response to the statement above that Mormon elected officials get their marching orders from the President of the Church, I would like to know where the individual who made this comment got his information. Everything I have ever learned about the Mormon Church flies in the face of that statement, and the fact that the above individual referred to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as the "Councel [Council] of the Twelve" lends me to believe that this person does not possess a deep knowledge of the Mormon Church.

The above statement is also contrary of the fact that the First Presidency of the Church issues a letter of political neutrality that is read from every pulpit before every election. While church members may lean one way or another, the church does not endorse any candidate or party. There are also members of senior church leadership that affiliate themselves with different political parties. Once again, the church is neutral regarding candidates and political parties.

My response is this....if every elected Mormon official receives his marching orders from the President of the Church, what is the President's advice...is it something like this...."Harry Reid, you support the democrats and their platform, and then you Mitt, you support the Republicans." I fail to see how this makes any sense.

Wait a minute... The endorsement of Paul Tsongas may have had more significance, possibly positive significance, to 'true' fiscal conservatives than the original story or comments indicate. Mike hinted at it (above) when he researched Tsongas' economic postions and found he was the "Democrat that he could most live with". Tsongas was centrist and fiscally conservative -- MUCH more so than the current Rebublican President. Check out the organization Tsongas co-founded with REPUBICAN Warren Rudman: The Concord Coalition.
What's unfortunate is that Romney, rather than use this opportunity to embrace the fiscal conservative philosophy of Senator Tsongas, choses to distance himself from Tsongas and use an obviously a lame explanation for his past support for fear that the electorate and press aren't smart enough to understand a 'real' explanation. It backfired. Certainly John Kerry's failure can be attributed in part to not dealing with such issues in a positive, head-on way. Romney should take pause, contemplate that lesson and try respecting the electorate a bit more. Apart from this political error, I actually find Romney more interesting knowing that he supported Tsongas at one time.

Romney's explanation is wrong on many levels. Firstly, I think to vote for the weakest candidate in the other party's primary is pretty immature and does not uphold the principles of democracy.

Secondly, Romney didn't even apologize for it. He acted like this was normal voter behavior.

Thirdly, I am a registered Democrat because I believe in the ideals and philosophy of the Democratic Party. Romney, on the other hand, was a Republican (we think) but didn't want to declare himself as such, even though he says he has always voted Republican. There is a word for this: coward.

Fourthly, his explanation for voting for Tsongas wasn't even honest. Why didn't he just say, because he was the best Democrat in the field, so I voted for him because Bush ran mostly unopposed. Not a great explanation--but better than lie he chose to tell, not to mention choose to dishonor a person who can not defend himself.

If I were a political animal, I would vote for him because these flip-flops will catch up with him and make him weak in the general election. I prefer to keep my integrity intact and vote in my own party's primary. And wish for a better Republican candidate than Mitt Romney.

"I just wish we could give the Veep a new ticker, a diet and some charm school lessons. Cheney really is what this nation needs in 2008.

Posted by: Romney Wrong-O | Feb 17, 2007 3:01:40 AM"

If Cheney ran the democrats would win in a landslide that made Reagan's win in 1980 seem like a close race.

To those who keep deriding William Mayer as a liberal democrat biased against Romney, let me tell you he is anything BUT a liberal.