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.