That is a form of lying to these people.
Pretending that I have been asked to produce evidence for the claim and have never done so.
Because you are Mr. Courtesy himself? That's not the impression I get. As we see here:
That is a form of lying to these people.
Pretending that I have been asked to produce evidence for the claim and have never done so.
"Evidence" isn't an article that says what you say. It's proof. It's something more than just a repetition of your own views.
Romney was the fourth republican governor in a row in a state that prefers GOP governors, in fact he gave up his supporting of democrats, democrat fundraising, and voting, to reregister republican ...
In the relevant period, say 1974-1990, Massachusetts had only Democrat governors, liberal Michael Dukakis and the more conservative Ed King. Massachusetts certainly didn't "prefer GOP governors" in those years, and the King-Dukakis primaries pretty much decided who was governor. During the same years, both Senators and almost all the Representatives were Democrats. Why am I not surprised that you didn't know any of that?
Romney was more interested in family, business, and church in those years. Like a lot of business people he gave money to those he thought would improve the business climate and to those who would improve his business. And that had a lot to do with just who was electable in a given state in a given year. He also gave money to the campaigns of personal friends. I don't see any strong ideological commitment in Romney in those years, though of course those who do have such commitments may perceive the absence of such loyalties as a sign of some ideological commitment in itself.
According to a Romney campaign spokesperson, Romney “switched back.” One doesn’t know how Romney managed to “switch back.” According to the town clerk, Romney became an Republican only on October 19, 1993. The implication is that Romney had either never voted between his registration as a independent in 1979 and 1992 (so his vote in 1992 automatically enrolled him as a Democrat) or that he was a regular Democrat voters in those earlier elections and changed to Republican to run for Senate.
Switched from Independent ("unenrolled") to Republican. Independents can vote in either primary. Until recently, their registration was changed to the party whose primary they voted in. Then you'd have to fill in a card to change your registration back to Unenrolled. Romney voted for Tsongas in the 1992 Presidential primary so his registration was temporarily changed to Democrat, and then changed back. That happened to me if I voted in the Democrat primary for the more conservative candidate when there were no serious Republican races. I was technically a Democrat for a while. It wasn't a sign of any larger ideological engagement.
The interpretation of the town clerk's words doesn't make any sense. He or she wasn't giving a whole history of Romney's primary voting, simply stating the fact that Romney changed his registration to Republican on a given date in 1993, with no statement of how many times his registration might have been changed before that by voting in one primary or another. How can this possibly "imply" that he had never voted Republican or in a Republican primary since 1979? So far as I can see there's no real evidence for such a conclusion.
If your argument was that Mitt Romney wasn't a conservative in the 80s I wouldn't object. I wouldn't object if your argument was that he isn't some sort of movement or Reagan conservative now, I wouldn't object either. Nobody like that could have been elected governor of Massachusetts. But your idea that Romney was somehow driven out of the Republican Party by revulsion against Reaganism, really isn't supported by what we actually know about the man.
I would just as soon let all this drop. It's not as though it's relevant to anything that is happening now or will happen in the future. My concern was that you make assumptions and take them for facts. I don't know Romney's personal circumstances, though I don't think my assumptions are any worse than yours, but I was living in Massachusetts in the period you are referring to, and I can't help but notice that you aren't aware of some things that undermine your assumptions and conclusions (or maybe you are aware but don't care).