You replied: Your ad hominem attacks are repugnant.
Where is the ad hominem attack? I didn't attack Romney. I support Romney, with reservatons. I didn't attack Reagan, I supported Reagan in every election he ran in, even though I was sick at heart at his stance on abortion in 1968 and told him so. He was still better for CA than Brown (a Catholic). Reagan later repented his signature on the Bill.
I didn't attack the poster whom I addressed. I merely asked him a question because it is apparent that to vote against Romney is to vote to re-elect Obama. Where is the attack? I wrote the truth, even if you don't want to believe it.
The ad hominem is accusing the poster of supporting the reelection of Obama because they noted a reservation about Romney. Noting that a non-vote for Romney has that effect is one thing, but accusing of a pro-Obama bias (on FR, at least) is insulting to anyone who is struggling with the distaste they have for the republican candidate.
Phrasing the accusation as a question is merely a rhetorical device.
The reason why Romney is less believable on his change of mind is the history of such position pivots, depending on which audience he has been facing at the time.
Yours is not an egregious example, but it is a very common one. I am a reluctant supporter for Romney - and much more enthusiastic for Ryan. I have been fielding such accusations for months - and I suppose I’m touchy about it.