[NoGrayZone]

"When it comes to predicting a person's probable character and future behavior, one of the best tools we have, is examining what they've done in their past."

I claim bull crap on that statement, as a former "used to believe, now know the facts" gal.

If you were to personally tell me to my face, person to person, face to face, I was the same gal I was @ 24, I would personally kick your a$$.

[Windflier]

I'm not saying that people can't change, but Romney's gubernatorial record isn't exactly ancient history, and in the time since he left that office, he's done little to repudiate all that he did to serve the goals of the left.

How are we to know that he's 'changed', unless he shows us in some way? Are we supposed to just take his word for it?

If his campaign rhetoric is all the proof you need to convince you he's 'changed', then so be it. I've heard plenty of words out of that man, but haven't seen diddly squat for actual deeds that could back up his alleged conservatism.

Hanging tough with the Tea Party from Day One would have gone a long way toward truly establishing his conservative/patriotic credentials. It wouldn't have cost him anything, and would have been a lot more convincing than millions of dollars worth of campaign ads, stump speeches, debate performances, etc.

But he didn't do that. In fact, he never once broke bread with the Tea Party, and has mysteriously kept his distance from what has quickly become one of the most significant political movements in our nation's history.

Why?