He won’t use the word for fear he’ll lose votes. That tells me he’ll get rolled if he were to be elected. He claims to be different than the D.C. politicians. Actually his mindset is already there. He’ll be just like the crowd there now that puts their finger into the wind on every issue. He’ll be unable to change anything. It’s McCain II.
I don't follow that logic at all. You can certainly oppose socialistic policies without publicaly calling Obama a "socialist".
Here's what Romney actually said in a debate about it. I can't really fathom what in his rhetoric a conservative could find so objectionable. From National Review:
The question of whether President Obama is, or should be called, a socialist came up in last night’s debate. The consensus seems to be that Romney played it smart by side-stepping the use of the “s” word. That’s too simple a take, I think.
This is what Romney actually said: “What President Obama is, is a big-spending liberal. And he takes his political inspiration from Europe, and from the socialist-democrats in Europe. Guess what? Europe isn’t working in Europe. It’s not going to work here. I believe in America. I believe in the opportunity and in the freedom that is in America, opportunity and freedom. I believe in free enterprise and capitalism.”
Saying that Obama is a big-spending liberal who takes his political inspiration from European socialists strikes me as not at all far from calling Obama a socialist. And in the context of his answer, Romney’s emphasizing his own belief in free enterprise and capitalism clearly implies that Obama’s faith in those entities is somewhat less than complete. It’s a mark of where Obama has put us that the socialism question has not only been asked, but that claiming a president of the United States takes his inspiration from European socialists is now considered mild.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/278158/romney-obama-and-socialism-stanley-kurtz