It is amusing to watch you drop your veil.
This is why you never engage on the specific facts about Romney, for you, it is always the sales pitch, the advancing of his name forward.
Aside from the fact that he can’t win elections, his pro-abortion position and ads that he re-adopted after he won the nomination, will keep him from running in 2016, from his days as a Planned Parenthood fund raiser, to his impassioned pleas for abortion, and family stories in defense of his pro-abortion beliefs, to his switching back to them in 2012, he could never reverse himself yet again for the 2016 cycle.
There won’t be a 2016 Romney, but you guys can hope to elevate him and utilize him to make sure of getting in another weak rino for 2016, which is the intention of the liberal wing, although you personally, seem to just truly want more Romney.
In 2016 not only would he have to confront his lifelong support for abortion, but he would also have to defend his wanting to remove the GOP pro-life position from the party platform in 2012.
Mitt Romney’s record, to put it gently, has not always been that of a National Review conservative. The more we have learned about the health-care plan he got enacted in Massachusetts, the less wise we consider it. During his campaign he has too often been unimaginative or vague on health care, federal spending, and taxes. Yet he has also stood, riskily, for a necessary reform of entitlements. He has vowed to be a reliable ally of pro-lifers and judicial conservatives. Without indicating any desire to go to war with Iran, he has treated its nuclear ambitions, and the increased power their realization would gain it, with an appropriate alarm (and we trust Tehran would read his election as a negative development). He has made it clear that in cutting spending he would be mindful that the national defense is the federal government’s foremost responsibility. In choosing Paul Ryan as his prospective vice president he has shown far better judgment than Obama, whose own pick weekly demonstrates that the categories of buffoon and demagogue are not mutually exclusive.
In this election we are proud to stand with Mitt Romney over the vain collectivist in the White House, and we hope the voters will make the same decision.
From: Mitt Romney for President.
You may disagree with this analysis and conclusion, but you cannot credibly call it liberal or the product of a liberal. In essence, it is my view of Romney today as well, that he would be preferable to Hillary or whomever the Democrats would nominate. If you prefer another candidate for the nomination, you ought to state who they are and make your case. My preference is for Ted Cruz, or perhaps Scott Walker, but I would like to see Romney also in the mix as a possible candidate.