The most prominent candidate for the GOP nomination is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.  He's a prolific fundraiser and enjoys widespread name recognition, and he's the darling of the GOP establishment.  George Will lists him as one of the few serious presidential candidates.

But should Romney be the GOP's presidential nominee?  The answer is "absolutely not."

Although there is no "perfect conservative," and although conservatives have serious issues with every candidate running, Mitt Romney is nothing more than a strident liberal masquerading as a moderate.  As Selwyn Duke rightly wrote in 2007, Romney is the Barack Obama of the GOP.  Every Republican has made his share of mistakes, but Romney is a committed liberal on the whole spectrum of issues.

Conservatives know that Romney was pro-abortion for a long time before he first ran for the presidency in 2007, at which time he "changed his position" because he was now asking for the votes of conservatives.  Romney has also supported "gay rights," and as Massachusetts governor, he implemented same-sex marriage by executive fiat.

In 2004, the MA Supreme Court ruled that the state's marriage law was unconstitutional -- but the Court did not rule, contrary to what is claimed, that gay marriage must be legalized and that the state constitution contains a "right" to marry.  Yet, as soon as the ruling was issued, Romney commanded state agencies, by executive order, to start issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

Romney is stridently liberal on fiscal and economic issues.  He did not initially support the Bush tax cuts; he has long opposed (and continues to oppose) the flat tax, calling it "a tax cut for fat cats"; he used fee hikes and "loophole-closing measures" to balance the Massachusetts state budget; and when he found items in it which he deemed wasteful or unneccessary, such as $30 million per year for hotel rooms for homeless people, he spent such sums on something else rather than use them to balance the budget.

Mitt believes that anthropogenic global warming is real and that humanity must act urgently to stop it.  In 2005, he even claimed that a cap-and-tax scheme would be "good for business."  But as hundreds of scientists, including AT contributor Dr. S. Fred Singer, have stated, anthropogenic global warming is a myth; humanity exerts little, if any, influence over this planet's climate, which changes naturally from time to time.  Why would the GOP nominate a candidate who believes in the global warming scam?

Romney also supports lavish ethanol subsidies and nonethanol farm subsidies (CNN Youtube Debate, Part 5, 6:06), probably to pander to agricultural states like Iowa, even though ethanol has not decreased America's degree of dependence on imported oil, gets poorer mileage than standard gasoline, and is more harmful for the environment.  To obtain the biological material for ethanol, to produce the fuel, and to transport it (with big, polluting trucks), you have to expend as much oil as ethanol replaces.  No wonder why John Stossel has listed the "Ethanol is great!" claim as #1 on his top-ten list of "myths, lies, and downright stupidities."

Of course, no discussion of Romney's big-government record can be complete without a mention of the Massachusetts socialized medicine scheme he championed and signed into law, with a grinning Ted Kennedy in the background.

Romney protests that this scheme was a valid exercise in federalism, while Obama's federal scheme is an unacceptable federal intrusion.  But conservatives should not allow Romney to lead them into the federalism trap.

In America, every state is free to choose its own policy on many issues.  However, no state has the right to infringe the personal and economic liberties of individual Americans.  No state has the right to require its citizens to buy insurance policies or to otherwise dictate how Americans may live.  A state tyranny is just as bad as a federal tyranny, and the Tenth Amendment is no excuse for the former.  Moreover, it is no excuse for any failed scheme -- and Romney's scheme has utterly failed in Massachusetts, with costs rising and threatening to bankrupt the state budget.  Now Romney advisor Mike Leavitt is telling Republicans to suck it up.

The biggest problem with Obama's socialized medicine scheme is not that it has been imposed at the federal level, but that it's socialized.  Likewise, the biggest problem with Romney's scheme, which could cost him the nomination, is that it represents socialized medicine.  And as Vladimir Lenin has said, "socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of a socialist state."

We conservatives value individual liberties (personal and economic freedoms alike) above states' rights and the federal government.  We believe that every American should be free to do as he pleases, as long as he doesn't threaten anyone else, but should also bear his personal responsibilities.  Under what constitutional provision should taxpayers be forced to pay for bloated entitlement schemes like Romney's and Obama's plans, which benefit someone else?

This is a product of the socialist "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" ideology.

David Axelrod has admitted that Romney's scheme served as "a template" for Obama's.  Even Rep. Paul Ryan, who likes Mitt Romney, admits that the two schemes are "not that dissimilar."  Obama has already warned that he will denounce any Republican who has implemented a socialized medicine scheme as governor (if Republicans nominate a governor) as a hypocrite.  And Obama would be right to do so.  How can Romney credibly condemn the president for a socialized medicine scheme, bloated government spending, and policies causing high energy prices when Romney himself is on record as supporting all of these policies?  He can't, and Obama will have unlimited money with which to make that point.

And, as Doug Brady points out, President Romney would not stop America's march to socialism and shrink the federal government.  In the best case, he would only halt it, and with it, America's decline.  But there's no reason to doubt that he will flip-flop again and insist that Obama's schemes are salvageable, if only he's be there to do the right trimming around the edges.

It is nonsense to claim that Romney, as a "moderate," can appeal to centrist/independent voters and thus win the election.  Independents don't vote for Republicans who are not significantly different from their Democratic rivals.  Romney is, on the issues, so aligned with Obama that there's no real difference between them.  When faced with a choice between a liberal Democrat and a liberal Republican, Americans always choose the Democrat (vide 1976, 1992, 1996, and 2008).  An overt RINO can never defeat a Democrat.

The reason why Romney is even considered for the nomination is because of his name recognition, establishment pedigree, the establishment's praise for him, and liberal media propaganda.  The MSM wants to make sure that Romney becomes the nominee because he would be the easiest candidate for Obama to beat.  Team Obama is already praying that Romney crosses the finish line first.

It's time to stand up to the GOP establishment and say "no to Mitt Romney as the GOP nominee!"