Romney as President

Romney would make a poor US president. He is basically a rerun of Obama, but a little less so. It would have been better if he had been elected president rather than Obama six years ago, but not much better.
The problems are multiple. Let's start with the fact that he introduced socialized medicine to Massachusetts, which then became a model for Obamacare. This means that he originally had no faith in American citizens being able to choose health care programs which would be satisfactory to them and that this should rather be done by big government through a mandate.
Romney is remaking recent noises that he may run again for president in the 2016 elections. According to the Washington Times, Romney gave a speech during a luncheon aboard the drydocked USS Midway museum in San Diego. During that speech, Rodney made the statement that he wanted "to lift people out of poverty” and “to make the world safe.” Taken as an open statement, it's not a bad idealism, but in historical and current terms, it carries a lot of baggage. It was a favorite of Pres. Franklin D Roosevelt, Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson and Pres. Obama through his redistribution of wealth program. All such socialistic programs were unsuccessful
The problems are mostly in the considerations of how these two things would be done. Liberal Democrats believe you lift people out of poverty by giving them money and goods, whereas a more practical approach is that people in poverty must lift themselves out of poverty. The way that non-poverty people and government can help is by giving the poverty people opportunities and incentives to do their own lifting. Think about the European immigrants who came to the US in the late 1800s and early 1900s for the land of opportunity, not for the land of free school lunches, food stamps, and the like.
With respect to making the world safe, we've been using six years of "be nice and talk sweet" to our foreign adversaries. The result has been obvious. We have more adversaries than we ever had before. The disadvantage of this is that American citizens are now exposed to more physical danger from foreign military activities than previously. I consider foreign military activities as terrorist actions, whether those terrorists were foreign-born or foreign indoctrinated American citizens. In addition, we have the massive threat of major destruction and death from the use of atomic weapons by rogue nations, such as North Korea and the developing atomic weapons of Iran weapon. This does not only affect American citizens but also the lives of humans around the world.
I used to be a semi-isolationist, to the extent that I felt we should have a good defensive posture against any foreign military attacks. I felt that the safety of foreign citizens with their own business, resulting in how they conducted themselves with respect to choosing their leadership and what they did about abuses of power within their own spheres.
However, I have somewhat modified my position through the years, now feeling that I do have a greater responsibility for the livelihood of foreign citizens unrelated to my personal involvement. I still do not believe in nationbuilding. I believe that other people of the world have the right to choose their own forms of government, even socialism/communism, monarchies and dictatorships. I am somewhat ambivalent about government forces killing several thousand people in Rwanda, but I now think that we should be using some of our military power to avoid these kinds of actions. I've come to this change primarily from reading the essays of Dr. Charles Krauthammer, which he wrote some years ago. His main point is that whether we like to were not, we have an obligation to maintain peace within the world. This came about after World War II, when America was the only adversaries left standing and had the responsibility to help the world recover. Krauthammer suggests that if we do not fulfill our obligation as world policeman, a vacuum ensues, which then leads to degradation of peace, the development of more atrocities, and a general feeling of unrest among the peoples of the world who are not even directly affected. We have the power to perform this obligation as well. The only question is a matter of degree. This could be regarded by some as being arrogant and even militarily aggressive. But, like anything else moderate use avoidS the abuse of power.
Romney will not do this. He tipped his hand in his USS Midway speech. His mode of action will be very similar to Obama's. He will try to lift people out of poverty by giving people additional benefits supported by taxpayers and debt through a government of ever increasing size and power.. He will talk sweet to foreign adversaries and assume he has no responsibility for world leadership through military use. He will be all talk; much like Obama.
It is interesting to speculate on how he and Obama could be so similar while arriving at positions of power from such dissimilar circumstances. Obama is antagonistic to the US and the American way of life, because he was taught so in his upbringing by his grandfather on basically foreign soil. Romney is an American having risen to a position of economic strength, presumably through his own capability. The likelihood is that he now has a guilt feeling, and with that feeling of guilt comes an attitude of super compassion for the poor. He does not remember how he achieved his position of financial superiority through his greater efforts. He probably feels lucky, which leads to compassion for people who he considers are less lucky.
The bottom line is that we need in a new president with an attitude that Americans are intelligent human beings, with the need to determine their own destiny and a right to use any means to achieve their goals, without government interference, but with the provision that they're not going to do obvious harm to other people. Romney doesn't fit.