I can respect that stance; though I mightily disagree with the thought that he is [simply] a better choice. I believe that a Romney presidency could indicate [to the GOP] that there is no need to run anyone who actually is 'conservative' as they can win with liberals, that the changing of the President's political party will trigger a "we did something" thought in far too many people for them to continue to wake up to the out-of-control corruption of our government. In that [longer-term] sense, I see Romney as being a worse choice.
Think of it in terms of normalization; electing Romney only normalizes the party toward a 'liberal' state of mind. To put it to a specific point, consider abortion; given the "of course rape, incest, and cases of the mother's health exceptions should exist"-thought, to which Romney ascribes, how long until embracing such exceptions is not a disqualifier for the 'pro-life' label? Arguably that point is now: Romney is being called pro-life, yet wishes to allow the killing of the innocent because of the crimes of their parents.
not to mention the midterms and 2016 that could likely undo the gains in place, or the 'bi-partisan' bills that will sail through because 'R' CONgresscritters will back the prog pres...