Off the top of my head, Clinton Did not support gays openly support gays openly serving in the military and signed DADT. Romney is on record saying he has no intention to overturn Obama’s homosexualization of the armed forces. Clinton never pushed for homosexual marriage. Romney not only pushed for it, he legalized it.
There you go. Two shining examples among many.
Politico 5/5/11 "In a statement released by the Human Rights Campaign on Thursday, Clinton said that the next step in the expansion of rights in the United States should be same-sex marriage in his adopted home state."
I believe you are still laboring under the premise that we have a constitutional republic, and the candidate's past therefore matters, as it should in a free and fair election therein.
I believe we are post-Constitutional, and but a very few steps of a police state. Therefore, my game is disruption, and an attempt to work within what vestiges of the system we have to move us back in the direction of a Constitutional republic.
Taken that way, you wouldn't be voting "for" Mittens in the way you and I voted for Reagan back then. You'd be voting in self-defense against further destruction of the Constitutional order.
As someone said earlier, we need to be developing a farm team of Presidential candidates that can take us back to a Constitutional order. Mittens is transitional, and can be voted out in 2016. We need to be on his back like no other President before, to clear out the path to return to Constitutional order.
It's not a vote "for" Mittens. It's a vote for disruption of the Communists in the White House, and the George Soroses that control them. Mitt may have left-leaning instincts, but I don't believe he is controlled by the international Communist cabal. Obama clearly is.
I doubt you will accept my logic, but maybe some other FReepers will see it.