On the other hand, if he can articulate well the process by which he rethought the "pro-choice" position and decided in favor of life, then he might be the very strongest candidate of all.
Consider the potential effectiveness of a former smoker who speaks out about the dangers of smoking, based on his/her own experience, versus that of a lifetime non-smoker who may simply come off as a "do-gooder."
Were Romney the candidate, he needs to articulate a vision of life and liberty as being so entertwined that when the life of one innocent is left to "choice," then the life and liberty of each is endangered. After all, who's to say that the next class of citizens allowed the so-called "right to choose" might be the man or woman who finds the care of an elderly parent to be endangering to his/her health or happiness?
My gut tells me that Romney was always pro-life. He just said he was pro-choice to be elected Governor of Massachusetts.
You may have trouble with that, but it doesn’t bother me at all. He did some good for the state of Massachusetts, and he would not have been able to win there otherwise.