I simply do not agree that Mitt Romney can be characterized as a "liberal."
The very best that we can reasonably hope to be elected as president, in any general election, is a center-right candidate, sauch as the late Ronald Reagan.
Not hard right.
But center-right.
[Mitt Romney] will lose.
That strikes me as a mere sentiment--not serious analysis.
For truly serious analysis, one might look to, say, the musings of Larry Sabato; Charlie Cook; Stu Rothenberg; Scott Rasmussen; or even Dick Morris.
So ... if ever there was a time to seed a 3rd party, give it a base, redirect RNC funding to it, and build a contender for future elections ... this is it.
Frankly, I harbor no desire for a third party.
In any case, your plan seems to require the sacrifice of the 2012 presidential election, in the (rather fatuous) hope that this sacrifice might help "build a contender for future elections."
And this represents precisely the sort of Big Picture mindset that I find most unfortunate...
There is no downside and nothing to lose because there is no victory to be had this go round.
Again, I disagree.
Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are nothing at all alike as regarding their respective approaches to (1) the illegal invasion of the Southwest (a.k.a. "illegal immigration"); (2) our nation's close relationship with Israel; (3) the preferable approach to Iran; (4) the need to drill for oil domestically; or (5) America's proper place in the world--just to name a few.
I believe that those who see America in terms of constitutionalists versus anti-constitutionalists are missing the point. Quite badly.
The real dichotomy, it seems to me, is between liberals and conservatives.