Bush made many mistakes, and those have been alluded to and discussed here on FR from the top down. But on fundamentals (life, guns, God, etc.)he was and has been consistent.
Now how logical would it be that if Bush, whom we trusted to at least some extent, let us down in some areas that we in turn then move our support to a man who has PROVEN to be untrustworthy on not just the fundamentals, but on such issues as universal health care as well.
I understand what parallels you are trying to draw and why, but it is the ultimate non-sequitir really, apples and oranges. Mitt has a record the lets us know we can't trust him BEFORE we even give him a shot. If Bush had the same record leading into 2000 he would have never gotten the nod from conservatives.
Keep swinging, this is fun...
Who is "we"? I voted against President Bush in both primaries. I knew he was a chip off the old east coast block.
As far as Romney being untrustworthy I think it is important to acknowledge you work with what you have. Working within the confines of the Massachusetts government is much different than devising a plan to save the Winter Olympics in Utah or to turn around a failing company. One of the things I like best about Mitt is the decisive way he evaluates a problem and then takes bold steps to resolve the problem. I trust Mitt to always take a reasoned and intelligent approach when facing a challenge. Ronald Reagan had the same political practicality. I met Reagan when he was first running for Governor of California and closely followed his political career. He change his policies many times. What never changed was Reagan's willingness to address tough issues in an optimistic manner.