Ok. Going by Mitt's record alone, tell me what policies he would have advanced during his presidency, that would have substantially differed from what Obama has advanced during his.
Make me a believer. Going by his record alone, show me even one conservative policy position or executive action that Mitt would have taken, had he won the race.
And please don't regurgitate any of his campaign promises. You and I both know those aren't worth the hot air it takes to produce them. Base your answers on his record, as that is the only reliable indicator of what any candidate will do, once in office.
I think Mitt’s record exists as it is because he chose Mass as the state to use to establish a foundation, that is an office, of high enough stature to run for the presidency. If he had lived in another state his record would have been different. His is a record of expediency nothing more nothing less. I think his record is essentially meaningless as a forecaster for how he would have governed. You and many others use the record argument as an excuse to walk away from bad choices. Your right of course, but don’t believe it is anything noble.