"There is No Libertarian Case for Mitt Romney"

Doug Mataconis has a thoughtful reply to this morning's column. Of course, I respectfully disagree -- but Doug's piece is required reading, anyway. The key bit I think is this:

If the record of the GOP weren’t enough, there’s also Mitt Romney’s record itself. Up until he decided that he wanted to run for President, Romney was the prototypical Northeastern Republican, moderate on social issues, mostly fiscally conservative, but also willing to consider programs like the Massachusetts health care program, which was the prototype for ObamaCare. What assurance do we have that he wouldn’t change his mind again once he became President, especially if it meant that it would help enhance his re-election prospects? I understand that political leaders need to be flexible at times, but when I run into someone who has changed their political beliefs more than once for obvious political advantage, I really have to wonder if I can trust them.

I find little to argue with here. Doug and I don't disagree much on Romney's potential. I think our main -- maybe only -- difference is how we see the potential outcomes of another four years of Obama versus four years of Romney.

And honestly? That's mostly crystal ball stuff, with plenty of room for reasonable people to differ reasonably.

CORRECTION: Stephen Green implied that two cranky libertarians were "reasonable people." PJMedia regrets the error.