Backing Romney belies philosophy
I am very surprised and disappointed with your endorsement of Mitt Romney. You emphasize fixing the economy, and yet you endorse a person who has changed his position so many times that we have no idea how he would fix the economy other than not to raise taxes.
Supporting the Grover Norquist pledge: no-new-taxes-ever-regardless-of-circumstances, is reason enough to vote for the other guy. Romney's "success" in Massachusetts seems to be the main reason for your endorsement. Are you referring to his success there in passing a health care law that is the model for Obamacare, which he now derides?
I am not disappointed because you don't agree with me. I am disappointed because you don't agree with your own claim to be "independent, fiscally conservative (are you endorsing Severely Conservative Mitt, or Moderate Mitt?), socially progressive (Mitt is severely nonprogressive on social issues), advocate always for individual liberty (as long as that individual is a white male).
I would have more respect for no endorsement than one that is so at odds with your editorial philosophy.