It's more of a non-endorsement of Romney, but they did endorse Obama.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565623-america-could-do-better-barack-obama-sadly-mitt-romney-does-not-fit-bill-which-one?fsrc=scn%2Ffb%2Fwl%2Fsl%2Fnov1

I know, I know, they must be socialists.

Not a huge surprise, really. They are pro-business, but also fairly liberal (in the European sense).

Mr. Burns likes Romney:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltCIEbLMaQg&feature=share

He's certainly not a socialist. But his dog may be.

That's wonderful. Thanks.

I very much enjoyed the cogent analysis of an outsider that is not influenced by partisan considerations and can just look at the strengths and weaknesses of both Obama and Romney (and of course choose Obama). What I am wondering was whether it was necessary for Romney to run to the far right to win the Republican nomination or will that turn out to have been a fatal mistake? His competition was so weak in the primaries that I question whether he had to take such conservative positions.

In that sense, they are saying something very similar to Mike Bloomberg:

In the past he has also taken sensible positions on immigration, illegal guns, abortion rights and healthcare. But he has reversed course on all of them, and is even running against the healthcare model he signed into law in Massachusetts.

I think among centrists, there must be a concern - which Romney would turn up in the White House?

I think it is a good(?) example of the current trend in politics where campaigns are run by focus groups and analysts: detail people who see trees, but not forests. Without encompassing the big picture, you wind up trying to satisfy each tree on its own, or perhaps, each species. But Romney and the Repubs are not alone in this, of course. The Left has a long tradition of playing one specie against another, so to speak. And in the end, they are really just two variations of the same type and same motivation.