"I came away from it feeling he would be a very responsible commander-in-chief. I don't think he'll be reckless. I don't think he'll be rash. And I think that he realizes and believes as I do that war is a last resort and something we don't rush willy-nilly into. And I came away feeling that he'll have mature attitude and beliefs towards foreign policy."
The word that I would think of when I think of Romney's foreign policy views would not be mature. It would be closer to moronic, or old fashioned. Like most Republicans, Romney still thinks it's 1979. I'm unaware of any evidence that Romney differs from most Republicans on any foreign policy issue.
You could argue that he is just saying the right things during a campaign to cater to his base. But I think it goes beyond that because it's not just that he supports bad policies or has a few moronic neocons advising him. It's that he doesn't seem to even know or understand the issues (Russia is our greatest geopolitical foe) and he goes against the decent advice some of his advisers suggest.
So I just don't see what Paul does in order to say Romney would even have a freaking clue what to do with foreign policy broadly. I think this has been a problem with Obama, that he doesn't have a very clear overarching policy. Without a clear vision of what you want your foreign policy to achieve I think you leave yourself open to making poor decisions. And if Romney is making those decisions he will be listening to at least a few morons who want to bomb every country and an entire party that wants to do the same.
Rand Paul's father understands the problem with that and he consistently speaks out against it. I guess he's not as ideologically consistent as his father because if he were he would be very worried about Romney's foreign policy views.