Best comment I've seen in a long time.

Obama scored because people were too stupid to research what he stood for before he ran for president. At least Romney has been a producer...Obama is a destroyer of growth.

Thanks, Carrie!

Dan C,
President Obama is coming back in 2012! I think you should start embracing the idea from now, it wont be so traumatizing for you later on when it actually happens :) God Bless!

Loser? Really? You really should get out of your house more often.

For starters, Romney was the valedictorian of his college, worked as a missionary, got a JD/MBA from Harvard, successfully turned around several companies at Bain, created over 100,000 American jobs, turned around Bain & Company and made it basically the best at what it does, saved the Olympics from scandal, accomplished bipartisan reforms in Massachusetts while balancing the budget every year and leaving a budget surplus, has been married to his high school sweetheart for 30+ years, has five successful kids and tons of grandkids, and has earned and given away tens of millions of dollars.

You, Jon, are the real loser with such an uninformed post.

Jon Hall, that might be the stupidest post i've seen from a lefty.

You do realize that Romney is not an elected official at present time.

Compare and contrast to our president...who has had over 75 fundraisers in the last six months when the election is not even for another 7 months...and what's even worse about that is that he didn't even have to face primary opponents! And with everything that's going wrong in this country, our president has basically been playing hookey, or not giving his all to his duties while he hosts $35,000 a plate dinners.

You do know that, don't you, Jon Hall? well, consider yourself informed now.

Perhaps Dan you can clarify what Mitt was doing between 2008 and 2011 because everything he said then sure sounded like he was running for president. But apparently I'm just a simple, easily confused "liberal" (thanks Vortex for that clarification) so I'm sure I COMPLETELY misunderstood what Mitt was doing.

Also, I'm interested in knowing when you believe it would be acceptable for Obama to "run" for reelection. Everytime I've watched one of the GOP debates, I've heard them saying why Obama doesn't deserve reelection. It would seem reasonable that if the GOP is allowed to say he shouldn't be reelected that he should be able to say why he should be reelected.

This just in on Bain Capital. I know, I know, Romney doesn't work there anymore, but if this is the kind of company he sees as the backbone of our economy, I sure hope he doesn't get a chance to do anything about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/world/asia/bain-capital-tied-to-surveillance-push-in-china.html?pagewanted=all

Obama's solution to virtually every problem is to increase federal government involvement and expenditures. That's probably a result of the fact that he's spent his whole life in government jobs, where merit and accountability do not apply. That's Romney's point.

"I've driven a car, but I have no idea how to make one."

So why did you believe Obama's claims in 2008 that he knew how to create jobs?

We knew he was clueless, but your liberal media was too busy getting chills up their leg and fawning all over him to actually ask any questions. Now we know the answer -- Obama only knows how to create Government jobs, Union Boss jobs, and heavily subsidized Green jobs. None of those work without other people's money.

Wow dude, check your attitude. Your quote of mine has absolutely nothing to do with the assumptions you've leveled at me.

What claims do you know that I bought into? Are you psychic because if you are I would LOVE to make your aquaintence. You just assume that because I'm skeptical of an argument made by Romney, I'm some Obama lover.

Is it really that hard to appreciate the fact that the world doesn't revolve around you and perhaps other people might have differing opinions that do not make them less intelligent and less worthy of respect, or at least tolerance?

Apparently not from Mr. High-and-mighty-Vortex.

Obama creates jobs the only way he knows how. He passed a trillion dollar spending bill and then passed out the money to anyone who he knew would support him down the line by "contributing" some of that money back to him.

the stimulus was a green energy/ union slush fund.

He has zero business acumen.

I'll vote for Romney. The right guy at the right time.

Listen, Obama's doing the best he can w/ the mess he inherited from Rutherford b Hayes

As a practicing attorney and a student at the University of Chicago when Obama was there, I'd love to hear you tell me all the hard work he did in these positions. He got the U of C job because he was an up and coming politician from the area. He didn't prepare for class and taught Con Law, which is like American History. His course load was the lightest in the school and he didn't really research. His career as an attorney was brief and unaccomplished.

"Romney never had to worry about that- he had his millions already in the bank." What specifically are you referring to? Why don't you spend some time getting a little more informed about the issues and then you can make a comment based on reality, not just your imagination.

to add to Dan C's reply, Obama taught radicalism in college.. he taught CRT, critical race theory, he taught Alinsky material, he teamed up with Ayers to chair the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which gave away over 100 million dollars of Annenberg's money to radical groups in Chicago.

CZ, Romney is a producer of wealth. Obama is a destroyer of wealth. You need to do a little research on our president.. we all know that he got a free pass when he was running the first time. It ain't gonna happen again.

Hey Double Dans,
I find this facinating. Do you really think the Republicans have a chance? I've yet to meet anyone from any party that thinks so. You have to admit you haven't much to offer this go around.

Dan C, as a "practicing attorney" I would expect you to realize that national polls mean nothing, since the president is not elected by popular vote. But if it makes you feel better to read only the polls that support your twisted ideiology, go right ahead.

"The Republicans have no chance" = look at the candidates. I've voted both ways over the years but I'm just sayin' that this year the republicans have little to offer. If your money is on Romney then please explain why he hasn't been able to pull ahead of the likes of Santorium and the old guy yet.

Sally- have you ever heard of the concept of circular reasoning? "Just look at the candidates" does not add anything other than say I believe this because I believe it. Then your second argument is essentially the same- just saying what your opinion is without supporting it.

Obama, Reagan and many other eventual presidents didn't seal the nomination until June. We're still in March. The race isn't open and closed because the Republican Party decided to make the delegates proportional rather than winner take all this year, unlike previous years. The result of that is to allow lesser candidates to continually accumulate some delegates and hang in the race longer. Romney will seal the deal, at the latest, on June 5th when several big states vote. All you need to do is study presidential history and you'll know Romney is not "historically weak" as some of the more liberal media outlets like to say.

D46- true the president isn't elected based on pure popular vote, but to say that national polls "mean nothing" is clearly wrong. No president has ever been elected with a national approval rating under 48%. Obama is at 41% now, and I expected it to get even lower when gas prices rise steadily over the summer. If you really think Romney has no chance, you've been fooled.

Dan C, sorry if I hit a nerve here. I was indeed expressing my opinion. I understand your arguement but in my opinion, in most of the previous examples of a late nominee, it was because there was more than one viable option. This does not seem to be the case this year. It seems to be that they are choosing the least weak candidate.

Romney gave away his inheritance to a few universities who he trusted would help kids get a good education. He worked his way to where he is now. Obama had a hidden agenda : to distribute wealth (tax payers' monies).. that was his goal and he is accomplishing it. Class warfare. See Professor Bell's video about "white boys". He was Obama's teacher and Obama embraced this man's teachings.

Well said CZ !

Great point about Romney's history of being charitable. No surprise.. studies have shown that conservatives are much more likely to contribute to charity than liberals.

Liberals love spending everyone ELSE's money on special interests that they support, instead of putting their money where their mouth is.

Obama hosts a $35,000 a plate fundraiser today. He will talk about how conservatives are out of touch with the common man... attendees will put up the $35,000 and then next year they will expect loans for 'green businesses' in the millions. Who pays for that? we do.

Dan you mean they expect green handouts in the Billions....seems fair, you bundle a half million in campaign contributions and somehow you get loan backstops for a billion bucks approved and fasttracked by the Obama admin. But these stories dont even survive a few days with our liberal media in the bag for Obama.

We'll be like Europe where the kids riot because they are ENTITLED to a job.

Yes, it sucks to be out of work, but don't look for your gov't to create the jobs.. we need the gov't to get out of the way.

Oh. that's right..they are Europeans...they've been getting socialist slanted education for 50 years now.

Maybe we still have a chance.

You mean we'll have Germany's trade surplus of 13.1 billion euros (equivalent to a surplus of $65.016 billion for us)? Or were you talking about Sweden's life expectancy, which is two years better than ours? Perhaps you meant Norway's 3.8% unemployment rate? Maybe Poland's 3.8% GDP growth for 2011?