THIS!

This:

Like I said, it shows competence in making money. Using that yardstick, Bush Sr would have been far more competent than Reagan. Just because someone’s made a bunch of money doesn’t mean they’re presidential material. That’s the idiotic ‘bot sell job they turn to in desperation when they’ve run out of polls to push.
ddrintn on February 11, 2012 at 10:42 AM

It depends how they made their money. Mitt didn’t earn his as a corrupt currency manipulator, or, er, as a reality show star. You all have plenty to criticize him over, to refuse to even acknowledge his unparallelled skills as (and commendable work ethic) is just more BCS*. Men like Jack Welch and Thomas Sternberg and Bernie Marcus know w.t.h. they’re talking about when they lavish praise on Romney for his incomporable leadership and business skills. *Bitter Clinger Syndrome.

Soros has a lot more money, why don’t we get him?, oh wait, he’s already running the country.
neuquenguy on February 11, 2012 at 10:58 AM

See above^^^^

Rockefeller Romney supporters have a compulsion to play the class warfare card in self defense of corporatism, just as Obama supporters rely on playing the race card.
maverick muse on February 11, 2012 at 10:29 AM

BLAH BLAH BLAH. Seriously, do you have any idea how annoying it to hear people misuse words like “corporatism”? I’m beyond fed up with candidates whining that they can’t win because they don’t have enough money to fund their campaign (and their whiny supporters). Here’s a clue: Plan ahead, get your ducks in a row, and raise money before you run.

It is patently absurd to imagine that he wouldn’t. He has emphasized his commitment in every speech he gives and the plan he published when he began his campaign. There is no way in the freaking world that he would renege on that, even if he wanted to, and he doesn’t. If President Romney does not do all that a POTUS can do to repeal ObamaCare in full, he would promptly be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail. And yes, I’ll bring the feathers.
MJBrutus on February 11, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Exactly. They can’t handle the truth. It’s not coincidental that many of the people who make this preposterous argument are bitter Palinistas who will use any excuse to deride him, no matter how out of touch with reality. They hold a grudge against him because one Nicole Wallace, who worked for McCain, said mean things about Sarah and in their Tin Foil Hat world, that was Romney’s fault.

I am one of those who will not vote for Romney for any office and not feeling guilty because we have no clue how he would govern as he has flip flopped so much. His speech yesterday at CPAC was a lie because ten years ago he ran for MA Governor as a liberal so he has not lived the life of a conservative unless it was for votes.
PhiKapMom on February 11, 2012 at 10:43 AM

I’m going to Breitbart you (and anyone of your ilk) from now until Election Day:

“You want a unity speech; I’ll give you a unity speech. I don’t care who the candidate is and I haven’t since the beginning of this. I haven’t. Ask not what a candidate can do for you, ask what you can do for the candidate. And that’s what the Tea Party is. We are there to confront them on behalf of our candidate. I will march behind whoever our candidate is because if we don’t we lose. There are two paths: One is America, and the other one is Occupy. One is America, the other one is Occupy. I don’t care…
…Anyone who’s willing to stand next to me and fight the Progressive Left, I will be in that bunker, and if you’re not in that bunker because you’re not satisfied with this candidate, more than shame on you, you’re on the other side.”

Buy Danish on February 11, 2012 at 11:40 AM

-30-