We have tons and tons of posts here all saying that there's no difference between Obama and Romney. I can't believe that anyone actually believes that, or believes that there's no difference between GW and Obama.
Yeah, GW ran deficits. His worst budget deficit was $400 billion, and deficits in other years were in small by comparison. Obama, OTOH, has consistently run up $1+ trillion deficits, and will for the rest of his term. Where is it written that Romney would have run up the same sort of deficits?
Does anyone here think that any president--Democrat or Republican--other than Obama would have allowed our people in Benghazi to be killed as they were? Does anyone think that Romney would have extorted the bond holders of GM and Chrysler as Obama did?
Y'know, it's funny. Liberals will get behind a candidate who doesn't support some or even all of their views, and will support him enthusiastically. Conservatives and libertarians too often take an all-or-nothing approach, and candidates get beaten half to death just in the primaries. Maybe that's why we don't get candidates that are more to our liking. Who wants to go through that?
For all of his shortcomings, Mitt Romney is an honest man with an unimpeachable character, and a history of success and of selfless generosity. Barack Obama is a gangster and con artist, a serial liar, and so self-absorbed and selfish that he let people die at the hands of our enemies rather than damage his chances for re-election. He makes Nixon look like a choir boy.
Yeah, there's no difference.