Top 10 Reasons Why An Empty Chair is Better than President Obama

I stole this picture from Heidi Harris's Facebook Page.  Hope she doesn't mind.

OK, not a bad start, but there are so many more reasons.  For example:

Wouldn't attempt to divide the country by race, gender, class. 

Wouldn't sue states for attempting to enforce laws he refuses to enforce. 

Wouldn't try to raise taxes during a "fragile economy"--something he himself said two years ago was a terrible idea. 

Wouldn't try to win re-election by totally ignoring his own failed record and try to make his opponent--a good, decent, hugely successful man--look like an evil, tax-cheating, felon and murderer. 

The list is endless.  The chair wouldn't be a bad choice, but Mitt Romney is a terrific choice.

The Choice

President Obama is a failed President.  

Full length books could be written--and actually have been written--about this   But all you have to do is look at the economy and look at three key statistics.  The unemployment rate, GDP, and the debt.

It's true.  Obama inherited a bad situation....and made it worse.

Mitt Romney has succeeded at everything he has ever done.  Everything.

He has never failed in a single professional endeavor.

Never.

He was a incredibly successful businessman.  He was a virtual miracle worker turning around the SLC Olympics.  He was a very successful governor of Massachusetts, even though he faced a state legislature that was overwhelming run by liberal Democrats.

No one ever regretted hiring Mitt Romney to do a job.

It's not rocket science, folks.  This is the easiest choice for President of your lifetime.

Everyone Seems to be Missing the Point on the "Romney Murdered My Wife" Ad

Yes, I know it's old news.  But I have yet to see anyone make the point I'm about to make.

We all know about the horrific and morally repugnant Obama Super-Pac ad that blames Mitt Romney for the death of a man's wife due to cancer.

Of course, it turned out that nearly everything about the ad was false.  Mrs. Joe Soptic had insurance for years through her own employer after her husband lost his job. Furthermore, Romney was no longer at Bain when the plant was closed and Soptic was laid off.  Mrs. Soptic lost her insurance when she lost her own job years years after that plant was closed.

All that has been well documented.  And, of course, it does indeed make the ad and the people behind it reprehensible, to say the absolute least.

But I still think that kind of misses the point.  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Mitt Romney was still at Bain when the plant was closed.  Let's assume that Mitt Romney personally made that decision.  Let's even take it a step further  and say that Mitt Romney personally told Joe Soptic he was out of a job and that as a result he was going to lose his and his wife's health insurance.

Then let's further assume that Mrs. Soptic discovered she had cancer the day after their insurance ran out (instead of, like 5 years later).  

If all of that were true, how in the world would it make sense to blame Mitt Romney for Mrs. Soptic's death?  I mean, seriously.  Do people really not understand how capitalism works?

This is pathetic.  Bain made a business decision to close a plant.  It happens.  People lose their jobs when that happens.  It stinks, but that's the way the world works.  When people lose their jobs, they lose their insurance, that too is not pleasant but, again, it is the way the world works, at least for now.

Apparently, the argument from the left is that, once you have a job, once you have insurance from that job, you can never lose either.  If you get fired or laid off, and as a result you lose your insurance, it is the big bad boss's fault for any ill that happens to you subsequently.

Come on, are people really childish enough to believe that?  So basically, once a company employs you, it has no choice but to stay in business forever in order to make sure you keep your health insurance so you won't be uninsured if you get sick?  Really? And a business owner is morally obligated to keep his business open even if he or she is losing money hand over fist? Forever?  Just so his employees can keep their health insurance?

Really?

Are liberals really silly and foolish enough to believe that?

I fear they are.

Sad.

Required Reading: Mitt Romney's Column at WSJ

A must read column by the next President of the United States.  "What I Learned at Bain Capital."  See here.

Everything is really a key paragraph, but here's two I picked out:

I'm not sure Bain Capital could have grown or turned around some of the companies we invested in had we faced today's anti-business environment. Andy Puzder, the chief executive of CKE Restaurants Inc., which employs about 21,000 people at Carl's Jr. and Hardee's restaurants, has said that the "current unfriendly economic environment perhaps best explains why American companies are sitting on over $2 trillion which they could invest."

President Obama has piled on excessive regulations, proposed massive tax increases, added more than $5 trillion in federal debt, and failed to address the coming fiscal cliff—all of which is miring our nation in sluggish growth and high unemployment.

Governor Romney needs to really sell how important his business background will be to helping us get away from the four year disaster of Barack Obama, especially in the context of all the stupid attacks from Democrats who have no idea how capitalism works.  I know he's tried before, but now is the time to re-emphasize this.

Simply put, no one ever regretted hiring Mitt Romney.  In addition to all his success at Bain, and a very successful term as governor of Massachusetts (in the face of an overwhelmingly Democratic controlled legislature), his turnaround of the 2002 Olympics borders on the miraculous.