Not a fan of Romney by any means, I think Obama would be (somewhat) less disastrous. Still, the arguments advanced against Romney here are based on fallacies and ignorance of economics. Perhaps it doesn't disqualify them as a useful propaganda piece, but it does disqualify them from being taken seriousl. They attack one of the very few positive qualities of Romney - his successfull business career. At the end of the day though, Obama and Romeny are both equally militaristic, imperialistic, civil liberties destroying, big business bailing, welfare-warfare state advancing centrists. All differences between them are illusory and insignificant - just like those between G.W. Bush and Obama. Even such eminent liberals as Glenn Greenwald are openly writing about it:
"Meanwhile, Obama has turned out to represent continuity with the Bush administration on a range of key issues, from torture to rendition to economic deregulation. Obama is doing things with extralegal drone strikes that would have liberals marching in the streets if they’d been done by Bush. . . .
In other words, Obama versus McCain actually felt like a clash of ideological opposites. But Obama and Romney feels like a contest between two calculating centrists, fighting for the right to serve as figurehead atop a bloated state apparatus that will operate according to the same demented imperial logic irrespective of who wins the White House."http://www.salon.com/2012/05/11/various_matters_17/singleton/