[pepsi_junkie]

Mitt Romney is already the one guy in the country (the only one) who absolutely cannot criticize Obamacare. That's off the table as an election issue if Mitt gets the nod. No, that's not bad enough, now he makes it clear that Obama's bailout of GM is also off the table (he was trying to save the company, same as Mitt did to all those companies). And Mitt supported TARP so that's out too.

So Mitt can't criticize TARP, bailouts, or Obamacare because he is for all of that too. So what is the difference again?

[Psalm 144]

“So Mitt can’t criticize TARP, bailouts, or Obamacare because he is for all of that too. So what is the difference again?”

Here at “Distinction Without a Difference Political Hospice”, we offer cyanide in TWO great flavors! You may drink your lethal dose in our now classic Red Velvet Mocha, or our NEW White and Delightsome! The SAME great drink in TWO different flavors!

[Qbert]

"So Mitt can't criticize TARP, bailouts, or Obamacare because he is for all of that too. So what is the difference again?"

Yep.

I would add that it's even worse than there being no difference between them on the key positions, because once one starts down the road to pandering, the Dems will always win. Whatever a weak Republican offers will always pale in comparison to the "goodies" that the Dems will perpetually promise (with other people's money, of course).

You draw key distinctions, and you go on the offensive- or else, you lose.

[Cato in PA]

His name is different and he has an R in front of his name. That’s about all it takes for many party-line Republicans to pull the lever.

I know that some of the Romney sympathizers I talked with the other day are reading this thread. I hope this causes you all to reconsider your positions.