[Windflier]

Ping to post 38.

We have been operating under the rule of "Lesser of Two Evils" for decades. I have agreed with it. I now stop to ask folks, has our nation grown stronger over those decades? At some point we have to be honest with ourselves. For me, the answer is a clear, "No."

[trisham]

Thanks for the ping, Windflier.

Excellent post, Doughty One.

[onyx]

Thanks very much for the ping to D-1’s excellent post.

This ugly primary isn’t yet over. Romney hasn’t yet successfully bought the nomination he’s insatiably lusting for, but he’s close and he’s managed to get some nationally known TEA Party elected officer holders to support him in a call for “Party unity.”

This is not the time for “Party unity,” -— it is the time for TEA Party conservatives to rebel! Vote for Newt Gingrich is all the remaining primaries, keep praying and then, take the convention by storm!

I remain praying for Divine Intervention and short of that, praying for strength and resolve that somehow, someway, TEA Party Patriots a whole lot smarter than me, will come forth with a plan to stop Romney!

God help us save our Republic.

[RedMDer]

Click!

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_090711/content/01125111.guest.html
With Freedom Under Assault, We're Told We Must Moderate?
Moderation is not a substantive belief. This is my problem with moderates. There isn't a core there! Moderation is a tactic. It's not a set of principles. It is a tactic that says, "Regardless of the situation, regardless of events, my first impulse is to find a different way around." I know moderation, per se, is illogical because there are clearly times when it is self-destructive or counterproductive. For instance, moderation after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor would have been irrational. Moderation against slavery would have been immoral. How do you debate the issue of moderation if it has no core? You wind up debating tactics, but tactics without principle are pointless -- and this has always been my problem with moderates. ...

Particularly in the face of the most radical and destructive administration in modern American history, where the president has said he wants to fundamentally transform the nation, what does moderation look like? Where am I supposed to moderate? What am I supposed to moderate? Are all these Republican candidates tonight at the debate be asking themselves, "Who's willing to go further in compromising with the Democrats?" To show what? To accomplish what? Isn't the purpose of this debate tonight for one of these people to stand head and shoulders above everybody else in demonstrating he or she is the one who can beat Obama?
Republican moderates are guaranteed losers in eight out of ten elections you're gonna have. Now, I think that people who write pieces about "moderation" need to do a little bit more than just sit back and be critical. We need to know what it is these moderates think is worth fighting for. Is it just winning elections with whoever can win so that the result may not even be productive? These moderates need to tell us what are the principles that they believe that an individual or a nation should stand firm on, because, so far, moderates don't do that. That's why they are moderates! They don't want to be tied down. They want to be able to preach moderation because it gets them praise.