Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: FReepers; All
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.

147 posted on 04/20/2012 4:46:46 PM PDT by RedMDer (https://support.woundedwarriorproject.org/default.aspx?tsid=93)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]


To: RedMDer

Rush Limbaugh could have cut the head off the snake and destroyed the Romney candidacy at any point in this race.

Unfortunately, he gave both sides just enough from day to day to feel like Rush was “on their side”. He played both sides for ratings.

Mark Levin and Mike Reagan were among the very few who had the balls and integrity to make a clear stand against Romney.

Despite saying that ‘if Romney were to get the nomination he would then support” the sleaze - at least Levin had the integrity to tear the imposter apart on his show for the past several months.

I like Rush; however, he passed up an important opportunity at our expense at this historical moment detrimental to our survival.


150 posted on 04/20/2012 5:03:56 PM PDT by publius321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson