[TypeZoNegative]

Elections have always been a battle of the lesser of two evils. Even Reagan himself wasn’t an angel. Remember amnesty? It’s either we vote for a person that agrees with us 70% of the time rather than sit home and let somebody who agrees with you 5% of the time win. We let somebody who agreed with us maybe 30% of the time win the primaries because we wanted to go puritan. We went puritan again. Now, we have somebody who agrees with us 1% of the time.

Lesser of two evils is still evil, but it’s still the lesser evil.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

You can't tell me that, when there was a record turnout from both sides this election, our side stayed home.

The facts are, it was the moderates (like yourself) that gave this election to Obama. (Exit polling clearly showed it was moderate “republican” cross-overs that voted for Obama.)

So take your petty little blame game and stick it in the appropriate place. Conservative patriots were there through thick and thin as usual. We voted for Palin, not McNasty or the other tird-party traitors. (The percentages of votes clearly proves that.)

[TomGuy]

Lesser of two evils is still evil, but it’s still the lesser evil.

Lesser evil, until one gets reelected and then thinks that is a mandate to try to push through allot of crap that most of the people do not want. Then said lesser evil elevates to evil.

[mike.musculus]

Reagan, the "lesser of two evils"?

What an absolutely silly statement! Only if you're looking for "perfect". In this last election, I'd have been happy with "same ballpark" as the Conservative base. Indeed, almost all the other guys were better than McYellowStripe. The problem has been the open primaries combined with a "big tent" philosophy that allows our enemies in, not as Friends converted to Conservatism, but as Enemies bent on supplanting us in our own house.