[frog in a pot]

In many cases, that is a distinction without moral difference.

Generally, not if one remains objective, truly has a desire to make the best decision and focuses on the word, "lesser".

In the case at hand, given the current politics the moral differences are quite obvious.

[SoConPubbie]

Generally, not if one remains objective, truly has a desire to make the best decision and focuses on the word, "lesser".

In the case at hand, given the current politics the moral differences are quite obvious.

Let me give you the most glaring example that proves you wrong:

Mitt Romney

1. Supports Abortion
2. Supports the Gay Agenda, including Gays in the Boy Scouts and Military, Gay Adoption, and single-handedly implemented Gay Marriage in MA.
3. Supports Amnesty
4. Supports Socialized Medicine
5. Supported Global Warming scam.

You are exhibiting the problem with reacting out of fear and Political Party tribal politics.

You lose your objectivity.

[Yogafist]

You are looking at the word, “Lesser,” from the stand point of doing less legislative damage. I would agree. With a Replican Senate we will get nothing for two years, which technically is better. But do the Republicans do less damage to the conservative cause when they stand on the floor of the Senate and call their base Hobbits? Do they do less damage when they ridicule their base for expecting them to repeal Obamacare? Do they do less damage when they go in front of a crowd, and lampoon conservatives in the house? If I had more time I could come up with many more examples of Republicans destroying the conservative brand. Just how are we supposed to convince voters that conservatives have a better plan to run the country when our own leadership ridicules us?