I just never really find myself in disagreement with The Hammer. Except, well, this time.
Charles Krauthammer said yesterday that Sarah Palin's endorsement of Christine O'Donnell versus Mike Castle in Delaware, is "destructive and capricious", because in his assessment she has no chance of beating the Democrat in November but Castle would be a "shoo-in."
While I do see the value of having the raw numbers of "R's" in the Senate and all the inherent reconstructive power of a conservative majority, the time for half-measures is long gone. Chris Christie didn't seem particularly electable, and neither did Scott Brown. I don't want any shoo-ins, unless they've proven dependable in flawlessly adhering to the Constitution, and Castle can't remotely make that claim.
Out with establishment RINO's. I'd rather lose with the good guys than win with the losers.
And a vote for Castle is a vote to just lose a little, instead of maybe winning a lot.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin reminds us that "9 terms (of phony republicanism) are enough."
UPDATE 2: Check out Mark Levin and Jim DeMint ("I've been here when we had the numbers, and we didn't have the principles") at the National Review. Reference the Mark Levin podcast pane.