This is an excerpt from Townhall.com
In reflecting on Reagan and Romney’s role in the Republican Party, I drew inspiration from both men’s words. Never being one of those activists who leaned heavily on "what would Reagan do" to cheaply win an argument full of intellectual void, I couldn’t help but feel the very same conviction to rely on some of his words and formatting to argue for organized opposition to Romney’s nomination. We can do better in this primary. It’s time my fellow movement leaders take a public stand, lest they be responsible for very foreseeable ills that will pain our Party and the fight for real reform.
A Time for Choosing…
Those who would trade our principles for the bet of the compromising nominee have told us they can ensure victory without our nominee publicly endorsing reform policies. They call their policy “winning.” And they say if we’ll only avoid any direct harm to the nominee in waiting, he’ll come to our side, be convinced that the country truly is at a crossroads, along with our Party’s brand and learn to love us. All who oppose the nominee in waiting are given no refuge, no access, labeled as ideologues. They say we offer purist rhetoric to a complex election. Well, perhaps there is a purist answer—not an easy answer—but pure one: If you, here and now, have the courage to take a stand, say “Not Mitt Romney”… that we want a nominee who will fundamentally reform the financial burden our country is crippled with and have a core, we will win.