“...I have no problem with someone with a conservative whose background and record makes him likely to win a general election taking out McConnell in the primary, but running some Paultard off the street who claimed to be an MIT grad because he once listened to a lecture from some guy who rented out an MIT conference room is not a good plan....”
Well, the views of the GOPe “concerned” raise their heads.
And the Paulistinians come running in with bated breath.
Are you really incapable of distinguishing between a good candidate who claims to be conservative and a bad candidate who claims to be conservative? Here’s a primer:
Ted Cruz: intelligent, accomplished, his deeds match his words, not a Paultard: good candidate.
Debra Medina: Paultard, not very accomplished in anything pertinent, has no record on which to judge whether her deeds match her views, fellow traveler of “9-11 Truthers”: not a good candidate.
Jim Bridenstine: intelligent, accomplished, his deeds (at least in his year in the House) match his words, not a Paultard: good candidate (although may need a bit more seasoning before running for the Senate).
T.W. Shannon: intelligent, accomplished, his deeds match his words, not a Paultard: good candidate.
Matt Bevin: Paultard, not particularly accomplished (although I’m sure he’s at least competent in the business world if they let him run the family business), has no record on which to judge whether his deeds match his views, lied on his LinkedIn page so as to pretend to be an MIT graduate: not a good candidate.
Thom Tillis: intelligent, accomplished, his deeds match his words, not a Paultard: good candidate.
Greg Brannon: Paultard, not very accomplished in anything pertinent (although I don’t doubt that he’s a fine doctor), has no record on which to judge whether his deeds match his views (his only political act prior to last year was donating to Paultard congressional candidate B.J. Lawson): not a good candidate.
Christine O’Donnell: not at all accomplished, serial fibber and deadbeat, has no record on which to judge whether her deeds match her views: not a good candidate (although she *is* cute, got to give her that).
Now, sometimes someone who appears to be a good candidate makes a mistake and loses what should have been am easy election, such as what happened to Mourdock and Akin in 2012 (although in Akin’s case his absurd reaction to his mistake—digging in and staying in the race while holding on to the fig leaf of a PPP poll doctored to show him as competitive when every other poll confirmed that he would lose in a landslide—means that he always was a crappy candidate who merely had gotten lucky in the past). And sometimes cases are closer, such as Sharron Angle, Joe Miller and Ken Buck, who had some experience in politics and public service, but had some red flags, and then proved to be Akin-like in their tone-deafness. But the cases I mentioned above are fairly clear-cut in my estimation.
If someone is to challenge McConnell from the right (a challenge that I welcome), why did it have to be such a flawed candidate as Bevin? I understand that the most obvious choices—the members of the state’s congressional delegation—were not a particularly good group from which to choose, since three of them (Whitfield, Rogers and Guthrie) are as pro-establishment as McConnell and the other two have very little experience in Congress (and one, Massie, is a Paultard). But there must be some state legislators or mayors, or some prominent military veterans or businessmen with impeccable credentials, who could run against McConnell, beat him in the primary, and beat Grimey (as she prefers to be called) decisively in November. None of them ran. (A few nobodies also filed, but a couple of them already dropped out.)
In 2010, Congressman Mike Castle was the only viable Republican running for the Senate in Delaware. Now, Castle was an execrable RINO, and was not much better than a Democrat on many issues. But nobody with a decent shot of winning ran against him. Pete DuPont would have made one kick-ass Senator, even in his advanced age, but he didn’t run; neither did other conservatives who had the sort of background that could allow them to win in tough terrain such as liberal Delaware, at least in a year such as 2010 against a second-tier Democrat such as Chris Coons. But they didn’t run. Christine O’Donnell ran, but she was such a terrible candidate that I was forced to say that I’d rather have the RINO Castle beat her in the primary—that’s how bad she was. And when she beat Castle, it handed the seat to the Democrats, not just for the four years remaining in Biden’s term, but for *decades*, since Delaware isn’t the type of state that votes out incumbent Democrat Senators (heck, Joe Biden was reelected six times), as proven by the fact that Coons is up in 2014 and no Republican has yet stepped up to challenge him.
Now, Bevin isn’t nearly as bad a candidate as O’Donnell, but McConnell is nowhere near as bad as Castle (if you don’t see that, then you haven’t looked at their respective voting records), and Bevin being a Paultard really makes it an easy choice for me. THE ONE THING WE KNOW ABOUT BEVIN IS THAT HE DRINKS THE L. RON PAUL KOOLAID. He has stated publicly that he *agrees with Ron Paul’s foreign policy*, which, as we all know, is giving up all our bases to our enemies, letting Islamofascists get the nuclear bomb, and sacrificing Israel to the Islamist hordes (plus open borders with Mexico). so maybe Bevin would vote for someone like Ted Cruz for majority leader? Well, God bless him for that, but I’d rather have Ted Cruz wait a couple of more years before becoming leader if it means that we have a conservative (albeit establishment) Republican in the Senate from KY instead of a 75% chance of a liberal Democrat and a 25% chance of a Paultard.
That’s my two cents.