Replies

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.

Boy, talk about a “conservative” eating a conservative. Your post looks like it could have come directly from the McConnell campaign playbook.

MIT issue — put down the McConnell Super Purple Kool-Aid for a second and step away from the cheap, political soundbite. I invite you to read:

http://mudslingingmitch.com/?page_id=20

Anyone who actually LOOKS INTO the McConnell claim will see it’s bogus. Most serious people have moved well past this garbage.

It’s disappointing that you resort to name calling (”Paultard” - is this 4th grade??).

Foreign Policy - again, if you look past your McConnell playbook script and actually go read what Bevin says about his foreign policy stance, you’ll be embarrassed. From his own page:

“America has the strongest military in the world and we must keep it that way. But we cannot be reckless in how and where we use that strength. As a veteran, Matt personally appreciates how important this is. Before voting to send our soldiers to war, Matt will be guided by two key questions: Is it in our national interest and is it in keeping with our constitutional principles? Matt will oppose all engagements that do not meet these two fundamental criteria. Anything less is unfair to the soldiers who put their lives on the line and unfair to the taxpayers that pay the bills.

“Matt will also fight to reform our broken foreign aid system that sends billions of taxpayer dollars to entities or countries that support terrorism and don’t enhance our interests. Finally, Matt will fight against any foreign treaty, such as the New START and LOST treaties, that weaken our sovereignty and appease our enemies.”

https://mattbevin.com/issue/foreign-policy/

If that’s a different position than you’re interested in supporting (i.e., being guided by our constitution and our national interests, not lining the pockets of our foreign enemies), perhaps you’re a member of the wrong Internet forum.

You make some good points, but I’m always astonished about the “record to run on” thing. Most, and I mean most, of the people in Congress are morons, save a few.

Carolyn McCarthy of NY is just one of hundreds that had/have absolutely no record of anything. I’m sorry for the loss of her husband and son at the hands of Colin Ferguson. But just because of that incident she is somehow qualified to write and vote on laws that affect all of us. In an interview with Tucker Carlson she couldn’t answer any questions on the bill that she was introducing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U32GOlL5Ro4

And then we can just stroll thru the roster of pretty much everyone else in Congress and it isn’t much different. I for one am tired of seeing everyone elected that is either a lawyer or some type of community activist, who have no idea on how the world works. Unfortunately, if I were to start naming the names that immediately come to mind, they are all female and all democrats.

Hell, look at Clinton. What has she done. She should have been disbarred. She could have broken the law during her time working on the Watergate stuff. She rode her husbands coattails while he banged anything that breathed. As a Senator she did absolutely nothing. As SecState she did even less. So, where are her bonafides, as compared to anyone else.

What I’d like to see is getting rid of the 17th Amendment and then the states putting into law, some type of mechanism to toss/recall these fools if they aren’t towing the line the way they campaigned. If the country leans right and the there are more and more state houses that lean right, then the Senate leans right.