He’s the “establishment” candidate in this race. My point is that his victory doesn’t bless the “establishment” position on amnesty because Cochran voted against it, or for looser abortion laws because except for ESC research he’s been a pretty good pro-life vote. But he is old and plays the game and isn’t that good on spending.
It would be great to replace him. But I can name 20 republican senators that are more problematic for conservatives than Cochran is, when looking at his voting record.
Heck, Kelly Ayotte, who was at one point a tea party darling, has been worse for conservative causes than Cochran (and for example is rated a “populist” rather than “hard-core” from the OnTheIssues site).
Being MS, we should be able to do better, but I’d be happy to have someone like Cochrane voting for me in my state rather than the two democrats I’m stuck with. And I bet the people suffering with Graham in South Carolina would also be pleased with a record like Cochrane’s.
I don’t want to sound like I wish he would win — I would like him to lose, and think McDaniel could win the general election. But I won’t see a win by Cochrane as a refutation of tea party principles, because Cochrane is not all that horrible in that measurement compared to some others.
That would work.
/johnny
You never answered my question about what kind of Republican
reaches out for RAT crossover votes in a primary election?
Boy, is YOU in trouble around here for saying that, but not from me. *grin*
GO CHRIS MCDANIEL!