There are a lot of Congress people who will go along with leadership, but are willing to be more conservative if they had better leadership. They are subject to criticism, but for being weak minded, and enabling the McConnells and Boehners. I don't know which kind Burr is. He may be a moderate who pretends to be conservative for the folks back home, like Cornyn, Blunt, Hatch, Rubio. Or he may be someone who is going along to get along, like happened with Ron Johnson. If we can get rid of these types in a primary, fine. But they are less of a priority than those who are truly on the other side--McCain, Graham, McConnell and many others. The only liberal Republicans who I would not actively oppose are those who are from very liberal states--Kirk, Ayotte, their ilk. The ones I most oppose are those from conservative states, like Kentucky, Arkansas, Texas, Arizona and South Carolina. Being stuck with Graham, Cornyn, McConnell and McCain is just a travesty.
So, bottom line, with someone like Burr, I am all for a primary challenge, if there is a more solid conservative who might also win the general. But the problem with his type is not that he voted with McConnell. It's that McConnell is leading the Republican majority. He and his band of progressives must be voted out. Will Burr join that effort if he gets support from a newly elected Republican President? Perhaps that should be a campaign issue.
A thought,
As much as a want strong Conservatives, please remember that about 98% of votes are strictly Party Line votes.
To lose an 88% Conservative to someone who is effectively unknown statewide, is to probably hand the seat to the Dems in the 2016 General.
We will never get everything we want, but 88 Birds in Hand are better than 100 in Bush.
Live long and prosper.