“You’re right up to the point about Jim Bunning. I loved Jim Bunning, but he was becoming senile and risked our losing a GOP seat in 2010 when he was pushing 80 (older than Pat Roberts is now).”
My point was that the Establishment had NO PROBLEM looking around for a replacement for Bunning, but in the same year, they endorsed Arlen Specter. They supported Ted Stevens, who was about to be indicted. These two were also pushing 80, as was Richard Lugar. And Thad Cochran is clearly approaching senility.
Bunning was a trouble-maker, who objected to unanimous consents and didn’t do what McConnell said, so he had to go. But Specter, who HARDLY EVER voted with the republican leadership, why he was just fine, let’s support him one more time. They’re very selective.
The US Senate should not be choosing its own members and the NRSC should not be picking and choosing. They should let the people decide who their nominee will be, then get behind him or her.
That’s not how it works, of course. They let Buck and O’Donnell and Angle twist in the wind while lots of funds went to Murkowski and Crist and Castle.
I understand what you were saying and I mostly agree. Just that in the handful of instances where it’s time for one of ours to hang it up (as it was with Bunning), we have to be firm with them, too. Dumping the others go without saying, and age is only a small part of the equation. Being big government statists is the central problem.