Mitch McConnell's Case for Controlling Republican Nominees is Either Clueless or Disingenuous

Thefederalist ^ | Mollie Hemingway

[cotton1706]

On the one hand, that’s absolutely true. Having “better” or “more conservative” nominees doesn’t mean much if they all lose in the general election. But has the McConnell-led establishment really done such a good job of weighing in on Republican primaries? They always like to bring up Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Todd Akin, and Richard Mourdock, who defeated more establishment opponents in early contests. But they leave out a lot of other information.

For one thing, McConnell-preferred party contest winners such as Connie Mack in Florida, Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, and Rick Berg in North Dakota are also not in the Senate. It’s disingenuous to pretend that only Tea Party enthusiasts lost races in 2010 or 2012.

[cotton1706]

McConnell never cared if his nominees won. His goal was to prevent conservative nominees, because-GASP-what if they won??

[Fhios]

It’s just one of his supposed tools he can use in enforcing party line and loyalty among the elected. Good old fashioned leverage and blackmail.

The RNC chairman should have a committee assigned to fairly assess candidates so that we don’t get Democrat plants and nut jobs, like the shoe-in candidates that start saying stupid things near election day and are made the face of the party by the opposition.

[Impy]

There have been a lot of crappy nominees from both the “RINO Establishment” and “Tea Party Conservative” camps. Political skill is a factor that is independent of ideology.

None of those candidates so named lost because they were “too establishment” or “too conservative”.