Replies

(Courtesy ping to those mentioned.)

What does your above statement mean? Most readers would infer it to mean that you don't believe Bevin has as good a chance to retain the Kentucky Senate seat as McConnell. If that is not what your statement meant, please clarify.

No, most readers would not infer that because I didn't mention McConnell or Bevin in that statement. I provided the necessary clarification with the sentence you quoted:

We can't afford to lose even one good conservative in 2014. We must make educated decisions about our candidates not knee-jerk, reactionary decisions that will damage our chances to take back our party.

One third of the Senate is up for re-election in 2014 not just McConnell's seat. That statement applies generally to all conservatives up for re-election.

OK, some hyperbole on my part, but you clearly stated that you hold Mitch's rules knowledge in as high a level of esteem as the Senate Democrats who label Mitch as "Senator Gridlock.

No, I most certainly did not. I said, and I quote:

McConnell does what he can to obstruct Reid's agenda,

How you got "high esteem" or "competent" from that is beyond me. If I said "I do what I can to be a good Christian and avoid sinning," would you infer that I hold myself up as a perfect Christian who does not sin? (I sure hope not.)

The entire point of your postings is to discourage the unruly Tea Partiers from primarying Mitch McConnell!

No, it was not. The entire point of my post was to caution FReepers about labeling those with conservative voting records as enemies and voting for Democrats. I support Bevin in the primary, but if he loses, I will support McConnell in the general election over a Democrat.

You appear to suggest that Conservatives should not engage in such a coordinated action unless authorized by a FR state committee/subcommittee who has examined the incumbent's voting record.

Nope. I suggested that we take FR activism to a whole new level by coordinating our research and trying to form a consensus - whatever that consensus may be.

Vote for whomever you want, but don't come to FR & pay lipservice to conservativism

If and when JimRob or the mods tell me to GTFO, I will do so.

while accusing the Senate Conservative Fund of false statements (yet acknowledging you have no info on the particulars)

The Senate Conservatives Fund did provide misinformation about the Continuing Resolution's effect on defunding Obamacare. I do have specific information because I pointed it out to FReeper Jane Long who sent the corrected information to the SCF. What I said was that I didn't know much about that group, which is a big difference from what you inferred.

and painting those who want to see Mitch McConnell removed from the Senate as unruly rubes in a circular firing squad.

I did no such thing. Yet again, you took a general statement about the 2014 primaries as a whole and applied it solely to McConnell and Bevin. I fully support the effort to primary Mitch McConnell precisely because I have examined his voting record. He's a 90/10 party-line voter.

If conservative voters in the Commonwealth of Kentucky want to send a message to Mitch (and the GOPe) by voting for the Democrat, I will defend their right to vote that way -- even if I disagree or dislike it -- as much as I will defend YOUR right to vote FOR Mitch McConnell or whatever GOPe/faux-Conservative Senate candidate you seem to want to support.

Any voter has the absolute right to vote for whomever he wants. I don't have to support it or like it. That wasn't the point. The point was that if McConnell wins the primary against Bevin, it is assinine to vote for a Democrat in the 2014 general election when we need every single conservative seat we can get.

Again, I ain't votin' for a Godless, big-government, liberty-hating, Democrat over a Republican with a conservative voting record in any general election this side of Christ's return.