“...your boy Rand Paul is not a good presidential candidate (but I do hope that he runs so that he has to give up his Senate seat, which also is up in 2016)....With the candidates currently running for the GOP nomination, I have to hold my nose and support Mitch McConnell...”
*****************************************************************
Two things—First you’ve NEVER seen me posting a comment supporting Rand Paul for President because that’s something I would not do. And second, thanks for clarifying that the reason you’re taking shots at Bevin is because you (holding nose or not) support the GOPe candidate in yet another race.
So you’re still claiming that T.W. Shannon is a “GOPe candidate” in the OK Senate race? LMAO!
I didn’t say that you support Rand Paul for President (you made clear that you support Ted Cruz, not that he’s expressed much interest yet), I said that Rand Paul is “your boy” and that you think he’d be a “good presidential candidate.” I attributed such positions to you because your support for Paultards such as Bevin and Brannon for the U.S. Senate (in their first run for public office) usually goes hand-in-hand with admiration for all things Paulistinian. If you agree with me that Rand Paul would make a terrible presidential candidate (and a worse president), then I apologize for my incorrect assumption.
I support Chris McDaniel over Senator Thad Cochrane for the U.S. Senate seat from MS. I’m still not sure which conservative to support in the SC Senate race, but even if my eventual pick doesn’t make the run-off I will support the non-Lindsey Republican over Lindsey Graham. I support Katrina Pierson over Pete Sessions in TX-32. I’m leaning towards supporting Mike Kicinski against RINO Richard Hanna in NY-22 (although I need to do some more research). Do you know what those primaries have in common? They pit good conservative candidates against far more liberal, establishment-minded incumbents. But I’m not going to support some Paultard with no record based on their unsubstantiated claim that he’s “a real conservative” against (admittedly imperfect) candidates with a longstanding, mostly conservative records.
You seem to ask “which one is supported by “establishment” figures and which one is supported by people who claim to be “anti-establishment,”” and then pick the candidate that the self-anointed “anti-establishment” folks (who often are disguised Paulbots) like, irrespective of how crappy he is or whether we know anything about him. You should try actual thinking for yourself sometime.