Posted on 05/20/2014 8:59:47 PM PDT by smoothsailing
MAY 20, 2014 7:36 PM
Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell had been pulling away from primary challenger Matt Bevin for the last couple months of the Kentucky GOP Senate primary, and he triumphed easily tonight, with news organizations calling the win for him soon after polls closed. He’s leading 60 percent to 35 with 27 percent of precincts reporting.
The Senate Conservatives Fund, a Jim DeMint–linked outside group that’s backed a number of tea-party candidates, had made Bevin one of their key candidates this year, hoping to unseat the minority leader. (SCF-endorsed Ben Sasse triumphed in the Nebraska Republican Senate primary two weeks ago.) But after McConnell triumphed tonight, SCF was quick to endorse his general-election effort, releasing the following statement from executive director Matt Hoskins:
We congratulate Senator McConnell on his victory and urge Republicans in Kentucky to come together to defeat Alison Lundergan Grimes. We thank Matt Bevin for standing up for conservative principles and giving voters a choice in this race. Now it’s time for Republicans to unite for victory in November.
Bevin, a successful businessman, never saw his fundraising take off, and didn’t put as much of his personal money into the race as some had expected him to.
McConnell will face Alison Lundergan Grimes, Kentucky’s secretary of state. The most recent polling has them more or less tied, both below 50 percent, though most expect McConnell will strengthen when he can direct his attention undivided toward the general election.
If we could not muster the votes for Bevin in the primary, how can we expect to muster them for a TP candidate in the general? ~Devil’s Advocate
It would please me immensely to see Levin & Rush coordinate such a movement. I participated in Operation Chaos in 2008 in Texas, as did many, many others. We won the nomination for Hillary. Then Obama stole it from her via caucus fraud. (Witnessed that myself.) Which is to say that a coordinated movement can succeed. Maybe I need to share my Operation Chaos experience with Levin.
OC 2008 was so successful in Texas that I was elected as a Clinton delegate for the district. Never voted D before in my life.
You totally missed my POV, but, whatever. Good luck.
“But after McConnell triumphed tonight, SCF was quick to endorse his general-election effort,”
McConnell needs SCF endorsement like he needs a hole in the head.
DeMint and SCF got embarassed and are now trying to cover up.
“McConnell is no more a conservative than Harry Reid is.”
Okay.
“The Senate Conservatives Fund is showing some “class” here.”
No they are not. They got embarassed and are in “cover your rear mode”.
“I honestly hope McConnell loses.”
Okay. But pardon me if I disagree and believe that McConnell will win.
I see it as a unity move by SCF. It’s also consistent with the Buckley rule.
Buckley’s rule only applied when there were two parties in opposition. Provably that is no longer the case. All the GOP support for amnesty, screwing vets, investigations that go nowhere and a thousand other daily examples posted on FR show that to be unarguably the case.
How do you vote for the more conservative of two when both are fully on board with opposing conservatism? I want someone still clinging to the GOP to explain why their guys are closeted democrats acting in Obama, not America’s interest. Then explain why we should assist them by empowering them with our vote.
Your premise is incorrect. Buckley's rule was never about two opposing parties.
It was first articulated by Bill Buckley to inform employees of National Review who the magazine would officially endorse and support in the 1964 Republican primary race between Nelson Rockefeller and Barry Goldwater.
Buckley announced that “National Review will support the rightwardmost viable candidate.” Everyone knew he meant Goldwater, and the Buckley Rule was born.
Born to guide conservatives in Republican primaries.
Those honest conservatives who voted in the Republican primary in Kentucky voted for Matt Bevin, it's as simple as that.
Well if the Buckley rule is about the most conservative candidate and not about two parties, that means one is not bound to the Republican if the Republican is not most conservative out of the available candidates, does it not?
Does that nor reinforce the idea that one not continue to elect the problems brought with RINO Republicans? Because if people vote for the most conservative under that premise, the RINO loses and the most conservative will in fact, win.
Mitch openly attacked conservatives and the ideals of conservatism. If Buckley or Reagan (not that they did) said that we should elect them anyway, they would be wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.