So looking at the long term, and thinking strategically, removing a 'leader' that is liberal is moving America in the right direction.
Keeping around a liberal republican who will vote to grow the government and reduce freedoms won't ever get you where you want to go.
History proves it. Voting for the 'lesser evil' doesn't make for more conservative governance. It makes for more liberal governance.
/johnny
I have the same problem every six years when McCain comes up. I can’t vote for the stupid token Democrat, but there is no way I can vote for McCain. I just leave it blank.
Voting out a liberal leader might make sense, but we already had our chance to vote in a conservative and lost. In other words, our current choice is between a liberal Republican leader and a statist Democrat. I agree that’s a real dilemma for someone who wants to push the country to the right, but I also don’t think Mitch is as liberal as you imply.
In what way will a Democrat in that seat give us a better chance than we already had (in the primary) of turning the country conservative? It’s a six year job. That’s a very long time for the Democrat to do damage, and we know that’s guaranteed. A Republican moderate (or liberal) will at least work with us some of the time.
BTW, we still have an opportunity to take down Thad Cochran, and that in itself would be a good reminder to the moderate wing to behave.
One other thing about this race. The media is saying it was a blow out for Mitch McConnell. That couldn’t be farther from the truth, because an incumbent Republican minority leader only got 60% of his own party’s vote? Given all the advantages of being not only an incumbent but a leader, the vote should have been more like 80%. Blevin got 35%, and that’s a very big block of Republican voters. If Mitch doesn’t convince the lion’s share of those to support him in the general election, his goose is cooked.