1.
Pat Roberts was 78 years old and will be 84 or 85 when his term expires. Pat Roberts is too old and too detached to lead a charge to clean up Washington. The Republic is not in the condition today to continue business as usual. We cannot afford placeholders, even conservative placeholders.
2. Pat Roberts is not set foot in Kansas except to campaign since Dorothy went skipping down the yellow brick road
Those of us who supported Liz Cheney against a moderately conservative candidate in Wyoming did so for the same reasons I expressed in the preceding paragraph, we are at war and we need people who will wage war.
3. Milton Wolf was an able candidate, with impeccable conservative credentials
Wolf certainly was an able candidate, he was credible on television etc. He was possessed of "impeccable" conservative credentials in the proper sense of the word in that there was no flaw against him as a conservative.
4. The setback in Kansas is not isolated but part of a pattern across the country in which we see establishment Republicans prevailing over Tea Party reformers.
It is the pattern which is concerning. Each race can be rationalized as a local matter but cumulatively the pattern is very concerning. Are we to suppose that all the candidates against Lindsey Graham, Lamar Alexander, Mitch McConnell, and Thad Cochran were somehow deficient? Even in Mississippi we could not prevail to victory over the establishment even though we won the vote among the conservative electorate. We've seen some very good candidates lose and we've seen some good candidates lose with one slip of the tongue. Against these imagined deficiencies of all of these candidates we must weigh the state of the union and ask ourselves, if we cannot win under these circumstances when can we win?
5. The loss was not close, seven or eight points.
Milton Wolf did not "suck," we simply disagree. If in this context you had pointed out that the Republican establishment Senate campaign committee had funded Roberts, had Senate Republicans put foot soldiers on the ground which made a difference, had they run a ground game and Robert's behalf, all as reported today in Politico, we would be in agreement on shared facts. But those facts only go to show how daunting it is for reformers to prevail over incumbents backed by the establishment. All of this, by the way, is alluded to in my original vanity.
Seven points is not close by anybody's count.
You didn't address a single point I made, but simply repeated your own points. So I'll repeat it until you address them:
>> Pat Roberts is too old and too detached to lead a charge to clean up Washington. <<
AGAIN, Strom Thurmond was in his 90s and while he wasn't really completely out to lunch until shortly before his death, it was clear he wasn't the man he used to be and had to rely on staffers to do most of his work and didn't do much in the Senate but chair the occassional committee meeting and vote on legislation. Nobody called him and a RINO or Democrat lite and demanding his head on a platter because we didn't eat our own back then. We instead focused exclusively on removing liberal Republicans. You are hellbent on removing people who agree with you while numerous incumbent liberal Republicans are allowed to coast to re-nomination. Your priorities are simply wrong and misguided.
>> Those of us who supported Liz Cheney against a moderately conservative candidate in Wyoming did so for the same reasons I expressed in the preceding paragraph <<
So again, your message is "unforgivable sin when Pat Roberts lives in Virginia and runs in another state, but AWESOME and totally welcomed when Liz Cheney does it"
Double standards simply aren't helping your cause. The Tea Party preaching "Do as I say, NOT as we do" isn't resonating with voters. You wanted to know why your candidates fail, here is an example why. You ignore it at your own peril. Either it's bad to run for office in a state where you haven't lived in decades, or its not. You can't change the rules in the middle of an election cycle because you dislike one candidate and hold him to a different standard.
Furthermore, Mike Enzi isn't a "moderate" and Pat Roberts isn't a "RINO". Continually saying they are doesn't make it true, and voters can look up the facts and see that you're simply lying about their records. Kansas GOP primary voters didn't support Wolf precisely because they WERE informed about how reliable Roberts has been on the issues we care about. Both men are far more conservative than the average Senator. Cindy Sheehan can claim Nancy Pelosi is a neo-con warmonger and in bed with Bush (which she did when she ran against her), that didn't make it true either, and voters didn't buy her BS, either.
>> Wolf certainly was an able candidate, he was credible on television etc. He was possessed of "impeccable" conservative credentials in the proper sense of the word in that there was no flaw against him as a conservative. <<
By those standards, Barack Obama had "impeccable" credentials as a reformer who will heal the partisan divide, because he said so on television and it sounded good in speeches. It didn't matter what his ACTUAL track record was (being a Chicago machine Democrat hack who did nothing while Illinois was rampantly overrun with corruption)
>> It is the pattern which is concerning. Each race can be rationalized as a local matter but cumulatively the pattern is very concerning. Are we to suppose that all the candidates against Lindsey Graham, Lamar Alexander, Mitch McConnell, and Thad Cochran were somehow deficient? <<
The candidates against Graham and McConnell certainly were. I would say Chris McDaniels wasn't (he WAS a credible PROVEN conservative with a track record) and that is WHY Daniels had a stunning upset and BEAT Cochran in the initial primary. He'd be Senator now if Mississippi didn't have a runoff that allowed open primary voting (allowing massive numbers of Dems to vote for Cochran) and you guys weren't diverting people's attention trying to annihilate other candidates who agree with you, instead of focusing like a laser beam on RINOs like Cochran and Lamar. There's only so much time and money to go around and we have to pick our battles carefully and stragetically. YOU don't. That's the problem you fail to see. We don't have unlimited resources to purge EVERY incumbent because you believe you all incumbents are evil.
>> if we cannot win under these circumstances when can we win? <<
I suggest you ask Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Ben Sasse this question. They were Tea Party Senate candidates who WON and yet you still don't GET it.
>> Milton Wolf did not "suck" <<
If you honestly believe a creep who posts X-Rays of murder victms on facebook to laugh at them and has only "Barack Obama's conservative cousin" as his "qualifications" for the Senate is a "good" candidate, there's no hope for you and you'll still be wondering decades from now why you can't get these pathetic excuse for candidates elected to the highest legislative office in the country.
And, sorry, this is very different from what the founders envisioned. If you guys had been in charge back then, you would have shunned "career politician" Thomas Jefferson for President (he's been Congressman, Governor, Minister to France, Secretary of State and served in Washington too long... he's been there two decades... time for him to go) in favor of the local candlestick maker in Richmond who has NEVER been involved in politics but PROMISES he will be more of a "fighter" than ol' Tom.
"Those of us who supported Liz Cheney against a moderately conservative candidate in Wyoming did so for the same reasons I expressed in the preceding paragraph, we are at war and we need people who will wage war."
Wage war against whom ? Liz is a beltway scion whose attempt at trying to run in a state she had little to do with was nothing short of embarrassing. Fortunately, she had the common sense to withdraw when the public made their distaste for her carpetbagging loud and clear.
"Wolf certainly was an able candidate, he was credible on television etc. He was possessed of "impeccable" conservative credentials in the proper sense of the word in that there was no flaw against him as a conservative."
So Wolf was credible... on television ? He can use that to try out for a part on "General Hospital." Let us be reminded once more, he had no credentials at all. No record, no nothing. He was a guy who was bored and decided one day to run for the Senate. If his cousin could do it a decade ago in Illinois, why not him ? It's that simple. Anyone claiming he had "right" credentials of any actual nature is akin to someone peeing on ones' head and being assured it's a nice spring rain.