[Old Retired Army Guy]

When I see messages about “Removing this RINO” when the only alternative is a Democrat vote for Harry Reid, I wonder if the messenger is really a Democrat.

[deadrock]

Mitch supported Reid more than not. Straw man rubbish.

[C. Edmund Wright]

See post 2

[boycott]

When I see messages about “Removing this RINO” when the only alternative is a Democrat vote for Harry Reid, I wonder if the messenger is really a Democrat.

---

Agreed. They had the best opportunity to remove Mitch during the primary but they fumbled. Now they want to throw the game.

They backed a clown show that spoke at a cock fighting group and said he didn’t even know it was a cockfighting group. He said some other stupid things too.

They should have picked a better conservative to back when it made more sense.

[JRandomFreeper]

When McConnell votes to support Harry Reid's agenda (which he has, with many cloture votes), I have to wonder if those supporting McConnell aren't socialists.

/johnny

[Servant of the Cross]

The general rule about supporting the better candidate in the General election requires some nuance when ousting him ensures a better Majority Leader.

[boycott]

When I see messages about “Removing this RINO” when the only alternative is a Democrat vote for Harry Reid, I wonder if the messenger is really a Democrat.

---

Also, I wonder if the loser candidate the tea party backed isn’t behind a lot of this. He’s bitter and doesn’t care what happens after that.

That said, I wouldn’t mind seeing mitch take a fall if I was assured republicans would take the senate.

[ilgipper]

Serious question. Is EVERY GOP incumbent due another term in November regardless of their performance in office? How do voters ever hold an incumbent like Cochran accountable if they can use their crony influence and money to sneak by in a primary every time.

I generally will vote for the GOP in every general election, but if we can’t risk a few broken eggs, how do we ever get an omelette we want? In 2010 and 2012 we were able to pick off one incumbent in each primary, and won a number of open nominations (as well as scaring a few people in each party into retirement rather than reelection). This cycle, we’ve picked up a couple good nominations in open seats but lost others, and so far the DC apparatus has completely blocked any incumbent upsets in primaries. If they think they can keep that up, these jerks will NOT be answerable at all between now and their next election.

Sitting out SOME general elections and causing some losses will get their attention. It can’t be all or we are a minority, but if a McConnell or Cochran were to lose, the game changes in our favor. If McConnell can outwardly declare war on conservatives, any media companies who are contracted to challengers, and he wins, what does that mean? Senators will screw the voters, upstart candidates will not get top rate campaign media help. DC wins, and voters lose.

[Political Junkie Too]

When I see messages about “Removing this RINO” when the only alternative is a Democrat vote for Harry Reid, I wonder if the messenger is really a Democrat.

I've been saying that we need to adopt a basketball strategy of "fouls to give."

We need to figure out with some confidence how many seats we are likely to win, and how many we can strategically lose and still hold the Senate. Then we target those Senators that we can do without, like McConnell.

We came close to winning the Senate in 2012, but all the Senate races collapsed after the convention. I blame McConnell's failure of leadership for the 2012 Senate losses. He failed to make retaking the Senate a national issue. He failed to get out in front of the news and make the news.

That same pattern is taking shape now. There is no uniform coordinated message being crafted by McConnell for all Republican Senate candidates to use to convince voters that a Republican Senate is the solution to our current problems. McConnell is content to fly under the radar and let each Senate candidate sink or swim on his own.

We may never retake the Senate because of McConnell, not due to a McConnell loss.

-PJ

[tennmountainman]

When I see posts defending McConnell even after he trashed the same voters
he will need to win, I think of someone who really enjoys being dumped on and rained on.

[DiogenesLamp]

When I see messages about “Removing this RINO” when the only alternative is a Democrat vote for Harry Reid, I wonder if the messenger is really a Democrat.

As near as I can tell, McConnell is a vote for Harry Reid. When has he ever stood up to him?

But that isn't the main point. The main point is that McConnell has vowed to defeat the Tea Party (The only organization in the nation which is actually proposing to shrink the government) and he has put his money where his mouth is. He has provided funding to pay for those racist attack ads which very well may have cost us the Mississippi Senate seat. This is what Mitch McConnell paid for in Mississippi.

As far as i'm concerned, Grimes (The Democrat) is an Enemy, but McConnell is a traitor. I would far rather have an Enemy in front of me than a traitor behind my back.

McConnell has to go, or he will continue attempting to stab the Tea Party in the back. If it costs us another vote for Harry Reid, it is cheaper than the alternative of having people like McConnell undermining our efforts in other elections.

[jwalsh07]

Vote for the dem in Kentucky. Vote for the dem in Tennessee
Vote for the dem in Mississipp. Vote for the dem in New Hampshire. Vote dem in SC. Vote democratic wherever and whenever the GOP candidate is not as conservative as FR. It’s the conservative thing to do.