Most of the time Sen. Jim Bunnning (R-KY) makes little sense. Not today. Today, he is making perfect sense. Speaking about the leadership of Mitch McConnell:
He said: “Do you realize that under our dynamic leadership of our leader, we have gone from 55 and probably to 40 (Senate seats) in two election cycles, and if the tea leaves that I read are correct, we will wind up with about 36 after this election cycle.
So if leadership means anything, it means you don’t lose … approximately 19 seats in three election cycles with good leadership.”
I actually agree with Bunning’s reading of the tea leaves. The Dems will probably net four new senate seats in 2010, including Bunning’s Kentucky seat. It could be slightly better (say, six seats) or slightly worse (two) but I can’t see anything less than two. Regardless, though, Bunning’s larger point is a no-brainer. Mitch McConnell has presided over the collapse of Republican power in the Senate. Why, then, is he still their leader? Couldn’t Lamar Alexander do a better job?
And all of this could be said with almost equal justice about House Minority Leader John Boehner. Why did he retain his leadership position? And why did the Republicans choose John Cornyn of Texas to head the NRSC and Pete Sessions of Texas to head the NRCC when the country is sick to hell of Republicans from Texas?
And why are they rolling out used-up failed leaders like Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney as the ‘new’ face of the party? Why have anything to do with a governor named ‘Bush’ even if he isn’t the black sheep of the Bush Crime Family?
Why embrace a buffoon like Sam the Non-Plumber who goes around blasting ‘queers’? Can’t anyone talk to Michele Bachmann and Steve King and get them to stop appearing on teevee? Has it occurred to anyone in the Republican Party that high-ratings for FOX News is no longer a good thing for their party?
Are there any non-lunatics in this asylum. I hope so.
