Okay I've had it with some RedState readers and elsewhere over this. Now don't get me wrong, I want McConnell GONE NOW. I've in fact donated once to Matt Bevin (considering to donate again soon). Mitch McConnell is a fraud who's been in the Senate too long and needs to go. He's done nothing much of help for the liberty movement. But can we give some leeway for Rand Paul on the McConnell endorsement?
While not everybody has acted like this, a good number of people's behavior (particularly here at RedState) remind me of how people reacted to Rubio's immigration dealio from last year (which yes there's legitimate criticism there). But an endorsement of a politician isn't like passing a big pork-filled amnesty bill. Disagree over the endorsement fine, but let's not get our panties in a wattle over one thing we don't like.
Now it's not just the reaction of the McConnell endorsement I take issue with, there's other things as well which qualify for an entirely separate diary. Look I'm not trying to be mean or aggressive towards RedState readers or columnists. I love RedState and the content produced here is nothing short of genius at times. But some people can be a tough crowd. I don't see Erick Erickson or others getting on his case about this. Glenn Beck was curious as to why Rand endorsed McConnell, but he was satisfied with his answer.
Ultimately the people complaining about this are a minority since Rand is picking up more traction nationally with his big win in the CPAC strawpoll and the arousing applause at UC Berkeley (when was the last time a Republican received applause there?). Rand Paul has his own ways of going about things like his father Ron did. So I appreciate it if some leeway were allowed in the process. Thanks for listening.