Mitch McConnell and his merry band of lobbyists have a clever little line attacking the Senate Conservatives Fund. They claim the Senate Conservatives Fund ("SCF") has gotten more Democrats elected than the Democratic National Committee.It's their favorite attack these days, now that attacking SCF for raising money has proved fruitless given that this particular attack is being made by dandified lobbyists and other hangers on.But reporters, if they are not lazy, will need to ask a question.The Senate Conservatives Fund has only helped nominate two Tea Party candidates who went on to lose the general election. In Delaware, a week before the primary with Christine O'Donnell up double digits against Mike Castle, SCF endorsed her. She went on to lose the general.In Colorado, SCF endorsed Ken Buck who barely lost to the Democrat in a year the Colorado GOP completely imploded, the NRSC diverted resources to help his opponent in the primary, and then the NRSC poured an overabundance of resources into trying to win California.That's it. Again, the Senate Conservatives Fund has only helped nominate two Tea Party candidates who went on to lose the general election. On the other hand Mitch McConnell supported Rick Berg, Denny Rehberg, Carly Fiorina, Linda McMahon, George Allen, and Tommy Thompson. All lost to Democrats.More so, had McConnell won the primaries where he fought the Senate Conservatives Fund, we would now have a Republican Conference composed of Senators Specter (assuming he was still alive), Crist, Dewhurst, Bennett, and Grayson.So some enterprising reporter should ask Mitch McConnell this question: given that the Senate Conservatives Fund has a better record than Mitch McConnell of getting Republicans elected to the Senate, shouldn't he be supporting Matt Bevin?