No sooner had Shelley Moore Capito announced her candidacy for the US Senate in 2014 than the Club for Growth is denouncing her as insufficiently conservative.
Look, I agree with every principle for which the Club for Growth stands. But it's also worth pointing out that Shelley Moore Capito is by far the most prominent, popular Republican in a state that has been trending red but so far has resisted electing Republicans to statewide office.
Club for Growth points to the failed candidacies of "establishment candidates" Heather Wilson, Rick Berg, and Denny Rehberg in the last election. Fair enough. But it's hard not also to look at the failed candidacies of non-establishment candidates like Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, and (most deplorably) Christine O'Donnell in 2010 as equally difficult problems.
If West Virginia has a viable potential alternative to Moore Capito who has the sophistication, intellect and ability to articulate conservative principles of a Mike Lee or Ted Cruz or Ron Johnson or Marco Rubio, that's one thing. If ithe alternative to Moore Capito is instead a Richard Mourdock or Ken Buck, isn't the Club for Growth better advised to stop weakening acceptable, electable candidates in a hopeless pursuit for the perfectly pure one?