GOP leadership changes?

I've asked a lot of my more politically connected friends what the chances are of a change in the top leadership for Republicans in the House and Senate when they caucus next month. Most of them tell me "Not much." Boehner has no real opposition for majority leader, though at least Pence is in the running for conference chair.


On the Senate side, I've been exceptionally surprised at the lack of chatter about replacing McConnell. Here's a guy who is only 214 votes and a run-off away having the filibuster lost on his watch and who nearly lost his own bid for reelection in Kentucky. Why would the GOP want to keep him in a leadership position?


Finally I've found at least one voice who agrees with me on this, in an opinion piece today from the DC Examiner.

In 2006 you settled on Mitch McConnell as your leader and quite frankly, the Republicans in the Senate and across the country have very little to show for that decision. We're down six seats in the Senate -- and they're still counting.

Moreover, Mitch McConnell, who supported the Bridge to Nowhere twice, who led you into a disastrous fight on illegal immigration, and who did little to strike back against the Democrats who were slandering the GOP on an almost daily basis, actually campaigned on bringing home pork to Kentucky.

Republican Senators, in their choice for minority leader, get to pick their chief spokesman for their legislative agenda and for the principles they wish to advance....or, in this case, defend. If the GOP really wants to begin the long climb back, it has to stick to principles. My hope - and the hope of so many disallusioned conservatives - is that they will use those principles to pick their leader rather than vice versa.