Of all the people on this mock ballot, McKinley’s candidacy is the least plausible.

That’s because McKinley managed to do something that is nearly impossible for a Republican leader with any shrewdness whatsoever to do: get caught with your pants down on a social issue while in the minority.

Usually Republican leaders sell out their Christian conservative base after that base works tirelessly to make the majority, not while in the minority. On the other hand, as a minority party Republicans are often the most principled politicians in the world. So for McKinley to get caught in his first go around as Republican State Senate Leader with his pants down by not having a marriage amendment on file for the 2009 legislative session is either total incompetence, the worst clerical error in the history of the office, or the most cynical brand of politics.

And no matter what McKinley says to the contrary, he’s simply not being honest by asserting there was no way to suspend the rules in the senate to pursue a vote on a marriage amendment like what was done in the house. (See here)

Of course, the one plausible reason McKinley continues to maintain this untruthful position is because without having a marriage amendment filed this legislative session, it obviously wouldn’t be possible to force a procedural vote on a bill that didn’t exist.

A cynic might eventually look at the person(s) funding McKinley’s campaign and simply wonder if he’s just in the race to run interference for another candidate in the race, just as Fred Thompson did on behalf of his friend John McCain during the presidential race. Once we get a look at disclosure reports the truth will come out if that’s the case, because beyond that there is no rationale for his candidacy whatsoever.

I’ll be the 2010 GOP gubernatorial nominee before McKinley is.