Toomey is serious

[Keystone Phil]

Ugh. Knew it was coming...  

Well, he'll have my vote but he's not the most electable candidate. I really hope he gets pressured into the Senate race by Corbett.

Awesome!

Uh, why? You would have had a better shot against him in the Senate race and he's not exactly unelectable in this race.

[Keystone Phil]

Awesome!

No it's not.  We want him very primarying moderate Republicans in 2010 and elect the worst people possible in the open seats. to help us pick up seats.

Now he might be running his own campaign instead!

And let me tell you, in these times, someone like Toomey will be a very serious candidate for Governor. Still not the most electable but a strong force.

[Keystone Phil]

Note that Specter will now be able to vote for the Employee Free Choice Act.  Toomey had earlier sworn that if Specter did, he'd mount a primary campaign against him.  I mean, it'll still come up, but it's not a make-or-break issue for him anymore.

Don't be so sure that others won't run. Again, there is a mystery candidate out there and others have been mentioned as well (not just Luksik).

Also, let's see if Corbett tries to play "Let's Make a Deal" with Pat.

[Keystone Phil]

I hope that Joe Schwarz, Wayne Gilcrest, the candidates who ran against Bill Sali in the '06 primary in Idaho, etc., donate and raise funds for Tom Corbett.

Not like it will matter much. Corbett ought to win the primary anyway. I'm telling you...Pat might know this and is looking for a way to get more support for a Senate run.

[Keystone Phil]

Take a look at http://www.pattoomey.org/.

That's not good.    He used that domain in 2004.

[Keystone Phil]

Toomey should stick to what he's good at... getting Democrats elected.

I love that the idea that Toomey has "helped elect" a slew of Democrats was disproven yet the haters still carry on.

[Keystone Phil]

Toomey should stick to what he's good at... getting Democrats elected.

I love that the idea that Toomey has "helped elect" a slew of Democrats was disproven yet the haters still carry on.

If you have a post or website that categorically disproves this notion, I would be very interested, and if I feel satisfied by it's conclusions, I will gladly eat my words.

Uh...

So because you feel like hating Toomey and have followed this myth that he and his group have elected Democrats, I have to prove that he's innocent?

Sorry. It doesn't work that way. Prove to me that he helped elect a slew of Democrats. Otherwise, innocent until proven guilty.

[Keystone Phil]

As for Pat Toomey getting Democrats elected, the most obvious example is Wayne Gilchrest-Andrew Harris-Frank Kratovil... how did Harris manage to lose a seat with a Cook PVI of R+10? Would Wayne Gilchrest have held his seat? While these questions cannot be addressed with certainty, I think the answers are rather obvious.

Give me a break.

Do me a favor and open your eyes. You guys conveniently forget that people like Gilchrist actually directly helped the Dems win that damn seat. You know, by actually endorsing the Dem.

Yeah, you're right. The answer is rather obvious.

Your thesis has plenty of proof behind it, in addition to common sense.

The Club for Growth has, in a systematic way, targeted Republicans for defeat in primaries in swing, Democratic, and Republican-leaning districts who do not follow its ultra-conservative orthodoxy of irresponsible leadership, expanding deficits, and tax cuts that aren't paid for.  Despite its claims to be an economic conservative organization, it seems to exclusively support individuals who are also extreme social conservatives - sometimes to the point of being outright nut-cases.

Since the group was founded, their support was an asset to numerous Republican candidates who faced contested primaries.  In fact, they were a crucial ally to a candidate that I volunteered for in 2002, Marsha Blackburn.  However, this group's activities in the past two election cycles warrant attention.  Their success in Republican primaries is still strong.  Problem is that the ultra-right candidates that they now support are unelectable in even heavily Republican districts.  There are three basic circumstances in which the the Club for Growth has consistently defeated responsible Republicans and/or elected Democrats - perhaps its not their intention - but at some point you have to judge an organization's actual mission by its substantive results.  Here is an example of each:

MARYLAND 1 2008  (PVI R+10)


MICHIGAN 7 2006 (R+2)

Crybaby Don also conveniently leaves out when his heroes endorse the Dems. Typical hypocrite. Well done, sir. Well done.

[Keystone Phil]

Gilchrist wouldn't have had to endorse the Democrat if the Republican wasn't a right wing loon.

He didn't have to do anything. He's a crybaby and really, even if "justified" in the eyes of some, that's not the point here.

Don likes to go on his partisan lecturing about a group costing us seats yet conveniently ignores when his heroes actually directly help the other side win.

Don't worry though. You can count on Don bending over backwards if Toomey returns to elected office and spots him at some political function. I'm sure Pat will take a picture with him or something and he'll instantly become a centrist in Don's eyes.

After all, this is the same Don that viciously attacks some of us for opposing gay marriage yet gets teary eyed in admiration for the former President who proposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (something I don't even support).

[Keystone Phil]

And another note for the Democrat's best friend Don - He is known for supporting two U.S. Senate candidates (Lisa Murkowski in Alaska and Kirk Humphrys in Oklahoma) in 2004 that were known to be the two least electable candidates in their respective primaries. I believe he also supported former Governor David Beasley in South Carolina's GOP Senate primary in the same year when he had some serious electability questions.

Now Don will come up with wonderful excuses for supporting these people and that's fine but the last thing I need is for him to hold the electability argument in anyone's face. Electability is only an issue when it is convenient for Don.

[Keystone Phil]

Also, to clear some things up about the two big races mentioned, I can't help but notice some missing facts.

The weeping over former Congressman Schwarz is especially amusing to me. We're made to believe that he, like Gilchrist, fell to some fascist in a 2008 primary. Well, that's wrong. Schwarz lost in the primary in 2006. Walberg won the 2006 General election in this "R +2" district by five points - 51% to 46%. That's not a very close race, Don. Sorry.

He then lost in 2008 by three points. I don't think that's that horrible since "R +2" isn't exactly safe GOP land and 2008 was absolutely horrible for this party. We're talking about an economic collapse and a race in Michigan here.


Now the Maryland race was in more friendly GOP territory but the loss wasn't as crushing as we are led to believe. Harris lost by less than a percentage point. If Gilchrist (someone I have said I had no major problems with before he turned into a whiner) hadn't endorsed the Democrat, I have no doubt that we would have kept this seat. Should we have won it fairly easily? Maybe. Please keep in mind that we went down hard in a lot of areas even with Don's "Moderate Hero" candidates.

What's the excuses for Chris Shays? Is it that maybe some people got tired of us (rightly or wrongly) as a party, Don? We have seen in the past two cycles that the public as a whole hasn't spared us whether we be conservative, moderate or even left wingers. Your former idol Lincoln Chafee even went down hard, my friend.

[Keystone Phil]

How the hell can anyone who claims to support moderates for good Gov'ts sake support Lisa Murkowski?

I'm sure Don will give a respectable answer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's keep it to the people that are directly involved in the district.

We sure as hell didn't hear Don whining in 2006 when Schwarz endorsed the Democratic nominee but he has no problem furthering this myth that Pat Toomey directly helps the Dems.

The problem with this district is that Don, Dems and other Toomey/Club for Growth haters will have you believe that this is another area that ought to be totally safe for the GOP. It's not. It's "R +2" based on the source they cited. Give me a break.

[Keystone Phil]

Oh I think it is a factor since having a Presidential candidate abandon a state decreases turnout. There was no excuse to focus on PA and let MI go for Obama by 12 or 13. The states are very similar and both should have been won or lost by similar margins.

I'm not saying it wasn't a factor. I just wanted to keep it as directly related to the actual Congressional campaigns as possible.

[Keystone Phil]

How is not directly related to the congressional district when thousands of Republicans stay home cause of the old " My vote won't count anyway" line. That might have put Walberg over the top.

I just wanted to keep it about the actual candidates in the Congressional race and how it isn't as Republican as others are saying.

I agree that what you mentioned would have probably put Walberg over the top.

[Keystone Phil]

The weeping over former Congressman Schwarz is especially amusing to me. We're made to believe that he, like Gilchrist, fell to some fascist in a 2008 primary. Well, that's wrong. Schwarz lost in the primary in 2006. Walberg won the 2006 General election in this "R +2" district by five points - 51% to 46%. That's not a very close race, Don. Sorry.

He defeated a fourth-tier loon of a Democrat who raised approximately $300 for her campaign. The race had no business being remotely competitive.

Try $46,000. 

Sure it shouldn't have been remotely competitive given a week Dem opponent but consider the year, the fact that it isn't a strong Republican district and that the defeated Republican incumbent threw a fit about losing the primary.

[Keystone Phil]

I leave for eighteen hours and everybody moves on without me...

Look, I'm not saying Wayne Gilchrest didn't help get Frank Kratovil elected; he did, much more directly than Pat Toomey. But, had Gilchrest not been defeated in the primary, that seat would still be in Republican hands, and Pat Toomey helped defeat Wayne Gilchrest in the primary. Therefore, it stands to reason that Pat Toomey indirectly helped elect Frank Kratovil.

But that's not really helping the Democrats as much as you guys want us to believe.

We never hear complaints about Gilchrist directly helping Kratovil so spare me the lectures, ok?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whatever, dude.

And for RINOs, it seems like it comes down to this...

Complain about how you're the only electable person and how you have to save the party ----> Run to the Dems when you lose

[Keystone Phil]

But it is helping at least a little? Even a teensy bit?

That's what happens in politics sometimes. We make decisions that sometimes gives the opposition some ammo but we have to learn not to run away, cry and side with the opposition simply out of spite.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But, dude, Pat Toomey isn't full of shit. He's defending his principles. You might not like it but that doesn't mean he's full of it.

[Keystone Phil]

So Pat Toomey helps get Democrats elected... thank you, that's all I wanted to hear.

So you want to be a child? Good for you.

Just because Toomey's candidats aren't as electable as others in some districts doesn't mean he helps Democrats get elected.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't about moderates but the Toomey haters and those of us that defend him/the Club for Growth will continue to only see it your way.

RINOs are not moderates.

I think we definitely strengthen our party when people like Lincoln Chafee leave. And guess what? The RI GOP voters re-nominated that joke. He lost in the General and still threw a tantrum about the GOP. He wasn't a Republican. He's gone. I'm glad. Scores of others are as well.

[Keystone Phil]

Lincoln Chafee, I agree, was a RINO (he was still better than Sheldon Whitehouse, IMO)... he basically lined up with the DNC on everything ... but does Arlen Specter?

No but I don't think Specter is just a moderate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're not an elected official. You haven't worked to screw the party on several major fronts. I couldn't care less about kicking out someone like that.

[Keystone Phil]

Yes, hard as it is to believe, moderates have values too, values they can hold just as strongly as any "principled conservative" holds his.

You know, this really isn't fair. I've had to do this too many times...

I do not have a problem with moderates. I may not always agree with a moderate but I'm never going to always agree with anyone! I do not like RINOs. Two very different things. Don't assume that I think moderates aren't principled.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, yeah? That's not what I've been seeing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I am part of "them" and I'm afraid you confuse "our" efforts to seriously challenge RINOs as a threat to moderates.

Lincoln Chafee wasn't a moderate but plenty of you were tricked into believing he was. I hate that. And look what he goes and does to us. Him, Gilchrist, Schwarz...

Those are the types you ought to be especially angry at, my friend, as a proud moderate Republican.

[Keystone Phil]

The problem is when people like John McCain become the targets. As you most likely know, the Club attempted to persuade Jeff Flake to primary McCain in 2004, but Flake declined.

Some may call McCain a conservative, some a moderate, but few outside of CARLHAYDEN would call him a liberal or RINO (well, maybe officepark, but he would probably call Robert Taft a RINO).

If anyone with an ACU rating below 75 is a liberal... well, I just don't know.

Well, those people have been wrong on people like McCain and I've always said so.

[Keystone Phil]

It's not a personality defect on Gilchrist's part, but a predictable cost of what the Club For Growth was attempting to do. No incumbent can be expected to go quietly when he is targeted, and that goes equally for a conservative incumbent who then runs as a third party or who endorses a conservative third-party spoiler out of the same motives.

How is it not a personality defect? All you're giving is some lame excuse for him being a baby. The conservative that argued about saving the party and electability but decides to run as a third party candidate would be just as much of a crybaby.

Just because the Club for Growth did something doesn't mean the response was right.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nice attitude. We should have just crowned him Congressman for life. 

This is exactly the arrogance that we don't need in Washington or anywhere in politics. I remember hearing about that from a certain crowd in the past year...

Sure it shouldn't have been remotely competitive given a week Dem opponent but consider the year, the fact that it isn't a strong Republican district and that the defeated Republican incumbent threw a fit about losing the primary.

Considering all of those facts, most of which were predictable, you end up with Rep. Schauer. This doesn't redeem the Club For Growth's efforts or Walberg's attempts to graft his style of conservatism to a centrist district.

I don't know why them being predictable is a reason to dismiss them (other than you just being...yourself).

The Club for Growth doesn't need redemption because they did nothing wrong. They backed someone more in line with their views. Schwarz would have been running against Schauer in 2008 and would have had a slew of reasons as to why Schauer was the worst person alive. You can count on it. However, he had to be a whiner and back him for personal revenge. So he's either a sore loser or Schauer really did match his views more (something he obviously wouldn't admit in 2008) and didn't deserve to be our nominee.

Walberg barely lost in a bad year yet we had to hear how horribly out of touch he was as a Congressman. Maybe, just maybe, a bad year swept out a Republican. Look at Chris Shays and others. There was no Club for Growth to blame there and guess what? Shays lost. Moderates and RINOs aren't automatically spared.

[Keystone Phil]

I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's predictable. Criticizing Gilchrist won't make a difference--the point is that it's an outcome you have to prepare for.

Well, ok, fair enough.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, I understand but I don't believe it's right that we apparently owe everything to someone like Gilchrist but he owes us nothing in return.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not necessarily expecting this fairness from slimeballs; I'm just going to complain just as much as people like Don (who does it with the Club for Growth) when they do something like this.

Sure we have to plan around crybabies but at the same time that people whine about the Club "costing" us seats, I'm going to point out what others have done that was actually directly responsible for us losing. I think you're misunderstanding my point here. The Club haters want to throw jabs and I'm throwing them back.

Honestly, I don't really go on rampages about seats we've lost and why.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you've misunderstood my point: As I said earlier, I don't care to whine about this stuff. I only bring it up when others wrongly blame the Club.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not saying that they don't make mistakes. I'm pointing out where the criticism of the group has been way overblown.