Toomey is serious

[Lunar]

http://blogs.mcall.com/penn_ave/2009/01/toomey-considering-governor-bid.html


Former Lehigh Valley Congressman Pat Toomey has decided against a repeat run for Senate in 2010, turning instead toward a possible bid for governor as he reaches out to Republicans statewide to assess his potential candidacy next year.

Toomey, president of the anti-tax group The Club for Growth, is scheduled to sit down with several influential and deep-pocketed Lehigh Valley Republicans in early February to “discuss his thinking of a possible gubernatorial run,” according to an e-mail invitation sent out Friday on behalf of Arcadia Properties founder Richard Thulin.

He has also put calls out statewide to supporters this week with the aim of raising money to do some preliminary polling.

At the same time, Toomey has dropped consideration of a repeat run for Senate in 2010.

In a statement, Toomey said he has had “several preliminary conversations with supporters of mine regarding a possible run for governor in 2010.”

“Given the state of Pennsylvania’s economy and the disastrous state budget deficits we face, there certainly is a need for major changes in Harrisburg,” Toomey said. “It is still very early in my exploration of a possible run but it is something I will consider.”

The move comes as the field on both sides of the aisle deepens well in advance of the 2010 primaries.

A half-dozen Democratic and Republican candidates have been laying the groundwork for gubernatorial bids, including Democratic Lehigh County executive Don Cunningham and Allegheny County executive Dan Onorato as well as Republican U.S. Rep. Jim Gerlach, state attorney general Tom Corbett and former U.S. attorney Pat Meehan.

Toomey, a former restaurant owner and banker, has long expressed interest in making another statewide bid. Until recently, he had left the door open for a repeat run for Senate next year — he narrowly lost to U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter in the GOP primary in 2004 — but Republicans who have spoken with Toomey in recent weeks say he has turned his attention towards a run for governor.
Political observers point to Toomey’s fundraising talent and conservative appeal as assets that would likely prove formidable in a GOP primary.

“He is extremely popular with the conservative base,” said Pittsburgh-based GOP consultant Bill Green. “He has proven he can run a superb campaign. He's got all the tools, there is no doubt about that.”

Because of his previous Senate run and four-year stint leading the Club for Growth, Toomey has access to a large national network of donors that could help him quickly raise large sums of money in a governor’s race, where candidates are not limited by the size of individual donations.

But it’s unclear how widely known he is within the Pennsylvania electorate, even after he won 49 percent of the vote in his race against Specter in 2004.

[Eraserhead]

Awesome!

[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.

[Lunar]

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!

[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.

[Eraserhead]

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!

Well, sure. It was clear for a while that he wasn't going after Specter again though.

[Lunar]

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.

[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.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

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.

[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.

[Lunar]

Take a look at [url]http://www.pattoomey.org//url].

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

"Want to buy a Bob Casey Jr. sticker?"

[Nixon in '80]

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

[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.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm glad to see Toomey won't challenge Specter this time around. I don't have any blind hatred for him, but I just don't want to see any other moderate Republicans knocked out by their own party (even though Phil will argue Specter is a 'liberal.'"

[Nixon in '80]

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.

[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.

[Ronnie]

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.

You're asking Keystone to prove a negative?  It doesn't work that way, dude.

[Nixon in '80]

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.

You claimed it had been disproven, I merely asked for your evidence.

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.

The "RINO Watch" culture of the Republican Party is hurting our electoral viability. That's my thesis, and I feel it needs no proof beyond common sense.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

You claimed it had been disproven, I merely asked for your evidence.

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.

The "RINO Watch" culture of the Republican Party is hurting our electoral viability. That's my thesis, and I feel it needs no proof beyond common sense.

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)
defeat of a Republican incumbent in primary, election of Democrat in general

As Nixon noted, Toomey's Club for Growth was instrumental in the defeat of popular long-time incumbent Congressman Wayne Gilchrest.  I'm not sure what his 'crime' was, but it appears that he was targeted mainly for his opposition to a war that turned out to be unpopular and costly.  It is ironic that "economic conservativism" now consists of supporting hundreds billions of taxpayer dollars funding a war without this generation paying for it, and Gilchrest is considered a liberal/RINO/etc. for his opposition to that principle.

As an additional strike against him, Gilchrest was known as a supporter of environmental issues that were important to his Eastern Shore district. It is also ironic that conservation is no longer "conservative" anymore either.

In any event, the Club for Growth was able to defeat Gilchrest and get its preferred hack, State Senator Andy Harris, through the primary.

Not only was Harris too conservative for this heavily Republican R+10 district, he was also from "the wrong part of the district".  Harris was from the Baltimore suburbs, and the vast majority of the district is on the Eastern Shore.  Mind you, there was another "conservative" candidate in the primary who was from the Shore.  The Club for Growth, based in the beltway bubble of Washington D.C., failed to understand the dynamics of the district and supported the conservative from the Baltimore suburbs instead of the conservative from the Shore.


IDAHO 1 2006 (R+19)
election of an ultra-right-wing candidate in primary and general, election of Democrat in following cycle

The Club for Growth strongly supported Bill Sali, a known religious zealot who constantly got in fights with virtually every other Republican elected official in the state.  The C4G pumped in hundreds of thousands of out-of-state dollars into Sali's campaign and allowed him to win a six-way primary with 26% of the vote.  Sali was able to barely win this R+19 district in 2006 but lost in 2008, even as John McCain carried the district and the state.  Democrat Walt Minnick now holds the most Republican district in the U.S., thanks largely to the Democrat's best friend, Pat Toomey.


MICHIGAN 7 2006 (R+2)
defeat of a Republican incumbent in a primary, election of a Democrat in the following cycle

Joe Schwarz was a popular Republican Congressman and prominent physician, elected in 2004. The Club for Growth got together with its unholy allies in the religious right to defeat Schwarz in the 2006 primary.  Schwarz had the support of President Bush and Senator McCain, but lost narrowly to "Christian" Fundamentalist Tim Walberg.

Despite the seat being relatively Republican, Walberg went on to a very close general election with an under-funded kooky organic farmer.  The Democrats saw this district as a prime pickup opportunity, found a strong candidate in 2008, and defeated Walberg by over 7,000 votes.

In addition to these situations where the Club for Growth has become actively involved in the defeat of Republican candidates, the organization also contributes to a culture of exclusivity and divisiveness within the Republican Party.  This movement has permanently damaged our Party's reputation and our prospects for the future by narrowing our claim on the electorate and "purifying" our Party of the kind of responsible leadership that is necessary to govern a modern pluralistic democracy.

[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.

[Iosif]

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

I love Club for Growth. I hope the primary every sane moderate Republican about. All the best to them and to Pat Toomey.

[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.