Premium Sponsor


Featured Sponsor


Our Sponsors


Ad Networks

Advertise Liberally

Buy an ad on all of the top liberal blogs with just one click.

Site Stats

PA-Sen, PA-Gov: Toomey Considering Another Run

by: James L.

Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 7:18 PM EST


But for what? Roll Call:

Former Pennsylvania Rep. Pat Toomey (R) said he is considering a statewide bid in 2010, either for governor or another primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).

"I haven't ruled out a statewide run in 2010," Toomey said in an interview this week.

Since losing the GOP primary to Specter by 2 points in 2004, Toomey has run the Club for Growth while living in Zionsville, Pa. In an interview in the club's Washington, D.C., office, Toomey said he has not spoken with Specter since before the general election in 2004.

But it's more likely that Toomey would make a bid for governor, said a Pennsylvania Republican operative close to him. The operative cautioned, however, that he would not swear off a Specter challenge if the trademark moderate Republican Senator verges too far to the left on certain issues - for example, the "card check" vote that would make it easier for workers to unionize.

If you believe Roll Call's unnamed "operative", it sounds like Toomey isn't really serious about another run against Specter -- the card check nonsense sounds like an idle threat to ensure that Snarlin' Arlen toes the wingnut line once again.
James L. :: PA-Sen, PA-Gov: Toomey Considering Another Run
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
PA-Sen, PA-Gov: Toomey Considering Another Run | 63 comments
Of interest
Makes sense
Isn't Arlen from Philly?
[ Parent ]
Yup
Except, take a look at the Philly vote count: almost nothing. that's because there are essentially no Republicans in Philadelphia anymore.

Specter's base is Montgomery County, and lots of RINOS have switched their registration since 2004.  

[ Parent ]
That's basically Philly burbs right?
Isn't that the same area we gained all those seats in 2006 at, such as the 7th and 8th districts?  Basically an area where there are still a lot of RINOS who now vote Democratic for the most part but like Specter?
[ Parent ]
Exactly
They're pro-choice Republicans who voted for Clinton, Ridge, Specter, Gore, Kerry, Obama and held their noses to vote for Casey, Jr. over Santorum. And they keep just barely sending Jim Gerlach back to Congress.  
[ Parent ]
see that's what I don't like
economic conservatives who are socially liberal. It's so ridiculous because these issues are so rarely brought up in the legislature while economic ones are far more important and are the issues where we need the most liberals, not new, DLC dems.  

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
I generally agree with this
but we don't need new Congresspeople who vote against stuff like equal pay for women, bash the auto or openly scorn the UAW after taking money from them.  
Those like Bobby Bright (AL-2) is a waste of resources to elect a Democrat. I don't care how red his district is, if you can't support labor or equal pay, you're not a Democrat, and it is not a seat worth pursuing.

Shame on Bright, Parker Griffith, and Travis Childers for their vote against the equal pay legislation today.

[ Parent ]
Bright, Griffith and Childers
are just another vote for Speaker as far as I'm concerned. I doubt if I agree with them on a single issue.
[ Parent ]
That's good logic
if we had 230 seats.  When we have 257, we don't need more DINOs.  You have to support the Democrats on some issues at least, and things like economic populism, unions and equal pay are basics.

Griffith and Childers ran as economic populists, and Childers also ran on getting out of Iraq.  Bright took 10K from the UAW, but publicly bashed them and said he would not vote for the auto bailout even before he entered Congress.

[ Parent ]
I doubt I'd piss on any of them
if they were on fire. But I'm pretty sure I'd like the Republicans their districts would elect just a little bit less.  
[ Parent ]
the Republicans in their districts
are far worse.  

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
Childers
Childers, bless his moustachy heart, did vote YEA on one of the equal pay bills. Bright and Griffith voted against both.
[ Parent ]
Well, you're just making a different
judgement about what's important. I can assure that there are many women in the northeast who would likely be Republicans if they didn't care so much about choice.  
[ Parent ]
I agree with him for some regions
I don't mind pro-life Congresspeople coming from the rural South.  But if you are socially conservative, you better damn be a strong economic populist, and support labor.
[ Parent ]
We're the big tent party
for better or worse.
[ Parent ]
No problem with being a big tent party
but we don't need Repub clones either.  You have to side with the Democratic value system on at least something.  
Bobby Bright is a Repub clone.  I'll bet he'd switch parties if the time was opportune.  The only reason he ran as a Dem was to avoid the competitive Repub primary.
[ Parent ]
Well, I never gave him any money
so I'm pretty much indifferent to him. You could argue that the DCCC shouldn't be spending money on people like him, and I'm sympathetic to that, but they take their races where they can find them. It's not their job to care about anything but party label.
[ Parent ]
Bobby Bright is not a Republican
clone. I have to take my hat off to him for defeating one of the most conservative and high profile Republicans in the state in Emory Folmar in 1999, and then taking care of Jay Love, an absolute wingnut. Bright's a conservative, and for his first term or two he's really going to push his credentials until he's entrenched. I expect he'll be more conservative than Gene Taylor, which is pretty conservative.

And, he did not run as a Democrat to avoid a Republican primary. That claim is utterly false and illogical. He was initially recruited by national Republicans, he would have been an easy favorite in the primary and would have breezed in the general. Running as a Democrat probably cost him thousands and thousands of partyline votes straight up, running as a Democrat was a completely uphill challenge in a super-red district like this one. He did run as a Democrat to get in the majority, and because he seems to have a ancestrally ingrained dislike of Republicans in him, like old yellar dog dems. He also strikes me as fairly populist on rural issues, regardless of equal pay.  

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
Bright will likely vote with the Repubs
on basically every piece of legislation in Congress in 2009-2010.  Yup, that would be the definition of Repub clone.  And he will likely give Repubs bipartisan cover for opposition to Obama's agenda by badmouthing it., like he did on the auto bailout.  And since he would want to be in the majority, if the Repubs win back the majority, he would switch parties.

Not the kind of "Democrat" I want in my caucus, even from a rural Southern district.  I wish Jay Love had won that race.  At least he wouldn't be a backstabber or a cancer.

There is no excuse, even from that district, to vote against equal pay.  Bright would probably have voted against the Voting Rights Act extension had he been in Congress in 2006.  

Can you tell me even one issue that he would vote with the Democrats?

[ Parent ]
I see you here over and over again
as a purist extremist. You also have no idea what you're talking about. Jay Love would be a thousand times worse, believe I now southern Republicans because I actually live in the south. Bright will be a lot more helpful than you think and will still probably vote with Democrats a narrow majority of the time, as with Love it would be 99% of the time against, yet, because Bright is not as liberal as you'd like, you'd rather have 1%, instead of 52%.

And, the auto-bailout wasn't Obama's plan, since he's not president yet, it was Bush's auto-bailout plan.

He supports expansion of SCHIP programs for one. But, aside from that his website is really actually pretty vague on specific issues and ideas. He makes a a big deal out of fiscal restraint and balancing the budget, that's another thing. Very pro-life and pro-gun, but, really, how often do those kinds of issues come up, the House doesn't even vote on the most important abortion issues; surpreme court nominees.  

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
I again asked you to give me places
where Bright will vote with Dems, but all you can resort to is name calling and unsubstantiated statements like "Jay Love would be a thousand times worse".  In reality Bobby Bright and Jay Love would practically have the same voting record.

I understand that Southern Dems may need to be pro-life, pro-gun, and anti-gay, but there is no need for them to be anti-equal pay, anti-union, or conservative on economic issues.

I doubt Bright will vote with the Dems even 15% of the time, let alone 52%.  You even said it yourself, he is more conservative than Gene Taylor.

[ Parent ]
but you forget Gene Taylor still votes with Democrats
nearly 60% of the time. And I do know what I'm talking about and I know for a fact that Bright will vote with Dems more than 15% of the time. Bright's and Love's records would be no where close to the same, they ran a pretty nasty campaign against each other, with Love calling Bright a liberal and Bright saying Love was too conservative. If anything Bright promises to be a good centrist.

I believe Bright is also against revoking the death tax, like Gene Taylor, and he is anti-Iraq War.

You should also understand he will most conservative for his first few terms. He still hasn't entrenched himself. At one point, shortly after winning 50-49 in 1994, (a miracle in itself), Gene Taylor voted with Democrats only 31% of the time and openly mused about switching parties. This of course gained him a lot of support among conservatives and he's the only Democrat many registered Democrats in his district still vote for, (outside of local county offices). But, Taylor's record has slowly and steadily gotten better over the years, increasing even further when Democrats became the majority. And, if you look at Taylor's record, (since you seem to dislike him), he really is fairly populist on economic issues.

Where are you from? Southern California? I have to be around southern Republican men like Love everyday, they set the bar, and Love ran to the right of Harri Anne Smith, an incredible feat considering how conservative she is. If you want to think of how conservative just think how he spent his campaign running nasty attack ads calling Bright a liberal Democrat. Imagine it as this, if they were both Republicans, Bright, long considered a moderate locally, would Jo Ann Emerson, Love would be Todd Akin, (Emerson's Missouri colleague), who has been the most conservative Republican 8 years running. And, that's if he was a Republican. He's a Democrat so he will be somewhat better than Emerson, and like I said above, he'll start voting more populistic on more issues as he entrenches himself, right now, especially right now right after being elected by less than 2000 votes, he's got to build up his conservative credentials, ie the loudmouthing the auto bailout in public and voting against equal pay, which we already pretty much have, unless the courts haven't upheld it a woman can sue if she is not paid the same amount as a man doing the same job, and I know the same has long been true for minorities, and there are more than a few groups willing to give them free legal services for such a battle, so I really don't see what the big deal it on that issue. I'm just going to assume its one of those things people blow out of proportion.  

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
Well said
When the chips are down I'm confident that Bright and our other newly-elected southern dems will vote with the party.  Judging them over two bills where we didn't even need their vote to begin with doesn't make much sense.
[ Parent ]
I agree too.
Though I'm from SoCal I understand very well that people like Bright are the only Dems we can win with in a lot of the South.

Check out the 2010 California races (http://2010californiaracetracker.wetpaint.com) and help us take back Red California! (http://www.takebackredcalifornia.org)
[ Parent ]
I mean people are also forgetting McCain
won this district 2:1, 67-32, so it's conservative even by Southern standards and hasn't elected a Democrat since 1964, when most of the south still elected Democrats to congress. Al-02 is conservative even by southern standards and its simply a miracle to hold the seat at all.

I hope they don't make the mistake of moving all of Montgomery county in and making Mike Rogers' district more Republican, because that'll leave both districts as long shots for Democrats, while right now Rogers' is a good target.  

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
My thought is
if you can hold your district and you don't need the DCCC to bail you out, like Gene Taylor for example, I don't care, you can vote however you want. If you need party money, though, you'd better be ready to pay it back on the House floor, because that's money that could go to electing more progressive Democrats elsewhere.
[ Parent ]
And
It's worth noting that Gene Taylor actually voted FOR both the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (link) and the Paycheck Fairness Act (link).

I'm quite disappointed (and a bit surprised) that Childers voted against the Ledbetter bill, but at least he voted for one of the two, which is more than we can say for Bobby Bright and Parker Griffith.

[ Parent ]
I was surprised with Taylor on that
I thought he would vote against both.  Very pleasently surprised.  As for Childers, he's probably just being cautious.  Taylor has been around much longer and can get away with voting the party line more than Childers can.  

Either way, I try to look at the net effect.  Both bills passed easily.  We really didn't need any of our new southern democrats on these bills, so if they want a throw away vote I'll give them a pass this time.

[ Parent ]
that is how it works
I wouldn't be surprised if they voted against their conscience here. In situations like this the leadership deterines if they have enough votes, and if they do, they give a thumbs up for members like this to vote against it. It'll happen a lot since their won't be a lot of close votes. But, afterall, the house isn't the Senate, their are no filibusters here and all the Democrats will vote with Pelosi's procedural movements.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
Oh, and they also voted for Rendell big time

[ Parent ]
Many of them switched
to vote in the Dem primary and aren't switching back.  So I think Toomey beats Specter in a primary.  

[ Parent ]
They might switch back
If the race were high profile enough soon enough. Toomey's recipe for a win is to do a nasty ad blitz in the last 4 weeks, just after the registration deadline closes.  
[ Parent ]
Which is probably what Toomey would do
I might do what I did in 2004 and switch to vote for Toomey.  If Specter votes with the Democrats on things like EFCA, I might not do that this time.

But regardless, Specter can't count on the Philly suburban RINOs to pull it out.

[ Parent ]
It's an interesting idea
I think there's a chance that there's a Primary on the Democratic side, and I worry about splitting the SE vote.  
[ Parent ]
Good point
If say Allyson Schwartz is running in a contested primary, my guess is that the suburban RINO women would rather stay/switch to the Dem primary to get her the nomination rather than bailing out Specter.

There's a lot of time before we have to decide strategy.  I still think there's a decent chance that Specter may just hang it up.  

But if there is a vote on EFCA, which Specter has cosponsored in the past, it will be very interesting what he will do.  If there is no vote on it in 2009, then Toomey may just get boxed in if he doesn't run, and see

It is a dilemma for the Dems because if EFCA is brought up early (in 2009), the chances of Specter voting no goes up.  But if it brought up late (in 2010), Specter may vote yea if he doesn't have a strong challenge, but the chances Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas) votes no goes up.

[ Parent ]
I say make him take a stand now
And if he votes no, use it to run against him in next November. (He counts on lots of union support.)  
[ Parent ]
Well we do have to wait
until Franken and the IL appointee can be seated, which will give us 59+Specter, which should be enough if all the Dems hold in line.

Secondly, if I was Specter, I'd vote for EFCA.  The wingnut who opposes Specter in the primary will bash Specter over the head for supporting EFCA in the past even if he votes against it this time.

The other Repub to target is Lisa Murkowski (along with the usuals, Snowe, Collins, Voinovich), as Alaska is a pretty heavy union state, and labor may be able to help her if Sarah Palin is her opponent in the primary.

[ Parent ]
Not Collins
Her supporters were running "independent" commercials bashing Tom Allen for supporting card check.  The ads were practically incomprehensible.  I must have seen it at least 6 times during a weekend visit to Maine this summer and it took about 5 viewings to figure what it was about.  
[ Parent ]
Specter didn't do that bad outside Philly metro
but that was with Bush and Santorum campaigning for him.  Without that, I think he'll go down.

Hopefully Specter just hangs it up and votes moderate the rest of the way.

[ Parent ]
PA far-right faced a reality call in 2006
Santorum's whomping made them realize that Specter is the best they could hope for. Not everyone who is far right is stupid. I'm sure Specter would get at least 60% in a Specter vs. Toomey rematch.
They knew that in 2004
Remember that the GOP establishment came in for Specter at the last minute out of fear Toomey would lose to Hoeffel in a general election.

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens
[ Parent ]
Think I'd rather he run for Governor
We BADLY need to hold the PA Governorship in 2010 and Toomey would all but guarantee it.
I played some mischief in 2004
by switching parties and volunteering for Pat Toomey in the last weekend before the 2004 primary.  Had 10,000 more Democrats done that, we would have Senator Hoeffel and a filibuster proof majority.
Gov-2010 should concern us
Right now, Tom Corbett should be seen as the frontunner for the job, both in the primary and in the general.  Given that he is not exactly a lefty, I am not sure Toomey would beat him in a primary.  But it is tough to say who Toomey would have a better chance of knocking out: Corbett or Specter?  I think it is probably the latter because Specter is much more moderate, he will be pushing 80, and Toomey almost beat him once before.  

In my opinion, our best bet of holding the governorship would be if Bob Casey runs.  I think he would beat anyone, and we all know he has wanted that job for a long time.  Should he win, we could appoint his successor to his Senate seat.  

Easily Specter
I think Specter is vulnerable to both a primary and a Democrat in the general.

As far as Casey, he would like to be Governor in usual circumstances.  But based on his enthusiastic endorsement of Obama in the primary, my feeling is that he would like to help Obama out right now in the Senate than go back and run for Governor.

[ Parent ]
Probably not a big worry
But sooner or later Casey is going to have to worry about ads like this one.
[ Parent ]
once again,
I wouldn't say he's the favorite. I mean the guy has not won his two elections with over 52% of the vote, and not only is Rendell so popular it will help the Dem running to suceede him, the state is trending more democratic, and several extremely strong Dems are considering running, namely Allyson Schwartz.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
I hope Schwartz runs for the Senate
I think she could win that seat.
[ Parent ]
Me too

[ Parent ]
Ditto.


Check out the 2010 California races (http://2010californiaracetracker.wetpaint.com) and help us take back Red California! (http://www.takebackredcalifornia.org)
[ Parent ]
Card Check
Since it was mentioned in this post, I'm hoping someone will answer this fore me: what is so great about card check?
The way I understand it, it makes getting a vote on whether or not to form a union easier.


Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
the problem to which card check is the solution
is that under the current system, once an NLRA vote is scheduled (a vote on whether to form a union), employers often threaten, fire, discipline, and otherwise harass employees into voting against the union.  The is a whole (lucrative!) consulting business now in the union-busting field, with operatives who will help your company sit down with employees one on one and gently persuade them into voting "no" (including by firing anyone who seems really pro-union).  The firings are illegal but the penalties are so trivially low that a lot of businesses find it way cheaper to fire and pay later when they get sued than to actually allow a union to form.

So, with card check, employees can get together (with or without union organizers) and decide they want a union; if the majority sign cards saying so, then it's a done deal.  The set up for intimidation by the employer is gone.  

If card check passes, we will see a lot more unions.

(The problem with card check, of course, is that unions might intimidate workers too, because they can watch you sign the card.  Republicans are all over that issue.  Empirically, social scientists say that right now way more of the intimidation comes from employers.  But don't expect to hear that on FOX.  EFCA will be a tough fight.  It has bad optics in some ways -- Republicans can point to union intimidation, and say this is "getting rid of the right to a secret ballot" -- but it's pretty much the only plan the labor movement has for how to move forward right now.)

[ Parent ]
I think that's a pretty fair description
Personally I'm a tepid supporter of the EFCA. I support unions, but I think the Republicans have a very good argument about the lack of a secret ballot (frankly, the election is eliminated).  
[ Parent ]
Well
The employees have the choice of a secret ballot if they desire that. This is just about giving the employees the right to choose what type of election they're going to have.
[ Parent ]
I don't know the technical details
but I guess a reasonable question would be: if the default is not to have a secret election, how do you determine the will of the employees?

It all looks like a power play by the unions to me. But as a Democratic partisan, I'm fine with that.

[ Parent ]
Well, I don't think that a secret ballot should...
be the default for voting on a union. This is probably the best way to describe my position on this:

While a secret ballot is a cherished right for a rank-and-file voter, in situations of public responsibility it runs counter to authentic democracy. Legislators - or anyone in a public role, with responsibility to others - ought to be required to make decisions in public.

In many of the indigenous communities where I've worked and sometimes lived, all major decisions are made by public assembly. That's a system that works very well. Everybody's vote on community matters is known to everyone else in the community. If someone is unusually silent about a matter that directly involves them, they can be asked about it aloud. And in general it nips a lot of problems in the bud before they fester into larger conflicts or violence.

That's why I also favor the Employee Free Choice Act, in workplaces, so that workers can know which of our colleagues support being represented by a union or not. Some say that can lead to peer pressure and is therefore somehow undemocratic. No: As workers we share a responsibility to each other and we ought to be accountable for it.

The whole thing is rather interesting it's basically arguing that one of the major things which let Lieberman (gag) keep his committee chair was the secret ballot, can't hold them responsible if you don't know how they voted.

Your go-to source for great sarcasm

[ Parent ]
Pretty deep subject
I don't know whether a secret ballot is appropriate here.  
[ Parent ]
I don't really care about this frankly
The problem with card check, of course, is that unions might intimidate workers too, because they can watch you sign the card.  Republicans are all over that issue.

If unions were much stronger I might care.  But right now unions are so weak that the playing field should first be leveled, and save the concern about union "corruption" for a day when unions have some power.

While I would prefer a clean union, I would anyday prefer a corrupt union to a corrupt corporation.

[ Parent ]
Also I think this
The is a whole (lucrative!) consulting business now in the union-busting field, with operatives who will help your company sit down with employees one on one and gently persuade them into voting "no" (including by firing anyone who seems really pro-union).  

should be cracked down on by using the RICO laws, and there should be prison time for those who engage in illegal union busting.

[ Parent ]
What's RICO?
Sorry, i'm not an issue/policy wonk; I've just been groomed into a horse-race analyst by the folks here at SSP. :P

Bill Posey is not half-alligator...and is outclassed by Davy Crockett anyway: http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...
[ Parent ]
RICO
Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations.  It's used by prosecutors to go after mob-run or influenced businesses, unions, etc.  Also other corrupt enterprises.

In an old Law and Order show, a man was using his daughter's college girl friends to provide prostitution services to his customers (buying shoes for department store chains).  When the daughter killed one of the girls, dad funded her escape and living in Europe so McCoy used RICO to shut down the shoe business.  And dad cooperated.

[ Parent ]
Hmmm...
Doesn't make sense to me. Seems like employees can get together and decide they want to form a union without eliminating the secret ballot. You're probably right about there being more unions, but that would be because many would fear retaliation for voting against unionizing, and they also could make the companies mad at them for voting for it. Seems better to have a secret ballot on both sides, and if someone wants to, they can let everyone know what they voted.
[ Parent ]
PA-Sen, PA-Gov: Toomey Considering Another Run | 63 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

Talk to your supporters, not tech support. Campaign Engine is the powerful, affordable Progressive Campaign Software.

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Contributing Editor: Crisitunity

SSP's Twitter Feed

SSP on Facebook

SSP's Frappr Map

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

Subscribe to SSP's RSS feed: Subscribe via FeedBurner

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

Partisan Voting Index

House Open Seat Watch

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

2010 Political Calendar

SSP Race Ratings

Senate Race Ratings

Gubernatorial Race Ratings

House Vulnerability Index

Blogroll

Daily Kos
DemConWatch
DLCC Blog
Five Thirty Eight
From The Roots (DSCC)
Hotline On Call
Kicking Ass (DNC)
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Project 2010 (DGA)
The Next Hurrah
Senate Guru
The Stakeholder (DCCC)
The Thicket (NCSL)
Powered by: SoapBlox