RSS Feed MenuTom Ridge running for the U.S. Senate is the best case scenario for Pennsylvania Republicans.
Consider the facts: the man has never lost an election in the Keystone State. He developed a record as a proven fiscal conservative as Governor, holding government spending to at or below the rate of inflation and cutting taxes by over $2 billion, while squirreling away boom-time revenues for a $1 billion rainy-day fund. A much decorated Vietnam veteran and local prosecutor, he’s strong on national security and law and order – a profile he only added to as the first Director of Homeland Security after the attacks of 9/11.
After six successful congressional races, two gubernatorial wins (by increasing margins) and a cabinet post, Ridge has the record and the name recognition to appeal to voters across the political spectrum. That’s precisely what Republicans would need to win in a state that is trending from swing to blue especially if he is to face the well-known entity of Arlen Specter.
And yet… some conservative absolutists are already busy sharpening their RINO-knives, criticizing Tom Ridge’s prospective candidacy under the same auspices with which they opposed his nomination for Vice President for John McCain. He’s pro choice.
Now, this fact is supposed to be irrelevant to Pat Toomey’s heretic-hunting approach to party purification. The Club for Growth is supposed to be a libertarian organization, devoted to fiscal issues only, remember? But when they say that Tom Ridge isn’t conservative enough, they can’t be talking about his military record or his tax cuts or his spending record or his national security credentials. They’re not talking about support for gay marriage (Ridge doesn’t.) They’re talking about choice – which without delving too deeply into a well-trod debate – is supposedly the essence of libertarianism.
Already Pat Toomey is running 20 points below the now Democrat senator, Arlen Specter, in the hypothetical fall election. Specter was wrong to give the Democrats a filibuster proof majority, but he was right in recognizing that he had a better chance of winning a general election against Toomey than a low-turnout primary. And a general election is a better test of the will of the people, unless you believe in putting party first. Specter was right also in this – the defection of a five term senator who shepherded through the Roberts and Alito nominations ought to be a wake up call for the GOP.
Tom Ridge’s candidacy would pull some political judo on Specter’s logic – it would be a race decided between two general election candidates in the general election. Ridge would present two viable candidates to the voters of Pennsylvania and a strong alternative to the unchecked Democratic tide in Washington DC.
Playing the party purity game will not help address the GOP’s underlying electoral problems in the Keystone State or anywhere else. Remember: ignoring electability is the fingerprint of fanaticism.
barker13 // May 6, 2009 at 10:19 am
Re: Sinz54; wrote 1 minutes ago –Again… thank you for the straight answer. I sincerely appreciate it – and respect it.Thing is…On the surface… based upon your answer… it seems to me that you should be identified not as a conservative Republican… not as a moderate Republican… not even as a liberal Republican… but as an Independent.I mean… that’s fine. I’m a registered Democrat who votes independently… rarely but sometimes even voting Democrat.Now if you had said that you’d vote for Toomey “assuming” there was nothing in his personal life or political life or ideas that made such a vote impossible… then I’d see you as a Republican.As it is… as you answered…(*SHRUG*)Sinz… I’m truly trying to understand you. I’m not trying to bait you or pick a fight. I get that you’re anti-socialist. I get that you’re pro-Israel. But I also get that you’re anti-Christian Conservative and this often bleeds into what I see as anti-conservative.So where does that leave you…??? To answer my own question… I’d love to see you join the Democratic Party and get active within it. I truly believe you’d move it to the Right and from either a conservative or a moderate (or even liberal) Republican perspective… that would be a victory for the Republican Party.BILL
barker13 // May 6, 2009 at 10:21 am
Re: Brutus1776; wrote 2 minutes ago –Hell, Brutus…(*AMUSED CHUCKLE*)…if the QUESTION surprises you… what must you make of the ANSWERS – not to mention the general silence in the face of the question by all except Sinz?BILL
mlindroo // May 6, 2009 at 11:07 am
Brutus1776 wrote:> I’m a bit suprised that such questions have to be > asked [...]> A lot of these questions seem to be “Bud or Bud Light?” > I’ll take the full flavor whenever I can…I personally don’t care very much for any kind of Budweiser. I would rather settle for a good import (although I usually have a Bud whenever the U.S. national hockey team is on television). —To take the analogy further, we are essentially discussing whether a majority of Pennsylvanians would be less likely to choose the moderate Democratic flavor if the other option on the table were a traditional conservative ale rather than Bud Light. In any case, my personal preferences regarding beer are totally irrelevant as this forum isn’t about myself, Barker13 or any other participant. —BTW, someone (Franco?) once lamented that there are too many liberals (or non-Republicans) in this forum. That’s a bit harsh, IMHO. This is quite an interesting website if you’re into politics, the contributors are for the most part both polite and interesting and at least somewhat unconventional. And the comments section tends to stay civil and interesting too. I always liked David Frum’s old NRO column for the same reason although I did not agree with much of what he wrote…at least he wasn’t being totally predictable like the other folks living inside their airtight cocoon in the NRO Corner (or Commentary Contentions…the far left forums are of course every bit as insular). MARCU$
Brutus1776 // May 6, 2009 at 11:36 am
We’re talking about beer and PA, and nobody goes for the Yuengling? I know I do.
barker13 // May 6, 2009 at 11:48 am
Re: Brutus1776; wrote 7 minutes ago –Good point!Actually, in my rarely humble opinion, Yuengling is the best large production “standard” American beer.Hey… to be honest there’s nothing like a cold Bud when you’re really, really hot, tired, sweaty, and NEED a break… but if I’m at a party or somewhere and there’s no good beer but there is Yuengling in addition to the Coors and the Bud… I’m a happy camper.Let us all raise a non-partisan cybertoast to the State of Pennsylvania and Yuengling beer!CHEERS!BILL
mlindroo // May 6, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Totally off-topic, I know, but has anyone here tried Liberty Ale before?? I just witnessed the U.S. beat the Finnish national hockey team for the first time since 1991(!) at the hockey world championships, and I had two pints of this particularly excellent San Francisco brand…Next up: Ilya Kovalchuk & the rest of Russia in the semifinals two days from now. MARCU$
mlindroo // May 6, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Barker13 wrote:> I was the first to post on this thread (that post was> removed of course, along with another).Are you absolutely certain that your posts are being censored, then? I’ve noticed that the http://www.newmajority.com URL seems to be rather prickly regarding usage of special characters such as “*”, “>” etc..—Anyway, true “conservatism” is in the eye of the beholder isn’t it? Maybe David Frum has some uniquely Canadian viewpoint of ‘conservatism that can win again’….MARCU$
sinz54 // May 6, 2009 at 3:13 pm
I don’t know why my views are so hard to understand. Perhaps the problem is that this blog just lets us discuss a specific issue here or there, so none of us has a chance to describe our total philosophies.So let me give you mine in a single post, this one:In recent years, I have been a conservative Independent. I had voted Republican in most elections since the 1970s. What has kept me from being a Republican in recent years is the GOP’s staunch social conservatism.On foreign policy, I am quite hawkish. I would have razed Fallujah to the ground before giving it back to the enemy. But I don’t believe in pre-emptive war, at least not until our HUMINT capabilities have been built up to the point that we can know our enemies’ intentions as well as their capabilities. Otherwise, it’s just too great a risk, as we saw with Iraq.On economic policy, I generally believe in limited government, low taxes, free markets, and free trade. But economic emergencies may require temporary emergency actions that are inconsistent with this principle, much as a peace-loving man may be forced to take up arms in defense of his family or his nation.As I said on this blog before, the way to have fixed the financial crisis was a combination of Fed moves and bailouts of the financial industry ONLY. We needed to do whatever it took to unfreeze the credit markets and reverse the contraction of the money supply–and then STOP THERE. I am absolutely opposed to Obama using this economic crisis to push Great Society II under the false label of “stimulus.”On social policy, I lean libertarian. I’m pro-choice on abortion (through the first trimester anyway). I have no problem with same-sex marriage. And I recognize that young people mature at different rates; one young person may be ready for a sexual relationship at 16, and another young person may not be till he’s in his twenties. I know from history that virginity was a Holy Grail but often not attained, even in Colonial times. (A quick check of the marriage and birth records in Colonial New England will reveal that 35% of wives gave birth to their first child less than 5 months after the wedding. And in the early 19th century, the legal “age of consent” was: 12!!!)Where possible, we should draw on the best that science has to offer, in making decisions involving life. That the Federal Government has insisted that it will send drug-enforcement agents to arrest cancer patients for smoking marijuana is an example of an anti-science policy. Ask your own physician which is more dangerous: Stage IV cancer or marijuana.Finally: I am *NOT* anti-Christian!!! But I still know from history that when the zealotry of religion is wedded to a national government’s powers of force–to imprison, to torture, to execute, to wage war–real catastrophe has resulted. Not just to innocent people. Not just to the nation, dragged into wars for irrational/mystical reasons. But also to religion itself. Religion has been dirtied and corrupted by government power. Christianity has never lived down the Crusades or the witch-burnings or the pogroms or the ethnic cleansings.In America, as Mark Steyn has pointed out repeatedly, religion has flourished, a thousand varieties have bloomed, precisely because the government does not get a chance to pick winners and losers.And that’s why the GOP must never be dominated by Christian fundamentalists. It will not only doom the GOP. In the long run, it will hurt Christianity–by making it a political football.Hope this helps.
mlindroo // May 6, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Re. “true” conservative Republicans, El Rusho’s latest attack on the universally respected Gen. Colin Powell is quite astonishing.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22203.htmlConservative radio host Rush Limbaugh Wednesday that if former Secretary of State Colin Powell is going to keep criticizing the GOP, he may as well leave the party and become a Democratadding that Powells endorsement of Barack Obama was purely and solely based on race. He’s just mad at me because Im the one person in the country that had the guts to explain his endorsement of Obama, Limbaugh said on his radio show. There can be no other explanation for it.What Colin Powell needs to do is close the loop and become a Democrat, instead of claiming to be a Republican interested in reforming the Republican Party. He’s not. He’s a full-fledged Democrat, Limbaugh said. He’s out there saying I am killing the Republican Party while he endorsed and voted for Obama, Limbaugh added. The Republican Party nominated the exact kind of candidate Colin Powell thinks the Republican Party should have and he still endorsed Obama.- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - Powell’s response: Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?”
Realist // May 6, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Ridge Listed Residence in MarylandPolitical Wire has learned that former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge (R) listed his residence as Chevy Chase, MD on a recent foreign agents registration filing with the U. S. Department of Justice. He reported he was representing the Government of Albania.If Ridge chooses to run for U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania, expect this to be a big issue in the Republican primary. The latest reports suggested he would make a decision in two weeks.Good luck.
Realist // May 6, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Ridge Listed Residence in MarylandPolitical Wire has learned that former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge (R) listed his residence as Chevy Chase, MD on a recent foreign agents registration filing with the U. S. Department of Justice. He reported he was representing the Government of Albania.If Ridge chooses to run for U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania, expect this to be a big issue in the Republican primary. The latest reports suggested he would make a decision in two weeks.Good luck.
barker13 // May 6, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Re: Sinz54; 3:13 PM –Thanks for the post, Sinz. You and I seem to have far more in common as compared to what we differ on.”What has kept me from being a Republican in recent years is the GOP’s staunch social conservatism.”Yeah. You just don’t like the “Christian Right.” That comes across loud and clear.Me… I’m not all that found of the Christian Left. (*WINK*) (Or the Jewish Left for that matter!) (*GRIN*)In all seriousness, even as I differ with the Christian Right fairly often, I respect their views and where they’re coming from. You come across as less… er… tolerant.I’m not saying that to make a judgment as much as to simply make a statement outlining my perspective… how you come across to me.On the individual social issues – gay marriage in particular – you and I seem to be pretty much on the same page. On abortion… you seem to share my general position on what “should be” or at least what’s “reasonable.” We differ on how the abortion issue plays for or against a conservative GOP. (*SHRUG*)”On foreign policy, I am quite hawkish. I would have razed Fallujah to the ground before giving it back to the enemy. But I don’t believe in pre-emptive war, at least not until our HUMINT capabilities have been built up to the point that we can know our enemies’ intentions as well as their capabilities.”I’m a nationalist not an imperialist. In other words, I’m far closer to Buchanan and Ron Paul than to the neocons and Wilsonians. I’m certainly not an isolationist, but nor am I comfortable with the world policeman role unless it’s a direct need of vital U.S. policy interests OR an easy fix for a clear moral and ethical disaster.”…free trade…”That’s one area we probably disagree on – to extent at least. Again… I’m a nationalist. “…economic emergencies may require temporary emergency actions that are inconsistent with this principle…”TARP was a mistake. The bailouts were mistakes. The various stimulus packages were mistakes. We’ll have to agree to disagree.* To be continued…BILL
barker13 // May 6, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Re: Sinz54; 3:13 PM –* Continuing…”I am absolutely opposed to Obama using this economic crisis to push Great Society II under the false label of “stimulus.”"We’re in agreement.”That the Federal Government has insisted that it will send drug-enforcement agents to arrest cancer patients for smoking marijuana is…”Frigg’n nuts. Yeah. I’m with you. On the other hand, the California experiment is clearly a failure – IMHO. If we disagree on that then we disagree. (*SHRUG*)”Finally: I am *NOT* anti-Christian!!!”You come across as anti-Christian Right. To me. (*SHRUG*) I’m not trying to insult you… I’m just telling you how you come across to me on this point.”Christianity has never lived down the Crusades or the witch-burnings or the pogroms or the ethnic cleansings.”See… there ya go! (*SHRUG*) Christianity was at the forefront of the anti-slavery movement, of the modern civil rights movement. Protestantism was the starting point for Western freedoms as we know them. You only see what you want to see, Sinz. (*SHRUG*)Anyway… AGAIN… thanks for taking the time to post. And yes… it did help.BILL
barker13 // May 6, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Re: Mlindroo; 4:14 PM –”…the universally respected Gen. Colin Powell…”Hardly.Re: Realist; wrote 52 minutes ago –Thanks for the head’s up!Figures. (*FROWN*)BILL
choccity2005 // May 6, 2009 at 10:27 pm
I choose ridge.he has all the qualities of a good senator.I am a christian,I am against abortion 100%,and i support pro choice conservatives.you know why?ABORTION IS NOT ILLEGAL.I don’t know if any in the religios right has noticed that.guiliani…would have made a great candidate against obama.If any one lived in NYC and saw what he did to change NYC after dinkins,i mean it was like night and day.They elected john mccain instead.Mitt romney…a superb buisnessman,with incredible problem solving skills……How would he have handled the auto industry??The financial problems…..they elected mccain.Imagine if we had a ROMNEY/GULIANI TICKET!!!governor,mayor,proven results in buisness,crime fighting,governemnt,foreign policies,auto industry…..problem solvers!!!oh wait….we can’t cause thier pro abortion,or they are pro gay rights(against gay marriage)but pro gay rights.oh and guiliani has been married a few times,oh and romney is a mormon.So exclude that ticket.Tell me are we voting for a president or are we voting for a POPE!!!
danbmil99 // May 7, 2009 at 1:20 am
sinz54: “And that’s why the GOP must never be dominated by Christian fundamentalists. It will not only doom the GOP. In the long run, it will hurt Christianity–by making it a political football.”Great post. I agree with pretty much everything you said here. Which is funny because on specific points I often get mad at your posts.I think the big fight in store for the GOP is the libertarians vs the faux conservatives — “conservative family values”, “neo-conservative nation building”, and of course the conservatives in name only who borrow and spend every bit as recklessly as the dems (at least until this admin), and cut taxes on their rich friends to boot.The party needs purification, but not the kind Rush Limbaugh is talking about. The kind that highlights that Rush is — I’m going to say it — a big fat idiot. (and I’m no fan of Franken!)
barker13 // May 7, 2009 at 6:55 am
Re: Choccity2005; 10:27 PM –Choc. I too was a Giuliani supporter. The thing is… he’s let us down TWICE now.(*SHRUG*)Sure… I’m willing to cut him a bit of slack on the whole cancer deal… but let’s keep in mind, Imus hasn’t quit his radio show and many people carry on working through cancer.(*SHRUG*)As to Romney…Do you trust him? Do you TRUST him…???Sure… by the end of the campaign he was talking the talk. No doubt about it… I cheered his honesty during that last month or so of his campaign. But I fear that honesty was more a product of desperation and setting the stage for future election opportunities than simply honesty for the sake of being honest… of being who he is.Anyway… I’ll keep an open mind on Romney. As to Giuliani… as I’ve noted… two strikes so far…(*SHRUG*)BILL
choccity2005 // May 7, 2009 at 9:59 pm
barker13:The rule is 3 strikes and your out.Romney and guiliani were in positions where they had to act like social conservatives to win the primary and it should not be like that.i feel like the conservative christian fundamentalists want to vote for jesus instead of a smart,problem solving patriot.George bush was the christian fundamentalist golden boy.Strong family values,prayed…spoke like a christian.he is a good man…i do not doubt that ,but he was a HORRIBLE president.Guiliani is a very flawed man but he would be a great president.Why….cause he makes tough decisions that are smart and thought out.He is a born leader where as bush is not.Guiliani is my vote for president.Him or newt gingrich.The fact that people want sarah palin…is the reason alone there can no longer be a christian fundamentalist candidate.I love sarah palin,I think she’s a smart,tough,devoted woman.But i saw the couric interview,i saw the charlie gibson interview.How can anyone not know what the bush doctrine is??I mean she’s so uninformed it’s silly.Put guiliani in that role and watch him knock it out the party.WE NEED TO VOTE IDEAS and NOT PERSONALITIES.
barker13 // May 8, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Re: Choccity2005; 9:59 PM –”barker13:The rule is 3 strikes and your out.”I’m a conservative – two is plenty!(*GRIN*)Seriously… we’re not that far apart.BILL