Give Pat Toomey credit for this:
The declared challenger for the GOP nomination for Arlen Specter’s Senate seat is willing to bet a career on a proposition that other conservatives only assert from the safety of the sidelines.
Toomey is betting that Republicans would do better in a blue-leaning state like Pennsylvania if they purged the last remaining moderates from the party. He’s (again) challenging Arlen Spectator – and this time, unlike last, he may well succeed. Just as Ned Lamont succeeded against Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary.
The grand problem that follows, for Toomey as for Lamont, is then: what happens next? In the Connecticut example, Democrats escaped lightly from the Lamont blunder. Instead of delivering the seat to the Republicans, Lieberman ran as an independent Democrat and won, and since then has voted more or less along the Democratic party line. In Pennyslvania, by contrast, the defeat of Specter almost certainly will mean the loss of both Pennsylvania Senates to the Democrats for a generation.
Toomey theorizes that Republicans would do better in Pennsylvania if they were more outspokenly prolife and defiantly opposed to the Obama economic plan. The reality: If nominated, Toomey’s prolife views would cost him what remains of traditional Republican support in the Philadelphia suburbs and his anti-stimulus stance would damage him with working-clsas voters elsewhere in the state.
Take a look at this Quinnipiac survey:
Penn voters approve the Obama stimulus plan 50-37. They approve of Arlen Specter too, especially Independents and Democrats. And of course President Obama remains popular in the state.
On the other hand, maybe a Toomey nomination and subsequent defeat is just the kind of learning experience Republicans need to undergo. You might think we have had enough hard lessons as it is. But no. I’m reminded of that old 1960s joke about the liberal judge who decalred that the experience of being himself mugged had not changed his lenient views. Punchline: An old lady at the back of the hall shouts, “Mug him again.” That seems to be the GOP’s impending fate as well.
57 responses so far
1 gibberish // Apr 16, 2009 at 6:36 am
Very true – losing parties usually become more extreme afterwards because it is the more moderate people lose their seats. This leaves more extreme rump who can actually believe that the the loss of the moderates proves only the pure can win.
It takes a few electoral thumpings before they can be made to understand that the moderates lost because they sit not ultra-safe gerrymandered sinecures but in the sort of swing states/seats that need to be won back if power is ever to be regained.
David, I think a few scattered muggings will convince no one – there can always be an excuse for a single loss. No, it will take a mass failure in a national election or two
2 Cforchange // Apr 16, 2009 at 6:40 am
These are tactics similar to a suicide bomber so maybe as you say – if this plans fails it will short cut the repair of the party.
3 rizvisa1 // Apr 16, 2009 at 6:55 am
I dont know why would you like to give him any credit. Bottom line is if he run, seats goes blue for almost certainty. If Spector run, seat may remain red. Franken is about to be seated. Democrats are expected to top 60 seats in 2010 unless some thing real bad happens for them. Having a GOP person who can vote with democrats gives GOP more say in such condition (as democrats would love to have few GOP yes votes), rather than a democrat who does not have to be conservative like Nelson or Bayh.
4 pampl // Apr 16, 2009 at 8:17 am
“loss of both Pennsylvania Senates”
“working-clsas”
“decalred”
Proofreading?
5 Chekote // Apr 16, 2009 at 8:52 am
The bailouts – polls tell us – are very unpopular with the American electorate. Same with the stimulus bill – supported by Specter – where polls shows that at best it enjoys half of the electorate’s support. Yet, Frum insists on calling these positions extreme. Why? What is the definition of extreme? 50%?
The GOP needs a few unifying principles. I think one should be fiscal discipline. If we cannot as a party stand united on fiscal discipline, then why even have a GOP? Bush’s deficits and government expansion eroded the GOP base of eCons and the result was the loss of the socially moderate vote. So Specter is not an option.
I agree with Frum that Toomey’s pro-life stance will surely cost him the general election. But my suggestion is not to embrace a big spender like Specter. My suggestion for the GOP is to find someone like Ridge to replace Specter.
In the long term, the GOP needs to adjust its stance on social issues. It needs to remove the HLA from its platform and show the door to the one issue voters.
6 jjv // Apr 16, 2009 at 9:19 am
What if Toomey wins? 2010 could shape up to be the perfect year for him. Also, no pro-life Senatorial candidate has lost to a pro-choice candidate in a long time in Pa. Santorum beat Woford in a good year for Republicans. 2010 could be such a year.
7 ottovbvs // Apr 16, 2009 at 9:22 am
Chekote
wrote 23 minutes ago
“Same with the stimulus bill – supported by Specter – where polls shows that at best it enjoys half of the electorate’s support”
Support for the stimulus bill was in the mid fifties. A political novice who ran explicitly on support for Obama and the stimulus bill has just held onto NY20 for democrats against a substantial, well known, local Republican candidate who should have been a shoo in during an election that all the conservative pundits were telling us was a referendum on Obama. A poll two days ago showed 71% support for Obama’s management of the economy against 31% for Republicans. Frum is entirely right. Toomey will almost certainly win the nomination but then crash in the general. It’s inevitable but I’m afraid folks like you are going to need a load of experience like this before you see the light if you ever do.
8 ottovbvs // Apr 16, 2009 at 9:24 am
“jjv
wrote 3 minutes ago
What if Toomey wins? 2010 could shape up to be the perfect year for him.”
…..It’s a process that has to be gone through.
9 ireign // Apr 16, 2009 at 9:27 am
If Liebermand hadn’t stayed in the race, Lamont would have been the next Senator from Connecticut. Any argument to the contrary is false. I preferred Lieberman to Lamont, but Lieberman’s decision to stay in the race as an independent had nothing to do with helping Democrats retain the seat, and was all about self-interest.
If you can provide numbers to the contrary, please do.
10 Chekote // Apr 16, 2009 at 9:38 am
ottovbvs
My point was that something that enjoys let’s say 40% support is not an extreme position. As far as NY-20, Gillibrand won that seat in November 2008 by 20 points. Murphy squeaking through is not a resounding success by any objective measure. Finally, Tedisco was running against bonuses and Wall Street. If the GOP gets in the business of government dictating salaries, renegotiating employment contracts, count me out.
“It’s inevitable but I’m afraid folks like you are going to need a load of experience like this before you see the light if you ever do.”
Folks like me want to rein in the federal government. We want the federal government to stop spending money we don’t have. Most rational people understand that they current course is not substanable. I agree with Frum’s assessment that Toomey will lose in the general election because of his pro-life stance. I suggested that we recruit a Ridge instead of settling for Specter.
If the GOP wants to make a comeback, it needs to soften its position on social issues. It needs to change start emphasizing fiscal issues.
11 sinz54 // Apr 16, 2009 at 9:50 am
Chekote: I agree. What is needed to win Pennsylvania is a Rudy Giuliani type of figure: Fiscally conservative (endorsed by the Club for Growth), proudly patriotic and defiant of terrorists (which would appeal to the blue-collar voters), but moderate on social policy.
Unfortunately, Pat Toomey isn’t that type of guy. His stance against embryonic stem-cell research will turn off suburbanites, even if his pro-life stance doesn’t.
12 Chekote // Apr 16, 2009 at 9:56 am
Sinz
If we are going to regain seats outside of the South and mountain states, we need Rudy types as our candidates. Smart, capable, urbane, socially moderate. These hardcore pro-life stance is not going to work.
13 ChristianMiller // Apr 16, 2009 at 10:59 am
The thing is David, Spector has to lose for conservatives to win. It is that simple. He needs to be tossed out on his sorry ass. I don’t care if a Democrat wins and beats Toomey. I care only that Spector and the rest of these wimps and frauds get the message. And I predict Spector will lose the primary. I can’t wait for that old fraud to be unceremoniously retired.
14 ChristianMiller // Apr 16, 2009 at 11:03 am
Spector is almost worthless to Republicans. He also can be counterproductive, as his vote along with those harpies from Maine served to allow the MSM to call the stimulus vote “bi-partisan”. He also regularly trashes other Republicans to get facetime on TV. So it is no great loss to have him replaced by a Democrat. Heck the Democrat might even vote more often with Republicans than Spector does!
15 ottovbvs // Apr 16, 2009 at 11:03 am
Chekote
9:38 AM
I misunderstood you. We’re both agreed Toomey hasn’t a snowball in hells’s chance of winning a general in PA. In fact, I doubt if Specter can win if the Dems pick a really strong candidate to oppose him. I don’t see Rudy types as the solution to our dilemma. I lived in NYC during his mayoralty and he accomplished a lot during his first term but the swing to Mussolinism, and that’s not too strong a way to describe it, had made him poison halfway through his second term. Throw in all the personal baggage which was essentially a reflection of the same egomania and he’s the last kind of guy we want. Bloomberg is quieter and has been equally effective without a tenth of the drama……As for NY20 a narrow win for either side essentially says nothing has changed since November 4…..That said Tedisco given his local standing and the resource put in by Republicans should have pulled this out and there’s no doubt the Republicans were expecting it until literally the eve of the race. The point surely is that comfortably two thirds of the country resides total trust in Obama to fix the economy. And he’s going to, there’s absolutely no question about it, and he and the dems will get the credit. This will almost certainly be the big issue in the 2010 midterms. If it is the Dems make further gains….it’s reality.
16 ottovbvs // Apr 16, 2009 at 11:06 am
“those harpies from Maine”
…..Who the Mainers absolutely love…..but we don’t want them in the Republican party
17 ChristianMiller // Apr 16, 2009 at 11:09 am
The lesson is going to be, You can’t keep telling us the “other guy is worse” and then give the absolute minimal support to your own party, you are outta here!
Real conservatives are mad as hell at Republicans right now and Spector and McCain are poster boys for what is wrong with the party. You can have that POS party – keep the frikin’ elephant too!
18 ChristianMiller // Apr 16, 2009 at 11:15 am
Some of you guys are hilarious C for Change actually said Obama was the most captialistic President since Eisenhower!!! Too funny.
Now ottobvs says Obama will absolutely “fix” the economy.
He’s going to change water into wine too I guess…
19 barker13 // Apr 16, 2009 at 11:30 am
Re: Chekote; 8:52 AM –
“The bailouts – polls tell us – are very unpopular with the American electorate. Same with the stimulus bill…”
Yep! That’s EXACTLY what I was thinking as I read David’s caution that Toomey’s anti-stimulus stance would supposedly “damage him with working-class voters…”
Dave. DUDE. Seriously… who exactly are these “working class” folks you’re claiming to speak for…???
I mean… no offense… but aside from perhaps knowing your doorman’s first name or perhaps being a heavy tipper… where are you coming up with this inferred personal connection to the “working class?”
Just curious. Not trying to pick a fight. Not trying to demean you. Seriously… just curious….
“The GOP needs a few unifying principles. I think one should be fiscal discipline.”
Hear, hear!!!
“I agree with Frum that Toomey’s pro-life stance will surely cost him the general election.”
I admit… I don’t know enough about the particulars – nuts and bolts – of Toomey’s position nor am I familiar enough with PA polling results to challenge you. So… let me ask you… from what you know of Toomey’s position, from what you know of voter preferences in PA… assuming Toomey wins the GOP primary and is our guy in the general election, how do you propose Toomey articulate his position in order to win the most votes, lose the fewest votes, all while remaining true to his principles?
Dave… same question to you. You claim that you and NM are all about winning… so… say Toomey is the nominee… how does he win? What are your concrete suggestions?
BILL
20 ottovbvs // Apr 16, 2009 at 11:33 am
“Franco
wrote 16 minutes ago
He’s going to change water into wine too I guess…”
…..Let’s just get you clearly on record here Franco…..you are saying the economy will not be on the mend by the spring of next year…is that correct
21 mlindroo // Apr 16, 2009 at 11:34 am
> The thing is David, Spector has to lose for
> conservatives to win. It is that simple. He needs
> to be tossed out on his sorry ass. I don’t care if a
> Democrat wins and beats Toomey. I care only
> that Spector and the rest of these wimps and
> frauds get the message.
In that case, the message will be that you have no place in the Republican party unless you are a full blooded conservative! Specter is hardly an “extremist” even at the national level, and Pennsylvania undoubtedly is moving into the Democratic column. Rick Santorum was a fluke who quickly lost his seat to a moderate Democrat.
—
If Franco had his way, the GOP senate caucus would be reduced to 20-30 hardliners from the Deep South and a handful of Mountain states such as Utah. The rest would all be moderate or liberal Democrats!!
MARCU$
22 barker13 // Apr 16, 2009 at 11:46 am
Re: Ottovbvs; 9:22 AM –
“Support for the stimulus bill was in the mid fifties.”
Was.
And that “was” was conditioned upon the script most people were reading, hearing, and seeing as provided by the financial establishment, media, unions, academia, etc, that “stimulus” = “our economy’s only hope.”
Ott… you can fool some of the people all of the time and (most) all of the people some of the time, but the more exposure regular folks get to the “anti-stimulus” “anti-bailout” message, the more they’ll see the truth that throwing good (BORROWED!) money after bad ain’t an act of sophisticated economic brilliance, but rather, it’s an act of insanity.
Oh… and yeah… since the first “stimulus” and “bailout” packages had the support not only of the Dems, but of the pseudo-Dems – Bush and McCain.
No… no doubt in my mind… firm opposition to irresponsible financial and economic decisions and policies of the Dems and RINOs is the only way for the GOP to take back power from Obama and the Dems and save this country from… itself.
Re: Sinz54; 9:50 AM –
Hey… I supported Giuliani in the primaries. I wish he were president today. Still… he’s not… nor is he going to be the PA GOP’s candidate for Senate coming up. So… what’s your advice to Toomey…???
Re: Franco; wrote 32 minutes ago and Franco; wrote 27 minutes ago –
(*THUMBS UP*) Agreed.
BILL
23 ottovbvs // Apr 16, 2009 at 11:46 am
“If Franco had his way, the GOP senate caucus would be reduced to 20-30 hardliners from the Deep South and a handful of Mountain states such as Utah. The rest would all be moderate or liberal Democrats!!”
On present form Franco is going to get his way. The Republicans with the number of retirements, an economy on the mend, universal healthcare under their belts, an enormously popular president, could easily loose 4-7 senate seats. The only dem at serious risk is Dodd, and despite the numbers CT is never going to send a Republican back to the senate.
24 ottovbvs // Apr 16, 2009 at 11:55 am
barker13
wrote 0 minutes ago
“Was”
The 71% approval on Obama’s economic management was two days ago for godsake. Basically the average American hasn’t a clue on these programs they just want to get back to what they perceive as normality. There’s no doubt in my mind the banking system has been stabilized. The real economy is being flooded with liquidity, aggregate demand is being boosted, as night follows day the economy will be growing again by next spring. Deny it if you want, it’s reality. Forget all the populist bs at the end of the day Obama has the trust of the country at this precise moment. You can say he’s going to lose it but I see little evidence of it so far.
25 ChristianMiller // Apr 16, 2009 at 12:02 pm
mlindroo, No the message will be that Pennsylvania Republicans don’t think Spector represents their interests. And he doesn’t. Republicans have to cauterize the wound to stop the bleeding. They have to take the battle to the enemy and win or lose. Continuing to appease and placate creates an ongoing losing situation.
ottovbvs You have no idea what Obama is doing to the economy if you think it is going to get better in 2 years.
26 Chekote // Apr 16, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Okay guys, let’s drop the parties for a moment. Same for liberal vs. conservative. Does anyone here think that the current course of borrowing and spending is substainable? Does anyone here think that monetizing our spending is good for our currency in the long term? I don’t. And I honestly don’t care about Obama’s polls. Responsible people on both sides of the political spectrum need to step up and put a stop to the current madness. That is what the country needs. All the rest is just noise.
Barker
What should Toomey do if he gets the nomination? Backoff social issues. Back off embryonic stem cell research. Say that he personally doesn’t agree with but the majority of Pennsyvanians support it and he will do nothing to oppose them. Same with abortion. Support reasonable restrictions which enjoy broad bi-partisan support but draw the line at banning it. Focus on changing hearts and minds instead of looking for a legal solution.
27 ChristianMiller // Apr 16, 2009 at 1:06 pm
You are asking a lot of these folks Chekote. Drop labels? They can’t think without these labels and affiliations. It is beyond their “pay grade” as Obama would say.
This spending is an outright power grab and is not intended to help, it is intended to hurt so they can grab more power. They will propagandize everyone further that things are getting better by 2010 and the true believers will go along.
The MSM just took another huge hit though their coverage of the tea parties cost them what little credibility they had left. So the propaganda may need to be extra clever, for them get people to disbelieve their own eyes.
28 A.B. // Apr 16, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Ah, heck, Toomey is nothing compared to Palin-Perry, “Secesh in ‘12″ It is going to be a hard decade.
29 mlindroo // Apr 16, 2009 at 1:12 pm
> mlindroo, No the message will be that
> Pennsylvania Republicans don’t think Spector
> represents their interests. And he doesn’t.
But, Franco, your position is insane! Republicans in all but a handful of southern or western rural states will be absolutely powerless unless they can peel off moderates and independents. The old Rovian tactic of “turning out the conservative base” no longer works, simply because “the base” is too small. Heck, Rove’s tactics failed in 2000 (Gore would be president if the Florida Democratic Party had not screwed up their own voting system) and only barely worked in 2004 thanks to the 9/11 effect.
The voters who liked Specter will simply vote for the Democratic candidate instead once they realize there is no room for anyone except conservatives in the Republican party.
Now, I suppose you could argue that the Democrats should be allowed to run the show virtually unopposed for 10-20 years much like they are doing in California right now. If the result is bad enough, surely the GOP (like the Tories in Britain) will eventually get another try. I note that Ralph Nader was sort of making the same argument to the Left a decade ago, i.e. Gore was no better than the Republican candidate but the American public would be willing to finally elect a true left-wing liberal after experiencing eight years of G.W. Bush… I have to admit his argument makes more sense to me now than it did back then! Are you saying the GOP should just repeat the talking points of the Reagan years and 1994 “contract with America” and patiently wait until the same warmed up tried-and-trusted message resonates with voters again?
MARCU$
30 barker13 // Apr 16, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Re: Ottovbvs; wrote 43 minutes ago –
Ott… please don’t mix and match your stats. You were SPECIFICALLY referring to “stimulus” and YOU noted “mid-50’s;” now you’re talking “approval of economic management” and quoting 71%.
Hey… fine to have two separate comments… refer to two separate specific issues and polls… but don’t try to say you were referring to the later when you were quoting the former.
ANYWAY…
“…71% approval on Obama’s economic management…”
Oh, please… garbage in, garbage out; these poll results indicate people’s HOPES based upon their FEELINGS… it doesn’t have anything to do with the reality of Obama’s policies.
Heck… I’d hazard a guess the polling questions themselves were so general and non-specific regarding actual policies that even if a respondent was knowledgeable enough to give an educated, reasonable answer, the questions wouldn’t allow it.
“Basically the average American hasn’t a clue…”
(*GRIN*) Well on that we agree. (*HANDSHAKE*)
“There’s no doubt in my mind the banking system has been stabilized.”
Sorry… I still have no idea what you mean by “stabilized.”
In any case… I’ve made quite clear my views and predictions concerning short, mid, and long term scenarios for the U.S. economy. Short answer… I hope when my kid gets married and has kids there’s somewhere in the world she and her family can immigrate to in order to have the same chance for intergenerational advancement as historically immigrants coming to America had.
(*SIGH*) (*SHRUG*)
“The real economy is being flooded with liquidity…”
Do we really need to bore each other as well as anyone following our exchanges by going round and round spouting the same rhetoric?
Seriously.. Ott… you see “liquidity,” I see debt. (*SHRUG*) You see “aggregate demand”… I see a hamster stuck on his playwheel. (*SHRUG*)
Borrowing more money to buy more crap (often made overseas) that one doesn’t need in the first place may be your idea of sophisticated economic policy… it ain’t mine. (*SHRUG*)
My definition of “real economy” is logical, rational, and sustainable economy. A middle class America requires middle class jobs and the opportunity for advancement tied to performance but tethered to the reality of what level of advancement (position and pay) can actually be realized out of PROFITS.
Let me guess… you were one of those “Kudlow” Republicans yelling “Go, Baby, GO!,” “higher and higher, YES!,” all during the “boom years.”
(*SMIRK*)
Anyway… over the next five years we’ll see which of us is looking at the world through rose colored glasses and which of us was the realist.
BILL
31 barker13 // Apr 16, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Re: Chekote; wrote 27 minutes ago –
Sounds like good advice re: “what should Toomey do?”
(*THUMBS UP*)
Re: mlindroo; wrote 0 minutes ago –
Yep… thank God McCain was our nominee or else we would have lost the election…
(*SNICKER*)
Seriously… and I mean this is a POSITIVE non-”punishing” sense… I wish that Republicans who don’t consider themselves “conservatives,” and even those self-styled “conservatives” who disdain the Limbaughs and Becks and Buchanans and Dobbs and Pauls and Tancredos and Barkers (*GRIN*) would move in mass to the Democratic Party and get active within it.
Man… that would change the whole dynamic. Perhaps “you folks” would end up getting policies not to my taste, but you’d move the Democratic Party to the Right and so even when “my” side loses… the loss would be less damaging to the country than as things stand now with a fairly united “Left” Democratic Party against a Republican Party with “traitors” within.
(Yes… yes… I know disagreement is not treason – I put the word in quotes for a reason.) (*SMILE*)
BILL
32 ChristianMiller // Apr 16, 2009 at 1:57 pm
mlindroo, Thanks for your thoughtful response. I just don’t agree. I am not saying that we need to dump all these moderate Republicans who vote so often with Democrats. I am saying that, at this point, Spector needs to go. If he is retired other Republicans will get the message. No need to turn them all out wholesale.
I agree that there is an undercurrent going on at all times. The party in power gets blamed for everything, and people get tired of the party in power generally.
The real problem is the grounds of the debate which is controlled by the MSM.
Until that problem is solved it really doesn’t matter how moderate or radical Republicans are. I am convinced that everything is relative in partisan politics. The Democrats have been moving left for decades and now they are really on the fringe. Republicans have followed them leftward, clearly.
I remember when Republicans were villified and ridiculed for being pro-life. Then more pro-choice R’s were elected and those are vilified for wanting parental notification or for wanting to ban partial-birth abortions.
I remember when Democrats were advocating for gay civil unions. Now Democrats argue for gay marriage and Republicans are attacked for only being for civil unions.
The list goes on, and we will never satisfy the left and they will continue to fool the moderates and the fence-sitters through their outlets in the MSM.
33 ottovbvs // Apr 16, 2009 at 3:18 pm
barker13
1:13 PM
I’m afraid you live in an alternate universe. The timulus polls are 4-6 weeks old…. you suggested they were out of date…..I gave you a poll from a couple of days ago showing that when it comes to economic management the country has total confidence in obama which means by and large they have confidence in his policies. We will indeed see whose right about the course of events during the next eight years.
34 ottovbvs // Apr 16, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Franco
12:02 PM
Franco dear boy I think your knowledge of how the economy works is at one with your knowledge of a political reality in which Spector, the two harpies from Maine, and anyone else who you perceive as a RINO is kicked out of the GOP to ensure its doctrinal purity. I wonder if you read Frum’s article. Even if you did it clearly didn’t resonate so have it your own way. Obama is going to crash and burn….the GOP only had to be more conservative and return to power is assured.
35 ChristianMiller // Apr 16, 2009 at 3:31 pm
ottovbvs I’m laughing at you. You really think borrowing money you don’t have and giving it out to politically connected non-producers will help the economy? Taxing producers for more welfare, corporate and otherwise, and rewarding failed businesses who have over-promised to unions? And then invigorate inflation to push everyone into a higher tax bracket? If inflation comes, and it will, you might yet make it over $200,000 and then you will be paying your “fair share” too.
36 barker13 // Apr 16, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Re: Ottovbvs; wrote 32 minutes ago –
Well… (*SMILE*)… at least we agree time will tell.
BILL
37 sinz54 // Apr 16, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Franco says: “The real problem is the grounds of the debate which is controlled by the MSM.”
If you think that’s why the GOP lost the last two elections, you are so far out of touch that there isn’t even any point in debating that with you. It’s classic denialism–refusing to accept responsibility for having let the American people down, when some cherished Republican ideas came a cropper. Instead, you’re trashing around, frantically searching for a scapegoat, so that you can avoid facing up to the fact that some of our ideas were tried–and they failed.
If you’re referring to something longer term, then note that the MSM’s alleged “control” of the debate didn’t stop Nixon from winning, Reagan from winning, or Gingrich from taking control of Congress (which lasted till 2006).
38 Jerome // Apr 16, 2009 at 6:50 pm
You’re an idiot, Frum. What’s the point of Arlen Specter with an R by his name, and voting with the left? Liberal Republicans are what has destroyed the party and enabled the leftist media to undermine the traditional strengths of the party – national defense and fiscal responsibility.
Specter is utterly corrupt and should be removed from his seat, regardless of his party. If Toomey is a worthwhile representative of the people and a good candidate, he’ll be able to demonstrate that to Pennsylvania voters.
Supporting whiny liberal Republicans because you believe liberals will vote for them got us the nominee Senator McCain. 3.6 million 2004 voters decided it wasn’t worth going to the polls in 2008 for McCain – until you can explain that with your “moderates now!” nonsense, then your whole philosophy is just crap.
And it is just crap.
39 Athelstane // Apr 16, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Hello Mr. Frum,
It’s impossible to dispute that if Republicans want to be a majority again, they need the swing seats back they more or less conceded to Democrats – who were smart enough to pick up electable, moderate (even conservative) candidates to run in such districts – the last two cycles.
And many of those seats are in the Northeast. Where Republicans are a vanishing species.
The GOP may never be a majority party in this neck of the woods, but they have a long track record of staying competitive here. And they could be again if they find candidates who can win up here.
And so I’m OK with finding more Peter Kings, even more Olympia Snowes, or fresh versions thereof, to start winning some of these seats back.
But I will draw the line at Snarlin’ Arlin. Some bridges are just too far. How bad is Specter? I’d honestly rather see the seat in Democratic hands at this point. He’s that bad. And he’s been that bad long before even demonstrating his utter lack of grasp of basic constitutional law trying to debate Robert Bork in his confirmation hearings (en route to helping seal his fate).
But even so I refuse to buy into the proposition that only Specter can keep the seat (R). There was plenty of polling data that Toomey was very competitive in 2004 – and that was with virtually no money. And Santorum has proven that Pennsylvanians have been willing to send living, breathing conservatives to the Senate in recent memory.
Penn voters currently like the Obama plan. The Obama plan is a bad one. It’s the kind of thing conservatives must oppose. The kind of thing that if they don’t oppose, they have no reason for existing. But there are principled, non-knee-jerk, ways to make that case. And yes, there are ways to present the face of a principled, intelligent conservative opposition that does not treat Obama like Stalin or indulge in birth certificate conspiracy theories.
And it’s just possible that such a face exists in Keystone State GOP politics. I don’t see the harm in looking for it.
40 gary4205 // Apr 17, 2009 at 3:07 am
Frum, you give stupid a bad name!
You stupid moderates are the ones who have destroyed the Republican party! You aren’t a true conservative. You should be horsewhipped for calling yourself one!
Until the Republican party gets back to it’s strong Reagan roots, it’s over. The party is dead as it is.
Arlen Specter is the reason we have the freakin’ porkulus bill. He ALWAYS votes with the democrats.
Specter is the poster child for term limits!
41 Jerome // Apr 17, 2009 at 4:36 am
sinz54 5:23 PM
__________________________
I wonder why it is that you liberal Republicans continue to declare conservatives “so far out of touch that there isn’t even any point in debating that with you” while your own candidates fare worse than conservatives in virtually every election?
It’s obvious why you wouldn’t want to debate conservatives on the philosophical principles of conservatism – that you leave you arguing for liberalism. But if you are so convinced that liberalism is more effective in winning elections, why do liberal Republicans consistenly lose to more conservative Democrats?
Don’t get sucked in by Frum – he’s a putz.
42 Coffee260 // Apr 17, 2009 at 4:46 am
WOW! After reading David Frum I am so much more informed.
For instance, I now know that he harbors angst against conservatives for some unknown reason. Perhaps because the NY Times does? Hmmm.
I don’t know. He tends not to put forth any new ideas. Go figure.
Here’s a thought. If you don’t think Toomey can win with conservative ideas. Put forth some of your own. Maybe he’ll listen to them. You know, like John McCain.
Mr. Frum can’t do that because it will quickly become apparent that his idea of a New Majority is to read the read the NY Times, read the WSJ, and then concoct his ideas from a hodge podge of both.
The problem is he can’t quite put pen to paper. Except, that is, to ridicule conservatives. Something that is as irrational and supernatural as Antisemitism. Which Mr. Frum knows is something born of mystical irrationality.
43 JIMV // Apr 17, 2009 at 7:09 am
Perhaps republicans in Pennsylvania sort of want a republican candidate for a change…a rather exciting and novel idea, that.
44 WilG // Apr 17, 2009 at 7:36 am
Soooooo, the way to “Build a conservatism that can win again” is to drive away the pro-life, small-government, low-tax and Libertarian coalition?
Did I miss a memo, or would it hurt less to lose the 10 percent of liberal wienies claiming to be “moderates” than the 50 percent of the coalition represented by the likes of Pat Toomey?
Arlen Specter has done more to HARM the Republican party and the Conservative movement than anyone except The Manchurian candidate John McCain.
But the answer is to embrace this idiocy?
Dave, where can I get a pound of whatever it is you are smokin’?
This attitude is the reason John McCain lost. Even Sarah Palin ouldn’t save him from his weasel, apeasment, liberal tool reputation.
The Republicans are losing PA anyway. Why not “Cry Havoc! and Let Slip the Dogs of War!” If we lose, we lose a Senate seat. If we nominate Arlen Specter again, we lose our soul.
No, thanks, David. You do what you want, but I’m gonna stand on my own hind legs like a man.
—————–
“Proud Charter Member of the VRWC since 1964!”
45 WilG // Apr 17, 2009 at 7:40 am
Soooooo, the way to “Build a conservatism that can win again” is to drive away the pro-life, small-government, low-tax and Libertarian coalition?
Did I miss a memo, or would it hurt less to lose the 10 percent of liberal wienies claiming to be “moderates” than the 50 percent of the coalition represented by the likes of Pat Toomey?
Arlen Specter has done more to HARM the Republican party and the Conservative movement than anyone except The Manchurian candidate John McCain.
But the answer is to embrace this idiocy?
Dave, where can I get a pound of whatever it is you are smokin’?
This attitude is the reason John McCain lost. Even Sarah Palin ouldn’t save him from his weasel, apeasment, liberal tool reputation.
The Republicans are losing PA anyway. Why not “Cry Havoc! and Let Slip the Dogs of War!” If we lose, we lose a Senate seat. If we nominate Arlen Specter again, we lose our soul.
No, thanks, David. You do what you want, but I’m gonna stand on my own hind legs like a man.
—————–
“Proud Charter Member of the VRWC since 1964!”
46 WilG // Apr 17, 2009 at 7:45 am
Soooooo, the way to “Build a conservatism that can win again” is to drive away the pro-life, small-government, low-tax and Libertarian coalition?
Did I miss a memo, or would it hurt less to lose the 10 percent of liberal wienies claiming to be “moderates” than the 50 percent of the coalition represented by the likes of Pat Toomey?
Arlen Specter has done more to HARM the Republican party and the Conservative movement than anyone except The Manchurian candidate John McCain.
But the answer is to embrace this idiocy?
Dave, where can I get a pound of whatever it is you are smokin’?
This attitude is the reason John McCain lost. Even Sarah Palin ouldn’t save him from his weasel, apeasment, liberal tool reputation.
The Republicans are losing PA anyway. Why not “Cry Havoc! and Let Slip the Dogs of War!” If we lose, we lose a Senate seat. If we nominate Arlen Specter again, we lose our soul.
No, thanks, David. You do what you want, but I’m gonna stand on my own hind legs like a man.
—————–
“Proud Charter Member of the VRWC since 1964!”
47 krove // Apr 17, 2009 at 10:32 am
I think the GOP should run social conservatives in all races.
If you have the courage of your convictions then go for it. Don’t run limp RINO’s as they bring nothing to the table. They vote along with the Socialists anyway. GO with the God, Anti Gay, Gun lovers every time I say.
48 realconservativ // Apr 17, 2009 at 11:51 am
Gary 4205 wrote: “Frum, you give stupid a bad name!”
I love it when people tell it like it is.
The great thing for real conservatives – when you have an enemy like Frum, you don’t need (m)any friends.
I’d love to see David try to arrange a one car funeral to see if he could pull it off. Don’t think so.
49 sinz54 // Apr 17, 2009 at 1:43 pm
WiLG: The old Reagan coalition has already fallen apart–and like Humpty Dumpty, it ain’t gonna be put back together again.
What held it together–fear of “godless” Communism and fear of hyperinflation–are no longer operative drivers in 2009 as they once were in 1980.
You’ve got Phyllis Schlafly denouncing free trade; you’ve got Larry Kudlow denouncing those who worry about Islamist financial control of our businesses as “Islamophobic”; You’ve got Mike Huckabee’s antibusiness populism; you’ve got Ron Paul calling for American isolationism and deep cuts in national defense spending. And over the last year, a deflationary depression (for which conservatives had few answers) was a much bigger concern than inflation.
We might as well face up to that, and move forward under a new philosophical umbrella.
50 sinz54 // Apr 17, 2009 at 1:47 pm
gary4205: What EXACTLY did GOP moderates do, to destroy the Republican Party?
It was staunch conservative Phil Gramm, NOT Olympia Snowe or David Frum, who handed Enron and the financial industry everything they wanted, by gutting regulation of those industries. The result was a $40 trillion market of derivatives based on a financial pile of sand–which collapsed last September.
You might blame David Frum and the Bushies for the debacle in Iraq, which so turned off swing voters to the GOP. *Except* that Bush’s actions in Iraq had the enthusiastic support of some 90% of Republican *conservatives* (according to the public opinion polls); the remainder were Ron Paul fans.
51 Chekote // Apr 17, 2009 at 2:27 pm
“The old Reagan coalition has already fallen apart–and like Humpty Dumpty, it ain’t gonna be put back together again.”
Completely agree. The country has changed a lot since 1980. There just aren’t as many union members, blue collar workers. The GOP needs to go upscale. I thought they “got the message” but apparently not.
52 mlindroo // Apr 17, 2009 at 2:52 pm
I don’t think the Republican Party has been “destroyed” by a particular ideological view, say, abandoning small government or pushing socially conservative policies. The current problems have more to do with incompetence and corruption in 2000-2006. GW Bush would be every bit as unpopular if he had deferred to the Dems at every turn while still screwing up Iraq, Katrina, the handling of the Wall Street crisis etc.. Conversely, conservatives would undoubtedly be hailing him (and Karl Rove) as a genius if the Iraq occupation had been an effortless, smashing success since it would have cemented the GOP’s post-9/11 stranglehold on “national security” military voters.
For the same reason, I would advise caution when assuming Obama’s political views are so “extreme” or “un-American” he cannot possibly remain popular. If the economy is doing OK four years from now and there are no major foreign policy crises, he will win while hardly breaking a sweat.
MARCU$
53 ireign // Apr 17, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Republicans have 41 votes. They don’t have the luxury of running primaries on ideological grounds. Specter isn’t worthless. Without Specter, Clarence Thomas isn’t confirmed. Specter isn’t the most likeable or ideologically consistent politician in the world but without a primary, we keep his seat so we can focus resources on other states.
There is one primary Republicans should be gunning for but its in Kentucky where Bunning is going to lose a safe seat for Republicans unless he loses in a primary.
54 ireign // Apr 17, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Sinz, “moderates” such as Ted Stevens spent heavily on projects such as the bridge to nowhere which helped ruin the Republican brand. Everyone in the Republican party bears some culpability for the party’s decline. Mlindroo gets it right.
However, Frum is increasingly becoming the wrong messenger. Rightly or wrongly, he favored a bellecose foreign policy that electorally is currently very unpopular. I think he was right but it is kind of difficult for him to argue that Republicans should sacrifice religious conservatives when one can easily make the argument that they should sacrifice foreign policy conservatives such as Frum.
We shouldn’t be throwing anyone overboard right now.
55 sinz54 // Apr 18, 2009 at 5:54 pm
ireign: In fact, we’re hearing that exact argument from those “Tea Party” protesters who are fans of Ron Paul or the Constitution Party: Kick the “neo-cons” out, and withdraw from foreign entanglements.
However, I wish that folks like you would stop turning Frum’s point upside down: Frum *never* advocated throwing anyone out of the GOP. Neither did Arlen Specter. Neither did I. What we are pleading, is for the rabid partisans in the GOP base to stop trying to throw *us* out by sticking a “RINO” label on us as a way of marking us for excommunication. We are the ones who are in danger of being kicked out.
Over on RedState.com, they’re saying that unless you support the pro-life and anti-gay stances, you’re a “RINO.” Right now, the GOP base is engaged in this suicidal “RINO hunt”: Let’s throw anyone out of the GOP who isn’t ideologically pure; and after we’ve shrunk back to a small cadre of ideologues, why the voters will just flock to us because they’ll admire how pure and noble we sound. NOT.GONNA.HAPPEN.
In a two-party system, ideological purity has never won elections, because no 51% cross-section of the electorate is ideologically pure. The GOP base should be reminded that Reagan won in 1980 by promising to leave Social Security and Medicare intact. Which, as President, he did.
56 ireign // Apr 19, 2009 at 7:50 am
Actually, I think Frum is trying to discount other positions. Namely social conservatives. Which is fine but he leaves himself open to counter charges. Frum, was also one of the biggest opponents of Harriet Miers and the immigration compromise. So he has not been necessarily ideologically consistent. It seems a little like frontrunning. I haven’t followed the “Tea Party” protesters but I haven’t heard anything about neo-cons from them.
Sinz, I do not typically read redstate but I just went over there and I don’t see the word Rino mentioned once.
57 mlindroo // Apr 19, 2009 at 1:40 pm
> I wonder why it is that you liberal Republicans continue to
> declare conservatives “so far out of touch that there isn’t
> even any point in debating that with you” while your own
> candidates fare worse than conservatives in virtually every
> election?
If you mean Senate elections, moderate GOP senators in Blue states do currently have a problem since voters tend to punish them for the misdeeds of the national [conservative!] Republican leaders. In 2008, four of the nine most moderate Senators failed to get reelected. “Good riddance” you say. But the cold, hard truth is that it is very difficult to assemble a majority if only conservative candidates are deemed acceptable. The GOP has few pickup opportunities left in Red states, where hard line conservatives might be able to win a general election. There is Mary Landrieu’s seat in Louisiana, both seats in Montana and Arkansas, maybe Ben Nelson in Nebraska and little else. But recent results indicate candidates such as Rick Santorum are just way too conservative for e.g. Pennsylvania.
MARCU$
You must log in to post a comment.