Former Congressman Pat Toomey recently resigned as head of the Club for Growth to run for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania, setting up a primary rematch between him and incumbent Arlen Specter. As Keystone State Republicans start pondering the choice between Toomey and Specter, it is worth taking a look at Toomey’s tenure at the “Club.”
If one were to create a list of people responsible for putting gavels in Nancy Pelosi’s and Harry Reid’s hands, Pat Toomey should be high on that list.
During his tenure with the Club, Toomey has led the organization on an ideological quest for purity within GOP ranks that has ultimately benefited the Democrats. November viability apparently has no bearing on whom the Club has chosen to target.
In 2006, the Club strongly backed Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey’s primary run for the Rhode Island Senate seat held by then-Senator Lincoln Chafee. The bloody primary battle depleted Chafee’s campaign coffers and increased his negatives, enabling Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse to eke out a victory.
Regardless of how much conservatives were annoyed by the moderate to liberal Chafee, the reality is that a less moderate Republican would have virtually no chance to capture that seat. A recent survey by Gallup found Rhode Island to be the most pro-Democrat state in the nation, with Democrat and Democrat-leaning voters holding a 37 percent advantage.
Also in 2006, the Club helped Tim Walberg defeat incumbent Joe Schwarz in Michigan’s 7th Congressional District, and backed the intemperate Bill Sali in a crowded GOP primary field vying for Idaho’s 1st District seat. Both managed to win the general election that year, but were swept out of office in 2008.
Schwarz was a far better fit for the evenly balanced Michigan 7th than Walberg. In 2004, Schwarz beat Democrat Sharon Renier by 22 percent (58% to 36%), while Walberg in 2006 edged her out by only 4 percent. In 2008, Walberg lost the seat to Democrat Mark Schauer by 2 percentage points.
It takes a truly magical reverse Midas touch to identify and elect a Republican who cannot hold onto Idaho’s 1st District seat that, with a Cook Partisan Voting Index (PVI) score of R+18, is one of the most heavily Republican districts in the nation to now be represented by a Democrat.
In the 2008 cycle, the Club went after nine-term incumbent congressman Wayne Gilchrest in Maryland’s conservative 1st District (PVI R+13). Gilchrest’s margin of victory in 2006 was 38 percent.
The Club-backed candidate, state Senator Andy Harris, won the primary but lost to little known Democrat Frank Kratovil in the general election.
The Club also helped land rights radical Steve Pearce defeat the more mainstream Heather Wilson in the New Mexico GOP primary for retiring Senator Pete Domenici’s Senate seat. Domenici had kept that seat in Republican hands since 1972, always winning by double-digit margins.
Pearce lost to Democrat Tom Udall by more than 20 percentage points.
In each of these examples, the Club, under Toomey’s leadership, successfully worked to advance candidates through the Republican primary who were not capable of defeating their Democrat opposition in November and keeping the seat on the GOP side of the ledger.
While the media often refers to the Club for Growth as a “taxpayer advocacy organization,” its agenda extends far beyond fiscal discipline and lower taxes. According to its website, the Club promotes “economic freedom.” Under this broad banner, the Club will attack Republicans as RINOs for a myriad of supposed “offenses,” including efforts to protect the environment and reduce our nation’s risky dependence on fossil fuels.
Now, by trying to personally knock off another blue-state moderate Republican, Mr. Toomey is poised to continue his track record of helping Democrats get elected to Congress.
To which Harry Reid can say only one thing: “Thanks, Pat!”


































ireign // Apr 22, 2009 at 9:35 am
I agree with Chekote. The ACU ratings include a lot of fairly unimportant votes. The ACU ratings include a lot of procedural votes. Since even the most “mavericky” Senators vote typically with their party on procedural matters, a conservative Democrat is typically going to come out to the left of the a very liberal Republican even if the Democrat is far more conservative on substantitive issues. As to Adam Yu’s comments, he is correct that Republicans should support Specter but that is not the best argument. Specter, also did not support Bork and he has supported every Democratic judicial nominee. Specter was effective for Bush and probably will be effecitive in the future if Republicans gain the majority. However, being in the minority, he is probably not that effective (although to be fair, Hatch was terrible). And yes there is no comparison between Lieberman and Chafee. A more apt comparison is Lieberman and Hagel. I only wished that Chafee opposed the GOP on only one foreign policy issue instead of opposing the whole GOP agenda.
ireign // Apr 22, 2009 at 9:40 am
I also wanted to point out that Wayne Gilchrest endorsed Obama. The fact that the Club for Growth endorsed a terrible candidate in the primary (as this was a district Republicans should have kept) shouldn’t detract from the fact that is justifiable anger that some of the Republicans that have been characterized as “moderate” have basically been with Democrats on most issues and have not been particularly loyal to the GOP and there is genuine anger at people like Gilchrest, Chafee, and Jim Leach. I don’t know a single southern Democrat in the House who endorsed McCain or Bush.
Realist // Apr 24, 2009 at 11:26 am
Toomey Leads Specter by 21 PointsA new Rasmussen Reports poll in Pennsylvania finds Pat Toomey (R) crushing Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) in a GOP primary match up, 51% to 30%.Key finding: Specter is viewed favorably by 42% of Pennsylvania Republicans and unfavorably by 55%.OUCH!! I wonder if Chris Matthews is reconsidering.
Around The Web | The Progressive Republican // Jul 23, 2009 at 12:35 am
[...] out of the party with their emphasis on issues like abortion and gay rights as litmus tests. As David Jenkins has reported, hard right conservatives have done what they can to get rid of GOP leaders that are deemed not [...]
Why Moderate Republicans Suck - Hip Hop Republican // Jul 25, 2009 at 11:14 am
[...] out of the party with their emphasis on issues like abortion and gay rights as litmus tests. As David Jenkins has reported, hard right conservatives have done what they can to get rid of GOP leaders that are deemed not [...]
Why Moderate Republicans Suck- REPOSTED | Republicans United. // Oct 12, 2009 at 2:48 pm
[...] out of the party with their emphasis on issues like abortion and gay rights as litmus tests. As David Jenkins has reported, hard right conservatives have done what they can to get rid of GOP leaders that are deemed not [...]