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!”
31 responses so far
1 gibberish // Apr 21, 2009 at 1:03 pm
@barker13
so you agree with the idea that the GOP should allow only the ideologically pure to take office in it’s name?
2 krove // Apr 21, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Go for it, McCain has just picked up a far right challenger that will pretty much ensure a Democrat wins in AZ The guy is an anti immigration nut. Bet of luck with that.
3 mlindroo // Apr 21, 2009 at 1:42 pm
It is indeed difficult to disagree with Jenkins’ conclusions, but I would still like to see some statistics regarding the comparative successes of Club for Growth-backed GOP candidates vs. all GOP in 2006-08.
—
Trying to upset “Missing Linc” Chafee indeed seems like an absurdly boneheaded move. New Mexico has been trending Democrat so Heather Wilson would have been a pick easier to defend. But I guess Toomey does not care: all that matters is that four of the nine least conservative GOP Senators lost that year…
MARCU$
4 barker13 // Apr 21, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Re: Gibberish; 1:03 PM –
How do you like the censorship practiced here, Gib? Nice, huh? Really reflects well on Frum and company, hmm.
(*SNORT*)
Did I write ANYTHING out of bounds? ANYTHING…???
See, Gib… this is the thing about the “left” of the Right. Like the real “Left” their values and tactics are often less “American” than “European.”
Jeez… these folks don’t even believe in free speech.
* To anyone just now tuning in to this thread: I had posted the first reply. Totally civil. A valid opinion. “Someone” removed it.
BILL
5 ChristianMiller // Apr 21, 2009 at 2:28 pm
barker13,
One of my comments was deleted too the other day. Can you say “ideological purity”?
6 ChristianMiller // Apr 21, 2009 at 2:45 pm
I guess Toomey has no right to run for office in PA since we have Arlen in there since 1980. The man is 78 years old and would be 86 by the end of his next (non-existent) term. We conservatives are supposed to suffer through Arlen’s votes until he croaks sometime in mid-century (boy, those Senators sure live a long time!)
Don’t dare mess up a good thing like statist numbskull Arlen Spector safley ensconced in Washington .
Harry Reid is also very grateful for Arlen Spector, don’t kid yourselves. Spector ran cover for Harry in the stimulus bill allowing him to call it “bi-partisan”. And he votes with Harry on the important things.
7 ireign // Apr 21, 2009 at 3:14 pm
You provide no empirical data to support your argument that the primary cost Chafee his seat. The NRSC was stupid enough to spend money defending Chafee in a primary. “Moderate to liberal”, who are you kidding? Chafee only supported Republicans on procedural votes. He was pretty much a down-line-Democrat on every substantive issue with the exception free trade and tort reform. The threat of a primary was the only reason he supported Republicans on most procedural votes. He rewarded the NRSC for their generous financial support by still voting against John Bolten and then endorsing Barack Obama.
You lost me at Chafee. I agree with your other points and generally I think the Club for Growth picked the wrong races to pick a fight in but Chafee, come on? Are you next going to claim that Lowell Weicker (who endorsed Howard Dean) who followed a similar career trajectory is a moderate Republican?
I don’t think there is any comparison between Specter and Chafee but by this blog’s continued defense of Chafee, you lose credibility. There is a Democratic Senator representing South Dakota, a state that is very Republican and there are two Republicans representing Maine. No one thinks that in blue states, the Republican is going to be as conservative as as say Jim DeMint but most expect you to vote for the incumbent President when they are a member of your party rather than doing a write-in vote.
8 ChristianMiller // Apr 21, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Hey, I’m on a roll here so here’s more;
“…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 nations risky dependence on fossil fuels.”
The writer doesn’t understand that the environmental movement is a Trojan horse sent by the left to suppress “economic freedom”. You haven’t noticed? Do you really believe the global warming/climate change propaganda?
Perhaps you don’t but since so many do you feel compelled to go along. That is another losing strategy.
Falsehoods and propaganda need to be confronted directly. People find out sooner or later anyway and the Republicans will be shown to have been on the wrong side of another issue just like with spending during the Bush years.
Reducing our nations dependence on fossil fuels as an effort generated from Washington has proven completely inept and false. There is no technology that can take the place of fossil fuels right now unless it is nuclear, which is a non-starter with Democrats and people like Spector for some odd reason. Our “risky” dependence really comes from foreign oil (that is what is risky about it), and yet Spector and others won’t vote for drilling here in our own soil and our waters. If the republicans wanted to stake out a coherent energy/environmental platform it would be to build twenty-five nuclear reactors and drill here until they come online for all the electric cars in 2025.
But solar, and wind energy are proven to be a fantasy, and growing weeds to burn instead of growing food to eat is absurd and destructive. So the argument is moot. Club for growth understands the nature of the issues David Jenkins seems to only care about which letter is placed behind some old man’s name in Washington.
9 Realist // Apr 21, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Remember when John McCain was doubling down on Pennsylvania in November? How did that work out for him? That state is turning bluer by the minute.
In the old days, it was the Democrats who arranged the circular firing squad and torpedoed its most eligible candidates. Now the Republicans have taken over that mantle.
It seems that each wing of the Reagan coalition — economic and social conservatives, plus foreign policy hawks — has become more extreme. Every Republican candidate is litmus tested by ideologues from each side.
A big factor in the Democrats’ success in 2008 was their well-organized nationwide strategy to pick and choose candidates in EVERY district. In the areas where a liberal had the least chance to win, they incorporated the most conservative (pro-life, pro-gun) Democrat they could find into the fold.
The net result of cherry-picking candidates for each district is that they were able to pick off, so to speak, some low-hanging fruit. It was palatable to the Democrats to accept these more center-left because they had their eyes on the prize which was winning elections.
My understanding was that this site was all about getting Republicans elected. I can’t see how running a bright red candidate in a deep blue state is going to get us anywhere.
10 ottovbvs // Apr 21, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Toomey is electoral poison. He’ll win the primary. The GOP has lost 200,000 registrants to either the Dems or independants since Spector last eaked out a 2% win over him. The PA GOP has shifted accordingly shifted way right. There’s no way Spector gets the nomination. The Dems have a deep bench including the retired four star admiral Sestak who will probably be their candidate. This guy will roll over Toomey and could probably beat Spector too although he’d at least have a chance. If the Republicans are crazy enough to pick Toomey they’ve lost the seat for a generation.
And yes Franco, yes most of us, that’s most of the country btw, think global warming is a big problem and not
” a Trojan horse sent by the left to suppress “economic freedom”.
However go on thinking that, Obama loves folks like you.
11 ottovbvs // Apr 21, 2009 at 4:19 pm
“My understanding was that this site was all about getting Republicans elected. I can’t see how running a bright red candidate in a deep blue state is going to get us anywhere”
….No but it makes Franco feel better.
12 barker13 // Apr 21, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Re: Franco; 2:28 PM –
Yes! Ideological Purity!
(*WINK*)
On a serious note, Franco, note that you’re the only person so far who decided to take a stand and note that such tactics are exactly the OPPOSITE of what any true Republican conservative would honor or support and exactly the OPPOSITE of what a site that was sincerely trying to espouse a “big tent” GOP would engage in.
Sad. Very sad.
BILL
13 ChristianMiller // Apr 21, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Just one more thing before I go. When you keep re-electing miscreants like Spector, you don’t give other Republicans a chance. You ossify. Is there some more moderate version of Toomey out there who would challenge Spector? No, because they are all party hacks, they are moderates for a reason, I guess.
Still, isn’t there someone who will stand up to Spector who you must admit votes with Dems most of the time on crucial issues. Even you moderates have to be frustrated. So you have to have the fight in the party. Sometimes, before you can win, you have to lose.
Anyone who knows sports, knows that sometimes a star player is so toxic that you have to trade him away and you might not get a lot for him either. Yes, he produces points, and he delivers at times, but the team is hurt by his selfishness or by his bad habits, whatever. You get rid of him and you may have a losing season or two but if you want to win, like, get into the playoffs and win a championship, and you realize that you will NEVER get there with this guy on your team. It is kinda like that.
14 Chekote // Apr 21, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Specter vs. a Democrat. Not much difference in my book. I don’t want any more Big Government Republicans. If we are going to bankrupt this country, let the Dems do it.
15 Chekote // Apr 21, 2009 at 4:58 pm
“Now, by trying to personally knock off another blue-state moderate Republican”
He is not a moderate. He is a liberal. A static. Someone who believes in a big, no huge, federal government.
16 ireign // Apr 21, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Realist writes, “the areas where a liberal had the least chance to win, they incorporated the most conservative (pro-life, pro-gun) Democrat they could find into the fold.”
That is misleading. While Democrats did not nominate some candidates in red areas who held a few conservative social positions, most of those candidates were very liberal on economic issues and anti-Iraq War.
Think Jim Webb.
So Republicans can emulate Democrats and find a candidates who are more socially liberal to run in the northeast but support Republican positions on economic and foreign policy. But that is a far cry from someone like Lincoln Chafee.
Telling Republicans that they have to support Chafee-like candidates in the northeast is equivalent to telling Democrats that every candidate that runs in the south has to be basically a Republican i.e. Zell Miller. It is not true. Basically Republicans in the northeast similar to Democrats in the south have to compromise on a few key issues but other than can run as fairly standard Republicans and still be competitive in most cases in a decent year for Republicans. Any claim to the contrary is false.
17 mpolito // Apr 21, 2009 at 8:17 pm
I’m no Specter fan, trust me. As a pro-life conservative I cannot stomach some of his votes. I would much rather see Pat Toomey in the Senate. But we all know that Toomey will get his fanny handed to him in the general, whereas Specter will probably win. Specter’s loss will move the Senate leftward. Prudence is a conservative virtue, my friends, and we should not miss the good because we are aiming for the best.
18 djenkins // Apr 21, 2009 at 9:32 pm
For the record, I am a social and fiscal conservative, but I reject the notion that every Republican must march in lockstep…or else…it is better to just give the seat to the Democrats. How deep of a hole do you want to dig?
The problem goes a bit deeper than mere political strategy. Many Republicans who claim to be the most “conservative” have only cherry picked those aspects of conservatism that fit their own ideological bent–yet they somehow feel free to label others who don’t agree with them as liberal or moderate.
The traditional conservatism of Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver and T.S. Eliot has an ethic of stewardship at its core, places a priority on protecting the interests of future generations and maintaines that every right is married to a responsibility.
It frowns upon rampant materialism. Kirk, whom Reagan called “the prophet of American conservatism,” writes, The conservative knows that material production and consumption are not the purpose of human existence…The American conservative will endeavor to exert some intelligent check upon material will and appetite.
A Republican that holds firmly to those original conservative values could win anywhere, but that is not what Pat Toomey and other Club for Growth types are peddling.
19 Egli Ha // Apr 21, 2009 at 11:49 pm
NEVER NEVER NEVER bet against Arlen Specter. He will be the darling of the wealthy Philadelphia elite long after he is dead. The east does not change its Senator; the western side of the state does, although Casey may well be a keeper because of his family.
20 mlindroo // Apr 21, 2009 at 11:56 pm
> He is not a moderate. He is a liberal. A static. Someone
> who believes in a big, no huge, federal government.
According to what definition, Chekote?
Specter might very well be the least conservative Republican in Congress, but his lifetime voting record (according to the American Conservative Union) is still to the right of EVERY Democratic senator except Ben Nelson (D – Neb.). And in 2008, his ACU score of 42% was more than 10% better than that of any Democrat.
Just look at Bob Casey’s (D – PA) record…Specter’s Democratic replacement might have some centrist credentials but he will undoubtedly support Harry Reid more than 90% of the time. Virtually all Dems do that.
MARCU$
21 mlindroo // Apr 22, 2009 at 1:31 am
mpolito wrote:
> But we all know that Toomey will get his fanny handed to him in the general,
> whereas Specter will probably win.
> Specter’s loss will move the Senate leftward.
Hear, hear! If you want more conservatives in Congress, the only way is to put pressure on Democratic incumbents in Red states. At worst, they will have to side with the GOP more often, or else… At best, they will lose reelection and their replacements will be solid conservatives.
Franco wrote:
> Anyone who knows sports, knows that sometimes a star player is so toxic
> that you have to trade him away and you might not get a lot for him either.
Actually, this sounds like a great political reform-related idea:-) Maybe particularly annoying RINOs and DINOs could be traded, e.g. Joe Lieberman to the GOP in exchange for Lincoln Chafee in 2006.
That way, both parties get rid of ideological heretics and dissidents.
MARCU$
22 Chekote // Apr 22, 2009 at 5:59 am
“For the record, I am a social and fiscal conservative, but I reject the notion that every Republican must march in lockstep.”
I am a fiscal conservative and social moderate. I am not asking every Republican to march in lockstep. However, you have to have binding principles. Moreover, if the party decides to make a stand – as the GOP did on the stimulus bill – you need to stand with it. So I have no use for him, Collins and Snowe. Also, please let’s drop the ACU ratings. There are just a few votes that really matter. That is how a candidate should be judged.
23 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 6:13 am
“Maybe particularly annoying RINOs and DINOs could be traded, e.g. Joe Lieberman to the GOP in exchange for Lincoln Chafee in 2006.
That way, both parties get rid of ideological heretics and dissidents.”
……Actually apart from the Iraq war and matters impinging on Israel Lieberman is a very reliable democratic vote. My guess is he will try to work his way back into the Democratic party before his next election which is nearly five years away. Not sure it will work because a lot of democrats who stuck with him in CT were appalled when he campaigned for McCain. Lieberman’s career will probably be over.
24 Adam_Yu // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:10 am
Mr. Jenkins is right on target. If Toomey becomes the Republican nominee, this seat will definitely fall into Democratic hands. And further strengthening the Senate Democratic Caucus. It is a shame that the Club for Growth undermined Republican candidates because they were not “conservative” enough to Mr. Toomey’s taste. The party and movement has to be adaptable and has to run candidates that are appealing according to different constituencies. Certain areas might want more moderate Republicans and others not. What is the point of running on so-called “pure” conservatistm? It does not sit well with some voters. Is this the way Toomey wants to change America for the better? Enacting better changes for America by losing more seats to the Democrats.
25 Adam_Yu // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:14 am
Although, I have to say that Sen. Specter is not the “Democrat” many conservatives accuse him of being. An important issue for them to look at is the case of judicial nominees. He supported the confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. If Republicans can hold onto every current seat and even pick more up to regain the majorities they can influence more appointees. Don’t forget, Specter is the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and if the GOP is in the majority, he could regain the Chairmanship. He could be a good ally for conservative judicial appointments.
26 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.
27 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.
28 Realist // Apr 24, 2009 at 11:26 am
Toomey Leads Specter by 21 Points
A 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.
29 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 [...]
30 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 [...]
31 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 [...]
You must log in to post a comment.