GOP rallying to Toomey?
posted at 2:15 pm on June 30, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
When Pat Toomey first announced his intention to challenge Arlen Specter in the 2010 Republican primary in Pennsylvania, the national GOP acted as though he had passed gas in church. Sotto voce, they tried to push the notion that Toomey was too conservative to win in Pennsylvania, and even after Specter flipped to the Democrats, Republicans tried getting moderates like Tom Ridge to challenge Toomey. Now, however, Politico reports that the national party has decided that Toomey’s brand of fiscal conservatism might be just what they need:
There was a time earlier this year when Republican Pat Toomey was the skunk at the Republican establishment party, a conservative gadfly whose prospective primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter seemed to jeopardize GOP control of the seat.
Even after Specter switched to the Democratic Party in April, party leaders continued to dismiss Toomey’s chances and looked elsewhere for a 2010 nominee.
Today, however, the party is gradually falling in line behind his bid, setting aside reservations about his electability and getting accustomed to the idea of the former Club for Growth president as the GOP Senate nominee.
It’s something of a shotgun marriage, but it’s an idea that the party is growing increasingly comfortable with.
“I haven’t heard that anybody else is running,” said Bob Asher, the influential Pennsylvania Republican National Committeeman who chaired John McCain’s presidential campaign in the state. “I fully expect to support the endorsed Republican candidate, and I fully expect that to be former Congressman Pat Toomey.”
To paraphrase Major Garrett, what took them so long? Toomey didn’t just come out of nowhere. He won an election to Congress in a district best described as moderate, replacing a retiring Democratic incumbent and beating another popular Democrat by ten points. He won re-election twice afterwards, until he kept his promise to limit himself to three terms in the House. The notion that Toomey would only appeal to the Republican base has no evidence, other than the fears among Specter apologists.
And am I the only one who thinks that a “shotgun marriage” between the GOP and the Club for Growth says more about the national Republican Party than it does about Toomey? I think Politico’s Alex Isenstadt hits the nail on the head, after watching the gyrations in the national GOP after Toomey’s bid attracted wide support and forced Specter to switch parties for his political survival. Instead of embracing free-market conservatism and one of its most articulate defenders, Republicans panicked and tried the kind of politicians that spent like drunken sailors to oppose Toomey and doom his Senate bid.
Now that the Obama administration and the Democrats have embarked on what can only be called Extreme Government Spending, the GOP has belatedly awakened to its best opportunity: to find reliable, trustworthy fiscal conservatives to rebuild its credibility and provide a brake to massive irresponsibility on Capitol Hill. Instead of fearing Toomey, the party should have embraced him from the beginning — and sought out more like him. Let’s hope they’ve begun to get the message that 2010 will be about the economy, the deficit, and insane levels of spending.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air

Hume, Robinson, Powers agree: DoJ investigation of Rosen crosses a big line

Video: Ft. Hood shooter still drawing salary – $278,000 and counting

Chinese breach of Google in 2010 exposed counter-espionage data






Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Sweet. How sweet it is.
Finally, Obama’s chikkinzzz are coming home to roost.
petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:22 PM
This.
When you have to plead incompetence to defend against charges of malfeasance, you know you might be in trouble.
petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM
ear relevant…
driguana on May 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM
Flush this lying tudd down the drain with the rest of the Obamacrap.
kemojr on May 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM
This was Dan Pfeiffer’s week in the barrel, like Susan Rice he was given the White House talking points and sent on a mission. He really needs to get copies of these tapes and watch them and see how foolish and unbelievable he looked and sounded. The White House is losing the little credibility it still had by sending these shills out every week trying to do damage control. Community organizers make poor leaders.
savage24 on May 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM
Pfeiffer’s statement that the law is irrelevant because the IRS conduct was “outrageous” and “inexcusable”, tells us all we need to know about this administration.
However, the follow-up should have been, “On what standard do you judge their conduct to be outrageous and inexcusable since the law is apparently not an appropriate standard?” (At least in Pfeiffer’s mind.)
What this comes down to is this: “if the Administrative deems something “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such. As we have seen in so many other areas, if the Administrative deems something to not be “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such.
In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.
It’s not socialism. It’s worse.
EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”
jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM
A fitting capstone to Ed’s story about loss-prevention (aka employee theft) and management’s “permission structure” in this post.
(Not to mention the jaw-dropping statements of Eleanor Clift in this one.)
AesopFan on May 19, 2013 at 11:40 PM
I enjoy popcorn and hope it is a long week.
Drill and Fill on May 20, 2013 at 12:41 AM
Hey give Barky a break. He had to get his sorry ass out to Vegas.
tbear44 on May 20, 2013 at 4:49 AM
Of course they sent Pfeiffer out to do the Sunday shows. He was the most senior expendable staff member they had . . .
BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM
Pfeiffer… The guy with the red shirt in the landing party…
Boudica on May 20, 2013 at 5:53 AM
Perfect!
lea on May 20, 2013 at 7:11 AM
Does anybody else remember the campaign in 2008 when Obama defended his lack of administrative experience by saying he was just so smart and tuned in that his instincts were better than experience. Someone needs to dredge up these sound bites and play then with the current line about the government being too large to control and that the White House only knows what it reads in the newspaper.
bartbeast on May 20, 2013 at 8:43 AM
If where the president was during the Benghazi crisis is “irrelevant”, then he wasn’t where one would expect the Commander-in-Chief to be. So, where was he? Was he watching a movie in the residence? Was he bowling? Or was he having a bi-curious outing with his good buddy Reggie Love? If Obama was AWOL, as I suspect he was, it is he who is irrelevant. This entire stinkin’ criminal Obama Regime must go and now!
SpiderMike on May 20, 2013 at 9:31 AM
If this continues all week, it will be ‘O’ himself doing the rounds on the Sunday talk shows – except for Fox, of course. (‘O’ can do everything better than everyone else as he has been known to say.)
He then gets the extra benefit that no one will challenge him like they have begun to do with his minions.
Carnac on May 20, 2013 at 11:00 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2