“For me, the Specter race of 2004 is really ancient history,” says Senator Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) in an interview with National Review Online. “I do think it was a significant moment for the conservative movement, certainly in Pennsylvania, maybe beyond. I think Santorum made a mistake; he was on the wrong side. But I got over that a long time ago. I actually campaigned for Rick Santorum in 2006.”
“Having said that, Governor Romney was correct, pointing out one of the consequences of Senator Santorum’s decision. But that’s a distant memory now. I’m happily engaged in my work. I’ve got plenty to keep me busy. I don’t have to be looking in the rearview mirror.”
So let me get this straight.
Sen. Santorum supported Sen. Specter so he could manage and support the appointment of the conservative justices who will rule unconstitutional the health care act in which Sen. Specter later cast a decisive vote?
And Gov. Romney is more conservative and deserves our vote because of this why?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA gratuitous statement quoted by an active unconscious stooge.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell this is ironic.
Pat Toomey is careful, but his statement is a half-way endorsement of the Arlen Spector of this primary (Romney) against the more conservative, Pat Toomey candidate.
By the way, I was in Camp Hill, PA during Toomey's first run against Specter when he spoke at the West Shore Library. He was asked why Santorum and Bush hadn't endorsed him. Mr. Toomey answered "really, they had to endorse Sen. Specter" and implied that he was sure both Sen. Santorum and President Bush would have rather had Mr. Toomey in the Senate than Arlen Specter. I, along with everyone else in the room, agreed.
Final irony: Pat Toomey would most likely not be serving in the Senate now had he won that 2004 primary.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse2004 was a good GOP year, Toomey likely would have won. And had he, we wouldn't have ObamaCare.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseToomey did not have a chance in 2004, Santorum or not. And Republicans loved Bush in 2004. Toomey got 51% in 2010, the best year. Specter won in general in 2004, becasue even liberal Jews voted for him. And if by some miracle Toomey won, he would not be on Judicial and we would not get Roberts and Alito.
If anybody besides Obama/Reid/Peloci is responsible for ObamaCare, it is the father of RomneyCare. ObamaCare is a carbon copy of it with the only difference that we all are paying for MA liberals healthcase, so Romney did not have to raise taxes for that. Unfortunately now it is so expensive that next MA Governor has to ration and raise taxes. But that is usual with socialistic scheme amd Romney if he is half bright as people claim he is, should know about that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, we all are entitled to opinions. Facts are stubborn things though.
That good year in 2004 - the GOP Senate pickups were all in the South where Bush was crushing Kerry (FL, GA, LA, NC, SC) and the Daschle seat in SD (also an easy Bush win)
The GOP lost 2 Senate seats as well - IL and CO (and Bush even carried CO).
Given how Kerry won PA by 2.5% - I would say there is quite a high chance Toomey would not have won that seat.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, you folks all convinced yourselves Christine O'Donnell would win Delaware, so Toomey should not have been such a stretch. In fact, you all did support Toomey and were stridently denouncing Santroum for supporting them. Oh, how things change. And you criticize Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre you implying that Romney is above and beyond criticism and is simply OWED the GOP nomination?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHey rook, we all have names on here for a reason. If you are going to reply to me, and stereotype me, then back it up. How about you point to a post where I said anything that you suggest here, or quit the false mischaracterizations.
I know it is easier to pigeonhole those you disagree with into tidy little boxes of your choosing...but it makes discussion difficult.
Glad to see though you couldn't respond to the facts of the post - to repeat, that 2004 was a good year if you were running for an open Senate seat in a Southern state Bush was winning by double digits. Not so good everywhere else in the country.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse2004 was a "good" year?
Right, because two Wars were debt funded, new entitlements were debt funded, private debt exploded with the real estate bubble and consequent speculation enabled by Government policies.
Of course the Republicans were "loved" in 2004 because they were the Free Lunch and Free War party. Iraq and Afghanistan would be un-paid for cake-walks and deficits don't matter.
Not that the Democrats are any different. But the point is that Toomey buys into the illusory Supply Side Voodoo of debt loading now with low taxes and claiming the deficit will take care of itself via growth Well guess what? It doesn't work, either politically or economically. Toomey's opinions and his K Street brain don't amount to squat.
Romney is either a stupid, stupid man who believes in the illusion. Or he's a charlatan who's faking that he believes in it to get elected.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFacts are stubborn, but there are no facts here regarding Toomey running in the PA general in 2004, which never happened. There's only speculation. You're free to speculate based on everything you said, but one should note that Santorum's backers never tire of reminding us that he won in Pennsylvania in 2000 even as Gore beat Bush by 4.17% -- and I'll make my own speculations on Toomey's prospects in 2004 based on that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse2004 - Spector won, Toomey likely would have won also. He wouldn't be up for re-election until 2010. That was a good year for Republicans. Toomey would probably still be in office, in his second term.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat last part is the real kicker, isn't it?
On the one hand, we now the importance of electing someone with the (R), even when he reflects the leftward slouch of a Pennsylvania or a Massachusetts.
On the other hand, the leftward slouch is exactly what's wrong with the culture and the politics, so we want someone who will take chances and be bold.
For all the calculation, the Left is still winning (as measured by the number of people on welfare, the loss of economic opportunity, and the outright shredding of the rule of law). Our moderates won't let us say "no compromise" even as Obama says that explicitly. Maybe they're right. But what did it help to be right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1. Care to elaborate on how Mitt Romney is the "Arlen Spector [sic] of this primary"?
2. Just because Toomey said Bush and Santorum "had to endorse" Specter, and you and your pals agreed, doesn't make it so. Clearly, Toomey doesn't believe that now -- and he possibly didn't believe it at the time. Why would he want to criticize Bush and Santorum when, if he happened to pull out a primary win without their endorsement, he'd want them to campaign for him in the general?
But let's assume Santorum did have to endorse Specter for some reason. What does that say about a politician who claims his hallmark is "courage"?
3. Why would Toomey "most likely not be serving in the Senate now had he won that 2004 primary"? It's not unthinkable that he could have defeated Joe Hoeffel, and even had he lost, what would've stopped him from trying again in 2010? As it stands, he lost the primary in 2004, yet returned and won the seat six years later. Defeated candidates run again all the time and often win.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHilarious. The peanut gallery has been condemning Santorum for years for supporting Specter against the real conservative Toomey. Now Toomey gets trashed for stating the plain truth about the situation, because Santorum inexplicably has become the new conservative savior (it was Newt a few weeks ago, before then Cain, before then Perry, before then Bachmann....).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat can I say? That is the kind of loyalty, confidence, and trust that a soft wobbly middle of the road candidate like Romney inspires in the party he wants to represent in the general election. That's an indicator of how solid Romey's support just isn't. He's not much of a closer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseClassy comment by Toomey.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can see supporting the other guys already in the club against a "interloper." I understand it as wanting to support the establishment types who control your future. I wonder what the consequences would have been for Santorum in 2004 had he endorsed Toomey. A loss of committee assignments, and money in 2006, perhaps?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseToomey is an honorable man. But If I have to choose between who is lying between Specter or Santorum...I would pick Specter every time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm impressed then to think that Santorum placed so much faith in this liar Specter's promise to do Santorum's bidding on Bush judges.
You folks are hilarious. All the ranting about how all RINOs must be eliminated--Castle, Collins, Snowe, Brown--unless, we now learn, one is supported by Rick Santorum. You are nothing if not flexible in your determination to bend all your purported principles for the Santorum cause.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse