Toomey on Wall St. reform, Brown, political pundits…
|
Comment Commandments:
1) No Personal Attacks. (Debating is encouraged, but be respectful). 2) No Sexual Discussion (unless it specifically pertains to a cited story). 3) No Profanity (Let’s all behave like adults). |
GOLDEN RULE:
Be civil and statesmanlike. You can disagree without being disagreeable. Annoying trolls who break these rules will be blocked from commenting. ***Please don't disable anonymous commenting for everyone else*** |
NOTE TO COMMENTERS: CREATE AN INTENSE DEBATE ACCOUNT
|
-vote comments up or down
-email notifications when someone replies |
-pick a profile picture
-promote your website or blog |
***TOPIC FORUM: 50 STORIES LAST COMMENTED ON***
***LIST OF TOP 50 COMMENTERS***
***LIST OF 50 MOST COMMENTED ON STORIES***
***LIST OF 50 LAST COMMENTS***
.
18 Comments
What did he say other than I don't know, I don't care, and maybe?
Its great politics to say nothing while the polls show you ahead. If he starts to trail Specter or Sestak, then the tough talk speeches begin.
"Great Politics" stink because our hero Pat Toomey of 2004 is now just a puppet on the National Republican Senate Committee string.
oh no! Pat Toomey is ahead in the polls, he must have sold out. It seems some of us are not happy unless we lose.
I have talked to Pat Toomey repeatedly and his driving the train, the endorsement and the Party and even the Hacks are following him, not the other way around. You may not have been reading the very excellent and pointed press releases coming out of the campaign. They seem very "tough" to me; clear and substantive and factually accurate.
Pat Toomey has ties to Wall Street. Of course, that's where his expertise on the currency and fiscal issues comes from. "Ties to Wall Street", what does that mean? He opposes TARP, bank bailouts, subsidies, is soled on "no earmark' pledge and has a long, public record, in and out of the House, on these issues. He tells a "274 amendment" story that is very illustrative of his willingness, along with Jeff Flake, to confront and anger "Leadership" of his own party.
Complaining is not contributing; sometimes running a sophisticated and highly competent campaign and winning an election as the "42d Senator" is.
There are no saints in Washington and Pat Toomey will not be the first. Paraphrasing Ronald Reagan my 99% friend is not my 1% enemy.
And I may point out that Peg Luksik has not been publicly attacked and analyzed because she is not seen as viable. I have heard and read many criticisms of Peg, none of which had any substance to my thinking, but they are there. How she ran the Bill Russell campaign, how much is getting paid from that campaign, the fact that Bill lost the first time out are legitimate issues but have been presented in negative way just comments now about Pat Toomey.
I am elated Pat Toomey is ahead in the polls, it won't stay that way. the Ds are running a primary and attacking each other. After May 18, they will turn attention to Pat Toomey.
Even Ron Paul takes Earmarks.
Great rebuttal, Bob. That needed to be said.
SS
Constructive criticism is a contribution. There must be a cadre of committed individuals who are willing to tell Pat the unvarnished truth and hold him accountable for his mistakes; things like the Saylor and Sotomayor panders. I frankly do not trust his judgment on judges. That is a legitimate criteria on which to judge a potential Senator. He has not distinguished himself from the left on that issue and I don't think he distinguished himself from Specter on the issue of life.
In short, there must be people who will look AT him, not up to him; people who will keep his feet firmly planted on the ground. He is a fallible mortal just like the rest of us.
Thank you for that eloquent and substantive response, Bob! You are absolutely right on so many accounts. The orchestrated attacks on Toomey will be relentless, and they will be coming soon enough.
Maybe some forget how many candidates interviewed and to what depths the national/state GOP establishment went to find an alternative candidate to Toomey. They've never been a fan of the guy because he stands on the very principles that so many of them lack. Believe me, it's like the Scott Brown phenomenon in Massachusetts. Everybody has co-opted Brown for his use after he started leading in the polls. The same applies to Toomey; they see a potential winner, and they want to ride the "strong horse."
I just wish that people could channel their emotions at the two rubber-stamping Democratic senators, the profligate, failed Democratic governor, and the out-of-touch Democratic-dominated congressional delegation. That's change I can believe in.
Pennsylvania GOP and Rob Gleason and RINO hacks getting rich from government worked to promote Tom Ridge and others to run against Pat Toomey. Pat Toomey is driving the train and is an independent leader running on clear and long standing, public principles. As president of Club for Growth, he was hammered by Christie Whitman Michael Steele RNC Establishment Big Government Socialist Hacks. He has contended with these people and prevailed.
Next…the Democrats. Casey and Specter are driving the country to bankruptcy. They are selling out the country to pay off the Unions and Liberal Elitist pampered privileged spoiled snobs.
Sestak and Specter are falling all over each other trying to be the darlings of the union bosses. Bob’s right about the Pa Party elite, too. May the hacks continue to slice each other up and may all union boss backed hacks be defeated.
Self-righteousness is an unfortunately strong part of our personalities. It can be plucked like a string, prompting us to join the chorus of those who revel in finding the faults and flaws of others. We have to be aware enough of our tendencies to find fault to ignore them in the face of the greater good, in this case electing a pro-life, pro 2nd Amendment, pro-private sector Senator.
If we're unable to overcome our tendency to demand perfection, it's always best to focus those efforts on the person we see in the mirror.
Well stated, Bobby!
Conservatives too often read too much into things but as even Freud once observed: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
There is a difference between people who will speak with him honestly – and to whom he will listen – and those who simple sit on the sidelines and throw rocks.
Dolley, you are dead-on accurate. Toomey (and his supporters) should be able to handle some constructive criticism.
Like him or not, support him or not, "2010 Candidate Toomey" is definitely a different person than "2004 Candidate Toomey." He has said many things that are most certainly to the left of where he was a few, short years ago.
Why? Just to get along? Or because he's moving left?
Toomey, just like ANY other politician, needs to be held accountable for words and deeds, and he needs his feet held to the fire. No one should blindly support someone because "we need to get rid of Arlen" or "we need to do anything to win." That kind of thinking gave us Arlen in the first place…
Thank you, Rich. It's also the type of thinking that gave us Rick Santorum, circa 2004 forward. The hero worship and frank idolatry created a monster. Toomey is not immune.
Dolley has written something so colossally wrong that it demands a reply. She says of Toomey, "I don't think he distinguished himself from Specter on the issue of life."
Dolley needs reminding that Pat character was tested in '04. He never wavered on his opposition to embryo-destructive research, even though there are many pundits who thought his steadfastness on Life cost him the nomination to Specter.
No difference on Life from Specter?! Outrageous!
Dolley's idea of "constructive criticism" is to hurl the word "Sotomayor" at Toomey as much as possible. But even on the Sotomayor nomination, Dolley shades the truth. Pat made it very clear that Sotomayor is not to his liking; but just as most pro-life senators reluctantly voted for Ruth Bader Ginsberg in '93 (96 – 3) — Pat came to the reality-based conclusion that Obama had the numbers for a liberal nominee to win — no matter who was named. This reality is the whole truth of Pat's Sotomayor position; but Dolley hates Pat Toomey, so the truth doesn't count.
Careful, dude! The long knives will be coming for you.
Thanks, friend. I'm ready…
…and you hate Dolley, so her legitimate questions about Pat don't count. Right? Or do you only like generalizations when they aren't pointed at you?
Seriously, if you knew anything about Dolley, you'd know she doesn't hate Pat. She hates the left turn he has taken since 2004.
In 2004, Pat expressed himself clearly and unambiguously. He decried everything that Specter stood for. This year, not so much.
If Sotomayor is Specter on steroids — and she is — why would Toomey vote to approve her when he opposes everything that Specter represented?
Which pundits thought that Toomey being pro life cost him in the primary? That's news to me. He lost the primary because so called conservatives Bush and Santorum told GOP voters was with us when we needed him. The unanswered question is who was the 'we' that they referred to? It surely wasn't conservatives.
If the offense is his declared intent to vote to approve Sotomayor, why hide it or ignore it? It is a significant issue and people need to know. She's a radical who believes in radical ideas but he has no problem saying yes to her. This appointment was bad enough but it was one leftist replacing another. The balance of the court didn't change. What will happen with the next leftist appointee? Why would he turn that one down if Sotomayor was acceptable?
I still have a major problem with his so called 'stand' on the 2nd Amendment. It is weak and (like the article being discussed here) says nothing of substance. When we talked about it two weeks ago, he told me that he'd look at it. I've not heard back from him and as of the other day, no meat was added.
I don't expect to be his top priority, but he called me, not the other way around. He wanted me to change my mind, but he has given me nothing new so that I could make a new decision.
Your attitude seems to be that if you're getting mugged, just lay back and enjoy it. I don't care if she had 99 votes and there was a gun to my head, she would never get my vote of approval.
Dolley does not hate Toomey. You throw that word around rather liberally. She was a supporter like I was, and like me, she is extremely disappointed that he seems to have walked away from his strong stands of 2004. That leads us to wonder if he has changed his positions or was just lying to us then. Either way, it is not good for him.