Speaking of Toomey, has anyone visited his "Club for Growth" website? It carries a big red "Comrade of the Month Award" banner where, according to the site, one can vote for some erring politician that Club visitors don't find pretty.
And we all thought Joe McCarthy was dead?
Matt Thomas

I think you basically cut and pasted your post from the last Toomey story a few weeks back, Matt. In case you're unaware, every political interest group (right AND left) run banner ads on their respective websites attacking some politician in an effort to raise money. I've seen quite a number of rather nasty banners over the years on the MoveOn website, for example. Please don't act like such practices are exclusive to the Club for Growth. If you're not fond of Pat Toomey, fine, but do yourself a favor and whip up a new line of attack. You'll come across as much more credible. "Joe McCarthy"...wow...

Anyway, I think Toomey's basis for reconsidering a challenge to our dear Arlen rests entirely on Specter's stimulus vote last month. From what I hear, with his "yea" on Obama's spending package, Specter managed to lose the few conservatives that were planning on backing him in the primary next year. Unless Specter (and Obama) are proven right and their spending translates into jobs in short order (miracles are possible, I suppose), I'm fairly certain Specter will not receive the GOP nomination for Senate next year.

The demographics of our state and Specter's own actions will finally end Arlen's "storied" Senate tenure, I believe. Politically, Pennsylvania is a bit different than it was 5 years ago. Many of the "Rendellicans" in the southeast never came back "home" to the GOP after switching their party affiliations to participate in Democrat primaries over the years, while Republicans have gained strength throughout the southwest portion of the state. Outside of the city of Pittsburgh, Specter doesn't have much of a base of support in the southwest amongst Republicans, while his power base in the southeast has shrunk considerably. True, many "purple" voters would probably vote for Specter in a general election, but that isn't his immediate problem.

Toomey has loads of goodwill amongst conservatives from his last run in 2004 (where he came within two points of unseating Specter in that year's primary). I can't see anything Specter has done since then to endear himself to those same conservative GOP primary voters. I know Toomey has talked of exploring a gubernatorial run next year, but in my view, the Senate is a much better fit for him. I know the naysayers will claim that even if he defeats Specter, Toomey would have no chance in a general election. Two quick points. One, nobody knows what the political environment will look like in November 2010. If the economy and employment are still lagging (and Obama's signature initiative, his spending bill, has had little to no effect on those problems), I believe Toomey's message of spending restraint and reform will resonate, even amongst the moderates that would've preferred Specter. Two, nobody knows who the Dems will put up. I'm assuming another Specter/Toomey knock-down, drag-out would entice the Dem A-list in the state to take another look at the Senate contest. Toomey will be able to raise money, so if the Dems nominate a candidate with the same ability, from the southeast (i.e., Chris Murphy, Allyson Schwartz, or Joe Sestak, for example), we may be in for the most expensive and competitive Senate race in state history (eclipsing Santorum/Casey). At any rate, this should be interesting, and yes...Go Pat Go!

To the "gentleman from...
No...I did not "cut and paste" but rather posted these same remarks once again in a vain effort to drill further down into the half-dead gray matter of those who celebrate Mr. Toomey's agenda.
In this, I will admit defeat.
To quote yourself: "...every political interest group (right AND left) run banner ads on their respective websites attacking some politician in an effort to raise money."
Since when is this an accurate comparison?
Kindly document for us where a single political website (other than ultra-extreme wacko groups) has ever suggested that anyone who disagrees with their own agenda is somehow a communist, nazi or other totalitarian adherent?
Please further document how this "Comrade of the Month" banner is not perfectly analogous with the late Senator Joe McCarthy's dishonorable tactics used to smear loyal Americans with the same type of red-baiting?
Are you aware that McCarthy was censured by his own Senate colleagues...do you even know who McCarthy was?
Finally...and again I quote you: "...Toomey's basis for reconsidering a challenge to our dear Arlen rests entirely on Specter's stimulus vote last month."
Whatever you think about Senator Specter's vote in support of the Stimulus bill, if you have an honest bone left in your body you have no choice but to admit that Senator Specter's vote was a clear act of courage since he knew for certain that the right wing base of Pennsylvania's Republican Party would suffer a furious if not rabid reaction to his action.
In line with the foregoing, there is no doubt that Senator Specter's stand on this critical issue ranks as no less than a profile in courage, along with Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine.
The rest of the Republican Senate and House members allowed themselves to become nothing more than a collective embarrassment of mouthpieces for the talk show Rush Limbaugh instead of advocates for the very people at home who elected them to office and whom they are duly sworn to represent.
This should test anyone's gag reflex, including yours.
Matt Thomas

Matt -

I guess you do have what I call the liberal "McCarthy reflex". Don't worry, bud. All libs seem to suffer from this seemingly incurable ailment. Basically, anytime a conservative or conservative group criticizes a liberal or liberal group for any position, on any issue, cries of "McCarthyism!" or "Red-baiting!" can be heard for miles around.

For the record, yes I'm very well aware of who Senator Joe McCarthy was, and what he did (and didn't do). By the way, given your diatribe against "Tailgunner" Joe (i.e., "dishonorable tactics used to smear loyal Americans..."), one could easily envision you as counsel to Alger Hiss all those years ago. But I digress...

You asked me to provide specific examples of "political" groups using incendiary advertising on their websites. Apparently you view these sites through a liberal-tinted lens, as you seemingly missed MoveOn's famous/infamous Bush/Nazi ad from 2003-2004 (with the Iraq war only months on). We won't even get into the bile that some of the lesser known left-wing interest groups flung toward Bush over the years. The right doesn't have clean hands in this area either, which was my point entirely. A duck is a duck, Matt - if it walks like one and - well, you get the idea.

Honestly, I believe the Club for Growth banner ad is a bit lame and they could probably do without it, but again, it's hardly indigenous to the right. One last thing: in addition to counsel for Alger Hiss (sorry - just couldn't pass that one up), you also seem to be auditioning for a spot on Senator Specter's senior staff. His vote on Obama's spending package, which you attribute to his "courage", may well may just another in a long line of political calculations done by Arlen Specter over the years. Honestly, we don't know what was in his heart. We only know what we want to believe to be true. I suppose my question to you would be: what do you make of the House Dems (I believe there were two dozen or so) that voted AGAINST Obama's plan? Do they also stand as "profiles in courage"?

To the gentleman...
Now where in hell did Alger Hiss come from...is your argument that desparate?
Hiss was a rat and a well-documented traitor to his country so please save us from this sophomoric attempt to imitate Joe McCarthy's dispeakable tactic of "guilt by association" by linking everyone who disagrees with you to a communist.
Again, to quote youself: "Honestly, I believe the Club for Growth banner ad (Comrade of the Month) is a bit lame..."
Well, please enlighten us as to how your own cheap shot by way of Hiss is any less lame then that same Club banner?
(And by the way, Joe McCarthy had nothing to do with the Hiss case...apparently you have confused him with the then congressman, Richard Nixon).
However, in terms of the MoveOn Bush/nazi smear...mia culpa...you are absolutely right.
At the same time, I carry no water for MoveOn and was as outraged as were most Democrats when these left-wing punks assailed Gen. David Petraeus as "General Betray Us"
Interesting that this same MoveOn assassination
of the General's character was perfectly in line with McCarthy's own tactics. No, McCarthyism is not at all dead...it thrives within the fringes of both right and left politics.
On Senator Specter...I am not privy to what lies in his heart, but I can evaluate political risk-taking and the fact that he will now face a grave challenge in next year's primary from the vapid-brained nympholepts who have all but captured the soul of the ill-fated Republican Party.
Whatever your own opinion on the merits of the Stimulus, at least have the honesty to admit that Specter's vote in support of that same Senate bill took courage...certainly a great deal more than those Republicans (and a few Democrats) who allowed themselves to be horse-whipped by a loud-mouthed radio talk show host.
Matt Thomas

Matt -

The Hiss crack was a joke, bud - simmer down.

It seems as if we agree that political interest groups of all stripes can pull some pretty underhanded tactics. MoveOn's Petraeus "ad"/smear had actually slipped my mind - thanks for refreshing my memory. They took that out as a full-page ad in some of the major papers, as I now recall. Unbelievable. However, I'm sure some right-wing group will come along and pull a stunt such as that with Obama in the coming years. Politics - check your morals (and common sense) at the door.

As for Specter, I suppose we'll agree to disagree. Specter would be facing a primary challenge next year regardless, but Arlen's vote for Obama's supposed economic remedy probably did draw Toomey out of the gubernatorial contest and into the Senate race. To me, Specter made a political calculation. Pennsylvania is a moderate/lean-Dem state, and if he is to win next year (IF he captures the nomination), Arlen needs the Philly suburbs (which, once red, are now purple). Obama is popular there (at least right now). In my opinion, Specter was probably attempting to placate those voters with his "yea" on Obama's spending package.

Just an observation, Matt, but you seem to ascribe courage only to those who agree with you. The three Republicans (all notoriously liberal, I might add) that voted for Obama's plan displayed "moral courage" and are "stewards of the Senate" for their actions, but the Republicans and moderate-to-conservative Dems who opposed Obama's plan are merely foot-soldiers for Rush Limbaugh? Is it within the realm of possibility that these men and women just might have opposed Obama's plan "on principle"? Again, we honestly don't know exactly why members of Congress vote the way they do on any issue, and I'm sure many (both Republicans and Dems) voted based on political calculations. However, you don't believe it took as much political courage for those House Dems to buck their party as it did for Specter, Snowe and Collins to buck theirs?

One more thing: you can put down the Rush baton, bro. I don't have a poster of the now-exalted Mr. Limbaugh hanging in my room, nor do I hang by a thread on his every word. I know it's now in vogue amongst libs to anoint Rush as the figurehead of the GOP, and that's certainly a cute and clever ploy. However, it may shock you to learn that most conservatives are independent thinkers who decide for themselves where they stand on issues and policy. Personally, I didn't support the "stimulus" plan because I didn't really see anything that would be considerably "stimulated" for any meaningful amount of time, not because Rush Limbaugh said it was "bad".

It's easy to cast aside your political opponents as merely drones of a figure you don't particularly care for, but isn't an actual policy debate much more worthwhile and satisfying? At least that's how I look at it...

I'll give you this...if indeed, the gentleman does his own thinking than why does he ally himself with lock-step lemmings who support a Toomey and worship a Limbaugh?
On the stimulus vote...yes it was not easy for those few Dems to oppose their party and president so perhaps it is wrong for me to assume they were altogether influenced by the radio blowhard.
Nevertheless, when only 3 out of 40 Republican senators and zero out of 178 Republican House members oppose their leadership on the stimulus and the chairman of their own party runs with his tail between his legs begging forgiveness from a Rush Limbaugh it is a given that your party is left without a moral compass.
Thus, when you ask: "Is it within the realm of possibility that these men and women just might have opposed Obama's plan "on principle?" I am forced to answer in the negative.
The evidence is now simply overwhelming that the Republican Party (or what is left of it) is nearing bankruptcy in terms of principles.
In fact, the only saving grace for a Democratic Party already seriously challenged by too many less than steller politicians within its own ranks is that the GOP is just so much worse.
Matt Thomas

All of "gentleman's" digs (calling Matt "bud" and "bro", telling him to "simmer down")are signs that he is a mere provocateur who wishes to make idealogical points. He engages in THE BIG CON: repeat lies often enough and they becomes true. It is the Republican way.