- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
Campaign Crawlers
Toomey Talks
(Page 2 of 2)
First of all, Republicans need to make principled arguments for alternative policies. We've got to be willing to stand up and criticize this massive expansion of government. I think the American people understand intuitively that endless bailouts of failing companies are a bad idea. I think they understand that we got into this mess we're in now, at least in part, because of too much borrowing and spending, and the idea that the government is going to get us out of it by massive and additional borrowing and spending -- that's a pretty dubious proposition. So I think we can easily persuade people of the failures of this policy and to do that we need to have constructive alternatives, and politically and tactically, we need to stop this in the Senate. Part of the reason I'm running is that Senator Specter has demonstrated that we do not have the ability to sustain a filibuster in part because he doesn’t want to. He wants to side with the Democrats and advance this liberal agenda. He's done it already. There's every reason to believe he would do it again. And it's just too important that Republicans stand up in opposition to this socialization of America. And I think we can do it, but we need to have the right people in the Senate -- people who are willing to do it.
PK: Your economic views are well known, both before your time at the Club for Growth and with your work there, so I'd like to get a better sense of your views on foreign policy. Broadly speaking, most conservatives during the Bush administration tended to be supportive of the administration's actions during the War on Terror, and decision to invade Iraq. Whereas some more libertarian Republicans, and certainly those who Ron Paul spoke to, were rooted in the belief that we can't think government is any better at meddling in other people's affairs overseas as it is meddling with the free market at home. They were very critical of the Iraq War, and have argued that our involvement overseas has made us less safe. In terms of that divide among people who may agree with each other about the size of government in domestic issues, where do you see yourself?
Toomey: The vote authorizing the president to use force in Iraq occurred while I was a member of the House and I voted in favor of that authorization. I will tell you it was probably the toughest vote I had to cast while I was there. But I thought then, and I still believe now, that it was probably the right risk to take, understanding that it was a very big risk. And the reason I felt that is I do believe Saddam Hussein was a very grave medium-term threat to the United States. I think he was a force for enormous instability and great and dangerous mischief in the Middle East and beyond. And after Sept. 11, and after we had witnessed and suffered through such a devastating attack, I thought we had to change some of these fundamental circumstances and in getting rid of Saddam Hussein and allowing the Iraqi people to build a democratic society of their own that would be free of that brutal dictator, it struck me as a risk that we ought to take, as difficult as that was. There's plenty of legitimate, very legitimate, criticism of how the war was conducted, especially in the early and middle stages of it. There's plenty of blame about some of the planning and implementation of policies after the initial very successful military efforts. But in the end, the surge then did work, and it's unfortunate that it wasn't deployed far sooner. But it did work. And I am cautiously optimistic that things will turn out okay in Iraq as long as we don't pull out precipitously.
PK: Right now, one of the big debates is over the Bush administration's interrogation program, and it's taken on several different strands. There are those who think it's absolutely morally beyond the pale, there are those who say if you look at the results it got that it did save American lives, and then there's this debate over the legal aspects, and whether there should be some sort of "Truth Commission" to look into what happened and whether we should be prosecuting former Bush administration officials. What is your viewpoint on this issue?
Toomey: I think the current administration is guilty of undermining our national security with what they're doing right now, and it's appalling. First of all, their decision to release these memos I think was a very poor decision. If they were going to do that, they also should have disclosed the kinds of attacks that the interrogations prevented and it's disturbing that they continue to remain unwilling to release that. The idea that we would now go after and criminally prosecute men and women who were following legal advice and doing their jobs to try and protect Americans is absolutely appalling and will have a chilling effect on our ability to secure this country going forward. So I think it's a terrible policy that this administration is threatening.
PK: How would you describe the philosophical difference between your views and the Obama approach to health care? And how do you think Republicans can make the case against the Obama-style approach?
Toomey: The fundamental divide is clearly whether we're going to have privately provided, privately financed health care in this country, or whether we're going to go down the road of having the government take over the process. It's very clear that the Obama administration wants government-controlled health care. That can only lead to government rationing and lower quality of health care. That is a very disturbing direction in my mind. Republicans have generally favored a more market-based approach -- that is my preference. I would like to start by reuniting the role of the patient and the consumer. We've separated those two by relying on third party payer systems. This is one of the fundamental flaws of how we pay for health care in this country. That needs to be addressed. There are a number of ways in which government forces prices higher than they need to be. For health care, one is tolerance of legal abuses, litigation that directly has a huge cost, but indirectly has an even bigger cost by forcing doctors to practice defensive medicine on a scale that is totally inappropriate.
The other thing is mandates on coverage. The various states have all sorts of mandated [benefits] that make insurance more expensive than it would otherwise be. These are the kinds of things we can do that enhance personal freedom and choices by consumers and lower cost at the same time. That's the philosophical and practical direction that I want to head in, and it's the opposite of where the Obama administration wants to go.
I think politically we can win this argument by reminding the American people that when the government runs the show, you're not in control anymore. You're not going to have choices. And we're going to end up having rationing. I don't think many Americans want a Canadian style, or a British style, health care system, and the more they learn about those systems, the more they'll shy away from them.
PK: This week, we're coming up on 100 days of the Obama administration. What grade would you give President Obama?
I would give him a very low grade, because I think he is embarking on a profoundly wrong direction. This massive expansion of government will do much harm. It will make Americans fundamentally dependent on government and make us a weaker rather than stronger country. The spending that he has already approved and that which he is proposing is absolutely unsustainable and can only result in serious economic problems down the road. This international apology tour I thought was appalling, and it was really shocking [for it] to come from an American president. So, I fail to see much to commend in the first 100 days of the Obama administration.
Philip Klein is The American Spectator's Washington correspondent.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Pingback| 4.28.09 @ 7:30AM
Toomey Talks links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Robert Rosencrans| 4.28.09 @ 7:40AM
Toomey needs to start memorizing some facts and figures, including the number 3. That's the number of Republicans who changed the future for the next generation of Americans.
A lower standard of living is a sure thing for the grandkids who will be saddled with trillions in debt due to a bill which was run through Congress like a locomotive and was read and understood by few.
Spector is a symptom of a mental state which begins to infect all politicians, he became a Washingtonian who loses his spine at every opportunity, explaining it away with bizarre explanations.
One perfect example of that was his vote of "Not Proven" in the Clinton impeachment in the U.S. Senate. Ridiculous.
Thank God he was never appointed to the Supreme Court.
blackelkspeaks| 4.28.09 @ 8:36AM
Toomey may be better than Specter, but that's a thin reed upon which to hang your hat. Like most dissembling politicians, his answers above fail to articulate a full appreciation for dismantling Leviathan government and returning it to appropriate constitutional limits. His response concerning the Iraq war failed to address the original point; that is, what is his plan for extricating the US from our monstrous foreign entanglements in every corner of the globe that have worked to our detriment? And his health care "solutions", though somewhat free-market oriented, don't get us away from having government tentacles remain in place for further mischief. Can't the Republican Party field ANY candidate that isn't a warmed-over statist at the root?
NavyBrat| 4.28.09 @ 9:22AM
I, for one, can't wait to vote & campaign for this guy. Anyone's better than that smug, condescending, sanctomonious SOB. The way he talked to his constituents after voting for the bailout ENRAGED me. This state & we, the voters, deserve better.
Pingback| 4.28.09 @ 9:34AM
Specter courts conservatives in PA rematch… | GrassrootsPA links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.28.09 @ 9:45AM
Specter courts social conservatives - Early Returns - post-gazette.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
PCP Smoker| 4.28.09 @ 10:14AM
It's always a good read when conservatives are interviewed. They are able to make the case clearly and without any hesitation.
Compare this to the Specter interview Jeff Lord conducted a couple of weeks ago.
I hope Toomey beats the pants of Specter.
blackelkspeaks| 4.28.09 @ 10:43AM
RE: PCP Smoker
I don't see where Toomey, as a "conservative", was "...able to make the case clearly and without hesitation." We have gotten to the point where we neither expect nor require political candidates to have consistent ideological positions. I only want to know one thing about any candidate for office; that is, is the guy familiar with the US Constitution? If not, forget it. And, if so, can he be trusted to adhere to it? Every decision that he makes, in every area of concern, should be consistent with the requirements of the US Constitution. Anything else is outright tyranny. And "That's that!"
Look at what Pingback posted. Am I supposed to be happy that Toomey "has included $2 million for embryo adoption awareness..." in his legislation proposals? I am pro-life, but this guy is just part of the problem; he's just another shill for Leviathan government. Its just that his preferred programs are more politically palatable to alleged "conservatives". Show me any part of the US Constitution that gives the Congress the authority to create such a program?
This country is on a fast track to hell because of people like Specter and, yes, Toomey.
Son Of Sam| 4.28.09 @ 12:30PM
With any luck, Benedict Arlen will finally out himself, declare as a Democrat and then we can have a brass knuckles brawl in 2010 between him and Toomey. I for one would relish that prospect.
stay strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.geocities.com/samadamssos
Robert Rosencrans| 4.28.09 @ 12:36PM
Well, well, the shoe has dropped. Don't fool yourself, he switched parties hoping he can hold onto enough foolish Republicans in the general election so he can stay in D.C. and help loot the Treasury. What a phony!
While he claims he has not represented the Republican Party, but the people of Pa., that statement doesn't hold true either.
He became a Washingtonian, standing tall for statism, and now that his voting public has wised up, he's pulling a McCain, hoping that lurching to the left will help guide him through to victory.
McCain lost with that concept and now Spector will help finalize and close out the concept.
Nick| 4.28.09 @ 12:40PM
Rejoice!! Rejoice!!
We finally got rid of that good for nothing RINO!
And if Santorum hadn't supported S-P-E-C-T-E-R 6 years ago, he wouldn't have lost in '06.
Now, if only we can start focusing on democrats in red states like Lincoln, Pryor, Conrad, etc. And stop the open primaries.
stmichrick| 4.28.09 @ 12:43PM
blackelkspeaks;
Your strain of conservatism (I think it's called libertarianism), that calls a strong defense posture 'statism,' takes us nowhere politically, as Ron Paul discovered.
The common defense is the primary constitutional role of government and the best way to do it is fight threats where they come from.
The Clinton Administration fought jihadists your way and look what where it went. It was NOT because we have interests in the Middle East.
The election of Toomey is a too-good-to-be-true scenario given the migration of Pennsylvania from red to blue. However, with nothing to lose ideologically now is the time for a purge of RINOs like Arlen.
To
Anthony| 4.28.09 @ 1:11PM
Congratulations are in order to Sen. to be Toomey. It's six years too late however. Once again, George Bush's "new tone" has come back to bit him and us. The cleansing process within the Republican Party needs to continue until all RINOs are gone.
Wright Winged Extremity| 4.28.09 @ 1:17PM
Let Arlen go... Give'em enough rope. Liberals are hangin themselves left and right. The voters will see what's happening by the time polls open in 2010 and the house cleaning can begin. BTW... Specter, you belong with them. That is who you vote with anyway. Your days left as a public servant are numbered and few. And, better work faster O, in passing the what leftist socialist policies you can in the time you have before you are impeached or voted out.
Tim| 4.28.09 @ 1:44PM
Well surprise surprise......79 year old medically challenged Arlen Specter will end his days as a Democrat. I say good and bon voyage! And offer this directly to Mr. Specter only because a part of me feels bad for him on the way he is being used while he suffers from his medical conditions.
You should do the honorable thing and join your recent departed Freddie Mac executive.
This way, you can still perserve what very little Honor you have left.
sestamibi| 4.28.09 @ 2:28PM
Good riddance, Arlen--from someone who campaigned for you back in 1992 against the execrable Lynn Yeakel.
Unlike Tim, whose response is a bit over the top, I wish you well in your involuntary retirement--that is, after you lose the Democratic primary when they resent you getting to the front of the line.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.28.09 @ 3:14PM
Arlen Spector will receive a congressional pension of over $129,000 per year for life. If he passes away his spouse will get 60% for life.
In the meantime let's ponder the corruption inside the beltway.
According the Opensecrects.org, Arlen Spector has amassed a fortune worth between 2.7 million to 7.8 million with a possible maximum wealth of 11 million.
Also on the list was Olympia Snowe, worth allegedly at least 15 million. Look at the list of these super millionaires. They all got rich at public expense, and may explain their vote on the latest Porkulus bill.
Amazingly if you look at the poorest Senators, Joe Biden is listed with a negative net worth of -327,000 or higher. And he's helping run the country?
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=W&year=2007&filter=S&sort=D
Michael Tomlinson| 4.28.09 @ 4:04PM
It will be refreshing once PA has a Senator of principle vs. a crass politician out to boost his on ego.
Bye, bye Arlen hope you and Harry Reid enjoy your retirements thanks to BO's collapsing economy.
MacAoidh| 4.28.09 @ 4:43PM
For Bill Hussein O'Stalin:
"I have the consolation of having added nothing to my private fortune during my public service, and of retiring with hands clean as they are empty."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Count Diodati, 1807
lynnrockets| 4.28.09 @ 5:06PM
Rivals no more. Bwa hahahahaha. Red rover, red rover... send Snowe and Collins right over. Hey Repubs, what's that old saying? oh yeah, "If you can't beat em. Join em." The "Party of No" just became the "Party of No minus one."
Tim| 4.28.09 @ 5:13PM
I was being generous and very kind in my suggestion to Mr. Spectator.
I am being so kind because I realize that the man suffers from serious medical problems and at 79 even good ol Arlen deserves a little compassion which I strongly feel was displayed in my last post.
Frankly, an "over the top suggestion" could never and would never be printed here or on any other blog for obvious reasons.
Tim| 4.28.09 @ 5:16PM
That should have said Mr. Specter not Mr. Spectator....my bad.......
lynnrockets| 4.28.09 @ 5:28PM
This site and the commentators on the discussion board use more spin than Linda Blair.
Pingback| 4.28.09 @ 6:07PM
Pat Toomey links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
constance| 4.28.09 @ 6:33PM
Toomey's comment here speaks volumes about his perception, and it isn't a pretty conclusion that one is left with -
"Now, as far as my own prospects go, the comparison to Rick Santorum is completely meaningless. It's a complete red herring thrown out by the Specter people. Rick Santorum didn't lose in 2006 because he was too conservative, he lost because he was a Republican running in 2006. 2006 was the worst Republican year since 1974. Republicans all across the country and all across the ideological spectrum were losing. Nancy Johnson lost a seat in Connecticut. Charlie Bass lost a seat in New Hampshire. Sue Kelly lost a seat in New York. These are very moderate to liberal Republicans, and they were crushed, because it was a very bad year for Republicans. So, this didn't have anything to do with his ideology. "
Not that it isn't ironic for a man deep in the forest to not see that forest for the trees, but the reason why Republicans lost so many that year was... because of their ideology... and their actions (or lack thereof).
Or, perhaps it was 'just because they were Republican' , and it was a 'bad year'... right?
*sigh*
Nick| 4.28.09 @ 7:16PM
WRONG!
Mr. Santorum lost for one reason: He supported S-P-E-C-T-O-R in '06 along with President Bush. That was a smart move, huh? Pro-Lifers were sick of people that put party above life and stayed home. They were the same ones who voted for Mr. Toomey in the '06 primary, which he lost by only 12,000 votes.
lynnrockets| 4.28.09 @ 7:30PM
DA DOO LEN LEN
(sung to the Phil Spector/Ronettes song “Da Doo Ron Ron”)
I met him on a Tuesday and my heart stood still
Da Doo Len Len Len Da Doo Len Len
The Dems will love his vote up on the Hill
Da Doo Len Len Len Da Doo Len Len
Yes, my heart stood still
What? His name’s not Phil?
A new (D) beneath the Dome
Da Doo Len Len Len Da Doo Len Len
I never cared for Arlen, but now he’s my guy
Da Doo Len Len Len Da Doo Len Len
Republicans are crying, my oh my
Da Doo Len Len Len Da Doo Len Len
Yes, now he’s my guy
Let’s watch Mike Steele cry
A new (D) beneath the Dome
Da Doo Len Len Len Da Doo Len Len
Da Doo Len Len Len Da Doo Len Len
Da Doo Len Len Len Da Doo Len Len
Let’s hope Collins and Snowe will be next in line
Da Doo Len Len Len Da Doo Len Len
Somebody throw the G.O.P. a line
Da Doo Len Len Len Da Doo Len Len
Things, they look so fine
Break out the beer and wine!
A new (D) beneath the Dome
Da Doo Len Len Len Da Doo Len Len
Da Doo Len Len Len Da Doo Len Len
Da Doo Len Len Len Da Doo Len Len
(repeat and fade out)
Paul Crowley| 4.28.09 @ 7:33PM
=>"A Rasmussen poll released last week showed Toomey with a 21-point edge over
Specter." [Philip Klein on 4.28.09 @ 6:10AM]
Then shortly afterwards, Fightin' Arlen decided to give up the fight and to change parties
(to cause a rift in the Democratic primaries?).
No more “Hard Harball” from Fightin’ Arlen, in the Republican Party nomination
elections.
This is the guy that Jeffrey Lord wrote just 12 days ago was running due to his desire to
maintain a Republican Party majority in the senate?
“Only a fool would count Arlen Specter out.” [Jeffrey Lord, 16 April 2009]
Maybe Lord was right. After all, how many Pennsylvanians registered as democrats in
2010 will like Specter either?
Of course, he might be running as an independent by the time election day rolls around
(if he’s still alive 18 months from now, that is: That’s not a given for any man who is 79
years old).
Everything Specter is involved in always has a bad smell to it.
Paul Crowley| 4.28.09 @ 7:57PM
“WRONG! Mr. Santorum lost for one reason: He supported S-P-E-C-T-O-R in '06 along with President Bush. That was a smart move, huh? Pro-Lifers were sick of people that put party above life and stayed home. They were the same ones who voted for Mr. Toomey in the '06 primary, which he lost by only 12,000 votes.” [Nick| 4.28.09 @ 7:16PM]
Hi Nick:
It was 2004 that Rick Santorum and G.W. Bush campaigned for Arlen Specter, in the Republican primaries, AGAINST his Pro-Life opponent.
But you’re exactly right that Santorum’s loss in 2006 was due to that.
Good for you for pointing it out that “Pro-Lifers were sick of people that put party above life and stayed home.”
“Dubya” and Santorum put the policies of this Bush-Clinton-Bush era administrations post-Cold War, 1989-present, BARBARIC form of capitalism and the Joint Chief of Staff’s punitive expeditions and invasions in southwest & south-central Asia, northeast Africa and the Balkan peninsula First and Foremost.
Santorum went on to be a cheerleader for the GWOT.
Rick Santorum and G.W. Bush only paid lip service to being Pro Life.
The democrats are now playing the same game. . .
Flannery| 4.28.09 @ 8:54PM
Specter doesn't do much for the Democrats. His rants against the New England Patriots and the NFL were evidence of an elderly man who dropped his pill case. He won't win in 2010 as either Republican or Democrat. He could actually help the Republicans by alienating the hell out of everyone to the point where Toomey wins the general election, especially if the economy is weak , and there's a backlash to the the huge debt.
lynnrockets| 4.28.09 @ 11:25PM
@ Flannery:
That's right. Typical Republican strategy. Root for the economy to continue to tank so that one of your candidates has a better chance to win his next election.
Good plan. To hell with the folks that lose their jobs and wealth in the meantime. It's all good so long as one of your's gains a seat.
And you Republicans wonder why the voters have left you in droves.
dez| 4.28.09 @ 11:32PM
Arlen Specter has finally made official what most of us determined long ago . . . he is a Democrat. He's been talking like one, voting like one and, most importantly, stabbing Republicans in the back like one for a long time.
Good riddance, and Democrats be careful what you desire. Arlen Specter is all about Arlen Specter, and he'll be disloyal and duplicitous to his new caucus mates when it serves his purpose just as often, and with as little hesitation, as he did to the GOP.
The greatest fools to be revealed by this entire escapade are John Cornyn, current head of the NRSC and all the other so-called "Republican leaders" who, until Specter's final betrayal of them, continued to pledge him their unending support. What should be happening among the GOP leadership now:
1. Search the halls of the Senate for members currently caucusing with the Democrats that would be willing to join, and most importantly function as a loyal member of, the Republican team.
2. Make it clear to other wobblies such as Susan Collins that their days of being the tail that wags the GOP dog have ended. Either they respect the party line, conform to party discipline, and vote with the party on votes deemed as critical by the leadership, or they will be exiled to the nether reaches of Capitol Hill and stripped of all meaningful committee assignments.
3. Find real Republicans to challenge the wobblies and support them in the primaries, and find other real Republicans in swing states to defeat Democrats like Claire McCaskill of Missouri.
Arlen Specter has done Republicans a huge favor. The phrase "addition by subtraction" may have been coined in sports, but it applies elsewhere, including in the political arena.
pete the mediocre| 4.28.09 @ 11:52PM
Lynnrockets has an incredibly short memory, and has apparently forgotten the Democrats rooting for the US to lose in Iraq. Have you forgotten Harry Reid's declaration of defeat?
Republicans are certainly not rooting for the continued demise of the economy. We're just not naive enough to think it won't happen with the current buffoon and his cronies in charge.
BachmumLvr696969| 4.29.09 @ 12:06AM
This is excellent news. Obviously we need to trim the party down, purge some of the impure elements; the east coast liberal types with homosexual leanings and Semetic features. It's a proven fact this country is suffering from a tumor of the soul and a day of reckoning is coming. Now if we could just get rid of the Satchmo who is running the show.
Michael Ellis| 4.29.09 @ 12:49AM
I'm sick of the mainstream media telling us that anti-tax supporters are crazy. Please sign this petition to tell them enough is enough, and spread the word: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-felching
BPT (Australia)| 4.29.09 @ 2:18AM
Pat Toomey for President! He will become America’s first foodie in the White House, if he wins.
Obama is so yesterday.
Pingback| 4.29.09 @ 5:18AM
Specter’s Republican Opponent Was Ahead 21 Points on Smaller Government, Lower Taxes links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
BPT(Australia)| 4.29.09 @ 2:37PM
Spector's going to win as a democrat because the majority of Pennsylvanians want to reform Healthcare, reduce dependance on oil and help the middle class. Toomey's gonna get clobbered. I hope the republican party invests heavily in Pennsylvania like the did in the last election. More money for the Democrats to spend elsewhere.
Pingback| 4.30.09 @ 12:29AM
Suddenly Toomey links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.2.09 @ 11:37AM
Pat Toomey interview with American Spectator | The Kansas Progress links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.21.09 @ 7:31AM
The Conservative Reform Network Blog » Blog Archive » Specter vs. Toomey: Unionized a links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
tiffany jewellery| 8.14.09 @ 2:50AM
Very good to see the tiffany jewellery tiffany jewellery tiffany jewellery links of london hollister clothing ed hardy christian audigier abercrombie
feeling quite.
Wholesale Lingerie| 9.5.09 @ 10:06PM
sexy lingerie lingerie