The Washington Post

pa2012.com is proud to partner with The Washington Post in bringing our originally reported insider political news to a wide audience of decision makers and opinion leaders across the country.

Close it

send to a friend | print | comment

Toomey proves he’s just another political opportunist

by Chris Freind

Well, that didn’t take long.

Republican Senate candidate Pat Toomey has officially become part of the go-along, get-along Establishment that he so vocally opposed over the years. In the process, he has demonstrated that he is just another politician masquerading as a principled conservative. It is precisely this type of hypocrisy—from Toomey and  some of his followers—that can signal the beginning of the end for a political movement.

At issue is Toomey’s statement that, had he been a sitting senator, he would have voted to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice.

Before the wolves start howling, let me be clear that this is not a commentary on  Justice Sotomayor’s qualifications, but on the blatant inconsistency of Mr. Toomey. You can bet the ranch that if Senator Arlen Specter was still a Republican, and had voted to confirm a liberal judicial activist—one who has mocked those opposed to legislating from the bench—Toomey and his supporters would have been first in line to decimate him.  Anyone who believes differently simply doesn’t live in the real world.

But since Toomey is running for office, he made a calculated political maneuver to “soften” his image by appealing to the “moderate suburban soccer moms” who supposedly decide statewide elections. In the process, he has alienated both his base and the moderates because he has shown himself to be a political opportunist—exactly what he has accused Specter of being. When will politicians realize that playing both sides gets you neither?

One of the most important jobs of a United States Senator is voting upon Supreme Court nominations. If the senator is a true conservative, he understands the way in which our Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, initiated this nation with three branches of government. The legislative branch makes the law, the executive branch carries out the law and the judicial branch interprets the law.

Yet it’s not a stretch to say that the greatest ills facing the nation—abortion, forced busing, quotas, deprivation of individual rights—haven’t come about as the result of laws passed by the legislative branch, but by court decisions that are nothing more than judicial legislation.
From the New Haven firefighter case, in which Judge Sotomayor ruled that there was nothing wrong with white firefighters being denied promotions because no black firefighters qualified for advancement, to Sotomayor’s statement that a Hispanic female could rule better than a white male, there are clear indications that she is, and will continue to be, a judicial activist.

Voicing his opposition should have been a no-brainer for Toomey, and, had he articulated his reasoning and stood on principle, he would have gained new-found respect as a man of integrity, and in the process, his campaign would have undoubtedly benefited.

Toomey’s decision is bad enough, but to have some of his supporters justify it with political doublespeak is even worse. These are the same people who, time and again, talk about standing on principle, political consequences be damned. They cite a lack of moral leadership as the primary reason for America’s problems, and always claim to support only those leaders with the highest standards of honesty, integrity and candor.

So where’s their outcry on Toomey’s latest Washington Two-Step?

Conservatives who looked the other way because Toomey is “one of theirs” have shown themselves to be the ultimate hypocrites. Ensuring that only strict constructionists get appointed to the Supreme Court  has always been at the top of the conservatives’ agenda. Since Justices serve for life, and control of the Court hangs in the balance, the stakes could not have been any higher.

For conservatives to throw away everything in which they believe to support a political opportunist is shameful. If a Senator is worth anything, he votes on the basis of who he is and what he believes.

Pat Toomey’s actions have shown that he can’t be trusted, making this campaign one that may be over before it begins.

The writer, a former columnist for The Bulletin, authors Friendly Fire, a syndicated column.

share001btn Toomey proves hes just another political opportunist

August 17, 2009 at 6:30 am

--Chris Freind

comments

comments [10] | post a comment

  1. Joe Collins

    Aug 17th, 2009

    Toomey gave an explanation. Disliking that explanation and believing that explanation to be disingenuous are two different things. If one believes Toomey is disingenuous, then Freind’s reaction here is warranted. I do not have any reason to suggest his explanation is disingenuous, so I’m still in the mindset of supporting the most conservative candidate who can win. That’s Toomey. All candidates are imperfect. They’re human.

    Also, projecting a “softer” image is not the same thing as compromising. There are a lot of centrist issues (“80-20″ issues) that a candidate can focus on that do not compromise ideology. Neglecting to yell at the top of his lungs about the corporate tax rate or gay marriage (or whatever) doesn’t diminish his conservatism.

  2. John

    Aug 17th, 2009

    The case made was not that Toomey’s support for Sotomayor makes him less conservative (which it does, according to the metric of the rabid GOP base).

    Rather, the point was that Toomey clearly would have opposed Sotomayor if Specter were still his GOP opponent. This means that Toomey changed positions as a reflection of a political situation. This means that Toomey is calling the kettle black when he criticizes Specter for being calculating.

    But then, I didn’t need another reason to not like Toomey – he has provided me with ample reasons already.

  3. David Diano

    Aug 17th, 2009

    “Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom”

    Infinite? Really?
    I thought that was reserved for “God”. This is part of the problem with the right-wing distorted patriotism that treats the Constitution like it’s part of the Holy Scripture and puts “God and Country” over separation of church and state.
    If the Founding Father were so infinitely wise, does Chris Freind want to go back to counting blacks as 3/5 of a person and having only men voting?

    “forced busing, quotas, deprivation of individual rights”
    All code words for those that equate blacks getting rights with whites losing rights (right to segregate and have whites only bathrooms, schools, hospital, clubs and lunch counters.)

    Civil rights isn’t a zero-sum game.

  4. Josh Eisenberg

    Aug 17th, 2009

    The article makes a good point. They’re all hypocrites and opportunists. I think if Specter gets another term it will probably be his last, and he may therefore be an honest issue-by-issue guy.

  5. Vito Joseph

    Aug 18th, 2009

    I totally agree with this article. i can never imagine Sen. Santorum having gone against the majority of the Republican senators on Sotomayor. And Peg Luksik never would vote to confirm her. My opinion of Toomey has definitely dropped. Luksik needs to run with this one.

  6. Gregory Kauffman

    Aug 18th, 2009

    I’m assuming you’re simply paraphrasing conservative arguments, but for the record, Sotomayor was following extensive judicial precedent in the New Haven firefighters case. She was being the exact opposite of a “judicial activist.” It may not be popular, but it was the law (before the Supreme Court changed it) and she was following it to the letter.

  7. Kipp Lanham

    Aug 18th, 2009

    Pat Toomey may appear a political opportunist according to this commentary, but he has a Hispanic voting population in PA from which he needs to rally electoral support – not just soccer moms. The approval of Sotomayor was a perfect opportunity to appeal to Hispanics despite opening himself up for criticism from many conservatives who oppose Sotomayor.

  8. The Conservative Reform Network Blog » Blog Archive » Pat Toomey: An Opportunist on Judge Sotomayor Nomination?

    Aug 28th, 2009

    [...] Chris Freind presents an opposing view: Pat Toomey proves he’s just another political opportunist. [...]

  9. Abe

    Aug 28th, 2009

    Chris Friend is a blowbag with an axe to grind. If we want to get conservatives on the bench then we have to take back the Senate and the White House. Having a screwed up judiciary cannot be pinned on 40 GOP Senators, certainly not ones like Coburn, DeMint and Toomey who will vote for Attila the Hun if a GOP president has the stones to nominate him to the bench. And the reason Toomey can vote for a staunch conservative as the senator from a blue state is that he can say that he supported the opposing party’s president’s picks because they were qualified, and he’s playing even-handed. So, bottom line, Toomey is doing the wise thing. If we had 51 Toomeys in the Senate, one in the White House, and 218 in the House, our country would be in great shape, unless you live in the bizarro world of the son of a former Specter challenger who lost because he stupidly published a book laced with vulgarity.

  10. GetRealAbe

    Aug 29th, 2009

    Chris nailed it. He accurately describes precisely what Toomey did. Toomey tried to appear “moderate” and “reasonable” to woo the soccer moms. In so doing, he has revealed what so many of us have suspected: He’s just another political opportunist cross-dressing as a principled conservative.

    Will Toomey vote to confirm Obama’s next liberal appointee? Enquiring minds want to know.

Leave a Reply


- will not be published


pa2012.com blogs