Comments on: Can Toomey win in PA?

By: tom

tom — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:48:33 +0000

As the pres. just demostrated; for any candidate to win, unfortunately, the candidate will have to appeal to the moderates of all the parties and once in office, they then are able to unleash their extreme agendas on their unsuspecting surfs. The question is: Which candidate (Specter, Toomey or Sestak) will be able to convince the moderate/independent base that they are the most honorable/trustworthy, to do the, “right thing”, whatever the electorate views that right thing to be.

In the coming months, as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow, the halos and horns will be on parade throughout the nation.

One thing I know; anyone that reads this knows who Specter and Sestak are but do we really know who Toomey is? Sure, you diehard Dems will just catagorize him as a, “Wingnut” but, In my opinion, we that read this are not the ones that will decide this election. In my opinion, the individuals that will decide are the ones that are calculating, from TV and radio ads, who has the most halos and the least horns.

By: aln

aln — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:56:23 +0000

David-

The Republicans aren’t causing the government and economy to collapse, the heavy hand of the Obama administration is. Tax, waste, and spend is no way to lead a country or grow an economy.

By: David Diano

David Diano — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:26:16 +0000

Toomey’s got the same old Republican retreads. Drop taxes until the government and the economy collapse.

By: DQM

DQM — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:24:13 +0000

Jon, Jon, Jon… You guys are going to be saddled with nasty primaries and lots of blood letting while the GOP US Senate and Governor races have already sorted out into the nominees and the also rans. Running a nasty octogenarian who voted for all of those things you condemn and trying to make him look like a reformer is not even comedy, it is farce. Toomey will run as a Republican not a Republicrat that Bush became in later years. Given the quick failure of Obamanomics, anything sounding like sense will do. Fortunately, he knows something of economics.

By: David Diano

David Diano — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:21:10 +0000

Frank-
In 2004, if Toomey beat Specter, he would likely have beaten Hoeffel as well.
In my township, many Democrats switched to Republican to help Specter defeat Toomey. For them, the risk of Toomey beating Hoeffel was too great. Despite the heavy damage Specter took in that Primary, he still beat Hoeffel by 11 points.

So, who would you rather have had the past 6 years? Toomey or Specter?

Political MAD-Libs:
“It amazes me to see how ______, and his supporters, can use people and toss them aside so easily just to get a few more votes to support their career politician.”

You can fill that blank in with Sestak.

We do have term-limits. Each term lasts 2, 4 or 6 years, then the voters get to decide again. It’s call Democracy.

That said, I’ll all for limiting the fund raising and other advantages of the incumbents to level the playing field. I think a lot of congressmen abuse their franking privileges to produce taxpayer subsidized ads. Some also get a lot of extra free airtime on TV, that seems more campaigning that policy making.

By: Frank

Frank — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:02:54 +0000

David,

If it wasn’t for Bush and “wingnut” Santorum, your boy Specter would have lost to Toomey in 2004. It amazes me to see how Specter, and his supporters, can use people and toss them aside so easily just to get a few more votes to support their career politician. Specter, like John Murtha, is a perfect example of why term limits are badly needed. I’d vote for a dead oppossum before I’d vote for Specter again. I’d vote for Ed Rendell before I’d vote for Specter again. He’s garbage.

By: David Diano

David Diano — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:30:43 +0000

Jon-
All good points.

Also, Casey beat wingnut Santorum by 17%.

By: Jon Geeting

Jon Geeting — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:50:43 +0000

The key words are “credible economic alternative”, which is precisely the opposite of what Toomey is offering. Toomey’s economic platform is the same discredited laissez-faire pablum – deregulation, tax cuts – that every conservative candidate has been pushing since the dawn of the conservative movement. These are the same policies championed by the Bush administration, and they are responsible for the current recession. And yet, no Republicans have apologized for enabling the economic platform of Bush’s first term. Shockingly, all their public statements indicate that they believe Bush was right and we should just continue his economic vision despite its failure. As if this weren’t craven enough, now Republican candidates like Toomey are attempting to repackage warmed over supply-side economics as some kind of reform platform, as though it is not still the reigning conventional wisdom in right-of-center Washington. The project of real reformers is, of course, to root out and destroy the trickle-down deregulatory regime wherever it appears and to banish this idiotic faith and its congregation from the public policy arena. Unlike McDonnell in VA, Toomey’s rancid voting record proves he’s a wingnut, and the worst of that record will be broadcast all over PA TV screens in just a few months, frightening the 50% of the state who have yet to acquaint themselves with his extremist worldview.