Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey is probably not running for president in 2012, though Roll Call floated his name for Vice President in 2012 and he has emerged as a Tea Party favorite. But is he is not exactly a Congressional rookie either – he served three terms in the U.S. House between 1999 and 2005 and then presided over the pro-business, small government Club for Growth. (Unsurprisingly, Club for Growth was Toomey’s top campaign contributor, donating $823,000, almost eight times as much as his second largest donor, hedge fund firm Elliot Management.)

With that in mind, how does his early work in the Senate stack up against his campaign promises 13 weeks into the 112^th Congress? On his campaign website, Toomey listed a dozen issue areas:

Jobs and the economy (cut taxes and deregulate)

Bailouts (oppose)

Spending (cut)

Taxes (cut for both individuals and business)

Health care (no government involvement/read more)

Immigration (no amnesty, secure borders)

Israel (support, two-state solution, oppose Iran)

Families and Marriage (pro-life/no tax money for abortion, against gay marriage)

Second Amendment (pro-gun ownership)

Energy/Resources (For more domestic drilling and nuclear, against Cap and Trade)

National Security (Strong military, strategic missile defense)

Veterans (support for numerous programs, support for Military Voter Protection Act to make military voting easier)

Toomey’s Senate record so far

The best measure of a Senator’s record is his or her record on votes. The Senate has not taken many votes in the 112^th Congress, but there have been a handful of key votes so far. Toomey has voted to renew expiring portions of the Patriot Act, for two continuing resolutions to temporarily fund the federal government with some budget cuts, for HR 1 providing for a full year continuing resolution, against reauthorizing the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs, against the Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act and for an amendment to exclude Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees from federal collective bargaining rights.

Another measure of a Senator’s priorities and accomplishments is to look at his or her sponsored legislation. So far, Toomey has introduced one bill and offered two amendments to bills according to the Library of Congress’ Thomas service. All three seem to deal with the federal debt of $14.3 trillion and a looming vote on increasing the debt ceiling.

Toomey and Louisiana Senator David Vitter are pushing a plan that would force the government to place priority on interest payments on the debt over all other spending should Congress not raise the debt ceiling. Toomey’s S.163, the Full Faith and Credit Act would do just that. In an ominous sign for Toomey’s preferred policy, an amendment to the America Invests Act that would do essentially the same thing was defeated by a vote of 52-47. Thomas does not have a summary for Toomey’s other amendment, but it appears to be another iteration of the Full Faith and Credit Act.

He also wrote an op-ed earlier this month outlining his positions on the debt in which he also called for a Constitutional amendment mandating a balanced federal budget. A “sense of the Senate” resolution came up for a vote the day after that op-ed, and garnered 58 votes in favor, though such a resolution requires 60 votes (three-fifths) for passage.

Toomey is also a cosponsor on 27 other bills and amendments. Some of the more notable bills include:

Prohibiting EPA from taking any action related to global warming

Repealing the Affordable Care Act (or the Job-Killing Health Care Law if you prefer)

Repealing a 2007 law mandating a transition to energy efficient light bulbs

Overturning FCC rules on net neutrality

Save our States Act which would delay implantation of the Affordable Care Act until a final judicial review

Repealing the excise tax on medical device manufacturers

Forcing a Congressional review of major rules propagated by Executive Branch agencies

Establishing a National Right to Work law

A resolution calling from free trade agreements with South Korea, Columbia and Panama

The bi-partisan Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act which eliminates a portion of the health care law requiring small businesses to report certain business to business transactions

Mandating secret ballots on union votes

Committee Assignments

Committees are often derided as a place for good legislation to die. In reality a lot of bad legislation dies in committee too. The central role of committees is take bills that have been submitted, decide what bills to consider, amend them with committee members’ ideas and advance them for a vote in the whole chamber. This agenda-setting function shapes the bills that the full Senate will consider. Similarly, subcommittees shape particularly specialized legislation for the full committees and the full Senate. Granted, the Senate amendment process is much more open on the Floor than the House, thus somewhat undermining the role of Senate committees, committee assignments are still important.

Toomey was assigned to the following committees:

Banking (subcommittees on Housing, Transportation and Community Development; Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection; and Securities, Insurance and Investment)

Budget (this committee has no subcommittees)

Commerce, Science and Technology (subcommittees on Aviation Operations, Safety and Security; Communications, Technology and the Internet; Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance; and Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security);

Joint Economic Committee (this committee includes members from both houses and has no subcommittees)

Rhetoric vs. record

With only 13 weeks gone in the current Congress, it is certainly too early to pass judgment on Toomey’s record. Still, it is obvious that he is working on most of the issues he listed on his campaign website. He has pushed for the repeal of the 2010 health care law and cutting both taxes and spending. He sits on the committee that oversees the bank bailout. He co-sponsored the bill forbidding EPA from considering global warming in its actions which would render cap and trade a moot point. He voted for HR 1, including the cuts to Planned Parenthood.

In total, Toomey has already taken definite action on six (bailouts, taxes, spending, health care, families and marriage, energy/resources) of the 12 issues he listed on his campaign site (seven if you agree with the “job-killing health care bill” narrative). On the other issues, the Senate has not taken major actions and Toomey does not sit on committees that would handle those issues.

The record also shows Toomey focusing on other issues, though they did come up in the campaign. Toomey has lined up with the opponents of net neutrality and he sits on the subcommittee that deals with those issues. Toomey and other opponents argue that regulations are not necessary to prevent internet service providers from slowing/blocking certain sites or charging more for those services. They note that competition among ISPs would remove incentives to engage in such practices. Opponents also argue that additional government regulations would discourage ISPs from expanding broadband to underserved rural areas. Proponents worry that removing net neutrality – the idea that all internet content should be treated equally – could result in many users not having access to certain content or high bandwidth usage services such as Netflix and YouTube.

Toomey has also sponsored anti-union legislation including the national right-to-work bill, the TSA collective bargaining measure and the secret ballot bill. Even though Toomey did not discuss his position on unions on his campaign website, his stance should come as no surprise after he took a shot at teachers’ unions during a debate against Joe Sestak. The national right to work act, like similar state laws, would give workers the right not to join a union as a condition of employment. The secret ballot proposal is a traditional counter to a card check law. The TSA collective bargaining bill failed Feb. 16. The legislation creating TSA after the September 11 attacks prohibited collective bargaining, but allowed individual union membership. A Federal Labor Relations Authority opened the door for a vote that would open the door to limited collective bargaining among TSA officers.

Similarly, Toomey did not explicitly discuss free trade agreements on his campaign site, but the Club for Growth does call for expanded overseas trades and fewer trade barriers.

Whether you agree with him or not, Pat Toomey has lived up to his campaign rhetoric.

Hours after the polls closed, the nation still didn’t know who would become Pennsylvania’s junior senator, as Republican Pat Toomey and Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak were locked in a back-and-forth duel, a race too close to call.
Finally victorious, Toomey thanked his supporters, of course, but he should have also thanked those most responsible for his success: Philadelphia Democrats.

It was the relatively light turnout in the city that killed Sestak’s candidacy.  Based on the 77,000 vote statewide margin — out of 3.9 million cast — if just one of ten more Philadelphians voted, Sestak’s election would have been a lay-up.

Ironically, the One-Party town of Philadelphia, with virtually no competitive races, led to the demise of the Democratic senate seat. As a matter of fact, the only race that was close involved  incumbent Republican State Representative John Perzel, saddled with an 82-count indictment.

That said, there’s a lesson to be learned for Pat Toomey and all Republicans running statewide, including Presidential candidates: make major inroads in Philadelphia immediately, or suffer the consequences. The Democratic vote in the city always jumps in Presidential election years, as it will in 2012, and 2016 — when Toomey faces the voters again.

*****

Now that the Election Day white noise has subsided, let’s look at the true picture that has emerged from last week’s historic vote.

The Republicans made huge gains all around, especially in Pennsylvania, arguably the epicenter of electoral activity.

Attorney General Tom Corbett trounced Rendell-protégé Dan Onorato by a ten point margin, the seat held by Arlen Specter was flipped by Toomey’s win, and five congressional seats fell into GOP hands.  And the state senate — up until Election Day the ONLY elected Republican body from the Mid-Atlantic north and east of Ohio — is now joined by a GOP dominated statehouse, with Republicans picking up an almost-unfathomable 15 seats to enjoy a 12 seat majority.

So is the Keystone state “red” again, like in 1994, when Republicans controlled the governorship, both U.S. senate seats, all row offices, and had majorities in the state house, senate and congressional delegations?

Not so fast.

Things didn’t work out back then because too many Republicans chose power for the sake of power, and abandoned the platform on which they were elected. Likewise, if the current GOP winners don’t follow through on their campaign promises, they do so at their own peril.

Republicans have usually been an effective minority opposition Party; it’s the governing part where they have had problems. They must avoid taking the position of Robert Redford in The Candidate, when, after he wins his election, famously asks, “What do we do now?”

*****

The GOP would be wise to understand that the election was NOT a mandate for Republicans, as much as it was a protest…a shot across the bow of both Parties.
Voters have grown increasingly irritated with the Business As Usual approach in Washington and Harrisburg, and are demanding their elected officials focus on what the people want, not what some leaders think they need.

The best example of arrogant leadership was when Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama ram-rodded national healthcare legislation through to fruition. While the need for reforming healthcare is universally recognized , it was fourth or fifth on most people’s lists.  After Scott Brown’s victory for Ted Kennedy’s seat, the message was clear: jobs, jobs, jobs.

Despite that, universal healthcare was given priority over the economy. Give Pelosi and Reid credit: they got the job done against the odds, but with SEVERE consequences.

The Republicans would do well to heed that lesson.

The message is clear.  The GOP cannot just be Party of No.  Instead, voters are insisting that they work with Obama and the Democrats, creating solutions to float the sinking economy.

The Catholic vote is a prime example, as it abandoned the Democrats in massive numbers. Just two years ago, Obama (despite his avidly pro-abortion stance) won Catholics 54-44, but this time they voted for the GOP in droves. Some observers estimate that the swing was 34 points.

Voters want the focus to be on the economy.  If Republicans don’t make strides in this regard, their gains will be in jeopardy over the next several years. And they can’t make progress unless they are honestly willing to work with their counterparts.

Where do they agree? For starters, offshore drilling, nuclear power, certain tax cuts, and more teacher accountability. The President made these items part of his agenda this year, only to be met with disdain from the current congressional Republicans, who made no attempt to cooperate on these issues.

So here’s the $64,000 question: will the incoming Republicans give serious effort to getting America back on track, knowing that any achievements will help Obama’s reelection, or will they play partisan politics, trying to turn every word the President utters and every action of the Democratic senate into a campaign sound-bite in two years?

The latter choice is more enticing, since it’s far easier to play politics inside the beltway than actually make tough governing decisions, but it is a slippery slope.
Regardless which path the GOP chooses, it will most certainly make more gains in 2012 based on simple math.  The Democrats must defend 22 seats to the Republicans’ nine, with only four needed to control the senate.

But what then?

Obama will most likely be re-elected, made possible, ironically, by the Republicans gains.  It is very difficult to defeat an incumbent President, only accomplished four times over the last 150 years. In fact, an incumbent has to work very hard to have the voters reject him.  Give them credit — Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush did just that.

Therefore, the Parties will once again be forced to work together — done so effectively when Bill Clinton and the GOP got down to the business of governing — or they will deliberately stand opposed to gain miniscule partisan advantage, all while solving nothing.

If a ship changes course only one degree, over many miles its destination will change dramatically, but trying to steer away from an iceberg only 100 feet away is pointless.
The time for America to safely turn away from the iceberg has almost elapsed.
America is at a crossroads, reeling in unprecedented fashion.  The decisions its leaders make over the next several years will largely determine if it will continue its debt-ridden decline into a second-world nation with a first-world military, or whether its beacon will once again glow brightly as the Shining City on a Hill, the civilized leader in an increasingly chaotic world.

If the choice is Business As Usual, if it’s Robert Redford’s line, if it’s divisive politics at its worst, then it won’t matter which Party rules Washington, because the lights will already have gone out.

And what a wholly avoidable tragedy that would be.

********************

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris’ recent bestseller “Catastrophe.”
Freind, whose column appears nationally in Newsmax, also serves as a guest commentator on Philadelphia-area talk radio shows, and makes numerous other television and radio appearances, most notably on FOX.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Will Barack Obama’s properties from 2008 (Twitter, Facebook friends, email list) impact the 2010 midterm race?

update: 4:18 FWIW …

FLOTUS apparently travels with a fashion
assistant, who was originally from Chicago. The assistant forgot the make
up case on the plane and had to run back and get it.

Update: 3:14

Media Watching: Sestak leads Toomey by +4 since 8am. Data is defined by combining and weighing blog, web, & other internet posts. #paelect We’ve been watching our alerts and research for 2 weeks steady. Up until today, the media listening stream has favored Pat Toomey (R).

Update: 2:51

I need to respond to Ben Smith’s story on Politico yesterday. He has a
picture of one campaign brochure that features Joe Sestak less
prominently than Dan Onorato. From this one campaign leaflet, he jumps
to the erroneous conclusion that Sestak is not loved by the Democratic
party.
As someone who has stopped by almost daily the Philadelphia office of
Organizing for America, Obama’s get the vote operation, I can tell you
that the Democratic Party is working v just as hard to elect Sestak to
the Senate as they are to elect Onorato as Governor. Every one of the
thousands phone calls made there every day mentions both candidates.
In addition, I have seen all types of configurations on the campaign
literature and some favor Sestak. Each is designed with a target
audience in mind.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1010/Also_Sestak.html?showall
–
Laura Goldman

————————————————————————————————————–

Update: 1:13 pm

We are using Twitter SEARCH: Twitter ##p2 #tcot #pagov #paelect (We coined #PAelect last year)

@pa2010news Make informed choices in PA. View our archive of the races: Http://YouTube.com/pa2010video Comments? #p2 #tcot #pagov #paelect

We’ve been at it all day so to get the full experience, check in at once at:

… Instant interaction across the political eco-system: http://Twitter.com/pa2010news

… YouTube.com: Campaign video archive – check the facts! – pa2010Video – http://bit.ly/ayQo9Y

… Page: Facebook Page – http://on.fb.me/b8Mrsm

… Group: Facebook Group – http://on.fb.me/d5CzVr

Of course you can email us at press@pa2010.com

We’ll add more to the blog soon.

Benjamin F. Barnett

Publisher

———————-

I heard somebody talking about the upcoming election and they said that neither Tom Corbett or Dan Onorato were qualified to be governor.  In my best Seth Meyers impersonation, all I could think to ask was really?

Much has been made about whether candidates are qualified for elected office over the past few years.  People criticized Barack Obama’s qualifications because he had been a US Senator for less years than Lost had been on the air and then John McCain picked Sarah Palin and his opponents criticized her for being a governor for less time than NHL playoffs normally take to complete.  Naturally, both sides found the attacks of “not qualified” to be simply outrageous.

To put it as unequivocally as possible:  both Dan Onorato and Tom Corbett are qualified to be governor of Pennsylvania.  One may be better prepared, or have better ideas, but both are qualified to be elected.

Also, before I forget to say it, both Joe Sestak and Pat Toomey are qualified to be the next U.S. Senator.

The threshold to be qualified for higher office is extremely low.  While college admissions may demand a minimum SAT score and jobs demand a number of years of experience before they even look at your resume, all you need to be a Governor, Senator, or President is to be old enough and a citizen, and other similarly simple barriers to overcome.  My dad is qualified to be Governor and my neighbor is qualified to be Senator.

The choice in any election isn’t for us to decide if a candidate is qualified for office, but if they are the better option for that office.  A college admissions office might have 5000 applicants for 3000 spots and an employer might have dozens of applicants for one open position.   Meanwhile, in a general election, we only have two, maybe three major candidates for an office.  Even in a primary, the field of candidates might go as high as seven or eight, but not dozens and certainly not thousands.

The two unseen qualifiers really seem to be an ability to raise enough money to be credible and the sheer willingness to run, which has brought some to ask “what normal person would put up with the inane indignities of the electoral process?”  (link:  http://www.slate.com/id/2270651/)  Even committing crimes or being involved in illicit activity is not a disqualifier as seen with the example of David Vitter running and likely winning in Louisiana despite his dalliances with an escort.

People like to expand the question of who is qualified to understanding of issues and personal life experiences.  Howard Dean touted his travels around the world as proof that he was qualified to be President and Mitt Romney touted his past business experience as a qualifier.  George W. Bush’s experience as an oil man was used as a qualifier and a disqualifier in 2000 depending on whether you liked him or hated him (and of course there can never be an in-between in politics.)  People on the left might say that a candidate isn’t qualified for office because they don’t understand the science behind global warming while conservatives may say that a candidate isn’t qualified because they don’t have an adequate understanding of the tax code.

Even with this, I find it hard to see how Corbett and Onorato wouldn’t be considered serious, well-qualified candidates for governor.  One is the state attorney general and the other is the county executive of the second biggest county in the state.

In the end, when somebody says “Candidate X isn’t qualified,” keep in mind that what they likely mean is that they just don’t like the candidate or disagree with their views.

So, with a few weeks left in this election, don’t worry about whether the candidates are qualified for office.  They are.  Just decide who is best prepared, who has the best ideas, and who you think will move the state and country forward.

Then you’ll be a better voter, but no less qualified for the job.

Former Alaska Governor and 2008 vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin took to her usual venue, Facebook, Tuesday to endorse seven Senate candidates including Toomey for those candidates’ opposition to cap and trade legislation. Toomey has also picked up the support of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who stumped for Toomey at a rally in Blue Bell Friday. Giuliani attacked Democratic candidate Joe Sestak’s record as a Representative and tied him to President Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

While Toomey embraced endorsements from Giuliani, former Governor Tom Ridge and former Harrisburg Mayor Stephen Reed (D), he seemed to shy away from Palin’s endorsement. However, both The Hill blog (linked above) and The Philadelphia Daily News report that Toomey seemed non-committal about the Palin endorsement and dodged a question about the former governor’s qualifications to hold office during the debate Wednesday.

The Pennsylvania Democratic Party wasted little time using the Palin endorsement against Toomey. In a press release released a day after the Palin endorsement, party spokesman Mark Nicastre tied Toomey to the more extreme elements of the Republican Party and Tea Party movement:

With his poll numbers tanking, Pat Toomey must be really desperate to roll out the endorsement of Sarah Palin. It just goes to show that Pat Toomey has far more in common with Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell and Sharon Angle than he does with the people of Pennsylvania.

Palin has now endorsed 56 candidates in the 2010 election season.

After trailing for the entire general election campaign, Sestak’s polling numbers have improved in recent weeks, with most polls showing either a statistical dead heat or very narrow leads for Toomey.

Specter will be joining Senators Bob Casey and Chuck Schumer and a reception for Democratic Senate candidate Joe Sestak Monday in the Philadelphia. It will mark one of the only times since their bitter primary that Specter has stumped for Sestak—Specter brought him to a lunch of Senate Democrats shortly after the primary, but hasn’t done any public events.

He voiced his support for Sestak as he conceded on primary night.

The downtown event, first reported by The Philadelphia Jewish Voice, is expected to showcase Specter and his colleagues vouching for Sestak’s bona fides on Israel policy. Republican candidate Pat Toomey is hoping to make significant inroads among suburban Jewish voters, a constituency that long supported Specter.

One more has been added to the schedule, and this one is set to go down Oct. 18. It’ll be aired on the local ABC affiliate in Philadelphia, giving Republican Tom Corbett and Democrat Dan Onorato what could potentially be their biggest debate audience of the campaign.

That debate will come just two days after the candidates have their second debate, a televised one in Pittsburgh.

Meanwhile, there’s been a flurry of outside ad buys in the Senate race recently.

First, there was this latest TV spot from conservative group Crossroads GPS, those guys who just love to hit Democrat Joe Sestak on spending.

Then, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chimed in with its latest ad, which tries to frame Republican Pat Toomey as China-friendly outsourcer of jobs.

And to top it all off, Toomey’s buddies at the Club for Growth have yet another ad of their own taking Sestak to task for stimulus spending.

There’s also a new ad in the 15th Congressional District, where Democratic challenger John Callahan is pushing back against criticism from incumbent republican Charlie Dent that he’s not the budget-balancer he claims to be.

Check it out below.

And last but not least, it appears that Republican Mike Fitzpatrick has snagged an endorsement from a local police union. We haven’t yet seen a release from the Fitzpatrick campaign, but The Inquirer reported that FOP Lodge 5 had made its decision.

As The Inky notes, that’s something of a blow for Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-8), who’s the son of a retired cop and has boasted police support before.

The 30-second spot, which was not released by the campaign but was airing Tuesday night and Wednesday morning in the Philadelphia media market, refers to Toomey as “Pennsylvania’s most right-wing congressman”—a reference to an American Conservative Union rating that has put him to the right of former Senator Rick Santorum.

It goes on to air a clip in which Toomey says “my voting record’s pretty heard to distinguish from Rick Santorum’s,” and reminds viewers that Toomey called Palin “a spectacular governor.” It also airs a clip in which Toomey voices support for outlawing abortion and enacting penalties for doctors who perform them.

With most public polls showing Toomey leading Sestak one month before Election Day and with the race expected to tighten, the new ad underscores a key pillar of Sestak’s strategy: make Toomey unacceptably conservative to Pennsylvanians.

“Pat Toomey,” the ad says, “he’s not on our side.”

See the ad below.

The Muhlenberg College/Morning Call survey released Wednesday showed Republican Tom Corbett holding a 11-point lead over Democrat Dan Onorato in the race for governor, 47 percent to 36 percent. Twelve percent of likely voters are still undecided, and Corbett’s edge is one point smaller when those undecided voters are pressed to say which candidate they are leaning toward.

Republican Pat Toomey, meanwhile, holds a seven-point lead over Democrat Joe Sestak in the Senate race, 45 percent to 38 percent. Fifteen percent of likely voters are undecided, and Toomey’s edge stays at seven points when so-called “leaners” are included.

The results are largely unchanged from Muhlenberg’s poll last month. And while some surveys have showed the race tightening in recent weeks, the results are also consistent with what many public polls have found for months.

The survey of 577 likely voters, conducted Sept. 28 to Oct. 4, had a margin of error of four percent.

Click here to see the poll.

Toomey’s campaign disclosed its fundraising haul about an hour after Democrat Joe Sestak’s campaign said it raised $3.2 million during the period. Toomey has been a potent fundraiser, and his best quarter to date brought the campaign to more than $14 million raised since he started campaigning last spring.

The GOP nominee had been outspending Sestak on TV for the first few months of the general election, but Sestak’s ad buys have picked up steam in recent weeks.

Toomey was always expected to carry a financial advantage into the homestretch, after he avoided a competitive primary while Sestak had to spend millions dispatching Senator Arlen Specter.

But the financial state of the race won’t become clear until campaign finance reports are filed later this month. Neither campaign disclosed its cash-on-hand figures Tuesday.

“I am so appreciative for all the support I have received for my candidacy,” Toomey said in a statement. “As I travel across the state, I meet more and more Pennsylvanians who want to join our campaign in order to bring true change and fiscal sanity to Washington. If I am elected to the U.S. Senate, I intend to do just that.”