Posted on 05/01/2004 5:03:08 AM PDT by Elkiejg
NRO: Is this your first interview since the election?
Rep. Pat Toomey: Yes it is.
NRO: Given that you lost, what do you think your campaign accomplished?
Toomey: Well I'm still sorting that out, Ramesh, and trying to figure out what if anything it accomplished. When you consider the obstacles we faced and how close we got, it makes it clear that there is a real interest in seeing the Republican party govern as a conservative party, certainly in Pennsylvania.
NRO: What does the campaign say about the strength of the conservative movement, most of its institutions having backed you?
Toomey: The vast majority of them were on my side but very much to varying degrees of involvement. The Club for Growth was terrific, very strong and very involved. Much of the conservative print media, led by National Review of course, was on my side. There were others: the Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, Human Events.
NRO: Rush Limbaugh?
Toomey: I think to a large degree Rush sat out the race.
NRO: Looking back at the race, were there any mistakes you would avoid if you did it again?
Toomey: I really don't think we made any blunders, I don't think we made any significant mistakes in terms of allocating resources. Looking back, there might have been ways to more effectively exploit the Internet. But would it have made the difference in the race? It's hard to say. I have to tell you, I feel pretty good about how we ran the race. We had a lot of discipline in terms of our message. We had limited resources and we developed a strategy based on our resrouces and it came very close to working for us.
NRO: Why should your supporters vote for Specter?
Toomey: Well, the alternative is worse. Joe Hoeffel will never be with Republicans or conservatives on anything. That's number one, and number two: I think we're going to hold on to the Senate and probably grow our majority. Increasing the Republican majority is a good thing. Every Republican makes it harder for the Democrats to filibuster.
NRO: But given that so many conservatives wanted Specter out on Tuesday, and that he has been moving left since then, do you think Specter will be able to win the votes of your supporters?
Toomey: I don't know.
NRO: Do you have any hard feelings toward Santorum?
Toomey: (Pause.) No, not really. I haven't spoken with him in a while.
NRO: You didn't get a call from him after the primary?
Toomey: That's correct.
NRO: What does the future hold for Pat Toomey?
Toomey: I don't know. I really don't know. My wife and I are out on Block Island decompressing. I'm hoping to read a novel. In the next few weeks we'll start thinking about what to do next.
NRO: Any interest in running for governor in 2006?
Toomey: I haven't really given it any thought. Several people have started talking about it, but I just don't have any idea.
Absolutely not. But he could cause Specter to lose.
Perhaps, but it becomes apparent when reviewing the results of his primary that he still needs to focus on getting a majority of REPUBLCIAN votes.
Why? Because Specter beat him by 12,000 votes - after outspending Toomey 3-1, having the support of Bush & Santorum, and the benefit of name recognition?
What a crazy comment.
Perhaps you forget that anyone in this country has the right to speak whatever language it is that they like. If you had more respect and understand of the constitution and what this country is all about you would know that.
I think he's assimlated quite well. Its you that seems to be a problem. America is a melting spot and you appear to be a big clump of #(%$ floating on top.
I think he's assimlated quite well. Its you that seems to be a problem. America is a melting pot and you appear to be a big clump of #(%$ floating on top.
What a crazy comment.
What's crazy about expecting someone, who YOU claim can win dem votes, to win a majority of his own party's votes first?
No other party has any chance of winning anything. But a good point has been raised: Would you give up a Republican majority in the Senate just to oust one RINO? I don't think it's worth it. Carry on...
Think it through. A third party (any third party) in American politics will never be anything but a spoiler, unless one of the major parties is so decayed that the third party replaces it entirely.
The reason is that American electoral politics is a winner-take-all proposition. You can have three, or nine, or 37 political parties in a parliamentary system like Canada, England, Germany, or Italy, where the spoils are doled out proportionately to electoral support (more or less). But in America, the #1 guy gets the seat, and the #2 is shut out, as is #3, through to #n. In this system, all the various interests opposed to #1 naturally make common cause with #2 if they can, and all the various interests that are somewhat in agreement with #1 make common cause with him.
The system is bipolar, and if disturbed by a third party, seeks its own equilibrium. The 20th Century saw the rise and fall of the Bull Moose Party, Debs's Socialists, a couple of racist segregationist parties, the airy liberal American Independent Party and the man-on-a-horse authoritarian Reform party. The most any of them ever achieved was getting the fellow more opposed to their politics elected.
Therefore, a conservative third party would lead to one or two elections won by liberals, before collapsing in chaos and recrimination.
"Politics is the art of the possible."
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Waste of time using the term "statist" here on FR. Most do not know what it means, in fact they cannot even say "socialist" instead of using the term liberal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.