Posted on 05/07/2005 12:03:22 PM PDT by JesseJane
The conservative Club for Growth, which has funded campaigns against a few less-than-conservative incumbents in Congress, is planning to develop a new scorecard to evaluate lawmakers.
This step is being contemplated by former Rep. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, the new Club for Growth president, because he disagreed with some of the organization's endorsements in the past.
Toomey in particular questioned the endorsement of Republican Rep. Rob Simmons of Connecticut, whose lifetime voting is rated at 55 percent by the American Conservative Union.
Simmons has ridiculed personal Social Security accounts, voted for the prescription drug bill and most recently opposed the Republican budget. Toomey wants to score votes of all kinds, including procedures and amendments.
Simmons should not have gotten a club for growth endorsement, but a lifetime 55 ACU rating for a CT rep is pretty good, and is the best we'll get. As opposed to someone like Chris Shays who hurts the party more than he helps.
Rodney?? That you??? :)
I'm in CA, and not very familiar with either one of these guys, so I appreciate the information and education. I want conservatives not RINO'S from here on out. So, it's good to get perspective from those in the know!
Simmons is a Republican in a Democratic district, who despite that maintains a 55 ACU rating. There is really no reason to complain about him, he is a net gain to the party.
Shays is a RINO piece of garbage, who used to be a moderate Republican sort of like Simmons. After a while, however, he realized that he could be a celebrity and get favorable press in the New York Times by being the guy who criticizes everything the party wants to do. He's a net drag on the party and we'd be better off with the seat going to the Dems.
This is what bothers me... moderates. But, a net gain is good news! I know Shays is a foxtrotting-powderwig wearing-backstabbing-egomaniac with a fondness for public stroking by the MSM (wait that's McCain......), well anyway.. yes Shays is a dweeb, and one I agree we could do without. Same as a dem.
Toomey was the conservative congressman from Eastern PA who almost beat Arlen Specter in the primary last spring even though Santorum was campaigning hard for Specter (odd combination, eh?) It looked like he was going to win until Bush and Santorum did a party sweep through the state the last days before the primary.
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.
Not to cause trouble, but if you are a conservative in CT, then there must be others. Has the GOP ever tried to run a standup conservative that touted conservative pricnciple and didn't back down from when challenged?
If a GOP candidate is going to back down from principle or offer a Democrat light canididate people will go for the real Democrat. In CT's case, liberal Democrat Shays and moderate liberal Simmons.
55 is NOT a passing grade anywhere that I've ever been. He's barely voting Republican. He's no where near conservative.
Shays at least votes to ban partial birth abortion. Even the conservatie Rep Gary Franks didn't do that. I think maybe Rep John Larsen, a Dem, votes in favor of the PBA ban. But Rob Simmons votes against the ban. I would shed no tears if he were to be defeated. Simmons and Shays will both have strong challenges from the Dems next year.
I really give no one credit for voting against PBA. It is such a horribly barbaric procedure that I don't know how anyone can vote for it, but those who do will pay and it will be for all eternity.
I'd say Toomey has an EXCELLENT idea!
The GOP refses to run a Conservative.
They abandoned Tom Scott and chose John Rowland.
GO PAT GO!!!!!!!!
We need to roust the RINO's.
I used to be, I have since moved.
Has the GOP ever tried to run a standup conservative that touted conservative pricnciple and didn't back down from when challenged?
Yes. In the district that was held by John Rowland (who was a good conservative in the House), and then Gary Franks. Mark Nielsen, who lost two years in a row (just barely) for that house seat was a real conservative, and was the leading conservative in the state senat. CT is a funny place, it is not quite as liberal as it seems, but what it has is a lot of old-line Democratic ethinice votes i.e. italians and others who if you can make the right appeal to you can do ok.
If a GOP candidate is going to back down from principle or offer a Democrat light canididate people will go for the real Democrat. In CT's case, liberal Democrat Shays and moderate liberal Simmons.
Look, I am not one to make excuses for RINO's. I lived in Shays's district and opposed him whenever I could. I just think that a moderate republican is ok in a liberal district if that is what he/she is, a moderate republican. That is what Simmons basically is. Before Simmons won that seat, you had someone who probably has a 0-5 ACU rating. I am happy to take a 55 ACU rating, and someone who votes with our party on all the procedural stuff. The problem with Shays is that he started out as a moderate republican, and then got the McCain media syndrome of realizing that he can get press by stabbing the party in the back. As long as the moderate votes moderatly, and keep his mouth shut otherwise, we should not push him away if it is a liberal district.
Time to replace the GOP committee with some people of principle and backbone.
I am convinced that the so called moderate republicans are nothing more than democrats who couldn't find an office running as a democrat. In any case, they are rarely 'moderate' on the important issues, just the big ones that count -- like life, Second Amendment rights, and tax cuts. It seems they only vote with us on those things that don't count for as much.
If not actually democrats, they are liberals and when they vote against our issues as members of the GOP, they give political cover to the dems and give credence to the notion that conservatives are the radicals.
It's time to have a party that stands consistently for sound principle and doesn't back down and doesn't waver.
Works for me.
Toomey's approach is part of a larger solution which must include the sort of reapportionment we've seen in Texas. Ultimately, this is why the DemonRats have put Tom DeLay in their sights. They know that if DeLay's Texas efforts are replicated in other states -- including a great many "blue" states that contain dispirited conservatives who have effectively been gerrymandered out of the electoral process -- their longstanding illegitimate hold on power will finally be broken.
Ah, NOW I remember Toomey, and the idiotic backing of Specter. Sheese, how could I forget that.. Bad on Santorum too. (wags finger)
I couldn't agree more. I've not found many candidates worthy of my financial support.....Pat Toomey was the exception to that rule. I've also started to support the PA Club for Growth....and when my budget allows, I'll support the National Club for Growth. We've got so much work to do....and it appears that Pat is one of the very few people who are willing to stand up and say and do that which is necessary to advance the conservative cause. Too dang many of these so called "Republicans" are just spineless wimps. The sooner we send them packing, the better.
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.