I had hopes that perhaps Pat Toomey was largely bamboozled by Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer, and after experiencing the backlash first hand, would leave the gun control issue alone for the rest of his term, and perhaps even kiss up to us by giving us a few critical votes before he’s up for re-election. Alas that is not to be:
Though the effort is far from being fully formed,Â Toomey also said heâ€™s looking for opportunities to reintroduce something related to combating gun violence.
â€œWhat Iâ€™m trying to figure out is, is there something that could get the support of the 60 votes that we would need in the Senate,â€ Toomey said. â€œJoe Manchin was and is a great partner and someone I will continue to work with, and Iâ€™m open to exploring what is possible.â€
We all know that “combating gun violence” is a dog whistle for gun control. If it’s not, then Toomey needs to be more specific about what he’s going to specifically propose rather than blowing dog whistles for the other side. He’s already lost any support I might be willing to give time or money wise. He’s quickly trying to ensure I don’t vote in the Pennsylvania Senatorial election in 2016. Toomey has been a real disappointment.
Pennsylvania has a strong tradition of political moderation. The last hard-core conservative we had in statewide office was Santorum, and he only lasted two terms. I fear the lesson the PAGOP took from that is moderation in all things, rather than the fact that Santorum’s positions on social issues and advocacy for government involvement in America’s bedroom turned off a lot of socially liberal Republican and independent voters in the Philadelphia suburbs (which contains about 2.4 million of the state’s 13 million population).
So why is Toomey cozying up to gun control advocates? In my opinion, he’s buying Bloomberg’s silence. I believe the PAGOP is scared to death of Bloomberg’s money, and are very concerned he’ll flood the airwaves at election time with attack ads painting Republican candidates as radical on the issue. But really, Pat Toomey should be more afraid of us than Bloomberg, and I have a feeling he may find that out in 2016.
10 thoughts on “I Guess Pat Toomey Didn’t Learn His Lesson”
You’re probably right about Bloomberg and silence – which does have its price. Not to say Bloomberg is funding him, but Bloomberg money is a lingering threat to Northeastern / Mid-Atlantic politicians. After all, Toomey can’t seriously be that afraid of Joe Sestak?
Sestak blatantly supports gun and magazine bans. I still see a difference between the two, however negligible. Unlike his opponent, would Toomey keep coming back for more gun control even after his pet UBC legislation passes? (which it won’t).
The only opportunity I see here is a watered down UBC bill (i.e., one NOT ghost written by Chuck Schumer) which would get us an opportunity to serve up national reciprocity and a weakening of the NFA / repeal of the 1968 GCA. You know the house would do some serious markup on anything, even moreso today than in 2013.
Toomey should be more afraid of his gun-owning constituents than of Bloomberg.
If Toomey’s opponent is for stricter “gun control” than Toomey, Bloomie will support the opponent. That’s inevitable — Toomey should not fear it. Pretending “moderation” in order to placate Bloomberg won’t work if his opponent doesn’t have to pretend he/she is all for increased “gun control”; Bloomberg won’t be placated by pretended “moderation” when the alternative is dyed-in-the-wool “gun control” support.
This is a bad move on Toomey’s part.
Toomey is pretty good on fiscal issues, but I’m disappointed with his gun stance. Regardless, my practice in general elections is to hold my nose and vote for the lesser evil.
Anyone want to be that Pat pulls and Arlen and switch hits for the next election. I’d really like my 2010 vote back. I’m ashamed to say I voted for this tool.
I doubt very much he’ll do that. He’s actually doing pretty well in the polling. The fact is a lot of gun owners are going to pull the lever for him anyway, because Joe Sestak is freak show on a lot of issues, including gun control.
Yes. Exactly. Toomey will say enough to keep his handlers happy.
The problem here? We have a Senate “conservative” on record as supporting more gun control. Long term, how does he get punished? On what other issues is he morally compromised like this one? Why pick gun control to compromise?
You are disappointed in Toomey. You have every right to be.
But what are Pennsylvanians going to do about it?
Now is the time to identify someone to primary him. Find someone who supports your views on the 2nd Amendment and other issues. Because if you wait until the general election, your choices will be Toomey, someone worse, and a third party protest vote. If we gun owners make an end to his political career, the other 534 in DC will notice.
I am stuck with Franken and Klobuchar.
Santorum is definitely not a “hard-core conservative”. More like a moderate who won’t stop with the Jesus talk.
As long as he’s not against our rights he’s better than Toomey.
I sent him an email. He won’t like it. I spent the day at the VA. I got back too late to call.
Comments are closed.