Tom Ridge won’t run against Toomey
Interesting development just breaking in PA GOP Senate race. Tom Ridge, favorite of socially liberal establishment Republicans, has decided not to enter the race to replace Arlen Specter. (hat tip – Andy Roth)
Details from PA2010 (click through for Ridge’s full statement):
After much speculation, former Gov. Tom Ridge today announced that he would not seek the GOP nomination for Senate next year.
In a statement, Ridge said he had been heartened by the support and encouragement he received from within the party and that it had been a difficult decision for him. He expressed a desire to still be involved in the party’s development.
“To those who believe that the Republican Party is facing challenges, they are right,” Ridge said. “To those who believe the Democratic Party is without its own difficulties, they are wrong. No one party has a monopoly on all of the answers. The more important view, in my mind, is that we remember, whether Republican or Democrat, we are foremost Americans. And as Americans, we have always overcome challenges when we put partisanship aside and solutions first.”
Ridge’s decision leaves Republicans Pat Toomey and Peg Luksik as the main candidates in the race. But it also would seem to increase the likelihood that Congressman Jim Gerlach (R-7) and other Republican lawmakers will give the race a serious look.
***
Reminder: The Toomey for Senate campaign donation site is here.
Unlike Arlen Specter, Toomey doesn’t disguise his fundraising site as a bogus medical research charity.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Tom Ridge Considering PA Senate Run? Update: Guess Not… | NEOAVATARA
- PunditKix
- Ridge won’t challenge Specter for Pa. Senate seat « Peace and Freedom Promises
- Tom Ridge won’t be running against Spector | Political News
- Ridge won’t challenge Specter for Pa. Senate seat | WTF?! Obama
- Ideological Purity « The Forum
- Good news for Democrats/Specter in PA - Tom Ridge wouldn’t run against Toomey | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- Tom Ridge Won’t Run Against Pat Toomey in PA Republican Primary for GOP Nomination | Scared Monkeys
- Battleground state #2 in 2010: Florida | PoliticalDerby.com
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: GOP
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
American Thinker
» Sarah Palin and the low ebb of the cultural leftRedstate
» Morning Briefing for November 24, 2009Doug Ross @ Journal
» ACORN pwnage part II: Breitbart's BigGovt Lowers the BoomBig Government
» BREAKING: San Diego ACORN Document Dump ScandalVillainous Company
» Amateur Hour in the Oval Office Continues....Nice Deb
» O
Thank God.
Oh, and memo to Sen. Cornyn – get behind Pat now, or forget about receiving my vote next time you’re up for re-election.
I’m sure Specter and his new best friends are very disappointed by this development.
Wasn’t Lynn Swann in the running there?
That’s good. Now, Cornyn, Steele, get to work!
Wonderful, I guess this pleases everyone here. Those of us who want a purer GOP that doesn’t stand a chance in general elections, and … well I guess that’s all of us.
LMAO
We’ll need to save him to run against the Democrat Dimwit Senator Bob Casey Jr. Only real reason he got so far is his daddy was governor of PA (and a horrible one at that, as I lived in the state at the time).
Big sigh of relief!
I am awaiting the outcome of the Hate Crimes Bill in the Senate. If it gets passed as is – the Democrat party will then be named the “Pedophile Protection Party” With that name alone, the Democrats will wish they were on deck as the Titanic sunk. It is this act alone that should be the rally cry for the Conservatives.
Maybe Ridge’ll run in the democrat primary against Casey.
But but but but how are we going to win?
Please explain.
See here.
Just don’t let them democrats know Tom still fits into our tent, OK?
The progressive party is also the pervert protection party. You sowed the seeds, reap the harvest!
Yep and they won’t protect veterans who have been continually harassed (and killed) in some instances just because they were in the military.
Oh yeah, and let’s not forget the continuous harassment from the likes of Code Stink — that often fuel scuffles and fights.
Thirteen28
I already sent that memo.
Red State Skeptic:
Red State Skeptic:
During Debate on this Bill an amendment to exempt pedophiles from protection offered by said bill was rejected.
Also that he’s avowedly pro-life.
Fine. Who needs Tom Ridge.
Bill Russell For US Senator.
If Al Franken-dope can run and possibly even win… then Bill Russell should be able to run away with the election.
This is a very win-able race for Russell. The RNC should through as much cash as they can into that if he runs.
throw…
argh… we need a 1 time or timed edit tool
Russell’s got a full-time job to beat Murtha. One step at a time.
That’s good news about Ridge.
I would be happy with either Peg Luksik or Pat Toomey.
Never a Tom Ridge fan. As a Republican Governor with the Rs in charge of both houses, he did very little of note.
Right. Congress signs a bill into law to protect against attacks on the basis of sexual orientation, which is already defined in the U.S. Code to mean “consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality,” named in memory of Matthew Shepard, and you think it merits an amendment clarifying that pedophiles aren’t included? That’s like making a law prohibiting discrimination against African Americans, and then amending it to make sure drug dealers aren’t protected.
I think there’s a hate crime buried in there somewhere!
Deny the slippery slope all you want.
Gravity sucks and so does the PP party.
I just kinda skipped through this thread, but the headline said it was about Ridge and Toomey, and I get down here and you’re talking about pedophiles. Groovy
I wonder if Ridge’s numbers against Toomey were as bad as Specters?
Red State Skeptic:
Sorry, that does not wash. When RICO was initiated, it was supposed to be for Organized Crime. Later, it was used to prosecute people in the Pro-life movement. Sexual Orientation as a meaning is a broad brush. Asking for an amendment to specifically exclude pedophiles should have been a given.
To be clear, this Hates Crimes legislation provides a specific list of “protected people.” Pedophiles are specified on that list.
Since all Hate Crimes legislation has no basis in logic whatsoever the whole things is lunacy from the get go.
The New Democrapic Party for Pedophiles…anyone besides the libs here surprised?
Which goes back to the original – if this passes as is, Conservatives have the obligation to take a stand with this. Any Conservative that specifically points out the PP party has a chance to finally defeat Demoncrats even in Blue States.
No, it wasn’t. The National Organization for Women unsuccessfully tried to use the statute in a civil action against anti-abortion protestors, and the suit was ridiculous since it is clearly a criminal statute. The government never used the statute to prosecute abortion opponents.
Again, the King amendment was both unnecessary because the statute is already clear what “sexual orientation” means and EXTREMELY offensive to the very people to be protected by the law.
Red State Skeptic:
There are many things I could say but would have me banned for life. You and your party are about to reap the whirlwind.
Back to the thread topic, wondering why Ridge would withdraw his name as a potential candidate, jee he has the backing of that solid moderate Cornyn along with the gang of listeners.
I would love to see this list.
Yeah, I kinda agree. On one hand, our entire criminal jurisprudence is based on the level of culpability of the accused (murder being punished more severely than manslaughter), so it sorta follows that when your intent is not just to inflict harm on someone, but to do it to his entire group, you should be punished more for it. On the other hand, given that people who are going to whup on someone because his race or sexual orientation probably aren’t going to be much more deterred (if at all) from committing the crime in the first place, I think it’s just best to leave race or other protected class bases out of the law in this case.
I can see both sides, but saying the Dems are out to protect child molestors by not excluding them from the definition of sexual orientation is a wee bit of a stretch.
Bring it on! We’ve been slaughtered in the past and we’ll be slaughtered again.
I don’t get it. You guys want to run an extreme Conservative like Toomey in a state that recently dumped Rick Santorum. Now that’s great logic? Tom Ridge could have begun a GOP recovery in PA. However the GOP and the far right apparently want to remain the minority party right up to the time it completely disintegrates?
O/T, but I want to comment on the 9/11 memorial in Shanksville, PA, and since Tom Ridge was both Governor of PA and Secretary of Homeland Security, this thread seemed the closest match.
Hot Air post today:
Michelle Malkin previously:
And Pamela Geller today:
The “Freedom Tower” in NYC has been renamed (so as not to offend anyone) and remains a hole in the ground,
but the red crescent qibla must move forward!
Why are you opposed to offering voters a clear choice, rather than liberal and liberal lite? You would be encouraging the Republicans to run more conservatives, not less, if you truly believe that they are losers.
txvet2 – Just look at recent history. When blue state voters have a clear choice (Santorum v Casey) (Coleman v Franken) etc., the R’s lose. Even Dole lost in N.C., not a real blue state. The R’s are losing almost every contested Senate race. Why continue a losing strategy?
We need Conservative-lite(i.e. Ridge)to survive as a viable party. Wanting every GOP politician to pass an extreme socially conservative litmus test is taking the party down a slippery slope to irrelevance.
Like it or not, America is too diverse to support that ideology.
No SilverCat, it isn’t America’s diversity, but you’re close. It is the fact that Americans have moved left in their political choices.
Most Americans actually live their lives in a very conservative fashion. My opinion is that through years of conservatives being derided, often unjustly, by a complicit press, many Americans think there is something wrong with extreme conservatism.
Remember: on the political spectrum, the more conservative you get the closer to no government at all you get. The more liberal you get, the closer you get to complete government control.
Remember your basic definitions in American politics? Liberal = more application of government, Conservative = Less application of government.
But you are right about one thing: people are choosing more government, which means more lberals.
Wow, I forgot the most important part of the equation: Liberals are also spending us into oblivion to give crap away to people. The end result, of course, is to create a dependant class of citizens, but what’s that to a lib?
Apparently, when the libs pi** down your back and tell you it’s raining, you believe them. At least an awful lot of voters out there do. That’s the only reason we’ve moved this far left.
In a sense persons with your opinion are right: since the country has moved left, it may take a left leaning republican to get elected.
The problem with that is we actual conservatives aern’t willing to accept that. When the choice is liberal or liberal-lite, we get screwed anyway. Quite frankly, if that’s how it is going to be, I’d just as soon stand on my principles and let things fall as they are.
No form of liberliam can last for long, so when it does fall to pieces, us conservatives are going to be right here, and we’ll be the ones able to put it all back together.
Neither of your descriptions is accurate. Casey ran as a conservative, pro-life candidate against one of the MSM’s favorite targets. And Coleman is a relatively moderate Republican – and still hasn’t lost, despite the blatantly improper, and in some cases, probably illegal, actions of the MN Democrats and the high name recognition of his opponent, in a very liberal state. There were other races that might help your argument, but in general the Republicans who lost were moderates, not conservatives. Certainly McCain demonstrates the futility of running as a “same but less” candidate. And whether they lose or not, it still serves the party better to provide a clear choice. At least when the economy collapses and we’re dealing with double-digit inflation, they’ll represent a viable alternative to the party of Marx. Besides, if they are going to be nothing but a pale echo of the Democrat Party, there’s no reason for their existence in the first place.
When you use terms like “extreme socially conservative”, you reveal yourself as a liberal in the first place, and therefore a natural member of the Democrat Party, whether you vote that way or not. There is nothing “extreme” in supporting and defending the Constitution, life, and liberty against attacks from those who would deprive others of all three.
Advocating either end of the political spectrum leads to anarchy on the right and Communism on the left. As a moderate Conservative, I believe somewhere in the middle is a saner approach.
Okay, that’s not an unreasonable statement in general. We obviously should have rule of law, and the governmetn certainly has a place providing that which individuals are unable to provide themselves: things like national defence, polica and fire service, etc.
Where we probably differ is that values that are called “ultra-right wing” today were in fact common among even democraps in the past. Fiscal responsibility and little government intrusion were ideas common on the left once, because the left wasn’t quite that far left.
The problem is that most of the politicians have shifted left, and those of us holding the line are now branded extreme. That is not the case, and we are getting to the point that we are no longer going to apoligize for holding on to genuine American values.
Hat tip to txvet for his above posts. He is right that many of the republicans losing to the left aren’t all that conservative themselves. In that vein I do believe that if republicans would stand up and act like real conservatives they would in fact win more elections, not less. It is precisely when our candidates move to the center that we lose.
No it doesn’t. We’re conservatives, not libertarian anarchists. Reread the part about supporting and defending the Constitution. That’s the problem with you trying to paint people as extreme.
And describing yourself as a “moderate conservative” is essentially calling yourself a liberal lite – or a little pregnant. You may consider the middle saner, but it’s still not going to lead to smaller government or more liberty. Moderates are inherently compromisers, and when you start in the “middle”, you will inevitably compromise to the left. That way is inevitable destruction. If you truly want things to be in the “middle” (which I personally think is not only impossible, but undesirable), you need true conservatives to provide maximum pull against the left – of which there is only far, extreme, and loony.
Which is borne out by the fact that McCain trailed badly until he selected Palin, after which he surged into the polling lead – only to blow it when he let his natural inclinations to support big government overwhelm him.
Ummm… Try the Preview button and, read your post first ?
Honestly, it really works !
As far as “hate-crimes” , after the body turns up, just tell the cops you hate the sin but, love the sinner. See ? No hate here…
Was Rick Santorum a real Conservative? Real Conservatives in that mold do not appeal to enough people to get or stay elected. Those of you forcing my party to the far right may as well be working to get more Democrats elected.
It’s like thinking you can lower high blood pressure by slitting your wrists. It works well but the results are less than ideal.
I don’t know, SilverCat, I think there is still that whole everyone moving to the left factor. While the party may have shuffled left, I still tend to think the whole “throw out the right wingers” thing is going to run out of steam.
Right now the country is in a state of flux. Obamachev’s election was historic, and we had Mr. Big Government Booosh for 8 years, which turned a lot of people off. Bush wasn’t actually that conservative at all, except for tax cuts. He still spent, grew the gov’t, and wanted illegal aliens to run amok. Not very damned conservative. And HE is largely the reason people are turned off to our party.
Now, what would happen if we all shift the party left, but the people discover, after 4 years of obamachev, that they really want to return to genuine conservatism? Then the party will certainly die, because it will be too far left.
Don’t forget that our party and our very country began life just shy of anarchy, so to move back into solid conservatism without the progressive twist isn’t that far-fetched. Let’s not throw it all away just because the people are caught up in the moment. We need to be more solid than that.
Well said.
Bottom line:
It’s about time Specter was shown the door.
Good riddance!
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
We need a second party for a two party system to work. Right now we have two divisions owned by the same groups. The GOP is worse than useless to conservatives, it has become an impediment to saving the Republic. They need to go the way of the Whigs.
GOP-RIP