Campaign Diaries

Last week, reports that Pat Toomey had decided to run for Senate seemed definite, as The Hill and Morning Call both got a named source to confirm that Toomey was telling state Republicans that he was in the race. But nothing can be that simple, and it does not look like Toomey is ready to come up with an unequivocal statement.

In an interview he just conducted with conservative website Newsmax, Toomey did suggest he was leaning towards challenging Specter, but he made it clear he had yet to make up his mind: “I’m giving that some very serious thought and there’s a real chance I’ll decide to do that,” he said. “I think we need to have people in the United States Senate who are willing to stand up and say, ‘Enough of this crazy economic policy.’” Asked whether he was still open to a gubernatorial run, Toomey responded, “I have given that some consideration as well, at this point I think I can accomplish more in the United States Senate. ”

Until last week’s reports came out, many suggested that Toomey’s renewed flirtation with a Senate run were meant to pressure Specter into a more conservative voting record and scare him out of his aisle-crossing habits. This somewhat cynical view was temporarily dismissed by The Hill and Morning Call’s articles, but it will only gain strength with Toomey’s latest comments. (His public indecision forces me to return him to the status of a potential candidate.)

That said, Toomey certainly did not hesitate to blast Specter in his interview, and the tone of his attacks leaves no doubt to the explosive potential of a rematch between the two men. “This was a shocking betrayal of a tremendous opportunity,” Toomey said. “We could’ve had a constructive pro-growth compromise. Instead, these guys just completely sold out.”

We still don’t know whether we will be treated to this showdown, but Toomey has already started framing such a race as the opposition between a spineless traitor with few principles and an uncompromising warrior devoted to the fight against socialism. And what better way to highlight this contrast than to please conservative activists and borrow an image from Ayn Rand. “There’s a real danger that capitalism is going to go on strike, because the capitalists don’t know what the government is going to do next,” Toomey warned.

—

The other ideologically explosive Republican primary could occur in Missouri, where former Treasurer Sarah Steelman still has to officially declare whether she is challenging Rep. Roy Blunt for the GOP’s Senate nomination. The Washington Post describes her as “almost certain to run,” and that is certainly the impression she is giving.

Last month, Steelman welcomed Blunt’s entry in the race by blasting him as “another white guy in a suit.” And now, she is taking on the congressman on the issue of earmarks. Last week, the state Republican Party sent a series of question to Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, the Democrat’s probable Senate candidate. The sixth question blamed Carnahan for opposing “worthwhile” earmarks:

Senator Bond supports worthwhile projects for Missouri in Congress.  Senator McCaskill won’t. Would you join with Senator   McCaskill, so that Missouri unilaterally disarms itself, and gets  nothing while other states get projects in Congress?

Steelman immediately wrote an open letter to her party blasting the question’s implicit support for the earmarking protest - and in the process she rushed to rescue of her potential general election opponent!

I am bewildered by question no. 6, which not only asks Robin Carnahan’s position on the improper, inefficient, and corrupt practice of earmarking, which is an  entirely appropriate question, but actually defends pork barrel spending at a time when most Republicans, at least those who don’t live in Washington D.C., are trying to stop the mounting and dangerous deficits…

The Missouri Republican Party should not proclaim earmark spending a virtue.  It is not. This does nothing but harm the efforts of principled politicians of both parties, who recognize that the old way of doing business; earmarks, pork, and a lack of accountability, has cost America jobs, security, and confidence. The old ways can no longer be tolerated.

I have been asked how the Republican Party lost its Congressional majority. One of the major reasons, in my opinion, is that our party no longer has credibility on fiscal issues… But why would anyone believe in our principles when Republican elected officials don’t?

This letter perfectly summarizes what will be Steelman campaign argument. She is driving home the argument that the Republican establishment has lost its way and has abandoned conservative principles. To fix the Republican Party and remain faithful to conservative principles, Steelman is already saying, “the old ways” and those who “live in Washington D.C.” need to be thrown out. And since party leaders are unwilling to make such an effort, it is up to conservative activists to reclaim their party.

Steelman already voiced these arguments during her unsuccessful gubernatorial primary last year, but the circumstances next year should be more favorable to a bid. For one, the GOP is now locked out of power, giving more resonance to her claims. Second, Blunt is far more of an insider than her former opponent Hulshof since he served in the GOP’s House leadership. For Steelman to criticize the Republican establishment will be perceived by all as an attack on Blunt, who she has repeatedly blasted as an “insider” (”another white guy in a suit”).

—

Both Toomey and Steelman portray themselves as true conservatives trying to rid the party of politicians who have lost their way. But there is a key difference between their rhetoric. On the one hand, Steelman portrays herself as taking on her party’s entire establishment: She is asking conservative activists to take their party back and she is relishing his role as an outsider. On the other hand, Toomey is doing his best to isolate Specter and argue that he is betraying not just conservatism but also the entire Republican Party.

In Steelman’s view, Blunt’s position is so outrageous because he represents the GOP establishment. In Toomey’s view, Specter’s position is so outrageous because he is betraying the GOP establishment - an establishment whose support Toomey would love to enjoy. In 2004, many prominent Republicans had followed Bush and Santorum’s lead and carried Specter across the finish line.