“Pat Toomey—once though[t] too conservative for the Keystone State”
He will go from “once” to “twice” when Arlen’s done exposing his conservative ideology.

Michael, could we have a rare moment of intellectual honesty from you to address the following:
1) Do you believe (or realize) that Toomey is MORE conservative than Santorum?
2) If you answered #1 honestly, how can you expect the voters to accept Toomey, when they rejected Santorum?

(The correct answer to #2 is: If the voters don’t find out how conservative Toomey is.)

David Diano –

Unfortunately it wasn’t that long ago when our state went and elected a far right kook like Santorum. So it’s not out of the realm of possibility that one in Toomey could get elected because of voter apathy and short term memory loss about the Republicans being the party that got us into the economic mess we’re in. Toomey is hoping for low voter turnout and to use popular angst to get in, even though he’s basically promising to be a jobs killer in the same way Scott Brown has promised to be one: holding health care reform hostage for political and idealological reasons. Let’s hope there’s a collective wake up call to the people of this state to start to understand how the GOP is looking to hurt our economy through Toomey.

Ed H.
I agree that you’ve outlined Toomey’s only path to victory. The Dems have to get the message and the vote out. I think Specter is well positioned to expose Toomey.
He’d be in a better position if Sestak wasn’t going to waste millions of dollars that should be used against Toomey. But, that what happens when you get a guy like Sestak who puts personal ambition over principle.

I think the most ironic thing about everything Diano says is that either he supported Lamont (who did what Sestak is doing) and thought that challenging a fraud was a good idea, or he supported Lieberman who is not even half a Democrat and now he bitches and moans about him all the time.

Just something to think about while you are reading the idiotic reasoning of Dave Diano.

HaverfordDem-
It is not “ironic” because Sestak’s not really a liberal progressive in the first place. I’ve never liked Lieberman and thought he was a terrible pick that cost Gore the election.
Is Sestak were actually who he pretends to be, he’d probably have my support. But he’s not, so he doesn’t.
If you took off the glasses than make Joe look a unicorn cr@pping out rainbows, you’d realize that Joe is all about Joe.

There’s a real anti incumbent tide rolling in this country and too many people want to assume that Scott Brown is some kind of lightning rod for Republicans when he is simply the right guy, in the right spot at the right time. Arlen Specter is a bad choice for the Democrats for so many reasons but to assume that Toomey is a shoe-in because of some sort of “purple haze” coloring the electorate map is a mistake. When voters get a good look at Sestak and start comparing apples to lemons ( Toomey ) they will make the right choice.

Livingston’s post has lots of chat and little information. Could he, or someone else, please tell us:

1) Any evidence that “State committees, at least in Pennsylvania, function something like the Supreme Soviet” and “It’s hard to believe things are different on the Democratic side”? Let’s remember that state committee members are elected, not appointed.

2) Sestak is a “progressive Democrat”? I doubt any progressives who oppose the Bush-Obama military buildup and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will think so.

The basic organization of the Republican and Democratic Parties differ extremely – the Republican Party is top-down, the Democratic Party is bottom-up. The Democratic State Committee is made up of hundreds of members who are all elected and represent their community. This is no exclusive Supreme Soviet with a couple of King-maker top dogs – it’s much closer to the House of Representatives. You can speak for the Republicans all you want, but the Democratic Party is extremely democratic (lower-case ‘d’) in addition to being Democratic (upper-case ‘d’).

Now as for the candidates – Sen. Specter has always been a moderate and Pat Toomey even called him a “far-left liberal” in 2004. He was a Democrat before and he’s just coming back home. He hasn’t changed all that much and I imagine he’ll still be a moderate who continues to put Pennsylvanians ahead of partisan politics. Pat Toomey was a Wall Street derivatives trader and had a direct hand in the financial crisis in writing part of the legislation that repealed Glass-Steagall protections. His voting record shows that he’s more concerned about his Wall Street buddies than Main Street Americans.

Johnny-
Scott Brown has nothing to do with an “anti-incumbent tide”. It was an open seat. The Democratic candidate ran a half-ass campaign. The state is over 50% Independents.
The conclusions people are drawing about the Mass election are about as valid as the classic blind men describing an elephant.
I agree that Toomey is a lemon. I think Specter is better able to expose Toomey’s ultra-conservative beliefs than Sestak. During the Allentown healthcare debate with Toomey, Sestak allowed Toomey to appear as a moderate. Sestak seemed more interest in reciting his own memorized talking points than debunking Toomey’s.

Chet-
Livingston is a professor at Rutgers in Jersey. If you take all the actual information in his posts, and put them in a thimble, you’d still have a enough room for your thumb.

Greg-
The Dems are certainly more bottom-up than the monolithic R’s. Though, there are some areas where the Dems are top-down and it’s not to the party’s advantage because it chafes the grassroots people.
You’re argument about Specter vs Toomey is dead-on. Sestak just can’t capture the center from Toomey the way Specter can.

As a former Dem State Committee member from a suburban county I speak from experience.

At the county level, State committee members are screened and nominated for “selection” to run on the party ticket for election. Usually no one runs un-endorsed by the county chairman and his handpicked nomination committee.

So grassroots is a false term. It’s pre-engineered turf management.

Do all county delegations and regional caucuses vote in complete harmony 100% of the time…No, they do not but it’s pretty tightly monitored and controlled by county chairs who have their own closed door session in Harrisburg each State Committee meeting called the County Chair Meeting where NO OTHER RANK AND FILE DEMOCRAT is allowed…even though I understand the State charter for Democrats allows for it.

Regional caucuses sometime will also monitor “grassroots” via sense of the caucus meetings held at State Committee gatherings.

The only pure democracy occurring in the Democratic party is at the voting polls where Democrats can disappear behind a curtain and vote their decisions.

With the State party committee and its leadership, it’s apparatus and machinations for the most part.

People are naive to think otherwise.