Update: Tom Ridge announced this afternoon that he will not seek the Republican senatorial nomination in Pennsylvania. Which only proves the point that I was making in this post, written earlier today. No sane moderate would want to face a conservative Republican primary electorate, and be forced to defend the voting record items that I have listed below:
Those of you lacking interest in the 2010 Pennsylvania Senate race should take heart; I'll move to another topic tomorrow. For now, however, it's worth expending 800 words on the Republicans, many of whom have apparently convinced themselves that they'll knock off turncoat Arlen Specter next year, simply by nominating Tom Ridge as the Republican candidate.
Assuming that Ridge would even want to spend the next 18 months of his life raising money and stumping the state, it all sounds great on paper. The former two-term governor is still broadly popular, he can potentially attract blue-collar votes, and he's moderate enough in his politics to compete with Specter for the swing suburban voters who are pivotal in a statewide general election. For those reasons alone, the Washington Republican establishment (what's left of it, anyway) rightly perceives Ridge as far more electable than conservative Pat Toomey.
There's only one big hitch: Ridge's aforementioned moderate voting record, the one that he amassed during the 12 years he spent in Congress prior to becoming governor.
His record would become a major issue next spring in the Republican primary. As noted here previously, that contest will be dominated more than ever by conservative voters (thanks to the recent exodus of 200,000 Pennsylvania Republicans, most of them moderates, who have renounced their party registrations). Ridge would have to face the same Toomey-friendly GOP electorate that inspired Specter to flee for his political life; why are we to believe that Ridge would fare any better when the votes are tallied?
Granted, one new poll reports that Ridge would slaughter Toomey in the Republican primary. But a measure of skepticism is required. For starters, the survey was conducted by the Washington Republican polling firm that (until last week) worked for Specter. More importantly, it's a cinch bet that Ridge would get a rough ride once conservative voters are enlightened about the perceived heresies in his voting record.
There are many. I know this only because some conservative commentators have already begun to dig them out for mass circulation. Just imagine how the right-wing primary electorate would react to these choice nuggets - all of which have come to my attention via conservative websites:
1. Ridge is not only "pro-choice" on abortion, he also voted to allow taxpayer-funded family-planning clinics to promote abortion as a viable option.
2. He voted in 1984 to expand welfare eligibility.
3. He voted on a few occasions against tax cuts.
4. He voted at times to expand government entitlement programs.
5. He once voted to increase the minimum wage - one of only 19 House Republicans to do so.
6. He opposed the senior President Bush's efforts to cut the capital gains tax.
7. He voted repeatedly against President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, and led efforts to slash billions in funding for the project.
8. He voted against the MX missile, and against aid to the Nicaraguan contras.
9. He voted for the nuclear freeze.
10. He voted to re-hire the unionized air traffic controllers that Reagan had fired.
11. He voted against an early school choice program.
12. He voted to send taxpayer dollars to the National Endowment of the Arts. (The right hates the National Endowment of the Arts.)
13. He voted in favor of the Fairness Doctrine, the federal rule requiring a balance of opinion on the airwaves. (The right still hates the Fairness Doctrine, even though it no longer exists.)
14. He spent much of his congressional career earning mediocre ratings from the American Conservative Union. The top ACU rating is 100 percent; in some years, Ridge scored less than 30 percent. Indeed, during Reagan's second term, Ridge was described by the Congressional Quarterly magazine as a lawmaker who was more likely to oppose a Reagan stance than support it.
Lest we forget, Ridge might well have been George W. Bush's 2000 veep pick, or John McCain's 2008 veep pick, had he not been nixed by the Republican right. Given the 14 items cited above (not to mention the fact that Ridge, as governor, raised the gasoline tax), why would the right like him any more now?
Actually, a Ridge candidacy would give Republican primary voters a fresh opportunity to demonstrate that they are in fact capable of tolerating political diversity, as opposed to circling the wagons and consigning themselves to yet another defeat.
But, assuming Ridge does join the fray, we'll soon see whether there's much tolerance for his perceived heresies. For instance, Rush Limbaugh, the de facto national GOP chairman, would probably have something to say. Earlier this week, Rush sought to kick Colin Powell out of the GOP, decreeing that one of the few remaining Republicans with moderate appeal should quit the party and "become a Democrat." If the retired military general can't pass the Rush litmus test, then surely Pat Toomey's potential Republican opponent would be deemed a Ridge too far.
Postcript: Ridge, during an MSNBC interview this evening, offered some advice to the conservative base: "Let's accept certain differences of opinion, to understand that (Republicans like him) are principled people who disagree with you, and let's treat them with greater civility and respect than, frankly, we have in the past." Fat chance he could have achieved that goal while facing the conservative primary electorate in Pennsylvania.