Thursday morning in the Wall Street Journal, Club For Growth head Pat Toomey has an oped ("In Defense of RINO Hunting") defending the success and legitimacy of his organizational's primary election efforts. For those unaware, Club For Growth is an ultra-conservative PAC with the goal of making the Republican Party even more rabidly anti-tax (for the rich) and friendly to the policies favorable to big business. The Club for Growth raises large amounts of money - both for right wing challengers to semi-moderate GOP incumbents, and for conservatives in competitive races with Democrats.

Though it is very difficult to seriously compare the expansion of the progressive movement and the transformation of the Democratic Party to the nefarious Club for Growth, some of the Toomey's rhetoric is interesting. After noting that the Republican establishment usually writes the CFG off as "stupid" (Tom Cole) and "wrong" (Newt Gingrich), Toomey makes a rather critical point:

Thus comes the demand for an uncompromising obeisance to the bottom line: Elect as many Republicans as possible, regardless of how they will vote once in office.

The idea that parties should actually represent distinct ideologies and not be two sides of the same coin is exactly what voters deserve. In the often numbingly choiceless two-party system, shouldn't people at least know which party will give them what? What is the point of even voting Democrat if the person you elect then sides with interests of the Republican Party? Sure, given the nature of geographic or demographic features of some districts, representatives will be forced to vote a certain way regardless of party on local issues. But in general, I couldn't agree more with Toomey than to say we deserve to know which party is for corporate capitalism and the tax burden on the working and middle class; and which party is for a government that works to build every citizen's quality of life while employing a progressive tax plan. And on issues of war and peace.

Toomey goes on to confront the most damning criticism of his organization: that by challenging Republicans in the primary, the remaining GOP nominee is weakened and defeated by the opposition party. To confront this argument, Toomey says the following about the politicians he targeted (who he calls 'liberal Republicans'):

Let us take a moment to consider how these liberal Republicans are serving the GOP today. Mr. Specter, just in the past year, joined Democrats in voting for "card check" (which allows unions to organize without holding a secret ballot election), for increasing the minimum wage, for expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and for the bloated farm bill.

Mr. Chafee, who was defeated, switched his party affiliation to Independent and has endorsed Barack Obama for president. Following his loss to conservative Tim Walberg in the 2006 primary, Rep. Schwarz of Michigan backed a state-level tax hike, and threatened to run against Mr. Walberg as a Democrat. Mr. Gilchrest has hinted recently that he will endorse the Democratic nominee for his seat. All four of these pols were heralded by the Republican establishment as genuine conservatives who would go to bat for the party when it mattered.

The progressive movement, for sure, has faced similar criticism for challenging conservative Democrats. Remember Lanny Davis accusing progressive activists of "Liberal Mcarthyism?" Hah. But the most obvious counter is like that of Toomey's, just look at what's happened after our most successful challenges...

Since being expelled by the voters from the Democratic Party for supporting a stay the course (the precursor to 100 years) strategy in Iraq, Joe Lieberman has now devoted himself to attacking Obama, campaigning for McCain and GOP Senator Susan Collins, and indicating he will be at the Republican National Convention. "Democratic" Maryland Congressman Al Wynn, the guy who supported the Iraq war, the Dick Cheney Energy Bill, the Bankruptcy Bill, and opposed Net Neutrality, was beaten this year in a primary by community activist Donna Edwards. Soon after his defeat, Wynn announced he would be soon resigning his seat MID year to take a job at a big time lobbying firm. Not only is that a big fuck you to the people of the 4th district, but he is footing Maryland taxpayers with the $1 million special election bill.

Even in my local area of College Park, Maryland there are plenty of examples of vindication for progressive challenges. Our old State Senator, John Giannetti, ostensibly a Democrat, was buddy buddy with Republican Governor Bob Ehrlich, while supporting many of his major policies, killing Maryland's assault weapon ban, and opposing reproductive freedom. After being defeated in the 2006 primary, he flipped and simply joined the Republican Party and campaigned against the Democratic ticket (1 U.S. Senate seat and the Governor's mansion were competitive at the time). Giannetti was then defeated (for a second time) by the more progressive Democrat Jim Rosapepe in the general election :)

With that, I leave you with Toomey's parting words:

Winning for the sake of winning is an excellent short-term tactic, but a lousy long-term strategy. Just look at the consequences of the 2006 congressional elections