Talk:Pat Toomey

POV-Check

entire article looks like it was taken off a campaign website or something... unencyclopedic "Toomey criticized Specter as a liberal spendthrift and lost by a mere 1.7 percent margin" "Mere" is really a value judgement, and is probably inappropriate for wikipedia. opinions? seems like the article was written by a jr campaign staffer. 24.14.94.254 18:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

1.7% is a very low margin. Especially for a man in the primaries against an incumbent. News article generally use similair wording to describe the loss. This one (http://www.macon.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/14525507.htm?source=rss&channel=inquirer_local) uses the phrasing "narrowly lost a primary challenge". This one (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5367075)uses "Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) wins renomination for a fifth term by the skin of his teeth, edging conservative Rep. Patrick Toomey in the Republican primary". Both are respectable sources, perhaps linking to one of them would help.68.70.149.142 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

its still a value judgement, meant to diminish the fact that he lost

compare: "Toomey criticized Specter as a liberal spendthrift and lost by a 1.7 percent margin"

article was already edited tho, but gonna add to watchlist

Annoying username (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone here who doesn't think this ridiculous entry is biased against Toomey should read it and then compare it to the entry on Joe Sestak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Better picture?

Wow--that picture in the article just screams "Photoshop." Isn't there a better one out there? --Ball&Chain 20:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

i like it, you can see his ENOURMOUS fivehead

213.141.89.20 (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

Just watched SiCKO, and apparently this is the guy that did the ad for Just Born Inc's Marshmallow Peeps in Congress. Surely this has to rate a mention on this guys page? 203.192.141.76 09:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, because the bullshit spouted by Michael Moore is oh so reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Creationism

Toomey is in Category:Creationists, but this article makes no mention of his being a creationist. This is a very oblique way of offering information; it seems to me that something like this should either be mentioned in the article, with a citation offered, or that he should be removed from the category. Student Anselmus (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything of him being a creationist, if a citation is not forthcoming the category should be removed. Non-Dairy Creamer (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed it, as well as several other unreferenced categories. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't his run against Specter, leading Specter to join the Democratic Party (and shifting the balance in the Senate), be mentioned?

Shouldn't his run against Specter, leading Specter to join the Democratic Party (and shifting the balance in the Senate), be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.11.188 (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Glass-Steagall

"President Barack Obama and others have pointed to the repeal of Glass-Steagall as a significant cause of the current global financial crisis, on the grounds that it opened up the door for the financial sector to form so-called too big to fail financial services giants like AIG.[3]"

This sentence is kind of odd, since (a) AIG is neither a commercial bank nor an investment bank, and therefore is unaffected by Glass-Steagall and its repeal, (b) it's far from clear that Glass-Steagall repeal caused or exacerbated the current financial crisis, and may actually have helped, and (c) the repeal of the relevant cross-ownership provisions was carried out on November 12, 1999, which, besides being almost a decade before the current crisis, happened under Democratic President Bill Clinton.

The inclusion of this sentence looks like an attempt to attack Toomey for his support of financial deregulation. There are more appropriate pages for documenting that debate: the Glass-Steagall page, to start with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.87.108 (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I paraphrased that sentence from an article which was by no means a smear piece against Toomey; I thought that it was, to the contrary, a rather neutral sketch. Criticism of the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and the causal linking of it to the current economic crisis has been widespread and comes from many quarters, including Obama and numerous economists. Because of this, whether or not the causal assertion is in fact true (and I have no strong opinion either way on this particular point), Toomey's apparently hands-on role in the repeal is entirely noteworthy; it may be the most significant thing he directly participated in during his tenure. With respect to the appropriateness of AIG as an example of "too big to fail" financial giants, I yield to more qualified economic authorities - I kept it since it was the example given in the original text. Perhaps Bear Stearns would serve as a better example? -- Wormcast (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Issues ratings

I agree with the spirit of Bormomir123's edits: a list like this is not the desirable format for this information in the article. That said, many ratings on key issues did not make it into his condensed version - Toomey's 0% environmental rating from LCV, his NEA rating, etc. Additionally, the condensation was subtly non-NPOV. An example: "Toomey supports second amendment gun rights." Sounds great - so does every politician, left or right, who doesn't want to pass a gun-right restricting amendment. The question is, what rights does the second amendment grant? This is a major point of contention and is completely lost without reference to more objective information. I restored this list (not all of which comes from "on the issues") to enable the process of objectively integrating the information contained in it into the article, not because I want it to remain in this format. Wormcast (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I just consolidated information on Toomey's abortion issue under a subsection entitled 'Abortion'. I think that this format (issue by issue) is the best way to arrange information - see for instance Chris_Christie. I do not mean to highlight abortion - this was just as far as I have gotten. -Wormcast (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

14 Feb

Boromir:

• if you disapprove of the source I found for Toomey's comments concerning criminalizing abortion in PA, then by all means, find another, less partisan source. I felt, considering that the link was to a VIDEO of Toomey making the statements, that this source was sufficient. Simply deleting information is inappropriate.
• I am in the process of moving and supplementing the information contained in the (largely "On the Issues" originating) bulleted list of ratings into more informative subsections. If you cannot tolerate the intermediate redundancy, please delete former, not the latter.
• I added the "verbosity" concerning Toomey's belief that states should have no right to regulate same-sex marriage only because there was existing text in the article that discussed his belief that states should have the right to regulate abortion. Either both stay or both go, but to tolerate one and not the other is a double standard.
• Toomey's quote "The trend in deregulation, beginning in the early 1980s, is one of the biggest reasons for the sustained economic expansion. I would like to see us continue to deregulate on many fronts, including the financial services industry,” strikes me as a concise and fair argument for his economic position, stated by no one less authoritative on the subject than Toomey himself. Could it be that you deleted it without explanation simply because it makes him look foolish and naive, in light of the current economic meltdown triggered in large part due to under-regulation of the financial services industry? Please stop trying to whitewash Toomey's past (and present - his positions have not changed), and let the readers make their own judgements. -Wormcast (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, I will attempt to find a non-partisan source. A partisan blog/editorial is not appropriate. I am fine with your second point and appreciate your efforts. Regarding the third point, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is binding on all states by definition. Saying that he is a "married heterosexual" doesn't belong there. Regarding the fourth point, the essence of the quote is embodied in his desire to repeal parts of the Glass–Steagall Act and his voting record. I will re add the quote if you would like. Boromir123 (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

waiting period

i think the wording of this sentence is miss leading

the article says "...nd would decrease the waiting period due to background checks from three days to one for purchases made at gun shows.[15]"

what this bill really was...

"Vote to pass a bill requiring anyone who purchases a gun at a gun show to go through an instant background check which must be completed within 24 hours [instead of 72 hours]"

This should be re-worded as now it sounds like he is shortening the waiting period where as really it is requiring a background check sooner.

It seems to me that this sentence was "spun" to sound bad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finch590 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

header 1	header 2	header 3
row 1, cell 1	row 1, cell 2	row 1, cell 3
row 2, cell 1	row 2, cell 2	row 2, cell 3

Is he related to Mike Toomey?

Is he related to Mike Toomey who was Chief of Staff for Rick Perry and William Clements?