Bill Hader, playing the Republican senator with a Toomey-esque creased forehead, said the background check bill he proposed Wednesday means “No one individual can purchase a handgun from a private dealer without being asked, ‘are you a good person?’”
He added that the plan will “limit the number of guns you can shoot at once, to two.” (Video below).
A faux President Obama announced that West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin will “lose his job” for co-sponsoring the bill.
He continued, “Sen. Toomey, this man is a Republican who is willing to make just the slightest compromise on gun control. He’s going to lose his job too, but that’s what it takes to achieve compromise.” - Philadelphia Inquirer, 4/14/13
Toomey is the Senator of my home state on Pennsylvania (I live in Los Angeles now). Pennsylvania is my home. Born and raised in Pittsburgh and educated in Philadelphia and I was heartbroken when my home state chose him over Congressman and Decorated Admiral Joe Sestak (D. PA) in 2010. I can't wait for the 2014 midterm elections to be over so I can focus on getting rid of Toomey in 2016. I'm already focused on getting rid of Governor Tom Corbett (R. PA) next year. You can read more about why I loath Toomey here:
There are a number of strong potential candidates to go up against Toomey from State Treasurer Rob McCord (D) or Congressman Matt Cartwright (D. PA-17) just to name a few. But I think Sestak is hungry for a comeback in 2016:
Here's what Toomey said earlier this month:Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., recently commented on "the negative, unintended consequences" of welfare initiatives that he called "transfer-payment programs." He said, "We've had huge increases in funding for these programs, and the net effect now is that there are people who discover that the government will provide food, shelter, health care, education, transportation, cash, a very long list of all the things you need, as long as you don't work very much, you don't make very much." The Philadelphia Inquirer noted that Sen. Toomey's comments came months after former Gov. Mitt Romney's famous remarks about the "47 percent" of Americans "who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."
Yet from 1979 to 2007, the top 1 percent of households received a 300 percent increase in government benefits; those of the poorest 20 percent decreased by a quarter. It is doubtful that the wealthy were less incentivized to work because of their three-fold increase in governmental assistance; why are less fortunate Americans viewed differently?
Leaders must address our debt and must reduce spending to make our future fiscally sustainable. But what we need is pragmatic discussion grounded on facts, not stereotyped characterizations of what drives different sets of Americans. - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 3/26/13
Plus Sestak said he would like to serve again:Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) took aim at federal spending Thursday, at one point singling out welfare programs he said had grown so generous that some Americans find they benefit from government aid "as long as you don't work very much."
"We all want to have a safety net that works for the people who need us, but we've had a huge proliferation of these programs, we've had huge expansions in eligibility for these programs.
"We've had huge increases in funding for these programs, and the net effect now is that there are people who discover that the government will provide food, shelter, health care, education, transportation, cash, a very long list of all the things you need, as long as you don't work very much, you don't make very much," Toomey said. "It creates a huge economic disincentive."
The comments come months after the GOP presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, saw his campaign derailed by his own taped words about the "47 percent" of Americans "who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."
Toomey, a leading voice among fiscal conservatives, acknowledged that he was treading on a politically sensitive topic, one he said was prone to distortion. But he said government aid had grown so generous that beneficiaries have to increase their income "enormously to offset what you're going to lose in these benefits." - Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/6/13
2016 is still a while away and it will be a Presidential year. Pennsylvania has been getting bluer and bluer ever election year since 1988 so Toomey should be worried. In fact, he may have even signed onto doing gun control reform with Manchin with 2016 on his mind:“I want to serve again, and want to do it right,” the former Democratic Pennsylvania congressman told The Delaware County Daily Times on Tuesday after he was asked whether he would run for governor. Sestak did not specify which, if any, office he would seek.
Sestak, a former three-star U.S. Navy admiral, stunned politicos in 2010 when the then-congressman beat then-Sen. Arlen Specter in a Democratic Pennsylvania senatorial primary.
Specter, who passed away last October, had switched parties and was backed by the White House during the primary battle. Sestak would go on to lose to Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). - Politico, 2/20/13
And it just might work because Toomey can be very good at making himself look like what he hates more than anything, a moderate Republican:It's not even too early to think about the 2016 election. That's how Republican Sen. Pat Toomey's recent move toward an agreement on background checks for gun purchases has been read. Toomey, a fiscal conservative, is not up for re-election for another three years, but Pennsylvania is a blue state with moderate voters whom he has to court, particularly since he’ll be running in a presidential-election year. Democratic turnout will probably be higher. No Republican presidential candidate has won the state since 1988. - Slate, 4/9/13
But Saturday Night Live did us a favor yesterday by making fun of Toomey, making his name more well known and when people Google his name, they're not going to like what they find. And hopefully last night's sketch served as a harbinger to Toomey's Senate career.Pat Toomey will seem like an unlikely savior to gun-control advocates. The first-term senator from Pennsylvania, a state steeped in gun culture, wasn’t a prominent part of the congressional negotiations when news leaked he was crafting a secret compromise with Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who—unlike Toomey—had loudly inserted himself into the debate. But Toomey’s agreement to expand background checks is nonetheless the last, best hope for meaningful action on gun control.
For Toomey, however, the deal-making was hardly unusual. He has diligently and delicately fashioned a reputation as a moderate Republican since running for the Senate in 2009 (he took office in 2011), frequently breaking from conservative orthodoxy on issues such as gay rights and Supreme Court nominations. As a member of the so-called super committee, he even outlined a plan to raise revenue as part of a larger budget deal.
That Toomey, of all people, would take such frequent detours toward moderation would have shocked his former opponents, especially those in the GOP. He was the proto-conservative insurgent who nearly defeated the late Sen. Arlen Specter during a 2004 primary, and he later ran the free-market Club for Growth, the foremost antagonist of fiscally moderate Republicans. Toomey embodied the tea party not only before it was cool but before it even existed.
But in office, Toomey has let Senate Republican colleagues such as Ted Cruz and Mike Lee carry that banner while taking on a different role. He’s become the face of blue-state Republicans, a conservative who would like to show he can win reelection in a place like Pennsylvania that leans left while still adhering to his basic principles and avoiding a costly primary. If he is successful, Toomey will have drawn a blueprint for a party trying to figure out how to win in left-of-center states.
Toomey’s strategy hinges on two points: emphasis and tone. The senator, a former Wall Street banker, has left little doubt that his passion lies in fiscal, not social, conservatism. He supports restricting abortion rights but is far more likely to focus on easing regulations than on defunding Planned Parenthood. In that way, he’s operating on a wholly different plane than another Keystone State GOP senator, Rick Santorum, who was famously routed in his final reelection bid in 2006. - National Journal, 4/11/13