Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required
Email Format


Make a New Account



Forget your username or password?

Red Mass Group on Facebook

About Us
How To Format Posts
Email Us
RSS Feed
RMG Store
Fair Use Policy
RMG Mobile Site


Advanced Search

Event Calendar
October 2015
(view month)
* * * * 01 02 03
04 05 06 07 08 09 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
* * * * * * *
<< (add event) >>

Blog Roll
Massachusetts Conservatives Boston Maggie
The Capitol View Live
Critical Mass
FreeRepublic - Massachusetts
Miss Kelly

Mass Video Blogs Catch of the Day Video

Blue Mass Group
Left in Lowell
Hester Prynne
Mass Marrier

Non-Partisan Massachusetts Blogs
Preti Minahan
Mass Politics Profs

Garrett Quinn
Beacon Hill Institute Blog
Pioneer Institute Blog
Campaign For Liberty
Cato at Liberty
Young Americans for Liberty

Hyper Local
My Dedham
Universal Hub
View From Plymouth Rock
Worcester Herald

Mass. Media
The Lone Republican
Pundit Review
Dan Kennedy's "The Scrum"
WGBH's Adam Reilly
WGBH's "Beat The Press">
WGBH's "Greater Boston">
David Bernstein at Boston Magazine
NECN's "Broadside: with Jim Braude"

Ace of Spades
Big Hollywood
Daily Beast
Daily Kos
Daily Paul
Flynn Files
Hot Air
Little Green Footballs
National Review
Reason - Hit & Run
Red State

What does Rick Santorum have in common with Newt Gingrich?

by: CriticalDan

Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 22:17:54 PM EST

Question: what do Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have in common? Aside from their alternating status as the un-Mitt du jour I mean.

Answer: Both served multiple terms in Congress, and neither left of his own volition.  Newt was drummed out by his own caucus. Senator Santorum was tossed out by his constituents after two full terms, by a whopping margin (18 percent).

Any observer of American politics understands how powerful an advantage incumbency is in our elections. It is a rare thing for a sitting US Senator to be deposed by his constituents; rarer still for his ouster to be so emphatic (absent scandal, that is). The voters of Pennsylvania had twelve full years on which to base their decision in 2006, and their verdict was unambiguous. Out Senator Santorum went. Yes, 2006 was a bad year for Republicans. But it was a particularly bad year for Rick Santorum.

Another Answer: Both have had difficulty winning endorsements from Republicans who served with them in Congress. This phenomenon has been more conspicuous in Gingrich's case... READ THE REST at CriticalMASS

CriticalDan :: What does Rick Santorum have in common with Newt Gingrich?
Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

perhaps more importantly (0.00 / 0)
Neither of them used the power of the state to force me to buy a commercial product, merely for being alive.

Full Disclosure

Well, characterization aside (0.00 / 0)
...assuming you are referring to mandated health coverage, Rob, while as a private sector lobbyist at the time Newt lacked the authority to force you to do so, he did support the forcing (so to speak).

[ Parent ]
But of course that is a deflection (0.00 / 0)
Particularly as regards Newt, it ought properly to give voters pause that virtually nobody who served with him thinks he ought to be POTUS.  I haven't seen the same kind of palpable discomfort among Santorum's former colleagues, though perhaps that is because fewer of them have been questioned directly on the topic.  

[ Parent ]
i cannot support someone in a primary (0.00 / 0)
That signed the mass health law and says he would do so again today.  Just can't do it.  Newt has changed his position and I respect that.

Full Disclosure

[ Parent ]
Let's not id ourselves Dan... (0.00 / 0)
...Romney left after ONE Term because he didn't think he'd win re-election.

Kerry Heally certainly wasn't ready to run.

I'll take Santorum's, 4-1 Electoral Record over Mitt's 1-2 (yes, I'm counting 2008 Primary loss as a, well, Loss) TYVM.

Follow me on Twitter?  Sure, why not.

[ Parent ]
Did he? (0.00 / 0)
I thought he wanted to run for President and that would mean breaking his promise of serving out his terms as Governor if he won again. He would have had to do that less than a month after his second inaugural, considering he announced in early 2007. He could have won, he was just done with Mass.

(R)- Outside 495

[ Parent ]
Healey was ready. (0.00 / 0)
Her campaign was terrible.

No spam. Mobile friendly.
Follow @AltercateMA

[ Parent ]
Scott Brown Voted How? (0.00 / 0)
And has he recanted his vote? Single issue votting is dangerous...

(R)- Outside 495

[ Parent ]
Oh snap! (0.00 / 0)

No spam. Mobile friendly.
Follow @AltercateMA

[ Parent ]
Newt has changed his position???? (0.00 / 0)
Which position change is it that you respect?

The change regarding mandatory health care insurance?

The change regarding government sponsored Fannie and Freddie?

The change regarding climate change?

The change regarding ethical behavior in Congress?

Or is it the change from making a lifelong commitment to Jackie Beatty, until he broke that commitment, then made the same commitment to Marianne Ginter, before changing his position and making the yet another life time commitment to Callista Bisek?

Or Rob, do you "respect" all these position changes?  

[ Parent ]
Question: what do Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have in common? (0.00 / 0)
Answer: They have both been in the cross-hairs is a message-challenged Romney campaign and Romney surrogates.

Another Question:  Why can't Romney supporters tell us what is right about their guy, instead tearing down his opponents?  

Selective listening (5.00 / 1)
Certainly you have the right to choose what you watch, read and listen to, but if all you are hearing about Mitt is what is wrong with his opponents then you are paying selective attention.  "Why don't you say X instead of Y?" isn't really a response to an argument. As to the "Y" in this case, it is pretty well established: Mitt is an extremely intelligent, moral, competent, experienced chief executive, with unrivaled (in the field on either side) successes in both the private and the public sectors. He is the first candidate of either party in God knows how long about whom one never wonders whether there are skeletons in the personal closet (one reason the media deems him "boring").  The so-called "negatives" on him are predominantly recharacterizations of his positives: he did so well in business that he is "out of touch." He was a highly successful venture capitalist, so he was a "vulture capitalist." He's a straight-arrow, so he's "boring," and "lacks the common touch." He successfully reached a bipartisan compromise with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature on an issue that nobody until then thought a Governor of either party anywhere would dare touch, much less tackle, so he "sold out."  There are legitimate concerns and criticisms buried in each of those, of course, just as there are legitimate concerns and criticisms to be lodged against every candidate for every office in every race ever run. But please, spare me the 'nobody talks about his upside' meme. It just isn't accurate. And of course in a contested election it is entirely legitimate to talk about other candidates' deficiencies. It is, after all, a choice between alternatives that is made on election day.

[ Parent ]
Thank you for answering my second question. (0.00 / 0)
But Romney (and his "independent" Super PAC) has chosen the path of slashing at the character of his opponents, instead of trying to advance a positive message about his vision for the country.  

Folks on both sides of the aisle don't mind candidates that throw an elbow or two in a primary fight.  But neither side appreciates constant negative campaigning that only tears down their primary opponents.  It often works in the short run, but makes "making up" after the primaries, very hard.  As the house liberal, I very much appreciate your contribution to this intra-party mudslinging.  

[ Parent ]
Your criticism is incredibly weak. (0.00 / 0)
You seem to be faulting these guys for 1) not being incubants who won, and 2) being members of Congress.  Had Romney been in Congress why are we to assume he would have voted differently on the issues?  2006 was a hard year for Republicans primarily because of the Iraq War but then also what some considered to be profligate spending (Medicare Part D).  Romney supported the Iraq War.  Is there something that would lead us to believe that Mr. Romneycare would have voted differently on Medicare Part D?

Of course Romney has more substantive GOP endorsements.  He's the establishment candidate!  

As the Weekly Standard pointed out however, some of these Congressman who have endorsed Romney are causing a bit of embarrassment.

Mitt Romney's campaign is now targeting GOP rival Rick Santorum as a big-spending Washington insider. On a conference call Tuesday afternoon, former Missouri senator and Romney surrogate Jim Talent criticized Santorum's support for expanding government spending, including his vote for the Medicare Part D in 2003-a program for which Talent himself voted.

No spam. Mobile friendly.
Follow @AltercateMA

Again, that's an evasion (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure my initial post was a criticism, Patrick, so much as an observation:of the dozens of Republicans who served with Gingrich and/or Santorum in Congress - presumably the individuals who best understand what kind of President each would be - very, very few seem to think either would make a good President. Make of that what you will (or won't): it's a fact.

[ Parent ]
I disagree with your observation. (0.00 / 0)
The fact these congressmen have endorsed Romney is not necessarily a repudiation of Santorum or Gingrich.  Like I said, it probably represents nothing more than the natural coalescing of support behind the establishment candidate and presumptive nominee (and possible future president). Very few people would want to chance being on the outs with President Romney.

No spam. Mobile friendly.
Follow @AltercateMA

[ Parent ]
I'm tired of all of them. (0.00 / 0)
We are being played with like marionettes. Any Republican should be able to beat Obama, no matter what their past is.

This is not rocket science, guys.

Day 1 - Czars out/ fire sale.
Day 2 - Repeal Executive Orders of Obama and Bush - get to Clinton in a week or so.
Day 3 - Sign repeal of Obamacare, Patriot Act and Dodd-Frank.
Day 4 - Send budget to Congress - cut, cut, cut!
Day 5 - Golf. (Just kidding!) Shut down Dept.'s of Ed and Energy. Audit the Federal Reserve.
Day 6 - Review of all treaties signed by Obama and Bush - abandon START.
Day 7 - Now golf - after church;)

None of this is controversial to anyone but a Lefty. I repeat - Any Republican should be able to beat Obama.

Stat Counter

Red Mass Group is owned and operated by Robert Eno. It is not authorized or paid for by any candidate or committee.
Powered by: SoapBlox