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
Well this is welcome news! I was browsing around on Santorum's website to see how he's positioning himself entering Florida. Guess what is currently at the top of his Issues page? That's right, at the same time as the race enters Florida, Rick Santorum has entered the marriage debate. He apparently paid the $3.58 a month ("the equivalent of a Starbucks latte") to join the blog Richochet and posted a few diaries, starting with a diary on marriage, and even responded to comments (though, like most politicians, in a separate diary, not in the comments). The first paragraph is blockquoted on his own website like so:
We Hold These Truths
The White House recently told the press there couldn't be more difference between my position on gay marriage and President Obama's.
On reflection, I agree.
President Obama's position on marriage is constantly "evolving," as he so often says. He's not sure what marriage is, or what it should become, and no doubt right now he's consulting highly-paid polling experts to determine how his position - and marriage itself - should morph next. This should come as no surprise given the President's musings about the other great moral issue of our time, the protection of human life.
He makes a strong principled argument, though it'd be stronger if he pointed out that same-sex marriage means same-sex reproduction rights, which means genetic engineering and government regulation and funding and intrusion on our natural reproductive rights as a man or a woman. But he's still consistent with that truth about marriage, and not oblivious to the long term effects of libertarian attitudes toward sex and marriage.
Rick Santorum, who lost to Bob Casey in the Democratic rout of 2006 by almost 20 points, is no small government conservative/libertarian. When all is said and done he's a national greatness type. His federalist credentials are suspect; He voted for No Child Left suggesting that the feds should set national curriculum. He was there when the GOP went on the Bush-fired spending spree: Santorum voted for Part D Medicare which adds billions in unfunded liabilities. And of course he goes out of his way to blast same-sex marriage. David Harsanyi spells it out over at Reason .
Santorum did once grumble about too many conservatives believing in unbridled "personal autonomy" and subscribing to the "idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do...that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom (and) we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues."
Perhaps Santorum confuses libertinism with libertarianism, but for him "cultural issues" go way beyond defending the life of the unborn or opposing gay marriage. Santorum believes that conservatives should recognize "that individuals can't go it alone," which sounds a lot like the straw-man justification for nearly every state expansion in memory. Why does Santorum, a conservative, believe that getting government out of our lives means a person must "go it alone," anyway? Maybe it means that person can go to his local church or his family or his community or his local bar to seek help-or maybe he can figure things out himself.
Senator Santorum once rightly went after 'radical feminist' Hillary Clinton for using the government as village metaphor for raising children. Now he's all for restraining the individual impulse and belittling the "going it alone" spirit of libertarianism, whatever that means.
Santorum has little appeal to independents and benefited from peaking at the right time.
I generally prefer to stick to discussing the local & statewide issues as much as possible but hey, I'm human and I get attracted to the national spotlight from time to time as well.
I saw the news about Rick Perry last night and I woke up this morning to learn news about Newt Gingrich. For those of you busy actually getting ready for the holiday this Christmas Eve and don't know what I'm talking about, it appears that both candidates have FAILED to obtain ballot access in Virginia for not submitting enough certified signatures. It seems that their rules are particularly tight in VA.
The deadline for presidential candidates to submit their raw signatures into the local Registrar of Voters was yesterday at 5:00 pm. The next deadline is submission into the Secretary of the Commonwealth by Friday, January 6 at 5:00 pm. The deadline to file objections to any signatures is Monday, January 9 at 5:00 pm
All that having been said, just what is the state of the various Republican presidential campaigns here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?
Could Gingrich or Perry flame out here? Do they have strong campaigns around here? Are they on life support? How about Ron Paul? I assume that we can assume that Mitt Romney isn't doing too bad in his home turf but what about Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, or Jon Huntsman?
Who would you even contact if you wanted to sign on for a particular campaign?
Today is Christmas Eve and the New Year is just about a week away. That leaves just over three quick months until primary day. I bet most RMG'ers know who they're voting for but for whom will we be able to vote & just how reasonable are their chances at earning delegates here in Massachusetts?
Post-Polito Campaign, I find myself back in Woburn in a new role as marketing & development director for both the Coalition for Marriage & Catholic Citizenship. On the heels of an amazing year for both groups, 2011 looks even better as Catholic Citizenship lands former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) as a headliner for its February event.
The event takes place at the Hotel Indigo in Newton on Tuesday February 1st at 5:30 PM.
(Romney leads the RMG straw poll with 38% of the vote followed by Ron Paul with 19% - promoted by Garrett Quinn)
In a few hours CPAC will conduct its annual presidential straw poll. One of the more popular stickers I have seen at CPAC is this one, "Draft Cheney." Ron Paul and Sarah Palin have their usual army of supporters, although Paul has a much more intricate organization while Palin's support is similar to Paul's in 2008. Gary Johnson is surprisingly absent from the straw poll but he did not give a formal speech at CPAC. Not a large presence for Mitt but he did give a major speech.
Here is your RMG 2012 Presidential Straw Polll. The only difference in the RMG poll is we added Scott Brown.