In 2008 when my wife, Gena, and I were on the campaign trail backing former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee for president, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum was fighting to get former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney elected. (Listen in this video how Santorum passionately endorsed and elevated Mitt in his bid for the Oval Office.)
Just three years ago in his interview with radio host and conservative commentator Laura Ingraham, Santorum also emphatically told millions of listening Americans: “If you’re a conservative, if you’re a Republican, there is only one place to go, and that’s Mitt Romney.”=
Why an alleged conservative like Santorum would fight for the flip-flopping Massachusetts moderate on the presidential campaign trail, especially in light of the fact that Huckabee and even McCain were running then with a much clearer conservative record, I will never know.
Yet Santorum now admits that Romney “bragged he’s even more liberal than Ted Kennedy on social issues.”
And the question that keeps coming to my mind now is this: How can the “alternative to Romney” also be a Romney supporter?
Newt and Santorum are good Christian men, both of whom are passionate to fight the war on religion (specifically Christianity) being unleashed by the Obama administration. They are also avid supporters of Israel.
However, in light of the potential global clash outside our country with regimes like Iran and Syria, and the ongoing domestic assault within our country from the Obama administration, we believe America needs the best of the best veterans of political war to lead us forward.
We truly believe Newt’s experience, leadership, knowledge, wisdom, faith and even humility to learn from his failures (personal and public) can return America to her glory days. And he is the best man on the battlefield who is able to outwit, outplay and outlast Obama and his billion-dollar campaign machine.
While I commend Santorum for some of his stands since leaving Congress, like opposing TARP, the stimulus, the Fannie-Freddie bailout and the auto bailout, I have a slew of problems with what he did while serving in the U.S. Senate from 1995-2007.
Continue reading here…
NORRIS IS A BONE-HEAD.
Newt helped pass through the House all sorts of Crap, like GATT.
More bovine fecal matter from the faux-right.
Ivan, GATT has been around since 1947, and only been morphed in the 90s into the WTO. Santorum and Gingrich both voted yes on the 1993 GATT URUGUAY ROUND, along with 148 other Republicans. Only 23 voted against it.
If you’re going to hold trade agreement votes as your mainstay for picking a candidate, you’re sheeeet out o’luck. Most Congressional members favor a trade agreement with a country, and don’t operate on a handshake.
@MataHarley:
Sorry, these “free trade” agreements were passed ONLY with the assistance of Republican traitors.
Gingrich was INVALUABLE to helping Clinton get Republican support for NAFTA’s passage.
Don’t be a hack for these pricks, Mata.
Ivan, I don’t share your anti-trade views, remember? I do believe in trade with foreign nations, and unfortunately you have to lay down ground rules on how that trade is conducted.
First of all, I don’t know where you are lifting/pasting your quotes. The original article perhaps? But the vote on H.R. 1876 [103rd]: GATT Uruguay Round bill, was 295 House members voting yea… 150 of them Republican and 144 Democrat. Opposing were 126… 102 of them Democrats.
In the Senate, the vote was 76 – 16, ten of them Dems and six Republicans.
Needless to say, you may like, or not, trade agreements. But it was a bipartisan majority pass without questions. Suck it up. It’s the breaks we all have to accept. But perhaps you need to be re registering as a liberal?
I linked to the Uruguay Round text, which was the 8th round of changes to the now 74 year old agreement. Perhaps, instead of speaking in such blanket and vague disapproval, you will point out what in that agreement you find objectionable, lopsided or unfair… other than the fact it is a “trade agreement” at all.
One can object to a bad or lopsided deal, but you tend to never point out specifics. Instead, if it’s a trade agreement, you label it bad juju. So, give us some specifics for a change. Pick a treaty… go ahead. Tell us what is your problem, then reasonable debate can ensue.
Hummm… what does Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty say?
Got an original thought, Ivan?
Get over it. Ron Paul will not get the nom.
Ron Paul for Treasury Secretary!!
You and I both believe in trade, intelligently done, unlike these traitorous free trade agreements.
You’re being argumentative for the sake of arguing.
I’m being “argumentative” when I ask you just WHAT in any of those agreements specifically you oppose?
Or could it be you’ve never read them, and simply follow Ron Paul’s lead?
BTW, Ivan… NAFTA passed with 155 Dems in opposition. So how many amendments did Ron Paul… the guy who said in debates that trade agreements should be only a couple of pages…offer?
None. No suggestions, no amendments to make it better. Just a “no”.
Ya sure you and Ron Paul don’t want to change your registration? You obviously hang with the liberals here. And that is the reason that Ron Paul will not get the nom… because he’s just another liberal on trade and foreign policy.
I deal with legal contracts all day long. Trade agreements with foreign nations cannot be constructed in a couple of pages. Sorry. The less that is laid out in specifics, the larger loop hole to drive the truck thru for abuse.
Again, what… specifically… bothers you about any treaty? Otherwise you, like Ron Paul, apparently do not support trade agreements in any fashion. Nor do you wish to discuss what points you disagree with. Instead, like two year olds, you resort to a favored word… “no”…. without specifics.
@MataHarley:
I’m sorry, NAFTA was passed, foolishly due to Republican duplicity.
I”m not a fan of Ron Paul. Why bring him into this?
Still dodging the question, Ivan? What specifically don’t you like about NAFTA, GATT CAFTA… hey, pick a treaty and tell me what specifically you don’t like. YOu say you want trade, but don’t want agreements. But there has to be trade agreements to have that trade. So stop being so vague… what terms of any of the trade agreements do you not like?
And I bring Ron Paul into it because, as I pointed out in the Campaign for Liberty copy/paste above, you’re using the exact same language. And in case you didn’t know, Ron Paul founded the Campaign for Liberty.
MATA
thank you for that POST, now that support what you started to mentioned on another POST,
a couple of weeks ago, and CHUCK added more munitions more of it, that is the end of his
profile background, to stand clean all the way to the top, that is getting us
right back to NEWT GINGRICH ,
I like CHUCK NORRIS,
BEST TO YOU GENA AND CHUCK,
YVAN
why are you dodging the question? don’t be afraid,
say what you feel, and the hardest thing is the first word,
the other are eazy.
bye
@MataHarley:
Sorry, the advocates of this insanity promised an economic utopia if we accepted these agreements.
We have a nightmare now, and the left-wing of the Republican Party is to blame.
In other words, Ivan, you either can not, or will not, answer the question. I’d say no further cyber conversation is necessary, as there’s not much credibility you can wield on trade agreements except for the fact you want trade, but don’t like any trade agreement… but you don’t know why.
ta ta…