Santorum said””I think you have to speak the truth. But you have to do so with prudence.. it’s a combination,” And I think Mitt’s point... was the correct one. We need to be working with the Israelis to find out, you know what? Is this a wise thing for us to do? To step forward and to engage this issue? Maybe it is. My guess is at this point in time, it’s not. Not that we shouldn’t tell the truth, but we should be talking to our allies. It’s their fight.” I’m not comfortable with his answer.
But there’s a big difference between stating your personal opinion as a candidate and stating the policy of the U.S. government as a president. He’s not speaking for the government now. It’s doubtful Newt would make major statements about the Israeli-Palestinian issue as president without consulting with Israel. But we need to know where he stands as a candidate now. He can’t pull a Herman Cain and say you’ll find out what my policy is after I’m elected.
And let’s face it, what drove this line of questioning was not the idea that Newt would somehow throw a monkeywrench into the negotiations. It was all about towing the politically correct line on the Palestinians. This came up for the same reason Snuff tried to stop Bachmann from talking about the Palestinians’ Nazi-esque textbooks. Do you think Mitt and the media were worried about how Israel would feel about that statement or how the Palestinians would? If you think Israel, then I’ve got a bridge in Palestine I’d like to sell you.
Besides, shouldn’t anyone set themselves up with a hard-line position before entering any negotiations? You don’t start giving stuff away before you even start negotiating. This is the same reason all the candidates were right to say they wouldn’t take a deal where they get 90% spending cuts and 10% tax hikes. If they said that now, that’s exactly where their negotiations would start at with the Dems.