GOP New Hampshire primary debate tonight on ABC at 9pm ET

Tonight will mark the first of two debates this weekend focused on the New Hampshire Republican primary. This evening’s debate will take place at Saint Anselm College and is sponsored by ABC News, Yahoo! and WMUR. Sunday morning will feature a GOP debate broadcast on NBC at 9am ET (yes, am) but look for more details on that later today.

Air Time: Saturday, January 7th at 9pm ET / 6pm PT on ABC

Participants: Santorum, Romney, Paul, Perry, Gingrich, Huntsman

Report from WMUR:

MANCHESTER, N.H. — WMUR and ABC News will be teaming up for a prime-time debate this Saturday before the New Hampshire Primary.

The debate will take place at 9 p.m. on Jan. 7 on the campus of St. Anselm College. It will be moderated by ABC’s Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos and WMUR’s Josh McElveen.

Debate crews are getting the center ready to take center stage. Light rigger Walter Webber is helping out with the spotlight.

“I go up in the light and I focus in on all the candidates and everything,” Webber said.

St. Anselm students, meanwhile, stood in for the candidates during debate practice.

“I’m Gov. Jon Huntsman’s stand-in, of course. But the moment they gave this to me, I pointed out that they misspelled (the name) with an ‘H,’ so today when I came to the arena, they put a new one with a correctly spelled ‘Jon,’” student Jake Wagner said.

Students impressed the stage manager on loan from “Good Morning America.”

“Everything’s going incredibly smooth. The stand-ins we have from this school are so intelligent. They’re asking questions that we couldn’t even think of, kind of. (They) installed our faith in the future generation,” stage manager Scott Kaye said.

Stephanopoulos told News 9 he expects some fireworks.

“We think it’s our job to make sure that the differences between and among the candidates are exposed and really hashed out before the voters of N.H., so they can make up their minds and make their decisions, fully informed decisions by Tuesday, and my sense is the candidates are not going to be shy about that,” Stephanopoulos said.

The debate will be broadcast on WMUR and across the nation on ABC.

This debate is certain to offer a Mitt Romney pile-on by the likes of Gingrich, Santorum and Paul. I’d expect Huntsman to come out fairly strong as well since all his eggs are in the New Hampshire basket. Rick Perry will be debating with an eye toward South Carolina since polls show he has little to no chance of making headway in the Granite state.

236 comments to GOP New Hampshire primary debate tonight on ABC at 9pm ET

  • I hope that someone read my “note”. No comment as yet– waiting to hear from you.

  • ROMNEY IS OBAMA-LITE OR OBAMA IS RONNEY OR McCAIN ON STEROIDS–ANY COMMENT? He will take us down the same path except slower.

  • ryan

    i missed the debate and forgot to “tivo” it. why is it so hard to get a replay on the internet? it should be available, easily…, for people who what to watch it. or am I just smoking crack like all these political idiots?

  • marian

    I was very disappointed in this debate. Lots of time was wasted and not one mention was made about social security, medicare, refugee problems, illegal aliens, the budget was hardly addressed. The only subject that was addressed in any force was the civil union vs marriage. Everyone says we’ll cut the budget but you don’t seem to get a clear picture of how anyone intends to do it, everyone seems to want to help the unemployed, but no one really has expressed a good way to do that either. I’d like to hear the candidates actually let us know exactly what they intend to do instead of telling us what they plan not to do. I was leaning toward one candidate but I think that has changed as of this evening. No one really impressed me…

  • Don

    @Conservativevolumetrics
    Enjoy never being a truly productive member of society, “hole”

  • Bill Thornton

    While many of those who have posted here are clearly Tea Partyists with radical views about the intentions of the founding fathers of this nation, none of them was there then, and none of them has any idea what they were thinking.
    It is beyond logic to think that the world of 1775 Colonial America could even vaguely be compared to 2012. While the fundamental concepts addressed in the founding documents were intended to provide governing principles for the nation, none of those who crafted those principles could have possibly imagined the detailed social and cultural changes of the next 250 years. None of them had telephones, television or Facebook. None of them could even forsee a future wherein England would be our ally. Change is the reason we don’t still live in caves, and progress is the result of evolution. While those basic guidelines are, of course, still in place, the details as to how those guidelines apply to a modern technological culture is an entirely different issue. In the same light as the Bible, The Talmud and The Koran were interpreted as guidleines for religious groups, the founding documents were never intended to be so rigid and unaltering that daily life would be regulated in such minute detail as to dictate the very behaviors of future persons in the private confines of thier own homes. In a modern society, it is not appropriate for government to dictate the definition of [the pursuit of] “happiness” as the very nature of such an endeavor changes as the culture and society it refers to changes. None of the religious documents noted, by the way, addresses the concept of gay marriage, abortion or immigration. The founding documents don’t dictate these issues either, except that as to immigration, it makes possible the idea. When there is not a traffic sign indicating “no u-turn”, it is legally safe to make that turn, provided one looks for oncoming traffic. The founding fathers could not have forseen that oncoming traffic, thus, they did not need to address these issue. The logical presumption was that these issues were not the business of governing but they were the business of personal choice, which is not the business of governing. Lighten up, people. The fact is that religious zealotry is not a specific requirement for the Office of The President. Most Americans would much rather make thier own personal decisions about thier bedroom behavior than have it legislated by those they elect to represent them. Most people would rather have thier pastors, rabbis and priests do the preaching rather than thier legislators. Please, have your own personal convictions, and hold them close to you. I have mine, and I hold them close to me. We aren’t required to hold the same convictions, and yours cannot legislate mine.
    vets4afairamerica@yahoo.com

  • James

    I thought tonight’s debate was well moderated, but I am concerned that the pundits afterwards gave too much credit to Gov. Romney. I an mot saying Romney was awful, but rather that Gov Paul, and Gov Huntsman really demonstrated a great deal of intelligence and understanding of the issues. Even when Gov Romney tried to distract Gov. Huntsman regarding his warnings about the potential dangers that China presents both economically and politically, Gov. Huntsman responded with exactness and obvious experience; pressing that China will be that country that challenges our foreign and national policy more than any other country; including Iran. While the President of the United States will likely make appointments that satisfy Defense, Economic, and Foreign policy, he should have enough practical experience in each area to make sound final decisions. Gov. Huntsman is the only one on that stage tonight who represented all of the required attributes.

    Thank you for reading my comments.

  • Fred

    that was a good debate in New Hampshire, I noticed that Romney was all over the planet with his answers,flip flop like always, Santorum was on edge like he was searching(surfing) for the right answers but could not connect, Ron Paul had his best debate tonight, but i have to give first place to Newt, his answers were right on tonight,i was leaning toward Romney or Santorum, but after tonight i need to take a good look at Newt, he really seems to know what it takes to turn this country around, his answers was what i needed to here, without the i will tell you what you want to hear to get your vote bul%hit.

    • Thomas

      I don’t think Romney had a “game plan” so to speak. But I do not agree with you saying that Newt’s answers are what i needed to here, without the i will tell you what you want to hear to get your vote bul%hit. They all tell you what you want to hear. It’s all an act to get the American people to vote for them.

  • john orfanides

    has anyone noticed that romney isn’t getting attacked hardly at all.. not his obama blue print for healthcare his flip flopping on nearly every position he has ever held. Where people are coming out of the woodworks to criticize Ron Paul the democratic governers association, every main stream media organization, heck they even dusted off the creator of the internet and mr carbon tax Al Gore to discredit Paul. Even if you don’t like him one thing you can be sure of is, they absolutely don’t want this man within a country mile of the office of president. That should tell everyone something big he is not part of the establishment. You know the establishment that has run up our debt, passed nafta and gatt so big corperations can outsource all our jobs for their greed. As for foreign policy, think about your life, do you go around waving a weapon in every ones face so they will like you. Of course not, we are nice to other people so they usually are in kind. We have tried war for the better part of 20 years, running around threatening people and where are we. on the verge of bankruptcy as a nation and on brink of a major war. We can always try war again if peace and kindness doesn’t work but can we try peace and kindness after we are bankrupt and have a world full of enemies.

    • Guy

      John I am sure we might agree on a great many things – but you are simply and mistakenly denying that their is an active military religious sect in whose constitution their still exists an extermination of a race, and that they are openly developing nuclear technology. There exists an ideology that’s more popular than you’d like to admit which calls for your very own death simply because you are a westerner. This is why people fear Ron Paul’s international policy, as they should. It has not so much to do with “establishment” as “common sense”.

      If there’s one shred of truth to the progressivist view that our Constitution should “evolve” with the times, it’s in the area of preemptive national defense. Reagan style. Although on the whole this notion is wrong – that rights can be added or changed, but I think we must admit that in 1800, the greatest threat was a large navy crossing the ocean, which took months. We must consider the drastic increase in possible death tolls and consequences of successful attacks. When a group of people who already blow themselves up to kill you and your family and thousands others say their going to do it bigger, I hope my president tends to believe them.

      Overall though I think Newt has the best conservative ideas, and the most successful bi-partisan track record to change the socialist direction we’ve been heading. Sure, it worries me that the left will have tons of ammunition against him in a the general. Gingrich is too often ridiculed for having “flip-flopped” or sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi. But I think you’ll find that many independents who are sick of the congressional gridlock may find this appealing. He’s proven to work with the other side and get things moving in a conservative direction. People in the Republican vetting process can too easily forget that some major issues that are negatives in the primaries may become advantages in the general.

      I don’t think Gingrich so much supported cap and trade or national health care as much as wanted to be at the center of the debate pulling it in our direction. We all must admit the healthcare cost problem – he explained in one way once in a college course how a better than average income citizen can force their neighbors to effectively pay their hospital bills by neglecting to cover their own insurance. Granted, that’s only a sliver of the problem (the greatest of which I believe is a massive government restriction of a free market in the healthcare sector, under the abuse of the tenth amendment) but I want a representative who at least looks at a problem and is solutions oriented, even if he doesn’t get it right every time. One that’s willing to admit when he was wrong – unlike Romney on the Massachussets healthcare mandate. He is basically saying, ‘hey it was a democratic state I just gave them what they wanted and look at the good side’ even if it’s an economic disaster and a big government answer.

      I think that if you listen to Newt Gingrich, everything he is proposing includes an ever so important component – the will of the people – that he wants to convince the people of the idea first, to effect legislation with general consensus. It’s why the Contract with America was at all successful, and I think we still can do something even better. Newt’s approach is rightfully in the most contrast of Obama’s tendencies of literally bypassing Congress with regulation in lieu of legislation – the audacity to carry on court cases with the People against their will in his progressive vision. To make backroom deals and personal exemptions of massive, twisted laws that allow for implementation by UNELECTED officials, just to get them passed.

      I really hope that in this general election all of the promises that Barack Obama made during his campaign are very closely showcased and scrutinized. I saw him wow crowds about hope and change, fundamental transformation, promises of a new kind of Washington. He’s a great orator but unfortunately a bullheaded leftist idealogue. And the croney abuse in Washington has never been worse, and I hope the general population really sees what he meant by “fundamental transformation”. They will inevitably agree that the USA is about opportunity, not entitlement. It only saddens me how many people pay no attention and think this voting process doesn’t work. Of course it doesn’t work too well when 40% of people vote and only a fraction of those are properly informed. But I don’t want to hear about the gap between rich and poor anymore. It’s BS. The more successful people there are, the more crap they buy and build. The monetary supply is not finite. No leftist ever tells you about the statistics of first generation millionaires, or how many people who used to be in poverty lift themselves out when the economy is growing.

      So as the field shapes up, I like Newt even more. I could see Santorum as Newt’s VP – but I think we’ll have to wait after Gingrich’s and Santorum’s performances in the South to see if this could be possible. Could be if Santorum does well enough, he won’t want to relinquish the seat. They tend to work well together though, and I just know you all also want to see Newt eat Obama alive in a debate.

  • marian

    Debra, I agree with you and appreciate your comments. Too many of the people in the country are sitting back and not even trying to help themselves. Unfortunetly tho, there are too few jobs and many more people out of work who have families to support. I’m helping two families at the moment that are too proud to ask for welfare and the are just eeking by, but I’m not in any great shape either, I just happen to be the one who has been able to hold onto the job, praying that I too do not become downsized…

  • Swisstoons

    I missed the debate, choosing to watch the Lions/Saints wild card game instead, thinking that surely ABC online would make the entire debate video available. Instead, all I find is excerpts. Amazing.

  • Jessica

    WHere can we watch the 2012 new hampshire debate if we missed it live?

  • Jason

    As usual, the state run media is focused on assisting 0bama by getting each of the Republican candidates to attack each other instead of focusing on the issues.. Question: “so and so” said about you, etc..

  • Shell

    Santorum 2012!

  • This tells the story. Who do you identify with, Goldman Sacs, Blue Cross, American Fruits & Flavors (petro-chemicals) or the US military?
    Top 10 Contributors
    Click on above link for complete information.
    This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations’ PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

    Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization’s members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors – like EMILY’s List and Club for Growth – make for particularly big bundlers.

    Mitt Romney:
    Goldman Sachs $367,200
    Credit Suisse Group $203,750
    Morgan Stanley $199,800
    HIG Capital $186,500
    Barclays $157,750
    Kirkland & Ellis $132,100
    Bank of America $126,500
    PriceWaterhouseCoopers $118,250
    EMC Corp $117,300
    JPMorgan Chase & Co $112,250

    Ron Paul:
    US Army $24,503
    US Air Force $23,335
    US Navy $17,432
    Mason Capital Mgmt $14,000
    Microsoft Corp $13,398
    Boeing Co $10,620
    Google Inc $10,390
    Overland Sheepskin $10,350

    Rick Santorum:
    Blue Cross/Blue Shield $18,000
    Universal Health Services $17,250
    Kimber Manufacturing $12,300
    El Dorado Holdings $10,000
    Achristavest $10,000
    CONSOL Energy $8,500
    Diamond Manufacturing $8,000
    Northwestern Mutual Life $7,650
    Pride Mobility Products $6,000
    Gleason Agency $5,250

    Newt Gingrich:
    Rock-Tenn Co $27,500
    Poet LLC $20,000
    First Fiscal Fund $15,000
    Pull-A-Part Inc $15,000
    Amway/Alticor Inc $10,000
    State Mutual Insurance $10,000
    American Fruits & Flavors $10,000
    Streck Inc $10,000
    Windway Capital $9,600
    Wirco Inc $8,500

  • Chris (CA)

    If anyone missed it, a YouTube user has posted it in several parts. Here is part 1: http://www.youtube.com/user/MOXNEWSd0tCOM#p/u/18/5ltwlw4_qVc

  • If there is a person in this race could embarrass Obama, Ron Paul is the one(full stop).

  • KEEP IT UP GRAYEAGLE 1000. DITTOS TO YOU.

  • Warning

    If people dont start listening to people like Ron Paul then we are done. This nation will know a tyranny unlike any other in history and millions will suffer. I challenge anyone to do research on things like “Agenda 21″, and “New World Order”, or tell me how being forced to pay bums money from my pockets through taxes are not slavery. We are all slaves and it is worse than it has ever been. T.V. keeps most in a dumbed down state and what you get is a group of so called “adults”, screaming and sheering over a stupid game like football when our traitor president signs bills throwing our rights out the window. For those who are doubting this or want to laugh. Just remember this when it comes.

    • Linda S

      Unfortunately, unless there is a black swan event in this country that will change the current outlook, we will have another 4 years of Obummer. You all wanted change, now you have it…how’s it workin’ for ya???

      We have raised three generations of brats who believe they are entitled to a living without working for it. When you can get something for nothing, why pay for it? And, those who do work for it believe they are entitled to what they want and not what they earn. Fellow Americans, nothing is ever free. We have come to the point where the piper needs to be paid…and it will be paid in blood.

      The following poll of over a thousand people says it all: http://vortexeffect.net/2012/01/07/poll-who-do-you-think-won-tonights-gop-abc-new-hampshire-debate/ exclaiming to the rooftops that Ron Paul won the debate. The real taxpaying public should be looking at Ron Paul and his message, which is one of REAL change. He is the only real candidate that can and will affect real change. It will be painful in the short-term…but our children and their children will have a free future because of this man. I am 51 years old and have never backed a politician in my life because I have never felt a single one of the candidates were worth voting for…until now.

      To Warning – I suggest you don’t bother trying to wake people up with “conspiracy theories”, though you and I know these things are real. Focus them on their very near future…this country is going to war, WWIII, THIS YEAR. Your children will be sent off to fight and DIE because our country has spent their future and we will are seeking to steal the resources (plunder) of other countries. We will piss off someone big (China or Russia, anyone?) and they will retaliate in a big way.

      Well, you wanted change…here ya go! But those of us who understand what has been done and want REAL CHANGE will be voting for Ron Paul!!!

  • Don

    @ Nate
    I want to say that I TRULY APPRECIATE all the work you and your gang have done on this web-page. this has been my source since August for following this through to it’s conclusion. You are the best!
    Sincerely!

  • I’m going to call it quits, but before I do I wanted thank Grayeagle1000, Crockett, and MO. Please try and ” EDUCATE” your friends and family– and anyone in New Hamshire ans South Carolina ASAP!!!!

  • of, by, and for the people

    Here are some of Rick Perry’s biggest donors over the years:

    $4,000,000 Republican Governors Association PAC

    $2,531,799 Bob & Doylene Perry Perry Homes Houston

    $1,120,000 Harold C. Simmons Contran Corp. Dallas

    $750,000 Republican National State Elections Committee Washington

    $715,308 Thomas Dan Friedkin Friedkin Companies Inc. Houston

    $705,000 Kenny & Lisa Troutt Mt. Vernon Investments LLC Dallas

    $612,000 Friends of Phil Gramm PAC Friends of Phil Gramm PAC Helotes

    $563,334 George Brint & Amanda Ryan Ryan & Co. P.C. Dallas

    $537,740 Peter & Julianna Hawn Holt Holt Companies/San Antonio Spurs Blanco

    $506,740 AT&T, Inc. PAC AT&T Austin

  • Sick-n-Tired

    @VetgorPaul
    “… I also can’t explain to you what its like spending the past 7 years of my career in a war zone. I can’t begin to explain why military vets both active or retired can’t stand to be away from their families…. If you vote because you think you know what’s right for our country, think again. Imagine waking up one morning and your boss tells you, tour about to go to war, that your family may never see you again, that you may pay the ultimate price for someone who has never spent one day in your boots. Now imagine a country at peace with no wars and no heart ache. I hear all the time, “thank you for your service” and “we support our troops” well let ask you, do you really support us or do you think that war is cool and killing real people is the answer for peace. Well its not, we did not volunteer to join the military to go to war or kill living breathing lives. Think about that. Now ask yourself, what is this president going to do for you. And remember you don’t have to worry about going to war, all your life is is monetary and economic wohs. We have spoken on who we want as our boss, and if you really cared about a vet you would listen. Thank you for reading and I hope you do the right thing. We don’t need 4 more years of war. We need peace and liberty.”

    I can’t imagine you are really in the service… 1st, what did you expect when you joined? You’d just be sitting on your but for 4 or more years doing nothing?! Why did you join if not to defend this country? If you really are in the service and never thought you would be sent off to fight, you are the irresponsible one and who would look to you for your thoughts on who you think the president should be! None of what you say makes any sense. 2nd… a Commander in Chief does NOT need to have served in order to make military decisions – that’s why they have the Joint Chiefs and advisers! If we obey our own LAWS we would not have had a couple of these wars but you have to remember that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were APPROVED by Congress. So, whether you like it or not that is what you were serving for. If you want “peace and liberty” sometimes you need to fight for it and if you don’t want to then I think you need to switch ‘jobs’! I appreciate and thank all of our military but not someone with your mentality – wake up! We live in the United States of America and much of the world looks to us for help and support and sometimes that means going to war!!!

  • Daniel Stone

    When are the Ron Pauler’s going to realize that his idea of presiding would simply tell Iran and others that we will lie down and let them walk over us while they take over the entire world? Tell the Muslims who hate us,and would kill all of us who are non-believers, that we won’t lift a finger to help others while they are being killed by the anti-freedom Muslins and other dictators!

    Our world can’t exist with any semblance of freedom by our becoming isolationists.

    • Mike

      Your fear blinds you to the fact that the Iranians don’t have the means nor the desire for world domination. The Muslims who hate us do so mostly because of OUR desire for world domination. Fewer nations invaded by the US would decrease, but not eliminate, the hate against us. Ans the remaining haters can be dealt with in courts and by using special forces.

  • Mike

    “if the constitution says marriage is between a man and a woman then marriage is between a man and a woman and therefore that’s what marriage is and would be in this country and those who are not men and women who are married would not be married”

    Rick Santorum, using circular logic to explain why he believes an amendment to the constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman wouldn’t REALLY break up marriages all across the country.

    I bet this guy was the star of his high school’s debate club!

  • William

    With the Iowa caucuses just a few days behind us, and with New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada choosing their Republican candidates soon, I wanted to write to you and give you a quick update on the NAGR Presidential Survey program.

    As you know, NAGR has mailed every candidate for President an official NAGR Gun Rights Survey.

    Ron Paul is the only remaining Republican candidate who has returned his survey 100% in favor of gun rights.

    Over the last few weeks and months, I’ve asked you to call the campaigns of Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry to demand that each candidate return their gun rights survey 100% in favor of the Second Amendment.

    Believe me, your calls worked. Repesentatives from each of those campaigns called NAGR offices, demanded we instruct our members and supporters to stop calling and to send them a survey.

    Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry were hurt severely in Iowa because they stonewalled gun owners by refusing to return their surveys, and I think the longer that Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney ignore gun owners, the more it will hurt them as well.

    Each candidate has the NAGR Presidential Survey in hand. However, we didn’t stop the calls, and we won’t. Each of the remaining candidates needs to know that gun owners have a powerful voice and we will assume that silence is a sign that they are hiding an anti-gun position.

    I have serious concerns about Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Perry. It’s their records that worry me.

    Let me take a minute or two right now to remind you about the positions of the four Presidential candidates who have so far refused to return their National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey.

    Mitt Romney:

    So far Mitt Romney has refused to respond to his NAGR gun rights survey, perhaps because when Mitt Romney was Governor of ultra-liberal Massachusetts he signed a bill to ban an entire class of firearms.

    Would he do the same thing — or even worse — as President of the United States? His record indicates that he would.

    Mitt Romney supports the Brady Registration Act, mandatory 5-day waiting periods, mandatory firearms ID cards, the Federal Feinstein Gun Ban (so-called “assault weapons ban”) and he signed the Massachusetts Semi-Auto Ban in 2004.

    He even went as far as to say that he supported Massachusetts’ tough anti-gun laws: “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them… I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”

    And to throw fuel on top of Mitt Romney’s anti-gun fire, he received the endorsement of John McCain this week, who himself has recorded promotional commercials for anti-gun groups hell-bent on restricting our Second Amendment rights.

    Rick Santorum:

    If you’ve watched any of the Presidential debates, you’ve noticed that Rick Santorum claims time and again to be a “fighter” who has “led on conservative issues.”

    Rick Santorum’s record on the Second Amendment, however, tells a different story.

    In the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist.

    He voted for a bill in 1999 disguised as an attempt to increase penalties on drug traffickers with guns… but it also included a provision to require federal background checks at gun shows.

    In 2000, Santorum voted to force pawn shops to require a background check on anyone coming into the store to sell a firearm.

    And then he voted with gun-controlling Democrats Dianne Fienstein and Frank Lautenberg to mandate locks on handguns in 2005.

    But worst of all, Rick Santorum has a storied history of bailing out anti-gun Republicans facing reelection.

    Rick Santorum came to anti-gun Arlen Specter’s defense in 2004 when he was down in the polls against pro-gun Republican Pat Toomey. Specter won and continued to push for gun control during his years in the Senate.

    He also supported and openly campaigned for anti-gun New Jersey governor, Christine Todd Whitman.

    It certainly appears that Rick Santorum has no regrets about his past anti-gun record. Worse, it appears he’d be happy to continue along this path as President.

    Newt Gingrich:

    For those who have followed Newt Gingrich’s career, the revelation that he talks out of both sides of his mouth won’t be a surprise.

    Despite claiming to be pro-gun, Newt Gingrich’s reign as Speaker was downright hostile to our Second Amendment rights.

    Newt supports the Brady National Gun Registry, a national biometric thumbprint database for gun purchasers, the Lautenberg Gun Ban and the “Criminal Safezones Act.”

    Newt doesn’t think the Brady Instant Gun Registry goes far enough — he wants thumbprints:

    “I think we prefer to go to instant check on an immediate basis and try to accelerate implementing instant checks so that you could literally check by thumbprint… Instant check is a much better system than the Brady process.” — June 27, 1997

    Gingrich may claim to be pro-gun . . .

    But his record indicates otherwise, and his refusal to answer his NAGR survey should give any Second Amendment supporter cause for concern.

    Rick Perry:

    Texas Governor Rick Perry has received an earful from NAGR members over the past several months for refusing to return his Candidate Survey.

    His strategy seems to be to tell gun owners “trust me” while keeping completely silent on what he would do about our gun rights if elected President.

    Over the years, gun owners have learned that this is a failed strategy.

    George H.W. Bush ran as a pro-gun candidate for President in 1988, but when elected, things changed.

    First, he signed an Executive Order banning the importation of so-called “assault weapons.”

    Not only that, but it was under President Bush that “Operation Triggerlock,” which dramatically increased funding and power for the BATFE, was implemented.

    Of course, as Governor of Texas, Rick Perry did make some minor improvements in state law for gun owners.

    It is, however, one thing to act pro-gun as Governor of a state like Texas and quite another to be a pro-gun President of the United States.

    Please keep up the pressure on these four Presidential candidates who continue to stonewall gun owners.

    Give each campaign a call and demand the candidates return their National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey — at once:

    Mitt Romney: 857-288-3500

    Rick Santorum: 603-518-5199

    Newt Gingrich: 678-973-2306

    Rick Perry: 855-887-5627

    You and I know that we have the most anti-gun President in the history of our country right now in the Oval Office . . .

    . . . but perhaps even more dangerous would be a Republican with a proven anti-gun history cutting backroom, anti-gun deals.

    For Freedom,

    signature
    Dudley Brown
    Executive Director