Posted on 12/30/2011 6:13:46 PM PST by Hojczyk
Newt Gingrich said that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would be among the candidates that he would consider when considering a potential running mate, adding that the former GOP vice presidential nominee would be an ideal candidate for secretary of Energy.
Gingrich, speaking Wednesday during a conference call with conservative voters hosted by Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition, was asked by one of the attendees whether he would consider Palin as a running mate.
"She is certainly one of the people you would look at. I am a great admirer of hers and she was a remarkable reform governor of Alaska, she’s somebody who I think brings a great deal to the possibility of helping in government and that would be one of the possibilities," Gingrich said, according to Right Wing Watch.
He went on to suggest that Palin might be ideal for a position in his Cabinet.
"There are also some very important Cabinet positions that she could fill very, very well," Gingrich said. "I can’t imagine anybody who would do a better job of driving us to an energy solution than Gov. Palin, for example. Tell her that she would certainly be on the list of one of the people we would consider."
Palin had toyed for months with running for the presidency before ultimately announcing late this summer to stay out of the GOP race.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Sarah no. Rubio or Allan West yes. IMO
Or both. The two departments should be combined.
And I think energy secretary is what she may want to do. When asked whom she may endorse, she has said that the number one criteria would be the candidate's energy policy.
If you'll look on Newt's website, his energy policy is a framework that I think Sarah could work well within, and the specifics could have come from her own mouth.
She wants no part of a campaign, it seems, so yes, I hope Newt is talking with her about the energy secretary post.
And the pessimist in me says look at what he's said and done the fourteen years since.
Timber, I have seen your other posts ... under all circumstances you hate Newt. Over 20 years in office, and he has a ACU rating of 90. His “conservative” creds are better than anyone else in the race. ANYONE. Furthermore, he has accomplished more for conservatives than the rest of the field combined. You seek someone who is without blemish ... well, sorry to break your bubble, but Jesus is not running. We are going to have to accept a candidate that is not perfect, no matter who gets it.
The difference between you and I is, I know that Newt would destroy Obama in debates as well as in the spin cycle of a general campaign, because he is the only candidate we have now that has actually led this country at a national level that can attack Obama on EVERY front. You put your faith in those who are either unaccomplished (Bachman has never authored a single piece of legislation and will not carry Iowa, the state she was born in), could not even carry thier own state (Santorum, who lost his seat when he supported Arlen “turncoat” Spectre), or who have a much more liberal background than Newt when it counted (when in office ... Perry, the former Democrat).
Your continuous attacks on Newt do nothing to solve the weaknesses of your own prefered candidates, all they do is help to ensure Romney is the nominee. When that occurs, I am sure you will be moaning, yet I doubt you will see any of your own culpability for it happening.
Once the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare, the economy is likely to go on the uptick. What would Romney run on then? Not that he has much to run on economically anyway, what with MA ranking 47th in job creation while he was governor.
Newt is a historian who knows everything about America, teaches military generals, stood with Reagan in defeating communism, has articulated the threat of Islamic militants better than any candidate, has a bold tax policy endorsed by Reagan’s economists (Romney’s is almost identical to Obama’s with higher taxes on those making $200,000+), has a strong pro-life and pro-marriage record, etc.
You should. Start searching his YouTube videos. He’s been on Fox News repeatedly over the last 10 years. He was not there as a liberal commentator. He agreed with Hannity 90% of the time, not Colmes. These negative ads pick out tiny moments and it’s confusing how so many people are trusting them hook, line and sinker.
That’s just disingenuous. In both the links you put there, Newt praises Palin. He simply analyzed her honestly and said she not become the #1 leader of the GOP. He was right, she didn’t. Newt gave a fair and accurate analysis as he always tries to.
I’ll vote for Newt expecting him to govern the way he did successfully in the past, rather than vote for Mitt and expect him to do the opposite of everything he did in the past. 47th in job creation during Mitt’s governorship doesn’t compare to 11 million jobs created while Newt was Speaker of the House. Nevermind Mitt’s support of abortion and gay marriage while Newt passed anti-partial birth abortion laws and never once conceded to the gay lobby even though his own sister is gay. We know where Newt stands on policy and on economics and it’s in a very good place.
I think people need to form a solid opinion based on what a candidate has done in 90% of their life. It is silliness to let one incident on one day or one headline sway your opinion as if it has more weight than a candidate’s lifetime record.
It's amazing how casually folks throw out the word "hate" when other folks (like me) point out inconvenient facts about their preferred big government candidate. FYI, I don't hate Newt Gingrich, but I don't want him anywhere near the presidency.
We are going to have to accept a candidate that is not perfect, no matter who gets it.
No we don't. It's attitudes like yours that the GOP-E counts on to keep on nominating and electing RINOs. If Romney, Gingrich, or even Paul is the nominee, then I write in Sarah Palin's name and then go home and sleep peacefully with a clear conscious.
No more "nose holding" and voting for "lesser evils" ever again!
Bub, you have no idea how big my bookmark file on Gingrich is---I've been watching him and compiling his RINOisms for years.
These negative ads pick out tiny moments and it’s confusing how so many people are trusting them hook, line and sinker.
Oh, so everyone should just ignore those items that reflect poorly on Gignrich's judgment, his integrity as a supposed Conservative, and personal character, right?
Has anyone even bothered ASKING Governor Palin to see if she would be interested in serving in a Republican administration?
Exactly. Well said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.