Posted on 03/09/2012 7:06:50 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Saying he'd look for a "strong and principled conservative" as a running mate should he win the Republican presidential nomination, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum tells Newsmax that he certainly would consider rival Newt Gingrich for that vital role.
When asked if he would consider the former House Speaker as number two on his ticket, Santorum said Gingrich had been "tested" by the bruising GOP race and that makes him an attractive vice presidential candidate.
Santorum tells Newsmax that his choice would be a core conservative who is “willing to stand up and fight for the things that I believe in.”
“My principal and only criterion for vice president is to make sure that I have someone that I have confidence that if something should happen to me that they could carry on and do what I promised the people of America I would try to do,” he said.
Gingrich would seem to fit the bill more than any of the other candidates. He and Santorum have been battling for the same voters on the right of the party as they try to defeat front-runner Mitt Romney.
Santorum said the GOP only has to look to history to see that conservative candidates do better in general elections that do moderates.
“If we have another moderate Republican we are going to end up with the same situation we had four years ago,” he said, referring to John McCain’s loss to Barack Obama. “We’ll have the same situation we had with Bob Dole and the same situation we had with Gerry Ford.
“You go back. If we nominate conservatives we win. If we nominate moderates we lose. We can’t afford to lose this one.”
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Ma’am (I’m presuming), people have every right to base their vote on whatever reason they see fit. Funniest hat, accent, place of birth or favorite chicken recipe. I, however, don’t need a tune-up of my moral compass. I don’t cheat on my wife, don’t support killing of the unborn, don’t want gays in the military or at the altar.
The Founders understood the requirement of morality among the citizenry, but they also knew the necessity of reason. They knew a nation of lemmings, religious or otherwise would fall. They lived in the time of Inquisitions and intolerance. They were aware of mob mentalities.
I’m not talking about Dole in ‘96, I’m speaking about Bush I in ‘92, the Evangelicals gave 19% to Ross Perot. In 1996 they gave 43% to B.J. Clinton. In 2000, they gave 42% to Al Gore. In a word, they are unreliable.
Either or, I’m perfectly happy with that.
Sounds good. If they’ve been listening to Sarah -and we know they are- that’s where he’d go.
Not in his case...
RE: Not in his case...
Why not?
Somebody pinch me.
I just can’t believe that conservatives and the Tea Party have worked this hard to wind up with Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum (and Mitt Romney).
Talk about partying like it’s 1999.
The most destructive president in history, Barack Obama, is in the weakest position of any president since Jimmy Carter, and we’re running a pair of Clinton-era relics that have been out of office for years, and flip-flopping former governor who paved the way for Obamacare.
Never has a political party squandered such a remarkable opportunity.
Considering Newt leads Santorum in primary delegates, I’d say that Santorum has it backwards. Newt should consider Santorum for the VP position, period.
RE: Barack Obama, is in the weakest position of any president since Jimmy Carter, and we’re running a pair of Clinton-era relics that have been out of office for years
___________________
OK, I’ll bite, who would have been the strongest person who can defeat Obama, according to you?
Allen West would better serve as Secretary of State. Bring Bolton to the table as well.
Of the candidates that actually ran, Rick Perry was the one able to draw the starkest contrast with Obama.
Yes, he turned out to be a bit of a gaffer, but he was able to focus on the issues at hand, unlike Santorum, who keeps getting sucked into the contraceptive debate, or Newt, who tends to wander all over the place.
There are obviously candidates that didn’t run that would have been better than Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.
Please don’t tell me that after the 2010 mid-term, this is the field of candidates that you were praying for.
Had someone told me in 2010 that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santroum would be the last hope for conservatism, I would have laughed hysterically.
Instead, I’m crying.
“RE: Hell they’d probably even find a spot for Paul in there somewhere”
Not a good idea. Ron Paul staying in DC is depriving some medival village of its idiot.
Romney - 421
Santorum - 181
Gingrich - 107
What?
First, What we need is for the Santorum vs Gingrich bickering to STOP at FR.
How right you are!
I am sorry but that was not just Evangelicals that left Bush I but a whole heck of a lot of them did when it was found out that his wife was pro-choice....his "read my lips, no new taxes" crap showed what his word meant and who he really was. It was mostly the strong lower taxes vote that moved to Perot. Since Perot's wife was a big Planned Parenthood player most of our moral vote stayed home or held their nose like I did and said well at least the VP was ok. The strong no holds barred moral vote stayed home that election.
The 42% of Evangelicals you are quoting and I have no clue if those numbers are right are not the Republican base that votes morals which we are talking about.
Not all Evangelicals vote their morals first and just because somebody on a survey say they are Evangelical does not mean that is what they first use as their bases for their vote. Those people who could vote Perot or Clinton are not the democrats that left that party because of morals or vote their morals they are the easily led wishy-washy middle who vote what they think is the winner of that cycle and not who we are talking about just because they say they are Evangelical on a stupid survey because they sit in a pew once a year on some holiday does not make them the moral voter that stays home instead of following the party blindly.
We are talking apples and oranges...I am talking the moral Republican voter that causes us to lose each and every time we give them a rino and the party heads are to stupid to figure it out. You are talking about a large sub group of people as a whole that checks a box on a survey that is no different then taking a every person that checks the white race box on a survey and looking at their vote as a whole. They do not vote as a group and just because they say they are white on a survey does mean it factors into their vote.
As per the RNC bound delegate count to date:
“Rick Santorum may have won more primaries but the Republican National Committee’s current delegate count shows former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has more bound delegates than Mr. Santorum in the race for the party’s presidential nomination.”
I’ll just cut to the chase. If we have to disagree to disagree on this point, so be it. Here goes, people get annoyed here when Mormons vote for Mitt but have no problem when Christians vote for Santorum or Huckabee or Robertson. It’s selective identificationism.
People don’t know if someone is going to be a good leader based upon religion. I couldn’t tell you what religion Ronald Reagan was because I don’t remember more than a handful of times I saw a picture of him the vicinity of a church. He was divorced and made a woman pregnant out of wedlock. He turned out to be the best President of the 20th Century, far better than the man he replaced who wore his religion on his sleeve.
Based upon that, Santorum would be leading him in the polls and probably be considered unelectable. The Santoriums would be telling him to drop out.
If people are that intent on living for Heaven, perhaps it’s time for them to withdraw from the political process and let the rest of us live our lives in this Earthbound reality. There was a reason Jesus said to render to Caesar what is his.
“Newt can still follow Obama around and debate him every day”
You know, that would be really fun to see, even if Gingrich doesn’t get the nomination. He would drive Obama crazy.
Wow, you really miss the truth, Mormons vote for the Mormon, Christians vote for the candidate.
Catholics are supporting Mormon Romney, and Evangelicals are looking for the conservative, and supporting the two Catholics.
Romney was never the best choice, ever. Santorum was wrong to endorse the pro-abortion candidate over his pro-life rivals.
In 1996, Santorum was endorsing Specter’s presidential run, based on a platform of making the GOP a pro-abortion party.
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.