Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Santorum to Newsmax: I'd Consider Gingrich for VP (Looking for core conservative as running mate)
NewsMax ^ | Thursday, 08 Mar 2012 06:28 PM | Martin Gould and Ashley Martella

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: biggovernmentrick; bigheadedrick; emptyvest; getoutrick; gingrich; newtteaparty; rickgetout; ricksplittingthevote; santorum; teapartynewt; whatasnob
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last
To: Lady Heron

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.


61 posted on 03/09/2012 8:45:52 AM PST by j.argese (FR is a Newt-ist Colony, not a Romney Room, Paul Pavillion or Santorum Sanctum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Either or, I’m perfectly happy with that.


62 posted on 03/09/2012 8:46:52 AM PST by Thorliveshere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Sounds good. If they’ve been listening to Sarah -and we know they are- that’s where he’d go.


63 posted on 03/09/2012 8:48:32 AM PST by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Not in his case...


64 posted on 03/09/2012 8:54:28 AM PST by moonhawk (Rush, Mark, Sean: Conservative talkers. Sarah, Newt: Conservative DOers. Mitt: Conservative faker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: moonhawk

RE: Not in his case...

Why not?


65 posted on 03/09/2012 8:55:12 AM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


66 posted on 03/09/2012 8:56:13 AM PST by Retired Greyhound (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lonevoice

Considering Newt leads Santorum in primary delegates, I’d say that Santorum has it backwards. Newt should consider Santorum for the VP position, period.


67 posted on 03/09/2012 8:57:25 AM PST by Pride in the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound

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?


68 posted on 03/09/2012 8:57:50 AM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

Allen West would better serve as Secretary of State. Bring Bolton to the table as well.


69 posted on 03/09/2012 9:12:09 AM PST by wtd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


70 posted on 03/09/2012 9:37:05 AM PST by Retired Greyhound (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All

“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.


71 posted on 03/09/2012 9:44:36 AM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Pride in the USA
Considering Newt leads Santorum in primary delegates...

Romney - 421
Santorum - 181
Gingrich - 107

What?

72 posted on 03/09/2012 9:54:38 AM PST by Washi (Surviving the Zombie Apocalypse, one head-shot at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

First, What we need is for the Santorum vs Gingrich bickering to STOP at FR.


How right you are!


73 posted on 03/09/2012 9:57:08 AM PST by Linda Frances (Only God can change a heart, but we can pray for hearts to be changed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: j.argese
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.

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.

74 posted on 03/09/2012 10:10:05 AM PST by Lady Heron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Washi

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.”


75 posted on 03/09/2012 11:05:28 AM PST by Pride in the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Lady Heron

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.


76 posted on 03/09/2012 12:14:20 PM PST by j.argese (FR is a Newt-ist Colony, not a Romney Room, Paul Pavillion or Santorum Sanctum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: rwilson99

“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.


77 posted on 03/09/2012 12:24:37 PM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: j.argese
Here goes, people get annoyed here when Mormons vote for Mitt but have no problem when Christians vote for Santorum or Huckabee or Robertson.

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.

78 posted on 03/09/2012 3:59:21 PM PST by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: j.argese; Lady Heron
Evangelicals are the most consistent, reliable, conservative vote in America, so any criticism of them should be done while acknowledging that they are our conservative core, and what saves us as a nation.
79 posted on 03/09/2012 4:04:27 PM PST by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: rwilson99

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.


80 posted on 03/09/2012 4:07:20 PM PST by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson