Ich bin ein Verdienstmoeglichkeiter.
============================

"Could Santorum as VP be Rudy's answer?-ja"

Let's see: Santorum can't carry his home state,

Giuliani won't carry his home state,

(-)+(-)=(+).

Sure. *eye roll*

I had a similar thought, bD, but you are neglecting completely the idea that the ticket is proposed to win nationally, not locally. But I like just cute, too, so carry-on.
=========================

Bad idea. Santorum couldn't even win in his own state and though I like him he does not have a good image outside the conservative Republicans. Huckabee, however, would be a great choice. It could save the south for the ticket, and he would be great on the stump.

"I had a similar thought, bD, but you are neglecting completely the idea that the ticket is proposed to win nationally=kim"

Reason 1 of 21 Reasons The Ghoul can't win:

The Ghoul(R) is FOR partial-birth abortion.

*clears the mind, doesn't it?*

Don't be silly; nobody is FOR partial-birth abortion. Now that we have that cleared up.
=============================================

And, Santorum could spend his time telling people about how the Democratic candidate is less against partial abortion than the Republican slate, and Giuliani can focus on prosecuting the case against Democrats.

But still, the ticket stinks. Rickety, ruinous.

Say, Al d'Amato is playing Giuliani in mock debates for the Thompson camp. Tres interesant.
===================================

"nobody is FOR partial-birth abortion=kim"

Are you now wearing, or have you ever worn, a Star Trek costume?

"Say, Al d'Amato is playing Giuliani in mock debates for the Thompson camp.=kim"

Show up, drink, schmooze, read some shit at the old guy. Could be college girls there!

C'mon, c'mon, c'mon. What happened to 'Legal but rare'? That's hardly FOR partial-birth abortion.
=================

I agree that Huckabee would be a better choice

I'm so glad someone brought up Rick Santorum. I haven't been able to use this link since Santorum tried to revive his failing re-election campaign by calling a press conference to announce that we'd discovered WMDs in Iraq, only to have it denied by the White House.

Link - Santorum, That's Latin for Asshole.

Such a stew of sleazy self-righteousness and audacious stupidity has not been seen in the senate since the days of Steve Symms, the celebrated moron from Idaho. In 1998, investigative reporter Ken Silverstein fingered Santorum as the dumbest member of congress in a story for The Progressive. Considering the competition, that's an achievement of considerable distinction.

Even Santorum's staff knows the senator is a vacuous boob prone to outrageous gaffs and crude outbursts of unvarnished bigotry. For years, they kept him firmly leashed, rarely permitting him to attend a press interview without a senior staffer by his side. They learned the hard way. While in serving in the House, Santorum was asked by a reporter to explain why his record on environmental policy was so dreadful. Santorum replied by observing that the environment was of little consequence in God's grand plan. "Nowhere in the Bible does it say that America will be here 100 years from now." The reference was to the Rapture, which apparently is impending.

Santorum is the self-anointed prophet of family values on the Hill, who issues frequent jeremiads on the threats Hollywood fare poses to the "fabric of American culture." Of course, these sermons are hard to swallow from a man with Santorum's resume. After all, before entering Congress Santorum worked as a lobbyist. His top client? The World Wrestling Federation.

lol! a lobbyist for the World Wrestling Federation - lol!

But now the Republican leadership, apparently cruising along in self-destruct mode, has elevated Santorum to the number three spot in the senate and his staff can't run interference for him anymore. The results have been comically predictable. Six months ago, Santorum penned an op-ed for a Christian paper blaming the sexual molestation scandals in the Catholic Church on "the culture of liberalism." Surely, an omen that the senator from Pennsylvania wasn't quite ready for prime time.

So it came to pass that on April 7, Santorum sat down for an interview with AP reporter Lara Jordan. He should have been on his guard. After all, Jordan is married to Jim Jordan, who oversees John Kerry's presidential campaign. Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz, despises Santorum. He inherited the senate seat left open when her previous husband, John Heinz, perished in a plane crash. "Santorum is critical of everything, indifferent to nuance, and incapable of compromise," Heinz said. This should have been a warning signal to Santorum that the interview with Jordan might be hostile terrain, but his intellectual radar seems to function about as well as Baghdad's air defense system. Post-war, that is.

After a brisk discussion of the degeneracy of American culture, the interview turned to the subject of the pending Supreme Court case on sodomy laws. Like most religious zealots, Santorum is obsessed not just with homosexuals but with visualizing the postures and physical mechanics of homosexual love. He seized on her question with an enthusiasm many Republicans reserve for discussions of the tax code.

"I have no problem with homosexuality," Santorum pronounced. "I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions."

In other words, Santorum doesn't despise homosexuals, he just abhors what homosexuals do in bed.

Something tells me Santorum and Larry Craig share the same "dreams"...

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: "We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that [have] sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold - Griswold was the contraceptive case - and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you - this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Yeah, that whole concept of "freedom" in our country is way overblown, and is destroying the family...

SANTORUM: "Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality>

WHOA there -- "Man on Dog??? Did he really say "Man on Dog?!?!?

I guess Santorum's dreams are a little more vivid than I imagined.

Yeah, run this guy as Rudy's VP. Please.... pretty please!

Lee Ward tries to be the sort of man his dog imagines him to be on.
======================================

And hey, why can you talk here and I can't talk at WizBlue?
=======================

That's not "talking." It's called cutting and pasting.

There are some good columns out by Freeman, Pastore, and bloggers all debating the races with the Christian Right somehow deciding to self-detruct and by it, pull the GOP assunder just in time for Her Highness to turn the nation into a socialist pacifist Third World country. Frankly, the voters are split all over the joint. Rudy could, could beat Her but a VP like Huck would really solidfy the South and some border states. And it would give the Purist Pubs some hope that there would be balance in the ticket. Iowa seems to be trending Mitt. If Mitt prevails, the Huck would be the same good choice. Frankly, Fred seems like a Deadhead. He is not inspiring that much though he is now ahead of John and Rudy in Iowa. So what? Iowa has how many electoral votes??? GOPers should want a winner with a chance to get some conservative agendas through a sure fire Dem Congress. Rudy-Huck, Mitt-Huck might just give them that chance. Any other choice, Fred, John will get slaughtered by the One whose name shall not be praised.

Well, so we worry.
==========

I like Romney for COO and Fred and Rudy for CEO and AG, either way.
=======================

Mitt could work State, too.
==========================

Interesting speculation, but the Vice President does not nominate Supreme Court justices.

And this classic example of media bias demonstrates that it's about more than just judicial appointments, though Rudy'd rather people didn't think about things like that.

(P.S., Dan Rather's bias is a lot more obvious in video than in the transcripts I linked to above, but I couldn't find the link to the videos.)