I have always liked the idea of Santorum being on the ticket but I have maintained faith that Republicans will ultimately be principled enough to avoid nominating Giuliani.

Although Santorum was beaten in ’06, I think it had more to do with the anti-Republican attitude caused by the war and scandals. I suspect now many Pennsylvanians are regretting voting for Casey over Santorum because Casey is a rather dull, do-nothing sort of fellow. Casey won primarily because his daddy was beloved and died prematurely. Also, Casey is a pro-life, Christian type so he got some of those votes in addition to all the liberal-leftwing Democrats. That election was not a repudiation of Santorum’s conservativism. Pennsylvania is a state that can vote Republican with the right strategy.

If Santorum can bring Pennsylvania into the Republican column then the Democrats have little hope of winning the Electoral College which is what really counts at the end of the Election Day.

Nice to hear from you. I have not forgotten that I have an outstanding IOU regarding some matters of Old Testament law to which I will eventually respond. I can of course give you my opinions, but I’d like to find something a little more historically and theologically substantial. But, to your point…

I agree that it would be politically expedient for Santorum, but it is hard for me to picture him being willing to tone down certain views (which I believe are deeply held convictions on his part, not just postures) while simply serving as Rudy’s “tough talking enforcer” on matters of immigration. I think Santorum is an idealist at heart, more than a political pragmatist. And for this reason, I suggested he would not be likely to accept if Giuliani offered.

I fully appreciate Mr. Goldstein’s concept here of building a sort of “dream ticket” with broad appeal. I just don’t think it is very practical in terms of Santorum rushing to enlist.. And, I don’t think Santorum can compensate for what many perceive to be fence straddling by Giuliani regarding traditional conservative issues. Giunliani is so far a repertoire with only one strong song: Islamic terrorism. Veeps are supposed to emulate the boss and be his ambassador on key issues. I’m having a hard time seeing Santorum doing this once he’s forced to talk about things on the campaing trail beyond terrorism and immigration.

If Santorum cares at all about continuing his political career, he’d be crazy not to accept if Giuliani offered to make him his running mate. Since his ouster from the Senate, Santorum hasn’t exactly been going places.

I don’t believe this will happen, anyway. If Giuliani calculates that he needs a social conservative with impeccable personal integrity on the ticket, he’s much more likely to choose someone less controversal than Rick Santorum. Mike Huckabee, for instance, would fill the role nicely, especially after his excellent performance in the recent straw poll. He might also consider Romney or Brownback.

With other choices available, why pick a fight with the many voters who harbor deep dislike of Rick Santorum?

Your case is very strong though. Rudy does have to win first, The Romney machine will hard to beat. GOD- I wish we could have JEB, but I guess we will have to wait!

Santorum’s views on Islamic terrorism are quite well publicized and I am in full agreement with them. But I don’t think that single issue represents enough magnetism to pull two people together who are otherwise at largely opposite poles of the conservative spectrum on many other issues.

That’s true – Santorum is one of the few prominent Republicans who has remained married to one spouse. (Newt Gingrich has to be the poster boy for serial polygamy, if not out-and-out serial spousal abandonment/abuse.) Makes you wonder why Republicans support something called “Protection of Marriage.”