Cain was good enough. Santorum is good enough. Bachmann was probably good enough. Perry and Gingrich would have gotten my vote and support. Paul is simply crazy.
I do find it interesting that you rant about voters being purists and then call Santorum not good enough in the same post.
Why? Your comment denotes a false dichotomy between "purism" on one hand, and having absolutely no standards of any kind on the other. Neither is an option. It's certainly possible to desire candidates whose records conform to movement conservatism, even though they may not be completely, 100% pure by any single FReepers own personal standards.
Cain, Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry - each has some flaws, but each also generally conforms to the standards of movement conservatism.
Santorum was not included in this category because he strays much further afield than any of them ever did. He has a legislative record replete with big-government votes and general conformity to the GOP-e, RINO mentality. In short, he is not a movement conservative. It's not just that he may not be 100% pure and has strayed off the golden path every once in a while, but that he is genuinely not a true conservative, he's a half-conservative at best, with us on some, main social, issues, but otherwise more at home and heart in Washington DC than in "flyover country."