[Houghton M.]

In other words, pure, raw prejudice governs you. You just admitted it. You already are against Santorum so you have to make up a reason why the same position held by all three would be bad in his case but good in the other two.

You are the worst possible advertisement for Gingrich. Pure, raw prejudice.

[Christie at the beach]

When you come off of your moral pulpit, as to judge others read Post 10. And don't call on me again (not interested in your backward views)

[Bullish]

If a candidate really wants to do something worthwhile to clean up internet porn, than I suggest they win the presidency first. Don’t go tipping your hand and scaring an “industry” that has billions into donating millions to your opponent. I mean he’s already got the church vote locked up right? This also scares off the independent and libertarian voters. The voters he would need in November.

Although I agree that obscenity laws should be enforced this is a loser strategy, IMO. And it makes me question Rick’s judgement.

[newzjunkey]

It's NOT the same statement. Santorum separates himself from the others by saying he believes current enforcement is insufficient. That is only so if he believes in a significantly broader view of "obscenity" which is the whole reason his statements are an issue.

Rather than accept he may have poorly stated his viewpoint or actually has a different take, Santorum apologists are attempting to cloud the waters with false equivalences made with other candidates' statements or attacking their supporters or anyone who dare question their golden idol.

Just yesterday on FR the attack line was anyone who questioned Santorum's perspective was a kiddie porn apologist. You lot are the worst possible advertisement for Santorum. It's the equivalent of Obama-worshipping drones: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil with a healthy dose of shut-your-face, mind-your-place.