I don't know how I can be more clear. I will repeat only once more, after that I must assume we are destined not to be able to communicate.
Santorum made a political calculation to support Spectre. he did so because he did not want Spectre as an enemy. he did so in hopes Spectre would return the favor with support in '06 and in hopes Spectre would return the endorsement by supporting the Republicans that kept him in office. I do not feel he made the choice of his conscience but rather calculation.
A voter that chooses not to support Santorum on basis of "payback" for that endorsement is not on a high moral ground. A voter that dismisses a pro-life conservative in favor of a, he says, pro-life Liberal to make a point with the GOP is following a political calculation of their own. One I feel will do more damage. A calculation that is no different than the one made in '92 with Clinton. Revenge over the endorsement of Spectre is NOT taking the high moral ground as endorsing Spectre because of a political calculus is not taking the high ground. Morally each judgement is wrong.
Neither is assessed on the qualifications of the candidate and which individual best represents the state. Each indication of support is based on what suits that person's emotional needs. Santorum's survival in the Senate and the Penn voter's disgust at the endorsement. Neither earns my respect.
Please spare me the rant in the second paragraph. Name one instance where I stated they couldn't vote for the individual of their choice. You will find not one. You will find my disgust if they don't vote for santorum. YOU have no right to suggest I cannot disrespect that decision anymore than you have the right to suggest I cannot disrespect the decision to vote for Kerry in the general.
Sure, they have the right to do with their vote as they wish. And I can tell them what I think of that vote, as they can tell me what they think of mine. Just as many voters have exercised their right to disrespect the choice of Rep voters in Penn that chose Spectre to represent them in the General. Funny how their wishes are disrespected around here without a thought spared. Everyone wishes to pile on Bush or Santorum but voters in Penn made the call and that is conveniently swept under the rug in condemnation of the other two because it doesn't suit the outraged agenda of people that came close to having Toomey representation in the General.
Nor will you find ONE instance of where I stated someone should vote for someone because they have an "R" by their name. FYI, I wanted Spectre to lose. Blows that theory out of the water, doesn't it? I'm also supporting a Hagel loss.