Christians often get as twisted in their thinking as liberals do.....we're voting for a President...and they are so caught up in SAntorums righteousness they have failed all along to see his record....and even remotely looked at anything he's accomplished.
So stop peddling the "Faith" of SAntorum.......Romney has faith...Newt has faith.... and many others....it's there track history we look at and Rick is all about social issues...that's it...and not enough to win this election...let alone the General.
thank you so much for saying that, so briefly and so clearly. You didn't even mention that approximately 70% of any Santorum speech (the best estimate I can make) is stuff he has stolen and abridged from Newt - and that doesn't seem to bother his conscience or his profession of faith one iota.
A very wise freeper had this to say about what you are stating (really worth the read). It taught me a lot:
It’s Huckabee bullheadedly plowing ahead of Thompson by sheer belief in his own holiness all over again. The story always starts out the same: Conservatives get a credible alternative to the Establishment front-runner, and he starts getting attacked.
Then the SoCon who stayed under the radar (Huckabee then, Santorum now) becomes everyone’s plan B, because the guy who could have won (Thompson, Gingrich) was unloaded upon by the GOP-E money machine. Then the smug supporters of the upstart underdog all thump their chest and say “NO.....YOUR GUY SHOULD DROP OUT!!”
Then the vote is already split, the credible candidate becomes non-credible because of vote-splitting, and the upstart winds-up in second place because folks trying to beat the Establishment liberal switch to plan B because the smug voters of the only holy candidate make it loudly clear that they’re going to support the holy upstart candidate even if it means the Liberals win. It JUST KEEPS HAPPENING.
In reality, what needed to happen was for Santorum to drop out early, when it became apparent that there was someone who could lead Romney in the polls for a long time, and when it was clear he had a friggin’ LITANY of ballot and delegate issues. Even if it was not Newt at the time (heck, replace Newt with Perry), Conservatives should have united around a single candidate with a full organization and little to no ballot and delegate issues, and there SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A PLAN B. Conservative should have been forced to STAY united, learn to DEFEND their candidate rather than defect because the rich, Establishment Liberal was able to smear the credible Conservative with overwhelming cash.
If there had been no Santorum, Newt would be leading right now. He would be leading because we would have been united against Romney from day one, and there would have been no defections based on the fact that - by simply running under the radar - someone else rises because they haven’t been unloaded on.
We CANNOT keep doing this. We CANNOT keep Santoruming and Huckabeeing ourselves based on some sick notion of the holiness of a politician. We cannot keep some broke one-percenter in the race because they were able to show well in Iowa after living there for two years and facing almost no attacks because of their low polling. We cannot keep rewarding these guys for throwing Hail Mary passes when we have a chance to defeat the Liberals. No more “shoestring” campaigns, no more one-percenters who surge in time to do well in Iowa, no more long-shot dreams based on the notion that some candidate is the mostest Christianest candidate of them all.
No more Huckabees, no more Santorums. No more long-shots who surge in Iowa. Rule them out before they ruin another Primary season. Santorum was never going to get 1144 delegates - it was NEVER going to happen. The fact that people bull-headedly refused to waver from him KILLED us - and then they turned around and taunted Newt and Perry voters for voting for Santorum in desperation, citing the vote count as if nobody knows what was actually happening. No more Santorums, no more Huckabees. No more long shots, period. ~ TitansAFC
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2861639/posts?page=96#96
Unfortunately, it's not going to stop. The social conservative is someone that will never accept 'half a loaf'. It's either all or nothing. In that matter, they are just like the Palestinians (failed to get a state of their own for 64 years... cause they won't accept anything less than *EVERYTHING*). So that always means that they go for the candidate that promises everything, aka: the holy roller.
Which blinds them to the alternatives, such as the candidates that go 70-80% of the way, but are more well rounded in the conservative mold.
And as a result, it's always the candidate that isn't going to even offer a 'loaf' that takes it. IE: the moderate candidate.