[milwguy]

Using Rick Santorum and RR in the same sentence is an insult to thinking conservatives.

Santorum lost his own state by 18 points, his social views will assure that women vote for Obama in even higher numbers than in 08, and he is a big gov’t solutions political animal. Reagan was the anti-thesis of most of what Santorum’s record (not his rhetoric) shows him to be.

[Leaning Right]

Santorum lost his own state by 18 points

That says a lot right there. Santorum is a very weak candidate. He won't appeal to independents. He his too bland, too dull. No comparison to Reagan in that department.

So what are our options? I guess it's go with Newt.

[Rational Thought]

I think that talking point, "He lost his own state by 18 points!", has been beaten to death. The Republican candidate for Governor in Pennsylvania that same election, Lynn Swann, lost by 20.

Here's a quote from the same Pittsburgh Tribune in it's endorsement of John McCain in 2008 (the same John McCain this paper mocks in the piece today) of which I find quite fitting;

But it being, as once was written, a golden rule that one should never judge men by their opinions but rather by what their opinions make of them, it would be imprudent of us to allow our respectful differences to preclude our support.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/archive/s_596343.html

One of their "respectful differences" with McCain was a minor little thing called AMNESTY. Funny how amnesty is so little an issue while Santorum's support of Arlen Specter is a major issue (How did this same paper overlook McCain's support of Specter 4 years ago???). Not certain here, but it sounds like the Pittsburgh Tribune is supporting (saying you're a conservative doesn't mean you are one) Mitt.

[no dems]

So, who is your candidate? And please don’t say Ron Paul. Paul-dude would get trounced worse than McGovern got trounced in 1972 or worse than Mondale in ‘84.