“The problem is, Santorum probably WON’T be properly vetted until after a theoretical win and nomination.
At which point, his record will be thorough exposed by the media, and he will lose to Obama in a landslide.”
If Rick has not been properly vetted, neither has Newt. If Rick would lose in a lanslide to Obama, so would Newt and damn sure Romney would.
I love newt & Rick. I think it is unrealistic to act like Newt is some purist conservative and Rick is not. Both have made mistakes but both have decades of service with overall equally conservative records.
Nobody that I know of, on here or elsewhere, claims that Newt is a "purist conservative."
He is, however, a far better articulator of conservatism, and has far more actual conservative accomplishments and credentials, than the other three candidates combined.
It's a false equivalence to blithely say that neither Rick nor Newt would win, as if both have the same problems and would face the same issues.
Newt has been vetted, over, under, ten times around. Santorum largely has not. The MSM has made sure everybody knows about "Newt's marital history" (both the true parts and the not true parts). The same hasn't been done with Santorum's big government votes and past.
Santorum can't effectively articulate conservatism to the masses because he doesn't himself really know what it is. Newt can, and has, which is why Newt went from polling around 20% in Alabama on March 1st to scoring 30%, beating Romney, and barely losing to Santorum two weeks later. He went to Alabama and articulated conservatism. Santorum, on the other hand, just rides on his reputation for being a "staunch social conservative," thus allowing him to coast to largely undeserved victories in evangelical-rich southern and midwestern states.