And what the social conservative forget, a la Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee... is that if you run solely as a socially conservative candidate, you will not get any other portion of the Republican party outside of social conservatives. Which means you won't even secure the Republican candidancy.
So, if social conservatives want a candidate, they have to back a candidate that *ISN'T SOLELY A SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE*.
And, unfortunately, Santorum is a rehash of Mike Huckabee. IE: only conservative on the social front and not in any other aspect.
“And, unfortunately, Santorum is a rehash of Mike Huckabee. IE: only conservative on the social front and not in any other aspect.”
I am NOT an apologist for Rick Santorum. However, what you wrote is just not correct. Santorum was standing up against Islamic radicalism from the get go. He urged President Bush to not wrongly call it a war on terrorism, but instead on Islamists. Santorum is most definitely a national security conservative and not afraid of being politcally incorrect to be so. I know folks here fear Sharia law. Santorum is steadfast in his opposition to that. In fact, in dealing with the Radical Islamic threats to the country....I think he would be exceptionally good.
However, I still agree that Newt is the most balanced and would best be pitted against Mr. Obama. However, once again...you are stooping to insulting social conservatives. You need us. If you want our votes, you have to somewhat cater to our issues. EVERYONE, to include Santorum, knows that the economy is of prime concern. That is a no-brainer. You accomplish NOTHING by putting Santorum down for his social concerns. You just push more social conservatives, like myself, to support him. The bashing Mike Huckabee got on this forum in 2008 is still a bad taste in my mouth. Had Sarah Palin not come on the scene, I was ready to wash my hands of “other than social” conservatives.