As a fellow supporter of Newt, let me chime in on why Santorum is not my candidate.
My criticism of Santorum has nothing to do with his looks, but rather his actions. There was a time a few months back, when Sarah announced she was not running, that I decided that I needed to pick a candidate. The next debate featured an exchange where Santorum chose to go after Perry, and Santorum would not allow Perry to respond to his question. That was simply not presidential.
Now, from a philosophical standpoint, I would put Rick as my number 2 or number 3 candidate right now, and I dont wish him any ill will, but I want a president that acts presidential. If Santorum wants us to believe he is electable, he needs to take the same approach as Newt and tell us his ideas, and not attack any of the other candidates. He has been getting better in this regard and he is earning back some respect because of it. However, he is still not my chosen nominee.
Sounds to me as though the debate moderator failed to do his/her job.
My whole point in my reply to rogue yam (which he reinforced) is simply that Newt appears to be getting passes from a lot of conservatives on things that are considered "fair game" against any of the other candidates. Appearance and bearing, like it or not, do play a role, and despite rogue yam's protestations, there have been any number of remarks about Santorum's "boyish" looks, Bachmann's makeup, Perry's hair, etc. If these things are in play for those candidates, Gingrich's appearance should not go without examination as well.
Another example is the number of conservatives who wrote off Santorum out of the gate because of his endorsement of Specter in 2004, and yet completely ignore or excuse Newt's endorsement of Scozzafava as recently as 2009 (to their credit both have expressed their regret).
Ultimately if it comes down to Newt, I'll pull the lever, but in the meantime, I'm not going to be satisfied 'til I've done everything I can do, contributed everything I can contribute, and stated everything I can say in support of the candidate(s) that best represent my values. When a double standard is applied to a "more electable" candidate I'm going to remark on that as well.