[SoConPubbie]

I guess "Other than on health care" escaped your keen insight, huh? Santorum is talking about gaming the tax rates to give preferences, and supports more government intervention in the economy, and Newt angered a lot of conservatives with his attacks on Bain Capital. By default, they've left Romney as the rhetorical defender of capitalism, except for his stance on RomneyCare.

Not at all.

Only in the minds of those trying to shape the message and those willing to buy it.

Nothing said by either Newt or Santorum rises to the level of complete idiocy and total abandonment of conservative Free-Market, capitalistic principles than the Socialistic Nightmare that is RomneyCare.

You're whole mantra about "By default, they've left Romney as the rhetorical defender of capitalism" is all beltway driven propaganda and is completely bereft of any basis in logic or fact.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

You're whole mantra about "By default, they've left Romney as the rhetorical defender of capitalism" is all beltway driven propaganda and is completely bereft of any basis in logic or fact.

How do Newt's attacks on Bain Capital figure into your analysis?

It is a cheap convenience to dismiss dissenting opinions by asserting they're just based on beltway (or "Establishment") propaganda. As I said, I've supported Newt for this primary season, and still do despite his attacks on bain Capital and the ridiculous moon colony promise. But I nevertheless cringed when he started going after Bain Capital. That attack hurt him among a lot of legitimate conservatives because he was using the rhetoric of the left. And I didn't need any beltway insiders or "Establishment" figures in the GOP to tell me that.

But that doesn't fit within the overly-simplistic narrative you wish to construct, so you dismiss it. The truth is that admitting that a candidate you like screwed up doesn't mean you don't still support him. It just means you're not blind and deaf.