I'm asking a simple question:  Why is it okay to give Santorum a pass for the same things that you're dragging Hoekstra over the coals for?

Now, let me be clear; I'm not giving Hoekstra a pass either . . . on anything.  I agree that he's got some explaining to do with regard to many, if not most, of the negatives on his record.  That he made a point of dodging nearly every event of a statewide tea party organization - said organization having endorsed one of his potential competitors yesterday - I expect will not play well during the primary campaign.

But I'm going to play fair.  If I can't give Hoekstra a pass, then I can't give Santorum a pass.  Which means that, if I do choose to vote for him (or otherwise support his candidacy), then I need a compelling reason to overlook those negatives.  Right now I don't have one, and just casting a "stop Romney" vote ain't going to cut it in my calculus.

Santorum may indeed be a solid conservative, but any comparisons of him to Reagan often ignore a glaring gap on his resume that was filled on Reagan's, that being significant pre-POTUS executive experience.  I've made it clear elsewhere that lack of executive experience is a deal-breaker for me while an acceptable candidate with said experience is in the race.  His debate performance back on Wednesday didn't do him any favors either.

Here's a little additional detail.  My wife is a Philadelphia native, and she has professional and/or family contacts in 26 of the Keystone State's 67 counties.  She's been in touch with those contacts for the past two months, and to put it charitably the response on Santorum has been mixed.  Nothing that I can use as blog post material, but it's good enough for me.

Now, since I don't happen to consider Romney an acceptable republican candidate, that means that I need a compelling reason to support Newt Gingrich, or else I need to be prepared to take my own advice and check "uncommitted" on Tuesday.  And that means that I need to answer your question regarding willingness to give Newt a pass on his moral compass issues, but hold Mitt's feet to the fire.

The reasoning is fairly simple, and it starts with this link that I often wonder if you've taken the time to follow.  Unlike Willard, who seems to have mastered the art of rhetorical parsing almost to an Obama-level of proficiency, Newt has taken the time to put his negatives out in the open, and set the record straight on them.  And yeah, apparently he was at one point a Rockefeller Republican.  And Ronald Reagan was once a Truman Democrat, and Rick Perry was once a Gore Democrat, and Hillary Clinton was once a Goldwater Republican . . . that was then, this is now.  That video you linked me to seems to have been edited selectively (no surprise from a Ron Paul supporter), and it seemed to me that Gingrich was about to explain why he's no longer a Rockefeller Republican.

Are there still questions to be answered?  Some, and I'm not giving Newt a pass on those.  But I consider the matter settled enough that I'm comfortable casting my vote for Gingrich two days hence.

I'll just bet that the governor and the "power brokers" at MIGOP are keeping the Excedrin handy, because, realistically, I actually think that Santorum will get the majority of the Michigan RNC delegation, even if the statewide popular vote is somewhat in doubt at present.  And yeah, I'm okay with anything that takes the steam out of Romney's sails, especially if it sets him up for a collapse following Super Tuesday.

I think that Rick's Daytona 500 advertising strategy might also be useful.