Count me as one who likes him but thinks he did horribly.

With all due respect, you and your "media friend" need to pull your heads out of the Santorum flavored trough of Kool-Aid.

It wasn't even close that Santorum lost.

He was juvenile. He -- once again -- displayed that annoyed, eye rolling, clucking, sighing behavior that did such wonders for Al Gore.

You know the bad thing about that behavior? It's a nervous tic that provides a window into the soul.

Santorum came off as the shallow, petty, sanctimonious, caviling, small person that he really is, under the "aw shucks" altar boy image he likes to promulgate.

On top of that, we had him defending earmarks and defending endorsing Specter over Toomey and voting for NCLB and......

Honestly.

The real Santorum that Paul and Romney deftly revealed last night is a joke in terms of being a conservative.

Santorum is someone who is using religion and invokes a mythical lost paradise of cultural values to fleece sincere people

He's Alan Keyes.

Look, it is not for me to judge whether his religious zeal is sincere. I don't render judgement on his soul.

But it is entirely appropriate to point out that someone who is really sincere about Christian values wouldn't display -- consistently over the course of decades in public life -- the uncharitable, egotistical, self-absorbed, sanctimonious, intolerant aspect that Santorum has displayed.

We are all flawed and we all sin.

But we also repent and try to behave better.

Santorum either hasn't repented and/or tried to behave better (because his behavior is exactly the same, if not worse, over the course of decades) or if he has, he hasn't exactly made much headway.

In the former case, he is a flagrant hypocrite. And it doesn't make sense to replace the one in office with another one of those.

In the latter case, Santorum is horribly flawed deep down inside and has been unable to change that.

That's fine, many of us are.

But it also disqualifies from being considered seriously for President. There are people with better characters, you know. We don't need a "fixer-upper" as President. Again -- it doesn't make sense to replace the one in office with another one of those.

Mitt Romney is a Massachusetts insider!

Dear Ms. Lopez:

Santorum became the front-runner by positioning himself as (1) the more conservative alternative to Romney, who (2) is electable - would do well on a stage opposite to Obama.

He had a bad, bad debate because (1) Paul and Romney "refutiated" Santorum's claim that people should be confident that he's more fiscally conservative than Romney (by pointing out earmarks, Specter-Obamacare, NCLB, didn't even get to right-to-work), and (2) his demeanor and defensiveness, as well as his over-emphasis on culture war issues (reinforcing the "bible nut legislating morality" narrative) made him look small and unnappealing - not someone people can see on a stage against Obama.

There is little doubt Santorum had a poor debate on substance. The team player line etc.

However, it is laughable to read the haters continue to talk about his demeanor being childish, angry and so forth. While at the same time not seeing anything wrong in Sir Romney's demeanor (good grief that last question!!) It's a debate people. Rick smiled more than he has all campaign. We all see what we want to see I guess.

Once more we are back to whether the issues of Santorum have already been priced into his poll numbers - or if people were actually tuning in and learning for the first time about his Senate record.

I think the guy, especially in the 2nd half discussion and in talking about Iran and the like, certainly showed he was not just some preacher in political clothing - which is a meme that has been getting thrown around.

People at NR are strongly biased for Romney - so of course they see the debate as a Ronmey win. Jennifer Rubin saying that Santorum had a good debate, or that Romney had a so-so debate is something that goes against everything she stands for. NR is in the tank for Romney!

"He answers the question that is asked, and when challenged, he tries to explain himself--no matter how long it takes, or how much "inside baseball" it requires him to describe. Some perceive this as naive, others consider it authentic, but either way he is telling you what he really thinks, not what he assumes you want to hear."

That is true to a certain extent. The disappointment comes in recognizing that he isn't as unflinchingly principled as he sometimes appears. There were plenty of ostensibly good reasons to vote for NCLB ...the abysmal state of education, the achievement gap, the fact the federal money was being handed out with zero accountability. It has had some modest successes in some areas that could have reinforced that point. While it is true education is something probably best administered at the local level, I would like to have believed that Santorum voted for it at least partially out of good intentions. Little harm in admitting that despite good intentions, in hindsight he realized it was a mistake. To hear him say he only voted for it to "take one for the team", made me cringe.