Is anyone else tired of this most recent non-issue, the media-stoked tempest in a teapot over Rick Santorum’s “comments” dealing with Obama’s religion, or lack thereof?

I mean, really; is that best they can do? Religion?
No old girlfriends or buddies, who saw him get really smashed, in college? No former female—or male(!)—staffers, who can tearfully recall for the cameras, the earth-shattering emotional trauma of his hand “accidentally” brushing against their backside?

This shows you how out-of-touch the “objective”, radical liberal media can be, especially when a conservative Republican dares to mention religion, and most especially if they’re a devout Christian. Suddenly, they’re fanatical theocrats, trying to turn America into Iran.
Here’s a tip, folks: most Americans are believers, and many appreciate someone’s standing up for their--our--beliefs.

Remember when the question of Obama’s religion was an inconvenient, uncomfortable thorn in the side of liberals, because his pastor and “spiritual mentor”, Jeremiah Wright, is a raving, America-hating black supremacist--one of whose sermons had inspired one of Obama’s book titles? We were told not to worry.
Though Obama had actively attended church there for twenty years, he apparently, conveniently, hadn’t heard a word the man had said.
Sure; and Clinton didn’t inhale.
Going back a few years, when Joe Lieberman, an “observant Jew”, was Gore’s sidekick in 2000, he was hailed, by media and party, for his religion; for “bringing God back to Washington”.

The fact is, whenever a strong conservative dares to shine, to put his/her head above the crowd, the media goes ballistic, and savages them. Look at Herman Cain, a solid, likeable conservative with a strong following, for a good, recent example. His campaign was destroyed, undone by charges—and charges only--nearly two decades old, of sexual harassment. Michele Bachman and of course, Sarah Palin, are others.

This, and another offhand comment from 2008 they used as “corroboration” of their “facts”, is all they could dig up on Santorum? If he continues to sparkle, however, they’ll “find” more. Bet on it; they want Romney, too, for their own reasons.

Now; why is the Republican establishment constantly trying to foist upon us Mitt Romney, the RINO with many faces, when we clearly want—and need—someone, anyone, more conservative?
Because the party blue bloods always think the moderates are who we want. Or, rather, who they want.
They always want to give us the Romney-style moderates, or--playing “whose turn is it now?”--the bland Washington Creatures; the Fords, the GHW Bush’s, the Doles, the McCains. All of them, moderates.

They never seem to notice, much less take a lesson, when, say, a strong conservative ex-governor from California sweeps in, and hands them the White House twice, both by overwhelming landslides; or, when a somewhat less-conservative governor from Texas, does arguably the same.
The Republican Party elites hated Reagan—and Bush 43, and Sarah Palin, really—with nearly as much fervor as the liberals; he was too populist for them. Reagan’s patriotic message of God, family and country was too blue collar.
Conservatives loved Reagan; many Republicans were embarrassed by him. Despite media labels, “conservative” and “Republican” aren’t always mutually-exclusive.
The fact that Reagan had two of the most successful terms in American history, with more impact than any president since FDR--who, I might add, had four terms during the (first) Great Depression and the Second World War--is still lost on them.

They never get it: Run a true conservative, and people will respond.