I've written about Political Candidates and Moral Character before and it seems that can only come back around to this topic again. South Carolina is known for picking the candidate for the G.O.P nomination for President of the United States and this past weekend, voters decided on Newt Gingrich, former congressman and Speaker of the House from Georgia. Gingrich is one of dubious moral character, having cheated on previous wives and possibly asking for an "open marriage" from one of them. Surprisingly, Gingrich also won more votes from "evangelical" voters than anyone else with Mitt Romney winning more votes among the "non-evangelical" crowd. What this appears to be is a contest of evangelicals wanting to beat the Mormon candidate rather than picking the best person for the job, that person not being Romney or Gingrich, in my opinion. Surprisingly as well, the endorsement by the self-proclaimed 150 evangelical leaders of Rick Santorum didn't hardly help him at all. In short, "evangelicals" in South Carolina have lost their moral compass and have chosen someone they knew from Georgia in order to simply beat the Mormon candidate. At least that's how I see it. To me, moral character matters in addition to pro-life records and consistent voting records. Santorum has a consistent pro-life record, mostly, but he does not have a consistent voting record, especially when it comes to big spending. My vote went to Ron Paul, the most consistent of the candidates and the only one most likely to get this country back on track if he were to win the election in November. It's not about beating President Obama, it's about consistency and on that, my conscience is clear.