Iowa Caucus 2012 Results: Rick Santorum? Seriously?

I hate to speak ill of Iowa Republicans, but I am profoundly disappointed in the Iowa Caucus 2012 results.

The finally tally was that Mitt Romney came first, Rick Santorum was behind by just eight votes and Ron Paul came in third by about 4,000 votes.

The big winner of the night was clearly Santorum, who perpetually polled in single digits just weeks ago.

But Santorum's campaign will not go anywhere beyond Iowa. He has no campaign money, is a certifiable bottom-tier candidate and does not have a credible national strategy.

A while ago, Politico put out an article stating that some Iowa Republicans are worried if Ron Paul won the Iowa Caucus, it would threaten the legitimacy of the state's first-in-nation event.

Ironically, it's not Paul winning that threatens Iowa's legitimacy. It's choosing candidates like Santorum.

Rick Santorum is a bland candidate made in the image of the Washington establishment who has very little to offer and no chance of winning. He was completely ignored until Iowa evangelicals rallied behind him in what is clearly a rash last-minute decision.

They were drawn to Santorum because of his Christian and family values rhetoric.

Santorum is clearly stronger in his stance against gay marriage compared to Romney and Paul.

But what about the assault of the poor economy on American families? Studies and common sense tells us a poor economy results in fewer marriages, fewer births and more broken families (i.e. divorce and separation).

Romney, representing the status quo, and Paul, representing a revolutionary approach, are clearly the best hopes for the economy. Santorum is not.

And about the War on Drugs policy's assault on black families? It literally locks away black men from their families. Moreover, once they get out, they are economically marginalized because their criminal record.

And what about troops stationed overseas? It also literally takes away men and women away from their families. Furthermore, when they come back from military deployment, some of them are maimed and/or traumatized.

It's one thing if these soldiers were fighting to defend their country, land and families. It's another when are fighting wars that make no sense for America.

Ron Paul is the only viable candidate who opposes the War on Drugs and promises to bring troops home from the Middle East and all over the world.

And finally, what about personal and public virtue? Paul is one of the few politicians in Washington - and the only one in the 2012 presidential race - who has demonstrated that for decades. He is a just politician - not corrupted by lobbyist and campaign money - and America's only hope to clean up the corrupt Washington establishment.

I am profoundly disappointed that evangelicals in Iowa did not consider this factor enough and failed to give their support to Paul. They should perhaps take a closer look at Proverbs 29:4, which states By justice a king gives a country stability, but those who are greedy for bribes tear it down.

In 2008, Obama was the groundbreaking candidate who dominated youth and independent vote. In 2012, Paul is this candidate.

If the Iowa Caucus wants legitimacy, it should have given its support to Paul in 2012.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of the article incorrectly stated that John Edwards won the 2008 Democratic Iowa Caucus.