My classmate recently posted in the blog post "Supporting with actions what you verbalize your against" that there was some confusion as to how the religious base could still support someone who was clearly acting immorally. In response I posted the following:
"I'm sad to see Herman go, not because of his policies or because I supported him but because the guy was freaking comedic gold! Flubbing questions (ubekebekestanstan!?) and all that unwarranted bravado was pure entertainment. At no point did you feel like he ever had a chance to beat B-rack. The Republican base is not only made up of "bible-thumpers" but of gun toting, country blaring folks whom respond to that cowboy swagger. He apologized for nothing and had a charm that presented him as regular guy. That good ol' boy charm really appeals to the average Joe. It worked wonderfully for George W. Bush, TWICE!
An even more morally questionable candidate, Newt Gingrich has taken Cain's place. He carried on affair with a staffer who was 23 years his junior, while impeaching President Clinton for doing the same thing. He's a hypocrite. Romney doesn't connect with, as columnist Mark Shields puts it "white, high school educated Christians", because he's Mormon and a rich kid. It's unlikely that we'll see either of those guys in the white house.
In all, I think people generally don't expect politicians to be moral compasses. Politics is a dirty game and you need to be a dirty, gritty bastard to get to the top. I think people accept that and therefore overlook some of their moral discrepancies."