Actually two!
Rick was one of the seven who exposed the House Bank check scandal! That was the first blow leading to the takeover in '94. Newt was silent there, having been one of the (quite minor) offenders although his subsequent leadership on the Contract became the biggest factor in the takeover. Rick was a major contributor to ending the only federal entitlement program ever ended, working on it in both Houses and floor managing it in Senate. Newt was obviously also a major contributor on that, but both deserve credit.
Newt did a lot of good in Congress. He wasn't perfect, none in congress were, but his net was excellent until he took himself out after the '98 election. If you look at Santorum's record as of when Newt left Congress pretty much all would have said he was a rising star, perhaps the biggest young star conservatives had in Congress. Ending welfare as we knew it certainly slashed spending and Rick certainly voted for those balanced budgets even though he had less responsibility for them. Certainly some of what Rick has done since has affected folk's perception of him. What Newt has done since deserves the same kind of attention, no more, no less.
I've read thousands of pages of Churchill's writing, including his entire WWII history, and am well aware of his checkered course in British politics. He was a great man and history shows us that great men often have shortcomings nearly as great. Newt may well be a great man, but that is hard to judge other than in hindsight and I'd prefer to think, regardless of this race, that Newt's book has more chapters to follow. However, regarding Churchill, history records that he was the right great man for Britain in WWII because he'd spent his entire career attacking systems like Hitler and Stalin's. And his varied past services had developed the skill set required to thwart them. The issue of our time happily is no longer Nazism, nor Communism as threats to freedom, although Freepers can doubtless draw some parallels. It is more specifically Obamacare as the threat de jour to freedom. Sure, Obama provides additional threats to our freedom with every breath he takes, but there was a reason he took a whole year ramming through Obamacare. It will be the killing blow we don't stop it. Santorum was one of the creators of Health Care Savings accounts, the best pro-freedom solution available to the problems Obama will claim to have solved. It has been his issue for 20 years. He, like Churchill in 1940, is the best equipped to lead against the biggest threat of the day. Even if Newt is a great man he's one who spent a decade on the wrong side of that issue and as such he's not the right choice to lead against it. I would like to believe his conversion is sincere and that he can offer strong service on the team just as did many of Churchill's 1930s foes under his leadership.
Newt fans claim Santorum is saying nothing about energy policy and shrinking government. They're not listening very hard. He talks about it a lot and has been at least since my search for 'my' candidate, after Sarah bowed out and then Cain was chased out, lead me to him in time for the Iowa caucuses. He's big on domestic production of all carbon based energy, and unlike Mitt and Newt was never on the global warming bandwagon. He's talking about cutting spending $5 trillion and specifically discusses entitlement reforms with a record of having cut them. He talks up small business rather than big business as the way to grow the economy. His economic policies draw me to him more than his social ones, although I generally agree with them as well.
I'm no establishment apologist! I remember Goldwater beer. I was for Reagan in '68 over Nixon because I feared what Nixon's domestic policies would be. Boy was I right! Alas they wouldn't let ten year olds vote then. I've been reading Reagan's favorite publication, Human Events since then. My first vote was for Reagan in the '76 Iowa caucuses. I must have spoken up then because they made me one of the vote counters for my precinct. When Newt was a freshman congressmen I was arguing for conservatism against Paul Wellstone's students. I'd ID'd Wellstone as a liberal true believer my first couple weeks on campus. The only thing I've written against Sarah Palin was that her long tease as a potential candidate kept conservatives from considering, and vetting, other options. Leaving the RINOs with a significant head start. Is that not true? I wish she had run, but if her choice was going to be to not run I wish she'd announced it sooner. It's not been discussed much because of the love and respect so many have for her, but Sarah would be the first to say she's not above legitimate criticism. And it shouldn't be forgotten that, although Palin is supporting Newt now, it was her kind words towards Rick before Iowa that launched his rise.
I'm trying to make my points now because we are running out of time to stop Romney before the convention. (Plus I'll be stuck offline for awhile after AL and MS so need to get my FR fix in while I can). If we get to the convention with Romney having just a plurality the GOP-e will likely find some way to drag him over the line. The only places Newt has won are SC, GA and FR. (If Freepers alone could control the debate the country would be a better place, but our power is, so far, limited. Perhaps after JohnRob does more upgrades...) Newt's shown no ability to compete in other regions, where his negatives remain high, and that just doesn't leave him as a viable candidate in a national race. I wish Rick could have had a few more % in MI and OH, it would have made things easier. But if Rick can win AL and MI, where his social positions won't hinder him, and Newt finally concedes, he might receive enough stop Mitt momentum to win before the convention. Or at least go in close enough to make a deal with Newt to push him over the top there. They've been personal friends and worked well together, why can't their supporters?
“Santorum further has a solid and conservative agenda for President. Romney timidly talks of getting spending maybe down to 20% of GDP. Rick Santorum fully supports the Republican balanced budget amendment that caps spending at 18% of GDP. He wants lower tax rates for all, going to a 10%/28% two tier tax rate and lowering corporate tax rates.
While Gingrich criticized the Ryan roadmap, Santorum embraced it. Newt supported Medicare Part D, supported at one time healthcare mandates, and supported all the Bush programs that conservatives object to in Santorum’s voting record. Romney has gone further of course, embracing not just TARP, but healthcare mandates and failing to even fully criticize the Obama stimulus spending.”
http://www.redstate.com/wosg/2012/01/06/rick-santorum-yes-he-is-a-true-conservative
Your sainted Rick broke the law in Pennsylvania.
Santorum’s charity “Operation Good Neighbor” (2001-07), doled out just 36% of income as grants, far less than the 75% of responsible causes. It can only be coincidence the charity which spent most of its money on lobbyists, aides and fundraisers closed after he was defeated for reelection and it was never registered as a charity with the State of Pennsylvania as required by law.
Rick Santorum is a damned liar and dishonest. He is not Presidential material, period.