You do raise valid points with respect to Santorum, and it makes him look far more left-leaning and statist than he appeared to be.
However, saying that, we must realize that the group of candidates than ran in 2012 were second-rate (or worse). They weren’t the cutting edge of the Conservative movement, they were RINOs, has-beens, and others out of their league. I was very unhappy with what ran, and realized that minus someone of the calibre of Palin (or Gov. Walker, who was a superstar coming off his recall victory), the party had effectively “written off” the election.
I endorsed Palin and stuck with her until she confirmed she would not run. I then moved to Herman Cain’s camp (as did many Palinites), but his lack of seasoning showed, and he literally had no idea what the media would do to a Conservative Black man (one that enjoys lynching non-White males). After Cain pulled out, I effectively went the same route as the ‘08 primaries, “None of the Above.” Santorum I initially viewed as in over his head (and having lost reelection to the Senate in ‘06, not a very strong candidate). I only swung to endorsing him as a last-ditch attempt to stop the execrable Willard. That Santorum pulled out just as he was gaining momentum confirmed again that he wasn’t ready for prime time (then or now — I don’t support his running AT ALL in 2016).
But a word about Gingrich. Regardless of what he wrote, what he proclaimed, et al, Gingrich was, is, and always will be toxic. He did a great thing in being the leading force to finally bring to an end a 6-decade near-uncontested lock on the U.S. House. But as Speaker, he went from hero to zero in a year. We were on the brink of ending that rapist abomination’s tenure as President, and Newtie allowed Slick Willie to get his mojo back. With the so-called “government shutdown” of 1995, it was all over. That was the last and only year to date when the GOP was in the majority and RAN IT like they were in charge. It doesn’t matter the years of majority control since, they’re just the opposite side of the same statist coin as the Democrats.
Newtie coasted for 3 more years in the House and never turned it around, and was effectively fired by the caucus (for far less than the execrable and incompetent Boehner). He tried for years to remain viable or visible, but I think he simply just went silly. The hand-holding with Nancy Pelosi, the gross ignorance surrounding the Scuzzyflavor (or whatever the hell her name was) special election in NY. The third wife. He just became a caricature of himself (nevermind he was almost 70, which was frankly too old to be running, as was McCain in ‘08 — Reagan being the exception to the rule, though he probably would’ve been at the zenith of his capacities serving as President from 1969-77 or 1977-85. He was not fully up to the task from 1985-89 when he was almost 78 at his retirement).
Often forgotten about Newtie is that he was a Rockefellerite. When he first ran for Congress in 1974 (and 1976), he was to the left of the Democrat incumbent. He moved to the right after that. However, he still often had that strain of making common cause with the left-wing of the GOP caucus. He also had an obsession with wanting the media to like him and thought he could do that in the years after he was deposed. What he could never comprehend is that the media is not the friend of Conservatives, and they never will be. One Republican who understood that was Jesse Helms, and he treated them like the lying scum that they are and never once lost a race because of it.
In the end, Gingrich was never able to repair the damage to his terrible personal approval ratings. Had he been the nominee, the media would’ve took singular glee in ripping him to shreds and dredging up all the old crap from his tenure as Speaker. Despite many FReepers believing to the contrary, he was NOT a viable candidate in 2012. He only had an ounce of credibility and the appearance of leadership solely because of the field of midgets, but there was no way and no how he was going to the White House.
Santorum, on the other hand, really had ZERO to recommend him and in fact, his incessant use of the ugly, divisive, devious "family values" indicated that he would do quite a lot to make folks regret voting for him. I make a living in language and especially recognize empty "fluff" when I see it, and Santorum's campaign was very heavy on the feel-good happy talk such as "family values." That is a VERY large red flag, a huge warning, because it means that the person using it is only using it because he doesn't have anything substantial to offer and is deceitful about it.
During the '08 campaign,, I asked many Santorum supporters: What is the difference between "family values" and "Christian values" and if they are the same, why not call them "Christian" values? I never got an answer.
Here's what Santorum was doing with that phrase: he was using it as code for "Christian values" and he was also using it as a dig against Gingrich, implying that Santorum was a "better" person because he hadn't been divorced. That phrase "family values" ALSO alienated tens of thousands of conservative Americans who either don't have families or who don't focus their lives around their kids and grandkids. Santorum, with his constant "family values" moralizing, was implying that people who DON'T have families are of lesser value, inferior Christians, second-class Americans.
Rick Santorum was, in my opinion, a nattering moralizing church-lady socialist who wore his Christianity on his sleeve as a badge of "conservatism." He talked a lot about who was/is to blame for America's moral malaise (not him, of course! But everyone else). Gingrich didn't blame anybody; instead he talked a lot about how to REDUCE GOVERNMENT.
I will now consistently reject a devious manipulator of language and grower of government like Santorum, even if -- especially if -- he presumes to represent "Republican" and "Christian." He is a haughty, pride-filled Christian and that stinks. Santorum FOUGHT AGAINST cuts in food stamps -- he wanted to keep them going strong. Santorum was and is all for government usurping from individuals their moral, Christian duty of charity -- please, re-read his quotes in post 109 above.
Charity is a MORAL act on two fronts. It requires sacrifice and mercy on the part of the giver, and because the receiver knows this (that's why NOBODY likes to be an object of charity), it requires gratitude and obligation on the part of the receiver. It is a MORAL act and the Christian bible says it is REQUIRED.
When Santorum uses government to provide charity, he turns it into an AMORAL act and evil results from it. He makes slaves of taxpayers and entitled dependents of receivers, and removes all morality from the equation. That's what happens when government takes over moral duties such as charity: they become AMORAL, without reference to morality, and evil results.
There is no voluntary sacrifice or mercy involved from the givers of "government charity" because they are FORCED, via taxation, to fund it, and morality is entirely REMOVED. Likewise on the receiving end -- gratitude and obligation among people who receive government charity is at best symbolic; in fact and in truth, receivers become ENTITLED to the forced fruit of others' labors. We see what results when government presumes to take over the duty of charity and turns a moral act into an IMMORAL act, that is, without reference to morality. Ferguson, anyone?
Again, compared, clearly Gingrich was the far better choice morally and politically. Gingrich was a humbled sinner; Santorum was a holier-than-thou altar boy.