“The Comeback Kid,” “The Santorum Surge,” and “Santorumentum.” These are the words that are being used to describe former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, who stunned the political elite by coming in second place in this week’s Iowa Caucus.

Santorum came in second by 8 votes, which in a sense is a virtual tie with the GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney. Although Romney won mathematically, the night and the week belonged to Rick Santorum.

Rick Santorum. The little engine that could. As the person who lost his re-election for the United States Senate by 18 percentage points in 2006, it’s understandable why the political elite wrote him off the minute after he announced that he would run for president.

I was never one of those individuals for two main reasons: Santorum is a personal friend, mentor and former boss. I worked for him for 10 years and was able to see him firsthand for who he truly is: a person of deep conviction and a person of extraordinary worth ethic. Santorum knows what he thinks, is passionate about his positions and not afraid to defend them. He is an opinion leader on the issues of the day and is eager to discuss them with any person who thinks they can go toe-to-toe with him.

Santorum’s work ethic is legendary. Quite simply he’s one of those old-school politicians that believes that old-fashioned hand shaking, kissing babies, and knocking on doors will always remain light-years ahead of releasing the latest political app, robotic calls, and soulless emails.

In 1990, when running as a Republican against a veteran Democratic congressman, it is estimated that he knocked on 18,000 doors to personally ask for votes. The evening that Santorum won that race, his campaign staff called the Republican National Committee to inform them of the news and the political staff on hand could not even recall who Santorum was. Santorum simply just outworked everyone in his path.

His political skills are excellent and over the years they have served him well with the notable exception of his loss to Bob Casey, Jr. in 2006 for re-election to the Senate. Santorum (along with his staff, of which I was a part) made some costly and sloppy mistakes, including not being fully in sync with the electorate (Pennsylvanians overwhelming did not support the Iraq War and Santorum supported it strongly. They also did not like the close alliance to George W. Bush, and Santorum strongly defended the president at almost every opportunity).

With the benefit of time, I have come to the realization that supporting George W. Bush so strongly was the main reason why Pennsylvanians loved Santorum and also why they were ready for a change at the end. They loved the fact that they knew where Santorum stood on the issues and that there were no poll-driven responses, but in the same sentence, once they learned of his position, they choose not to follow his lead when he asked for a third term in the Senate.

In many ways loosing that Senate seat was a good thing for Santorum and his staff: it humbled him — and us. It knocked him and us down to a level where we needed to be, listening to the hoofing sounds of people walking away. In droves.

And now fast forward six years to this presidential cycle, and the race is essentially an internal conversation within the GOP about what kind of nominee it thinks is best to defeat the president nine months from now.

Do you want a fact-driven, non-ideological nominee in Mitt Romney, who is center-right not because of philosophical beliefs, per se, but more because he thinks the country would be better off with less taxes and government regulation from a economic point of view? Or does the GOP want a nominee who does have a strong sense of philosophical beliefs that are centered around American exceptionalism and a strong sense of right and wrong?

In many ways, it’s similar to the 1980 conversation GOP-ers had when Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush were both running for the nomination.

Santorum is really a good guy, who is smart, humble and not as partisan as you think. If they were alive, I believe that senators Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone and Pat Moynihan would attest to Santorum’s natural tendency to seek common ground.

After all, all you have to do is take a look at the education legislation that bears Santorum and Kennedy’s name on it, or the landmark welfare reform language that President Clinton signed into law. There’s a lot there and hopefully the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries will allow people to take a closer look at this little engine that did.

Next stop? New Hampshire and South Carolina. Stay tuned.

Robert Trayham writer is The Comcast Network’s Washington bureau chief.