Part of the insanity of you Romney/anti-Newt guys is that Gingrich has been a leader for conservatives, a hero, a historical figure for conservatives, and a part of Reagan’s team, and he kept the dream alive as he fought the next level of the Reagan Revolution against all odds, and gave us 1994.
Romney has not been vetted and people don’t know that Romney was anti-Reagan, he even refused to be a Republican under Reagan, they don’t know that he was anti-the 1994 revolution, and against what he called the “Jesse Helms types” in the Senate.
The conservative premise is to stop Romney from destroying conservatism, and becoming the leader of the Republican party.
Palin is correct, people would never vote for Romney if they knew the truth.
I wish this was true, but, apparently, it isn't.
You are correct that there are things about Romney that perhaps many GOP voters don't know. But, from all I see, they don't care.
Just as there are many freepers who don't care about Gingrich's foibles, there are many conservatives out there who don't care about Romney's.
That's very wrong on both counts, but it's the way it is in this election cycle.
The standard seems to be ONLY "who can beat Obama."
Newt obviously has done great things for the cause of conservatism, and he brings some fantastic talents to the table, but that's not what these primary voters are focused on. If he can't convince people that he can defeat Obama, they are not going to vote for him the primaries.
That is all.
The battle for the nomination is fundamentally a disagreement about which man, Romney or Gingrich, is more likely to defeat Obama. The only way "dirt" matters is if it makes it more or less likely that a candidate can defeat Obama.
You can try to dismiss my observations of the political landscape out of hand by robotically accusing me of being pro-Romney and anti-Newt, but the plain fact is that I'm just calling it like I see it.
I know it's not pretty.