Oh, I don't know -- maybe because he has brains and actual ideas; maybe because he can "work with" Dems -- not in the GOPe sense of "cave completely" -- it's at least arguable that the vaunted post-94 "Clinton economy" should be called the "Gingrich economy"! Remember Newt masterminded the first GOP takeover of the House. He can own up to being wrong (as about AGW), unlike Romney who staunchly maintains RomneyCare is a good thing and IIRC a "free market solution."
was’nt he involved in the Fannie Mae scandel
I have no idea why you think this; even that notorious liar Mitt Romney only claims that Newt "lobbied" for Fannie Mae. Newt did do consulting work for them; they ignored his advice. (Though a couple of Mitt supporters -- I don't know if they were formally associated with his campaign at the time -- did in fact lobby Congress for Fannie Mae to halt an investigation.)
If you're one of those who claim that "no one pays that much money for advice" (as opposed to lobbying), you might recall that Bain & Co. (as opposed to Bain Capital) is and has been from its inception a "management consulting" firm -- i.e., that's how it made its money.
And frankly Newt would be my last choice for a lobbyist. After the Dems and GOPe got him out of the speakership and he left Congress, do you think any of them would have taken a phone call from him, much less lunch or whatever?
OTOH, I believe he did owe $8,000 to the House Bank when that scandal erupted, but instead of shutting down the investigation (which might have helped him), he pushed it. (AFAIK, nothing about the House Bank was actually illegal, just highly unseemly.)
Or maybe you're confusing Fannie Mae with Romney's despicable lie that Newt's "own party" got rid of him for corruption. You do recall the Dem's hundreds (?) of trumped-up ethics charges, all of which proved false?
& supported the AWB?
I don't recall anything about Newt and AWB; I do know, however, that Mitt actually signed an assault weapons ban in MA -- and was apparently as pleased and proud about it as he remains about RomneyCare.
Like how many marriages?
Newt has an unfortunate marital history, true. Rather than recount the ameliorating specifics here, I would just point out that Netanyahu has a similarly messy marital history -- two divorces, three marriages, a publicly admitted extramarital affair. Yet I can't think of any Israeli political figure who would possibly be a better, stronger leader for Israel than Netanyahu. Your mileage may vary.
Am i missing something?
I think you're missing a whole lot!
Finny, livius -- am I missing anything here? ;-)
I think you’ve hit all the highlights!
I was originally hopeful that whoever ended up being the candidate would have relied on Newt as an idea person and attack dog, but so far as I can see, Romney is keeping him at arm’s length. He’s been out on the speaking circuit, but clearly doesn’t represent Romney.
Newt was never the favorite of the GOP-e, and it was his own party that teamed up with the Dems and forced him out of the speakership because they were actually embarrassed by his success (too divisive, you know).
On the other hand, Romney embraces the AGW fraud wholesale as per Forbes, as well as per his CPAC speech of 2008 when he urged that a carbon plan was needed and that it should be "a worldwide solution, not an American one" -- in other words, Romney believes America should surrender its sovereignty to global oversight in terms of energy and food production and consumption. You are on the verge of voting FOR that, buddy.
Romney was also ultimately responsible for the closing of Catholic adoption charities in Massachusetts because law Romney supported and saw passed as governor, forces adoption agencies to cooperate with homosexual couples who want to play "married with children." The Catholic adoption agenciees opted to close altogether rather than have any part of such depraved social engineering.
You can tell yourself that your vote for Romney is really a vote "against" Obama, but that's just talk, soothing, comforting, talk, like saying you're voting "against" killing the pretty unicorns: totally imaginary. The REALITY is that if you vote for Romney, you will be voting FOR making the Republican party embrace the same liberal things Romney does.
Mary, I think you did an exceptional job with your post. WELL DONE.
And BrianE, the last time a president was elected on a plurality, he was IMPEACHED. The time before when a president was elected on a plurality, he was forced to the right by an ensuing Republican Revolution. Pluralities seem to favor conservatives, and presidents elected on pluralities are vulnerable.
YOU are on the verge of voting for government tyranny in the name of ABO. I will be voting FOR a plurality in the name of helping conservatives oppose and dominate whichever bastard wins, Obama or Romnney. And Obama is weak and loathed -- there's very little chance he could muster 50% of the vote. It's a damned good gamble to vote third party in order to vote "for" a plurality. On the other hand, seeing as how Romney is a DOCUMENTED liberal Democrat registered in the Republican party, it is a piss-poor and even stupid bet that he'd do anything but hurt conservatism and advance the liberal agenda in ways Obama could only dream about.