You wrote:
“No question he didn’t “need” to do this - but it also would have hindered his presidential ambitions.”
Nope. No annulment changes the fact that the public views him as thrice married and twice divorced with several affairs thrown in for good measure.
“You only have to point to his response early in the primary when asked - he directly referenced the Catholic Church saying basically (and I’m paraphrasing) “they said it was OK, and so I’m not talking about it further””
And that works for an overwhelmingly Protestant nation? You’re way off.
“It was a political ploy to give him cover. It seemed to have worked for him.”
No. It was no ploy. And people generally are not horrified by affairs or divorces these days.
“And that works for an overwhelmingly Protestant nation? You’re way off.”
Sure it worked. This Protestant nation is very tolerant of other religions - and if Catholics say it’s ok, Protestants generally will accept it. He knew that. That’s why he did it.
Otherwise, he’d have had to have something like a “Jimmy Swaggart” moment - and that just wouldn’t have worked with his presidential ambitions.
“... people generally are not horrified by affairs or divorces these days.”
Of course not, it’s a fact of life. But they also are free to judge their politicians - and do judge their politicians by their divorces. Reagan was looked at as somewhat of a victim in his divorce, Newt, an opportunist - he neutralized it (no pun intended) by joining Rome and getting an annulment so he could defer all questions essentially to Rome..