“As a Protestant he could have simply said he was forgiven by God and every Protestant would have to accept that or be a hypocrite.”
Not quite so loosey-goosey in most Protestant denominations, but some do have a similar interpretation. Protestant denominations are anything but monolithic, but you knew that already.
“The annulment has nothing to do with anything. Newt could have civilly married without the annulment and he could have run for president without the annulment.”
No question he didn’t “need” to do this - but it also would have hindered his presidential ambitions. 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”
It was a political ploy to give him cover. It seemed to have worked for him.
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.