Newt’s latest argument against Romney runs as such:
So we shouldn’t nominate Romney because he lost to McCain because McCain lost to Obama.
Okay let’s see if that is a valid argument by looking at history. Obama has been compared to Carter a lot (I think it has something to do with the socialism, incompetence, destroying the economy, arrogance and Jew-hating), so let’s see if you had used that argument in 1980:
“Why would you nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Carter.”
The guy who lost to Carter in 1976 was Gerry Ford. And the guy who lost the nomination battle with Gerry Ford was the former Governor of uber-liberal California, Ronald Reagan. So by using Newt’s logic, we should never have nominated Reagan because he obviously couldn’t beat Carter because he couldn’t even beat a wimpy moderate like Gerry Ford.
Now I’m not saying that Romney is Reagan (although wouldn’t it be cool if he showed us a side of himself we never saw before once in the White House) but the fact is that Newt argument is BS. And for a history professor, and a supposed Reagan Republican, not to mention someone who was in the House at the time, to not know how stupid his argument is…it’s just sad.