Since you asked..
1. Romney is basically a Liberal Democrat. He governed Massachusetts as a Liberal Democrat. Before it was convenient for him to declare that he was a “Republican”, he was a declared “Independent”. He ran his failed Senate campaign to the Left of Teddy Kennedy. His “conservatism” is self-professed, and he has a history of self-professing anything that seems to get him what he wants. Northeastern Establishment Republicans are basically moderate Democrats who cannot stomach the union gig. This is from long experience in my family. My grandfather started his young adult life as a registered Republican, he voted for Coolidge. This was no small affair for an 1st generation Italian-American Catholic in the 1920′s. My parents switched registrations in the late ’60′s when they voted for James Buckley. That’s my history. Romney’s history is that of being and espousing whatever he felt was convenient to get what he wanted. As to the time thing… Gingrich was a Republican from his very early days. Romney nozzomush.
Newt did the loyal Republican Party thing and got shafted.
2. And yes Gingrich is an outsider, he was an outsider to the Establishment back in the 80′s (leader of the “Young Turks” – With Jack Kemp. They gave Bob Michael huge headaches.), and into the ’90′s – the Contract with America was greatly pooh-pooh’ed by the Establishment.)
He ran afoul (maybe afowl would be an interesting pun) of the Establishment as he continued to buck the power elites and push for budget freezes and confrontations with Clinton. Eventually the Establishment abandoned and allowed the wolves to attack him.
And I will re-assert. Politics is a business with rules not well understood by the laity. People think they know how things work. They are sorely mistaken.
Romney won’t do anything that he is “promising” and is already hedging his bets. Newt isn’t perfect, but he knows where all of the skeletons are buried… which is what scares the Establishment the most about him.
-TMF
