Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord
I can think of several things:
1) he's the strongest debater
2) the fall of Herman Cain was obviously the catalyst
3) his platform is the most consistent with Republican primary voters
4) he has a track record of actually shrinking government, which none of the others can say
The obvious negatives are his affairs, 3 marriages, the slightly Stepfordish air about Calista, and for some people his conversion to Catholicism. Normally those would relegate him to be a commentator rather than a candidate. But Romney is so unpalatable to the primary voters that they're willing to overlook all that just to get a competent conservative candidate. Romney's competent but not conservative. Perry and Cain are conservative but not competent. The rest are loons.
1) I have only seen him debate once recently and he's good but not great. Just my opinion but he's not really any better than Romney. He's definitely no Reagan or Clinton when it comes to debate or speech skills.
3) This is the same guy that a few months ago a republican shows up at one of his events and throws flour in his face because he said he was a joke to the party. I have heard plenty of statements from him that make it seem like he is not completely anti government involvement.
4) He does have the advantage of being the speaker of the house during the republican revolution. I'll give him that but it doesn't really account for the recent rapid change.
Which leaves number 2. I'm going to suggest another possibility in connection with number 2. The power of conservative radio. I'm guessing Rush, or one of the other conservative talking heads indirectly endorsed him as a legitimate conservative and then the rest started echoing this statement. Herman Cane drops out of the race leaving a vacuum plus conservative radio equals Newt's rapid rise.