Does Powerline’s Endorsement Matter?
Frankly, I doubt few, if any, endorsements matter, let alone from a blog, mine included. But for Powerline to equate "establishment" candidate with "someone who won tough elections and governed successfully" is as nonsensical, as it is insulting to those of us who would prefer a less establishment-aligned candidate. But then, PL is an establishment blog. They seem to be as tone deaf as Mitt's campaign given their phrasing. Furthermore, if they really thought Pawlenty, who turned tail and ran before the corn was ripe in Iowa, was the guy, just how good might be their judgment in selecting a candidate? Given that, not very good if you ask me. Their second choice has been running since 2008 and can't get much beyond 20%. I can only imagine how weak Romney will prove to be in the general. Last night a PPP poll had Ron Paul beating Mitt among Republicans. That's a loser, in my opinion.
Romney was not my first choice in this election cycle–Tim Pawlenty was. But Pawlenty’s campaign failed to catch fire, mostly because GOP voters saw him as an “establishment” candidate; that is, perhaps, someone who won tough elections and governed successfully.
Perry is establishment, but he's not of DC, plus he meets PL's criteria as regards governing and winning elections. Romney lost his in Massachusetts. That's enough for me given the field. Also, as Ed at Hot Air points out, a brokered convention isn't all it's cracked up to be – for the grassroots. All things considered, I believe we should pick our nominee from among those currently running.
Even if a candidate were to jump in at this late date, it would have to be one who could reliably raise money fast, organize effectively, have good name recognition, be well prepared on policy, and survive the kind of intense vetting that has derailed Cain, Rick Perry, Bachmann, and has deflated Gingrich’s bubble. That’s a recipe for an establishment candidate, not an outsider. We should stop fantasizing about white knights riding to the rescue and focus on the choices we have in front of us now.
As I've already made clear, along with several other bloggers, my choice is Perry – hands down.
While both Representative Michelle Bachmann and former Senator Rick Santorum are fine Constitutional conservatives, when one factors in the critical element of electoral viability, Texas Governor Rick Perry is the only prudent choice for both conservatives and Republicans. Contrary to the myth that he is simply one more in a long, futile line of so-called compassionate conservatives, in practical terms, Perry is actually a repudiation of the too-largely failed governmental legacy of Bush/Rove, regardless of its ability to win an election, or two.
Next year cannot be about trying to elect the next best contender for some would-be political version of Donald Trump's The Apprentice. Nor can we afford to allow it to be about politically ill-conceived tests for purity. By successfully governing a large, sophisticated state for a good number of years, beating back challengers, including from the Bush/Rove camp, and consistently winning re-election by significant margins, Perry has proved himself to be a skilled and electorally-viable politician with sound, chiefly conservative ideas for governing.