How about this - contrast one's governorship during relative boom years to the other's governorship during "the worst economy since the Great Depression".

You keep saying Romney will beat Obama; I predict if Romney wins the nomination the election will go down just like 2008 - we've already tried a middle-of-the-road mealy-mouthed McCain, we really don't need to go down that road again.

You can't really contrast their respective performances as governor - not that Mitt did poorly, he did very well by all accounts - because you are dealing with different economic epochs and different states with different advantages and disadvantages.

I think Perry loses in the general election because most people are uninformed and generally speaking it's too easy to make the comparison to GWB.

GWB was an admirable president, not great, not horrible, but did what most would have expected during a difficult period in our history. While it would be unfair to pin the current financial crisis on GWB, most probably in part do, because he started a costly war in Iraq under false pretenses. Also an inaccurate viewpoint as the current economic difficulty has more to do with the collaboration of Bill Clinton & Allen Greenspan during the 90's that created the conditions for the growth of the Housing Bubble and it's subsequent collapse.

Rick Perry took over for a successful GWB as governor of Texas. Rick Perry talks and acts like GWB - only he does a better job because he's actually from Texas.

Rick Perry will come off to most of the electorate as a GWB clone and no one would re-elect GWB at present even if it were allowed.

Electoral politics in the US in general have very little to do with the issues - unfortunately. They have much more to do with momentum, perception, and just a general impression that a politician gives to the electorate.

Momentum - right now it's pretty clear that the Tea-Party is a driving force in the GOP and as such will likely be the driving force behind choosing the nominee - this bodes well for Perry.

However, bare in mind that Obama was very light on any substance during his campaign, he rather incessantly bleated, "Yes We Can" without the following "And Here's How" and it got him elected.

Can't you imagine Obama pointing the rhetorical finger at Perry and accusing him of being a GWB clone? How effective will that be. Obama's people aren't dumb and they are salivating at the chance to face Perry whereas they feared facing Romney when he was the front-runner. Perry is simply easier to take down than Romney.

Remember at the end of the day, it's not about the issues - even though it should be.

So Allen, do you still think that the reason the party can't get behind Romney doesn't have anything to do with his religion.

Obviously the momentum is in his favor now, but with Pastor Jeffres' comments last week, it's pretty clear that the evangelical wing of the party does actually believe in a "religious test" for the highest office of the Nation.

It's really kind of embarrassing.

I haven't heard those remarks, and I'd imagine the vast majority of voters haven't either.

Look, Romney can play the "faith card" if he wants, but it isn't his faith people will have a problem with - didn't we just elect someone who is ok with "G D America!" as the Sunday morning prayer?

Romney is seen as an establishment republican, more center than right (if not outright left on several big issues). He's going to have a difficult time defeating that perception by those who put gobs of tea-party people into office this past November.

Cain is leading currently right now, in past recent elections the winners/nominees were no-where to be seen at this point. We've got several months of rollercoastering to go still.

romney's not the one playing the "faith card"

It was the evangelical mega-church pastor (from Dallas) that introduced Rick Perry at the Value Voters summit who called Mormonism a cult and said that good christians should only support christian candidates.

Not Romney.

Playing the "victim" is playing the faith card as much as the one who did the name-calling. I think we discussed that in the mormon topic - you know: "sticks and stones..."

His being mormon is the least of his elect-ability problems.

Mitt has declined to defend his faith and instead has tried to push the issue aside and focus on real issues.

If being Mormon is the least of his "elect-ability" problems, then why is that the card that his opponents supporters have chosen to play?

Wahoo!!!!

Yeah, winning by 8 votes is HUGE.

We'll see. As some of the other candidates drop out we'll see if the margin changes. 24-29% is not a majority by any stretch of the imagination.

Ron Paul was within spitting distance of Romney - Ron Paul

I know, that was a sarcasm tainted "Wahoo"

The irony is that in NH, it will be Mormons finishing 1 and 2.

Crap. Newt Gingrich? Really?

Is it better to be an admitted adulterer than it is to be a Mormon?

I don't think the voters have been considering the morality/religious issues, at least so far. I know you are fixated on it, but those in Iowa, NH, and South Carolina apparently aren't.

Our present primary system gives us the results we've been getting. People who were never going to vote conservative in the first place (IA and NH) get to choose who wins early and who then gets the advertising $$$$ from the national organization. In 2000, Bush didn't win either IA or NH and still ended up winning the nomination. In 2008 and 2012, conservative candidates are dropping out before the vote even gets to red states.

In 2016, the traditionally conservative states need to primary in the first 2 weeks of January - or we'll get another Romney (who lost to another big-government centrist in McCain, who then got slaughtered by Obama), or baggage-laden Newt - both of whom give a lot of lip service to traditional conservative values but just don't have the history of actually following through on those big questions.

tantalizingly close.

Looks like you're getting your wish

Looks like Mitt is the contender! Keep the changes coming...

It will be interesting who he chooses for VP, it looks like Ryan is angling for it.

I'm happy.

Trust me, we'll all be happy if he wins.

Smartest guy in the room.

You know, I've thought a lot about his flip flopping in the past. I'm fairly certain he's been a straight laced conservative all along, but was closeted about it in order to win an election in Massachusetts.

I think you'll be happy with him as the nominee as well.

Devil-worshipping Mormon or not.

We'll see, the primaries haven't gotten to Texas yet, so I haven't paid a lot of attention to speeches.

I wouldn't use the "he's been a straight laced conservative all along, but was closeted about it in order to win an election in Massachusetts" line if it were me - it just means he's willing to cave on his convictions if it would mean the difference in an election/running his office after an election. Not the strong mark of a leader.

No I agree, but after losing a couple of elections in Mass I think he felt like he had to go a different route. He governed rather conservatively - with the exception of RomneyCare - and all in all I think has the better mind for the economic disaster we still labor under.

I don't think he's using that line. I was just making an honest assessment.

I still think you'll be happy if he wins.