Replies

From an electoral standpoint, the "more electable" Perry is certainly weaker than Pawlenty. In other for Pawlenty to bring the same credentials to the table, he would have had to have been governor of a safely Republican midwestern state where the GOP holds every statewide office (let's say North Dakota), sworn into the job "by default" when the previous Governor resigned, won renomination against some RINO state official nobody likes and a kook, gotten re-elected by a simple plurality in North Dakota several times, and his toughest Democrat opponent ever would have been the mayor of Bismark.

That's pretty much Perry's electoral history. He's proven to be "electable" in a safely Republican state against Scott McClellan's mommy "Grandma Strayhorn", a liberal country music singer; a 9/11 truther, the mayor of Houston, etc.

Any reasonable Republican can see Pawlenty was elected Governor under far tougher circumstances.

From a governing standpoint, it's pretty much a wash. Both Perry and Pawlenty have an acceptable conservative platform and didn't do anything too bad but their records are meh. You're bashing Pawlenty for promising conservatives some red meat and then forgetting about it after he re-elected? Seriously? Perry's famous for doing that, it's known throughout the country that Rick "Texas should secede, yeeehawww!" Perry always say stuff to fire up tea party rallies that he never pushes for after he's re-elected. His list of past non-conservative positions is certainly equal to Pawlenty: Trans-Texas Corridor, DREAM act, signed tuition for illegals, was against building a border fence, promised Texans "no new taxes" then passed new toll roads and cigarette tax increases, etc.

Actually, the election results pretty much speak for themselves on that. 51% of Texas Republicans renominated Rick Perry for Governor. 89% of Minnesota Republicans renominated Tim Pawlenty for Governor. Gee, I wonder who's more popular with their party's base?