Perry is merely a different face of the same GOP Establishment coin. He is Bush's "compassionate conservative" moderate vrs the liberal wing of the GOP in Romney. It's the 2000 McCain vrs Bush fight all over again.
Perry is Romney lite. Like Bush he is another social conservative/political moderate talking tough to win the GOP primary. He will then go to DC and be a good little Establishment water-boy just like Bush.
The difference between Perry and Romney is which issues they will choose to focus on. Perry will be a staunch social conservative big spending, crony capitalist, Romney will be a social liberal, big spending, big government crony capitalist.
I agree with you re: the compassionate conservative Perry and I made just that point earlier in this thread. I’m not so sure that Romney would be as bad or worse than Perry on all the issues, however.
Remember, Romney’s MO is to flop to whatever position he believes will win him the most favor with the voters in his next election. In this case, he’d be looking for re-election, I see no evidence that he, for example, would be driven to hand citizenship and voting to 30 million illegal aliens, the way that Perry would.
Also, Romney is not nearly as transparently crony and donor driven as Perry. Perry has submerged himself in a cesspool of special deals and pay-for-play appointments and giveaways. Romney has both already had enough money of his own and had enough ability to raise money without such grotesque dealmaking.
(A pox on both of them IMO!)
I find it hilarious that somebody from Minnesota, the state that gave the nation Al Franken in the Senate, thinks they can judge the conservative credentials of a Texas governor now in his third term.
This entire argument about Perry’s conservative credentials is mundane and elementary, and at this point I can just start disregarding posters like you who obviously have a very loose grasp on reality, and what it takes to get elected to 3 terms in Texas (without quitting, btw).