Come On, GOP!

Let's stop and assess the GOP frontrunners:

It's come to light this week that Ron Paul's newsletter didn't publish just one possibly racist article, it printed several definitely rasict articles. From Mark Mayberry at The Truth About Bills:

The comments below seem to be the most notable:

• “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

• “We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”

• After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.”

• One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours” and who “seduced underage girls and boys.”

Ron Paul's response to this revelation is, well, irrelevant. The statements were published, and they're clearly racially-charged. That should be the last nail in the coffin of Paul's campaign, but it probably won't be.

Then there's Newt Gingrich, whose history of government medicine, gun control, poor leadership, and unabashed admiration for FDR should disqualify him from consideration. Unfortunately, they haven't.

Thomas Sowell's "endorsement" of Gingrich this week is pretty standard fodder as far as Newt endorsements go. It can be summarized thus: 'Newt isn't a very good guy, but Obama is much worse... and yadda yadda Mitt Romney'. To me, common sense dictates that any candidate who must be endorsed with a disclaimer- such as "I know he's not a nice guy..." shouldn't be endorsed at all.

And the endorsements- just like Sowell's- follow the same unspoken inevitability assumption: There is no candidate other than Newt (well, OK, there's Mitt), Newt is the inevitable choice, suck it up and vote for him in the primary, and he'll look good debating Obama. I see no enthusiasm amongst Gingrich supporters, merely acquiescence.

Speaking of Mitt: I think it's safe to say few of us on the right really want to vote for him. The thrust of the Presidential race so far as been to find the un-Romney, after all. I don't think I need to say much more than that about him.

Jon Huntsman, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Santorum are barely worth mentioning. Their poll numbers are so consistently low, they're guaranteed to never earn the nomination.

And then there's Rick Perry. It is maddening to me that more people aren't getting behind him! Unlike Gingrich, he's extremely personable, has no plans to socialize medicine, and has a clean gun rights record. He's also the ideal 'not-Romney'. He has an impeccable record of governance in Texas and a sensible immigration plan.

In fact, I don't think anyone even disputes any of these points.

So what exactly is the barrier to getting behind Perry? If it's the one dumb video referencing 'gays in the military, let's point something out: Although it wasn't well-stated, the basic point of the ad was to illustrate that not all groups are gaining equality in the law. While one group- the gay community- are gaining legal equality, another group- Christians- are rapidly losing it. Compare this to Gingrich flatly telling the gay community to vote for Obama, and tell me who is less LGBT-friendly.

So again I ask: What is it about Perry- a solid small-government conservative with an impressive record as Governor of Texas (as well-illustrated by "Ace Of Spades" here)-  that makes him less appealling than Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul? Anyone?

Come on, GOP! Do we really want a poor candidate like Gingrich or Romney? Or do we want a great candidate with a proven track record of success?