Stanley Kurtz on Romney Vs Perry

Stanley Kurtz has a post at The Corner that seems to analyze the territory accurately:

Yes, Romneycare was an unfortunate and failed attempt to compromise with Massachusetts liberals. No doubt, at the time Romney thought this would set him up for a successful presidential run. Even so, all of Romney’s business instincts tell against Obama’s broader plans. Romney would undo the economic damage of the Obama years and get the economy growing again. That’s what comes through loud and clear in No Apology.

It’s still early in the process. The upcoming debates will tell us a lot. Conservatives are right to be excited by Perry. He may be the solution we’ve been looking for. But the fundamental goal is, and must remain, to defeat Obama. Things could change, but as of now Perry remains the riskier bet. Flaws and all, Romney is not only the more likely winner, but a candidate with more positives than conservatives now give him credit for. On the other hand, as noted, even at slightly greater risk, Perry may well be a chance worth taking. And with the right set of proposals, Perry could go a long way toward diffusing his vulnerabilities.

What I’m really saying is that I haven’t made up my mind yet. We’ve got to get this one right. Perry’s great, but he still needs road testing, and a chance to lay out his policies. And as of now, for all his problems, Romney shouldn’t be written off. Try reading both Fed Up! and No Apology and you’ll see that our two frontrunners are both live options for conservatives.

Given that I’m an independent conservative and not a registered Republican don’t expect any endorsements from me during the primary season. I’ll have some comments and analysis throughout but I leave this task of picking the nominee who is most likely to defeat Obama to my Republican friends.