While I think the comparisons to GWB will be fast & furious (and probably unsubstantiated) and his comments about succession will be more than problematic, I think Perry is very close to being the "last great hope" candidate.

I think Romney might be able to beat Obama, but only because people will be voting against Obama rather than for Romney, and even if Romney would win, I'm not sure conservatives would benefit, ultimately.

Perry, as you suggest, would actually inspire people to vote for him. In a field of less than stellar candidates, Perry seems like a reasonably competent and reasonably conservative choice, and the only candidate that possesses those two qualities together - conservative & competent.

"incandescent bulbs are banned"

Incandescent bulbs are not banned.

You know this is a fib, right?

I find a lot of irony in Pawlenty saying this. Think about it: The guy in the White House that he'll have to beat got HIS nomination in 2008 through the sole accomplishment of...delivering speeches. So apparently, a lot of folks ARE looking for someone who gives a good speech, Tim.

Pawlenty's a non-factor and almost certainly will stay that way until he drops out after NH. But Perry might also sense that Bachmann is heading for a tumble. Especially if she keeps signing more asinine pledges about pictures of naked ladies, the gay gene, the horribleness of no-fault divorce, and the black family's swell time under slavery.

If Perry gets in and doesn't screw up in the debates, he immediately becomes a much more real threat to Bachmann than Pawlenty ever was.

Tell Michele to give it a rest. She just signed a pledge that started with a note on how the black family did better under slavery. Hey, I'm only reporting.

You clearly are not reporting, at least not on any facts, and don't seem to have read the pledge yourself.

These are the bullet points of the actual pledge:
marital fidelity,
respect for marital bonds of others,
fidelity to the constitution and support for constitutionalist judges,
opposition to redefining marriage,
recognition of the evidence of the value of traditional marriage,
support for reform of laws and programs which harm marriage,
advocacy of the DOMA and support of a like constitutional ammendment,
protection of women and children from exploitation [including but not limited to pornography and abortion],
enactment of safeguards for military families, wives and children,
rejection of Sharia or other anti-woman code, recognition of the beneficial social value of children,
commitment to trim the public debts burden on families and, finally,
defense of the first amendment.

Not unsurprisingly it was a lot easier to find uninformed commentary on the pledge than to find the actual pledge itself.

As to the comments regarding blacks and slavery, this is what the document says [outside the body of the pledge]:
"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."

You are free to provide evidence that it is not so. That would be what we refer to as "reporting."

I like Perry, I like Bachmann, I like Pawlenty. I think we can all agree that anyone being considered for the nomination would be superior to Obama. Having said that, Perry should either go or get off the pot pretty soon. He's in serious danger of being "Thompsonized"

Casey Abell, you made your position on Bachmann and the pledge more than clear on the Bachmann thread. You're of course free to reiterate your position as many times as you please. But it is one thing to argue that the pledge could be read in the absurd ways you are suggesting here -- it is a self-defeating exercise if you wish Republicans well, but you can make the argument; it is quite another thing to repeat those tendentious and fanciful interpretations of the pledge as if they are true. The post was all about how ABC lied. Why would you want to join ABC?

Of course they are going to follow along, and they will find "errors" in everything Bachmann does. What does that have to do with your doing their dirty work for them? As I said, you're free, naturally, to argue that the pledge is "silly" and whatnot. That isn't what you did here. You stated that Bachmann signed a pledge that says slavery was good for black people. You may have meant merely to mock, but instead you repeated a lie.

Bachmann doesn't have to "invite" Perry to join in. Perry's getting in and I imagine you and I will be united in hoping he succeeds. But would he sign the pledge? Who knows? I don't, and you don't either. I'm actually thinking of getting behind a Perry/Bachmann ticket.