Normally I'd say that's the best approach, but in US politics all teams play for the same owner. - Edit 2
Before modification by Joel at 15/08/2011 04:13:30 PM
But for the sake of argument, I'll play along with the premise that what American voters think has a real impact on our leadership. 
No, he won't need a Palin to activate his base, but Obama's already activated them; meanwhile, he'll effortlessly alienate EVERYONE ELSE just by being a social conservative Texas governor. The "anyone but Obama" line is telling, because I think this is more like the '04 Dem primary than the '08 GOP primary: A field of second tier candidates guaranteed the base will show up to vote against the opposition, but hard pressed to attract independents, moderates and cross party voters. The only one who has anything to offer the rest of the country is Romney (if you catch him on the right day...), who's also the only well known, well funded and well connected candidate who has widespread name recognition in the rest of the country (well, Palin and Bachmann have name recognition, but the first has it by "virtue" of saying stupid things and the second by saying vicious things on the national stage). Indeed, the funding and flip flops only underscore the similarities between the primary that produced Kerry and the one that will produce Romney, and Republicans may find out that flip flopping doesn't give you bipartisan appeal, it just makes you look weak. Of course, having the LDS and Wall Street on his side when Obama's numbers are worse than Bushs in '03 may make Romney an irresistible force, but that will almost certainly be the case in the primaries.
If that weren't enough, as trzaska notes, Bachmann will cut into the far right base on which Perry must rely for the nomination; he has to run against her before he can run against Romney, and that's a hard row to hoe. He's been in the race all of four days and he's already having trouble on that front because of the HPV vaccine. Not only does this bit of spin risk earning Perry the same painful flip flop brand as Romney, but the manner leaves a lot to be desired. Telling voters, "I didn’t do my research well enough" doesn't exactly scream "great leader" (although forcing every kid in the state to use a drug only available from one of your campaign donors who has a lobbyist related to your chief of staff is vintage good ol' American crony capitalism, even if it is classic big government on our backs). Saying, "what we should of done was a program that frankly allowed them to opt in or some type of program like that.... " sure sounds like that evil big government to me; remember: Government programs are ALWAYS bad (e.g. NASA, the US Army, Medicare). I don't expect much, if any bounce for Perry once he becomes well known; MAYBE with the far right GOP "Christian" conservative base (as long as they don't hear about his big government attempt to force the HPV vaccine on every kid in TX) but, on the contrary, the more well known he becomes the flatter his numbers will be. The only people who'll back him will be far right social conservative religious voters, and a lot of them may bolt over big government property seizures and HPV vaccines (on the other hand, an IRS lawyer who's received all the federal pork and welfare Bachmann has isn't in great shape there either, but she's already known and accepted by the base).
I don't know that the media is really trying to sell Perry as a far right social conservative, unless you consider the Perry campaign part of the "liberal media". Really, the story sells itself; as you yourself have noted the main policy difference is that, if anything, Perry is to the right of Bush. Do you really think America has gone THAT far right, or that Obama's approval rating dropping below 40% will push them there? A lot of the flack Obama's getting is for not standing up to Republicans more; that's not how the Republicans who try to reflect accusations of selfish immature stubborness feel but, once again, they didn't vote for him last time either. That may be the biggest problem with Republicans trying to run on the Ryan plan and their traditional "down with American government" mantra (but then, it always seemed strange that a group that accuses all dissenters of treason hates its own government so much): It won't be easy to convince a nation of people who've lost their jobs, homes and are still waiting for the healthcare they voted for three years ago that they need LESS government help, and that the solution is to drop more tax breaks in the laps of the criminal robber barons who imploded the global economy with deliberate, naked and unpunished fraud. The problem with the traditional Republican tactic of going after lazy "welfare queens" is that 1) much, if not all, of the fraud and waste was cut during the welfare reform of the '90s and 2) too many people are ON welfare now to want it cut.
EDIT: OK, let's go with "Romneys flip flops meet Bachmanns radicalism"; the article also references his recent invocation, which I'd forgotten, of the Tenth Amendment to let states decide whether to allow abortion and gay marriage, which kind of flies in the face of what he said on Pat Robertsons TBN just WEEKS ago: That he wants a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, abortion, as well as one requiring a balanced budget (which should give you an idea of how recently he was calling for constitutional bans on the things he now says should be the states call because of the Constitution).
My own political leanings influence how I see things but I try and get around that as best I can. If the Texas primary was today and I would probably vote for Romney if for no other reason than I think he is a better candidate in the general but that doesn't mean I think he will win the primary. I think Romney has so poisoned the well with Romenycare and his flip flopping on social issues that he will have trouble getting his numbers much higher than they are right now and Perry will be the one gaining supporters as others drop out. The republican party is in a "anyone but Obama" mode and will elect almost anyone who they think can beat Obama. If Perry can convince enough people that he can beat Obama he wins the nomination simple as that. Obama's number help that argument since it looks like the rest of the country is moving to the same mode. Lets us see how his poll numbers look after he has been campaigning for three or four months. Better yet wait until after south Carolina, we should have a good picture by then. I don't think this is Perry's race to lose but if I had to put my money on a winner I would put it on Perry before I put it on Romney. I know you don't read a lot of right wing bogs but the hate for Romney runs deep and wide. McCain overcame a similar hate but he did by running against someone who was almost as weak as himself when it comes to inspiring the base, that would be Romney in case you have forgoten. Perry will not need to bring a loose canon like Palin on the ticket to inpire his base.
No, he won't need a Palin to activate his base, but Obama's already activated them; meanwhile, he'll effortlessly alienate EVERYONE ELSE just by being a social conservative Texas governor. The "anyone but Obama" line is telling, because I think this is more like the '04 Dem primary than the '08 GOP primary: A field of second tier candidates guaranteed the base will show up to vote against the opposition, but hard pressed to attract independents, moderates and cross party voters. The only one who has anything to offer the rest of the country is Romney (if you catch him on the right day...
), who's also the only well known, well funded and well connected candidate who has widespread name recognition in the rest of the country (well, Palin and Bachmann have name recognition, but the first has it by "virtue" of saying stupid things and the second by saying vicious things on the national stage). Indeed, the funding and flip flops only underscore the similarities between the primary that produced Kerry and the one that will produce Romney, and Republicans may find out that flip flopping doesn't give you bipartisan appeal, it just makes you look weak. Of course, having the LDS and Wall Street on his side when Obama's numbers are worse than Bushs in '03 may make Romney an irresistible force, but that will almost certainly be the case in the primaries. If that weren't enough, as trzaska notes, Bachmann will cut into the far right base on which Perry must rely for the nomination; he has to run against her before he can run against Romney, and that's a hard row to hoe. He's been in the race all of four days and he's already having trouble on that front because of the HPV vaccine. Not only does this bit of spin risk earning Perry the same painful flip flop brand as Romney, but the manner leaves a lot to be desired. Telling voters, "I didn’t do my research well enough" doesn't exactly scream "great leader" (although forcing every kid in the state to use a drug only available from one of your campaign donors who has a lobbyist related to your chief of staff is vintage good ol' American crony capitalism, even if it is classic big government on our backs). Saying, "what we should of done was a program that frankly allowed them to opt in or some type of program like that.... " sure sounds like that evil big government to me; remember: Government programs are ALWAYS bad (e.g. NASA, the US Army, Medicare). I don't expect much, if any bounce for Perry once he becomes well known; MAYBE with the far right GOP "Christian" conservative base (as long as they don't hear about his big government attempt to force the HPV vaccine on every kid in TX) but, on the contrary, the more well known he becomes the flatter his numbers will be. The only people who'll back him will be far right social conservative religious voters, and a lot of them may bolt over big government property seizures and HPV vaccines (on the other hand, an IRS lawyer who's received all the federal pork and welfare Bachmann has isn't in great shape there either, but she's already known and accepted by the base).
And if you won't believe that a news source who had reporter on Journalist and who is regularly brought on to MSNBC doesn't lean left then how about the simple fact that unnamed sources trying to push the idea that one candidate is not viable during a heated primary should be taken with huge grain of salt. When it is the narrative the media is already trying to sale it can be pretty much ignored out of hand as political gamesmanship on someone's part.
I don't know that the media is really trying to sell Perry as a far right social conservative, unless you consider the Perry campaign part of the "liberal media". Really, the story sells itself; as you yourself have noted the main policy difference is that, if anything, Perry is to the right of Bush. Do you really think America has gone THAT far right, or that Obama's approval rating dropping below 40% will push them there? A lot of the flack Obama's getting is for not standing up to Republicans more; that's not how the Republicans who try to reflect accusations of selfish immature stubborness feel but, once again, they didn't vote for him last time either. That may be the biggest problem with Republicans trying to run on the Ryan plan and their traditional "down with American government" mantra (but then, it always seemed strange that a group that accuses all dissenters of treason hates its own government so much): It won't be easy to convince a nation of people who've lost their jobs, homes and are still waiting for the healthcare they voted for three years ago that they need LESS government help, and that the solution is to drop more tax breaks in the laps of the criminal robber barons who imploded the global economy with deliberate, naked and unpunished fraud. The problem with the traditional Republican tactic of going after lazy "welfare queens" is that 1) much, if not all, of the fraud and waste was cut during the welfare reform of the '90s and 2) too many people are ON welfare now to want it cut.
EDIT: OK, let's go with "Romneys flip flops meet Bachmanns radicalism"; the article also references his recent invocation, which I'd forgotten, of the Tenth Amendment to let states decide whether to allow abortion and gay marriage, which kind of flies in the face of what he said on Pat Robertsons TBN just WEEKS ago: That he wants a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, abortion, as well as one requiring a balanced budget (which should give you an idea of how recently he was calling for constitutional bans on the things he now says should be the states call because of the Constitution).