I have met many, perhaps all of us, who think everyone else needs more. But, along that line, I may be deficient. Please explain to me how Romney endorsing Perry two years ago is more a positive for Romney that it is for Perry. I am missing the "pure" logic leading to that conclusion.
Concerning your personal page, I recommend to you James Burke's Connections. You may modify your opinion of human development. It is his opinion that the development of irrigation led to the development of agriculture which in turn led to counting, distribution, accounting, etc. It is a very interesting book.
I honestly was not accusing you of lacking common sense - although I can imagine why you might think so. Apologies for the miscommunication.
Anyway, the logic of the situation from my perspective is as follows:
Romney is praising Perry.
This means one of two things:
1. Romney agrees with Perry and since (in my opinion and that of a very large number of others - including polls) Romney is more electable in the general election than we can relax and vote for him since he agrees with a person currently perceived as a “true conservative”.
2. Romney does not actually like or agree with Perry, but nevertheless is willing to “play by the rules” established by Reagan of not saying bad stuff about Republicans. Which, in my opinion, speaks positively of Romney as well - given the current mud slinging by the candidates.
If, however, one sees Romney as essentially a Democratic with an “R” behind his name, then his endorsement of Perry is meaningless or even damaging to Perry. After all, Obama’s high opinion of John Huntsman is not exactly something he goes around touting.
That is my logic to the situation. Perhaps not common sense though.
Thanks for the book recommendation.