A MOVE TOWARD ROMNEY? – AT 9:22 A.M. ET:  Increasingly, it looks like a two-man race in the GOP, unless one of them self-destructs or some prince or princess comes in and shakes things up.

Michael Gerson, of the Washington Post, formerly chief speechwriter for President Bush 43, clearly believes Romney will be the better choice, and thinks that's who the party will ultimately choose as its standard bearer:

Would an economic crisis favor a revolutionary candidate or a reassuring candidate?

In Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, we have undiluted representatives of each type. Perry is purposely provocative in style and content. He questions the legitimacy of 70 years of federal entitlement commitments. He proposes a fundamental reordering of the relationship between the federal government and the states. He is highly critical of the Federal Reserve and its chairman. Perry’s specific economic policies remain defiantly unspecific, but his rhetoric and intentions are ideologically ambitious.

Romney is running at Perry from the reassuring center. Both are harshly critical of Obama’s economic policies. But unlike Perry, Romney refuses to hurl the accusation of “socialism.” Romney argues that an overbroad condemnation of Social Security would leave Republicans “obliterated as a party.” His own 59-point economic plan contains a “number of options” for incremental entitlement reform — an approach the Wall Street Journal has criticized as “timid and tactical.” But Romney’s timidness on some issues is his main tactic against Perry. With the economy suffering a series of complex maladies, who wants a surgeon who performs only amputations?

And...

But if this is the choice during a period of national stress, the advantage goes to the reassuring. During the financial panic of September 2008, John McCain’s response was emotional and chaotic — suspending his presidential campaign in order to make time for a series of rash and contradictory statements. Obama said little of interest, but he said it calmly. And he benefited greatly.

Within the Republican Party, primary voters have a history of preferring less ideologically vivid, more electable candidates. Iowa caucus-goers — disproportionately religious and conservative since the late 1980s — do their best to change this habit. But they seldom pick the eventual winner in contested races.

And...

None of these historical precedents make Romney a shoo-in. But they indicate his prospects are better than his current polling. Perry is a perfect candidate for a time of Tea Party anger — say, around 2010. But Romney has a better case in a time of economic fear — like the one we may be entering — when competence becomes a desperate political demand. In this case, Republicans may choose, once again, not the purist they love but the old hand they trust.

COMMENT:  One can agree or disagree with Gerson's logic, but I think he makes sense.  Rick Perry is the current Republican man of the hour.  But polling shows his progress is stalling, perhaps because voters want to see more substance, less swagger.  That's why Thursday's debate from Orlando is so critical.  It isn't make or break, but Perry must show that he has the stuff of the presidency.  Romney must show that he's the man to be trusted in precarious times.

I look forward to this debate.  Things are starting to be defined on the Republican side.

September 20, 2011