The Karl Rove GOP v. the Sarah Palin GOP = Mitt Romney v. Herman Cain?

Perhaps ir is not an entirely apt to call the Establishment GOP versus the Populist Tea Party GOP division a Karl rove versus Sarah Palin conflict, because I suspect Palin will endorse Mitt Romney once his hold on the nomination is all but secured, but it is a good enough model with which to work.

Rove has gone on the attack against Herman Cain, a move which is intended to help Romney win. Rove’s criticism’s of Cain are nothing new. I have made quite a few of them myself. Cain does not understand right of return for Palestinians. He cannot define the foreign policy goals of neoconservatives in general. Cain expressed a willingness to negotiate with terrorists by leaving open the prospect of swapping all the inmates in Gitmo for one American POW. His answer to Afghan war policy is that he will figure it out once he gets into office, presumably meaning he will huddle with someone who knows what they are doing after he wins. He has fumbled the abortion issue. He cannot defend his national sales tax effectively in light of states that already have high state sales taxes. These are specifics, but they add to the general sense that cain is not up for the job. Had he served in a capacity like Governor of georgia before launching a presidential bid…well, he probably would know better than to launch a presidential bid.

Cain is riding high in the polls nevertheless--so was Howard dean at this point in the 2004 election--but does that mean he has a shot against Romney, who has the Establishment and a ton of Wall Street cash behind him/ when that question gets answered, we will know which wing of the republican party is dominant.

I agree with George F. Will that cain’s sudden rise is a backlash against the solid support for Romney, who is not a strong conservative, but has a (possibly unearned) reputation as a competent governor, by ideological purists who do not want to risk nominating a wishy washy candidate. Are there enough of the latter Republicans to nominate someone grossly unqualified to be president like Cain? Well, the Democrats did with Barack Obama in 2008, and it has not exactly paid dividends for them. I remain unconvinced Democrats really believed he would have made a more competent president than Hillary Clinton. In that sense, I believe it is the republicans turn to make the same determination.

I am still sticking with my prediction Romney will be the GOP nominee. The Establishment is difficult to beat, as Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, Steve forbes, and a small army of others will attest. In spite of the Tea Party ascendance in recent years, we are not in line for a radical shift in the Republican party in which the rank and file make an end run around the party poobahs, signaling a major ideological shift. But if I am wrong--keep your fingers crossed. I do not agree with Christine O’Donnell that a garden gnome could beat Obama next year, but even if an unqualified candidate can, the next four years might be just as bad a learning curve as the previous four.

If you are looking for more positive for Cain arguments on the issue, check out The Other McCain and The Gateway Pundit. These blogroll denizens have a different take on Rove's views and Cain's chances of winning.