Empathy? More Like Sympathy

I have followed the news media after last Wednesday's Republican Presidential Debates, and have been perplexed by the responses I have heard.  Granted, the most troubling have been from Conservative outlets but I am really surprised (I cannot understand why) by the empathy for Rick Perry.  Several talking heads on Fox News, and even Steven Colbert  (though I take his empathy with a grain of salt) have expressed empathy for Perry. 
Webster's defines empathy as

: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this

Empathy is not the word I would use for Perry.  Sympathy would be a better for Perry, and even then I would transfer that to all Republicans at this critical time in the political atmosphere.  I feel sympathy for Perry and the Republicans for two reasons.  1) They are so set about having anyone other than Mitt Romney that they are turning to doofuses like Perry when they need to focus on beating President Obama 2) Republicans really do not have a viable option to beat President Obama, and their thinking that Perry, Cain and the crew could just goes to prove my point.

1) Republicans need to look at history to see how far behind they are in this race.  If you go back to the last time a Democrat was is office and as unpopular as President Obama is right now, you will (at least in my mind) need to look at Jimmy Carter.  Carter was beat by Reagan soundly, but for two reasons.  One was Reagan was simply charismatic enough to do so, and two the Republicans started early trying to beat Carter.  As it stands today we're 158 days away from the election and they have no clear (viable) candidate to beat President Obama.  The party seems to almost hate Romney, Cain has the dogs on his back (with the option for more if nominated), and none of the others seem to have a hope.  Ron Paul has been the popular candidate amongst those that want to be involved in the party, but you get the sense that party bosses may very well want to loose. At least then they have four more years to take pot-shots at President Obama, or at least that's what a Romney nomination says to me.  The only thing is, if this is the case, they are actually making it hard on the 2016 candidate by doing so.  The only option I see is that they are simply trying to let Romney have his time in the sun so he will quietly fade away.  The Democrats did that in 2008 with ole whatshisface Kerry.  It's possible..I've been wrong before. 

2) Perry is just a moron, let's face it.  And tell me again why the Republicans want to go with a boot wearing cowboy again?  They tried that once, and I'm not sure they liked the outcome.  What happened to the idea that a Republican should/could beat a Democrat on ideas.  Why are they not trying to offer a calm, intelligent Conservative minded Republican that can appeal to moderates, and even some Democrats who think President Obama has gone too far left? (I am not of the opinion that he has, but that the right has gone so far right it would make any moderate look like a Pinko Commie Bastard) Romney, from what I can see, is very intelligent, reasonable, but seems to not have the party base.  You cannot win without the base. 

My answer is this: a) you should have encouraged Palin to run then absolutely burned her so bad she would stay out of politics or b) get behind Romney.  He is the best hope you have, albeit a slim one, and you had better pump his campaign full of ideas, moderation, and NO TEA PARTY. You wanna loose for sure, bring those folks along.