Todays big Roy Blunt news:

Sen. Roy Blunt, a key Republican political insider, will head Mitt Romney’s effort to secure congressional support for the former Massachusetts governor’s presidential bid, the latest move by the GOP establishment to close ranks for 2012.

According to both Romney and Blunt, this political marriage is based on their mutual concern for “job creation.”  Or maybe their mutual concern for “job creators” as in big corporate campaign contributors. Not for nothing was Roy Blunt one of the biggest money men going during his House years.

Then there’s this observation:

A longstanding conservative as well as an establishment figure, Blunt could help polish Romney’s image among both conservatives and Washington insiders.

I think that this means that the Romney camp recognizes that Blunt has managed the essential balancing act between serving GOP corporatist goals and spouting Tea Party insanity that just looks looks like the crassest sort of flip-flopping when Romney tries it. My own personal theory about this distinction is that Blunt’s demeanor is so wooden and his delivery so rote that it is taken as unstudied, whereas the glib Romney excites distrust from the less-polished denizens of Tea Party Land.

It also helps that Blunt never bothers to explain or justify his past actions; he just grunts and stays on GOP point. Maybe he can teach Romney to shut up about Romneycare, the forerunner of “Obamacare,” and help him jettison his efforts to justify his abysmal job creation record in Massachusetts. Blunt’s rule is never explain, just attack, no matter how crude your weapon.

Blunt and Romney also have one other singular commonality.  They look, respectively, like Howdy Doody and Charlie McCarthy – two ventriloquist’s dummies.

This fits well with the narrative attendant upon the announcement of Blunt’s role in the Romney campaign, which is that Romney’s rival, Rick Perry, scares the party mainstream silly:

There has been talk in Republican circles that Perry might be too dangerous to run in 2012 because he demonstrates little appeal to independents. Some in the GOP point to 1972, when liberal Sen. George McGovern won the Democratic nomination for president and lost to Richard Nixon in a landslide with long-lasting political consequences.

I can well imagine that well-known corporate puppets are preferable to the GOP movers-and-shakers – though demonstrably not to the base – than the perpetually foot-in-mouth Rick Perry.