Allen was already out. People are sick of the boots, especially on people who borderline cowboys. Unless you ride a horse for work; boots are just for play and show. I’d rather have a politician being honest in wingtips, or better yet a man wearing working boots. But the Country is fatigued of the Bush style and some of the policy. bye-bye allen this cycle.

John McCain is the frontrunner and the best candidate on the map. He was strong runner up in 2000; he was loyal in 2004; he’s the closest thing we have to a national hero; he’s moderate; it all just adds up.

Allen, of course, recently made a fool of himself again and is out. But McCain, Giuliani, Gingrich (!!!????)--is this the best we can do? They’re all "the politics of the past." The single issue of being a post-9/11 world is not going to be enough to carry the day. Most Americans aren’t thinking in 9/11 terms right now, and I think people on this blog are underestimating how unpopular "the war" is right now. Let me repeat: We need someone (at least relatively) new, and we need someone with conservative credentials and vision on a variety of issues. Of the men listed, I see the greatest promise in Romney. And I find the idea of dragging the discredited Gingrich out again most incredible.

I’m inclined to agree with Peter about the limits of McCain, Giuliani, and Gingrich (who’s a better pundit and gadfly than he is a leader). Republicans had better be able to find someone with outsider (non-Bush, non-Washington credentials) who is plausible on national security and acceptable to socons. Romney fills the bill and, from what I can tell, religious conservatives are sufficiently mature not to make too much of deep theological disagreements.

Could you please define "the politics of the past?" You used this vague phrase in another post too. What does it mean...the Reagan past, the Goldwater past, the Founders’ past?

I agree that Gingrich is too discredited and both he and Giuliani will melt under the intense scrutiny of a campaign. For all his faults McCain is personally the cleanest of the 3. Once Giuliani and Gingrich fall you have McCain and Romney with a dark horse like Huckabee. Huckabee will basically bet it all on South Carolina, making him a longshot.

As for McCain’s policies: He is a small government, states rights conservative with no equal among the major contenders. It would take a truly dark horse like...I actually can’t think of any to get to his right on spending. As far as regulation, i admit that he has a few problems like campaign finance reform and minimum wage. However, everyone almost has given in to minimum wage.

Socially McCain is as solid as well just about all of them. He beats Giuliani and holds his own against the rest. They all have oddities. Huckabee is open to civil unions; Romney has a moderate past of supporting abortion and gay rights (his current rhetoric can’t hide it all); Allen has well his current issues.

Realistic "outsiders" are guys like Rick Perry, or Tim Pawlenty--neither are any more solid than our current choices, although I’m calling a McCain-Pawlenty ticket.

I will hold back further blowing until Peter more clearly defines what the "politics of the past" is as he refers to it.

Sorry for the postlude: For the serious geek, or a person with a serious interest in 2008; I recommend McCain through his own words. It’s an excellent speech.

John

If "politics of the past" meant the Reagan past, the Goldwater past, the Founders’ past wouldn’t we be happy? I have not given in on the issue of the minimum wage, because it is still a bad deal for the national economy. So if McCain is willing to ignore that economic reality and also to trash the first amendment with his campaign finance reform, then what might he do in the White House? No thanks.

Although, you know, we’ll all vote for McCain if he is the guy still standing in ’08, because we’ll be more worried about what a Democrat would do than we will worry about him.

Or is Peter Schramm suggesting, above, that we wait to see who Karl Rove supports, because when he makes his choice, the game is over?

No one, not even Allen, is out yet. It is much too early in the game to make assumptions like that. Stumbles this early are embarassing and fun matter for pundits to banter about, but not serious.

On a different note, should conservatives want a McCain presidency? Honestly? Have we forgotten the many un-conservative actions of McCain? I’m not buying it. I’d rather "waste" my vote on a libertarian candidate than vote for McCain.

I only lament that Dr. Rice won’t run . . .

As a liberal Democrat, I would like to ask any of you with any political pull in D.C. to beg your party to run Newt Gingrich.



And I thought only Democrats were having such weak candidates in the early running . . . Clinton? Are you kidding me? Talk about a death march . . . Obama? Anyone ever heard of experience? Like many of you, I too am hoping for some new faces to come from somewhere.



Hey Allan - I’ll trade you Zell Miller for John McCain.

Just waiting and hoping for a lesser known to deliver a Cooper Unionesque speech that can propel him/her to the forefront. Too bad Ken Blackwell is just reaching for the gubanatorial stars. Any chance Colin Powell or anyone else with a military background might be interested in seeking office?

Sigh, this borders on petty but...

Allan: Allen may not be out because he was never in except among a few dreamers. His label is "Bush w/o Brains." That and his other Bushness sums it up. 2008 was never his year, just like Jeb.

Kate: Thanks for making my point. "Politics of the Past" is meaningless. Until Peter, or someone, defines what they are refering to the attack is as empty as a can of beer on a Saturday night. As an addition, Rove will not be supporting anyone in a way to make a difference. After 14 years he will want a break. And if minimum wage is your litmus test issue, who the H do you support? Allen is probably the only option for ya.

Without a doubt all contenders in the field fall short of even W. McCain is best positioned though to undo some of the neocon big gov. while continuing the ballsy foreign policy. He’s an old time conservative that stands for state rights and small government.

Until someone gives an explanation of Politics of the Past, I will say no more.