Redstate

I viewed Allen as the heir-apparent to my favorite president of the last 140 years. I have lost some respect for him recently, however as he has not supported the President when he is down. A sign of a good friend --or ally-- is where that person is when you're down and out --not sailing through 90% approval ratings. That's why it's more impressive that Senator McCain (and Senator Brownback) stand with the President now when he has the likes of radio lunatics and left wing loons at his throat every day then when the President was making mince-meat of the far left and the populist revolt had not yet begun.

First, there's a good explanation for the "Jeffersonian Conservative" label ... Allen's running in Virginia.  Thomas Jefferson is beloved there, almost as much as Jefferson Davis.  Either way, if you're running in Virginia, you're going to put "Jefferson" somewhere in the campaign.  They're not kidding around in that state.

Second, I have to point out that I just don't know what is going on with Allen's 08 ambitions right now.  Of the big 3: McCain, Romney, and Allen, George has been the most low-key lately.  McCain is everywhere all the time and Romney is starting to make sure he's noticed as well.  But Allen ... he seems to be laying low right now.  But I think he knows what he's doing.  I think.  And if either of those three is the Republican nominee, I think either would win, and I think I could live with it.  I would have reservations--about any of them--but really, if we're honest, that's exactly how we felt in 2000.  That's politics, baby ... at least when you're conservative.  Jeb, rescue us!  Jeb!!!

Brownback for President?  I say no way.  I've seen him in person and talked to him, and I think he's a great guy and all, but he has NO charisma.  Maybe he's angling for VP, I don't know.  He's just uninspiring.  I hate to say it because I like him a lot, I really do, but I think he's Fristian.

Allen was just in Iowa on St. Pat's Day. Went to hear him & came away impressed. He'll be back in Iowa for the GOP state convention in June. I believe he's doing exactly what needs to be done for someone who is running for re-election. Make a few appearances in Iowa, NH, SC, etc....but make certain he covers his home base in VA. Romney has an easier path to Iowa & NH as he made the wise move of not running this year.

Info on my blog;

http://theiowacaucusreport2008.blogspot.com/

I haven't seen evidence of it yet, but it sounds like you are suggesting that Allen may be flirting with trying to become the candidate of the populist right, which is not beyond the realm of possibility since that may be the only opening he can find in the field.

With Romney as the Nat'l Review/Weekly Standard intellectual conservative candidate, and with McCain attempting to cobble together a coalition of RINOs and Beltway establishmentarians who want to win, Allen may be tempted to go into crazy-Buchanan-land on us, which means to run as the fiscally liberal, socially conservative candidate who is anti-trade, isolationist, and generally opposed to federal power in a reactionary way.  I suppose there is a real opening in the race for a candidate like that, but I'm not sure it would work for Allen, largely because his history as a politician hasn't been consistent with those principles and, more importantly, because the Buchananite candidate rarely represents the future of anything, including conservatism or the GOP.

If Allen goes this route, I doubt he'd be able to out-Buchanan some of the Buchananites already in the race, and even if he did, he would just end up branded the bad guy in the race by the media, which allows Romney to run up the middle between Allen and McCain as the sensible conservative in the race.

Read Fred Barnes article from a month ago and we see that Allen has been taking this type of populist line: [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/960hxfvi.
asp]

Didn't realize your post was a response to mine...sorry to be redundant.

Romney could bring the deficit hawks back with his performance in Massachusetts (with a Democratic legislature).

On life issues, he is a convert, but there have been conversions on this issue - both ways - in the past.  What is to say his conversion is less valid than those that have occured before?

At that point, it leaves the only real issues being trade/immigration.  A one-issue Presidential candidate.  And that viewpoint could crop up in the primaries anyhow - and that short-circuits a third party effort.  Yes, some Republican like Tancredo might think of running third-party, but after what happened to Bob Smith (he got primaried out in 2002), would any of them have the nerve to take that sort of step?

If Romney goes in, addressing the fiscal-conservative concerns, he has a good chance against Hillary - because it removes a fair chunk of the complaints against Bush.

He's a two issue candidate.

He's right but radical on abortion.

He's wrong on immigration.

I had the incredible good fortune to work pretty close to his inner circle in his 2000 campaign and got to meet the man.  He is very steadfast in what he believes and he votes the way he believes.  He's not very good at explaining it (and falls back on the football references when he's uncomfortable), but he can be relied upon to do what he thinks is right despite the polls (thus his indefinite flip-flopping because he gave me the impression that he Doesn't have a real standing on the Hate Crimes issue, among other relatively minor things).

He really is a good guy and gives a good speech and is even better in small groups or one on one.  But he needs a good VP who has stong positions where he flip-flops.

Also, if he really is courting the Buchananites, he's running scared.  He doesn't like them.  This would also explain his low-key attitude lately.

My guess is that if he doesn't find a better position for himself, he'll never put forth his candidacy because the Buchanan position is one he'll never reconcile with his conscience...

Allen seems fine, but I'd rather have Romney as the consensus conservative candidate who can win.

I like Brownback, agree w/ him on abortion, gay rights, and immigration.  He'd have a tough time winning, but it depends on who the Dems nominate and how things look in 08.  Could make a good VP candidate if a moderate like McCain were the front pick.

Living in Virginia, of course I get the Thomas Jefferson thing.  But still, a lot of conservatives living in the Midwest hate it.

On a second point, I can't even believe anyone here is calling Romney the "conservative" candidate.  He's listed as a Top 10 RINO, and he's going to accept legislation in Massachusetts that in my view is one step away from socialized medicine and, more importantly, won't work.  More on that later, though.

Allen might be a nice enough guy, but the football comments do my head in, and I think the guy is a lightweight.  The rumors in DC that he is the dumbest Senator (beating even Patty Murray from my home state of Washington who again is very nice, but is often referred to as "nice but dim") may be unfairly pushed.  But his remark at the SRLC regarding Iraq was so simplistic as to be daft.  For a foreign affairs girl like me, he's not even worth a look.

Not that I would ever support Brownback.  He is also a nice guy, who strikes me as very genuine and well-intentioned (beating the image of the nasty, mean conservative).  But given my stance on abortion and that it is not a top 10 legislative priority for me, I can't see me ever voting for him.

Allen is, all right. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing by itself, but if he was supposed to be the next Gipper, he doesn't add up. Allen is another possible next Gipper, but we could end up getting Gipped (awful, nonsense pun I couldn't resist, sorry).

I've been leaning strong Allen in the past, but now I'm looking at Romney more closely. I think the competence issue is going to be major, because although I still support the war, it's been allowed to drag out. If the admin IS competent, well, it's not hard to see why the Average Joe or Jane doesn't see it.

Romney's flips are no worse than Allen's, and once again, we always like electing an executive. (Which Allen was, but who remembers now?)

...will help Romney over Allen.

Being "right" on the issues is not enough for a President.  One of the President's most critical elements to success in keeping the country together is to pursuade in speeches and interviews.  After President Bush, we all know how important it is for a President to clearly explain and articulate reasoning, and make a logical case why conservatism is the only option.  Bush sucks at this.  Romney can do this well, and so can others like Huckabee, Owen, Newt.

So, along with conservatism, how effectively they can communicate it is important.  Allen is just an OK speaker, and has moments of very good speaking (like Bush), but he also suffers from a Gomer Pyle style way of communicating that's too easy to make fun of.

I think Jefferson was one of our great presidents and don't have a problem w/ that at all (and had never heard that Mid Western conservatives apparently hate the guy).  

I actually wrote a diary on how I felt Human Events posting of Romney as a top 10 RINO was unfair.  I'll certainly grant that he's not a libertarian style conservative, maybe closer to a Bush conservative (but hopefully more competent).

your favorite President is the 11th?

Romney is and, even if he leaves the Governor's mansion and goes off to become a lion tamer in Outer Mongolia, always will be competent because he's a very smart, hardworking guy with a track record of mastering his trade(s).

I guess the point I'm coming to is that for anyone who likes Barry Goldwater and feels that his values as much as Ronald Reagan's define the fundamentals of what it is to be a Republican, libertarianism to a large extent forms the basis of what they consider to be their core philosophy.    I can't get away from my belief in what Goldwater espoused.  Growing up in the Pacific Northwest, with its libertarian vs populist approach (rather than just traditional left-right), and being my father's daughter raised with a deep respect for the values of the Scottish enlightenment, and whose family came to Seattle via the Wild West with all the pioneer mentality that that entails, I am bound to be a Goldwater Republican. And that surely does explain why I have a bit of an issue with Romney (just as I do with Bush)-- see my new diary entry for more detail on that.

I certainly don't dislike the guy, but I think his preferred method for solving problems and his outlook are out of sync with libertarians, as well as many moderates and, I maintain, many conservatives feel the same way (even if Human Events has changed its mind).  Ultimately, moderates might get their heads around what he's doing vis a vis health care in Massachusetts, but they won't like the fact that he evidently wants to amend the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage-- irrespective of his views on civil unions-- or the fact that lately  (if not before) it has started looking like abortion is a top 5 issue for him.  I think even for the pro-lifers among the moderate grouping, the feeling is that there are bigger fish to fry, better uses of legislative and presidential time, like dealing with Iran, getting the deficit in check, keeping taxes down, reestablishing our place in the world, and yes, dealing with the most grevious environmental concerns.

I think what Romney is showing, therefore, is that he's not the candidate for the libertarians amongst us, he's not the candidate for moderates, and he's not the candidate for conservatives who feel strongly enough about the abortion issue, in particular, to question the authenticity of his "conversion."  And I mantain, regardless of whether Human Events has changed its stance on Romney because of more recent statements on abortion, that many conservatives that I know think he is fudging the issue, and furthermore that he is actually more liberal than McCain or Allen.  He therefore won't be getting those conservative votes unless he does something truly dramatic.

People who give in to Planned Parenthood and the homosexual lobby don't deserve conservative votes.

And Allen would do well to remember Thomas Jefferson wasn't even in the country when the Constitution was being written.  He was too busy cavorting in France with a bunch of Godless proto-socialists.

Setting aside Allen's love for a man who had no direct knowledge of the Constitution, he's not fit to be President anyway because he's just not smart enough.  Did anyone else hear about how he didn't even know that Ben Bernanke was being nominated to replace Greenspan?  Or how he didn't realize that the hearings to confirm him had already finished when he said to a reporter "You mean I missed them all? I paid no attention to them."  

Must have been too busy watching football.

Conservatives can do better than a man who doesn't even bother to find out who's being nominated for what and when.  Brownback and Pence are smarter, and more conservative, than Allen anyway.

A personal fave, very perceptive, though I don't know that I could justify putting him in the same league as Jefferson.

I can see why he wouldn't be the candidate for a libertarian-conservative.  Personally I'm glad abortion and protection of traditional marriage are important issues for him and I lean towards thinking his conversion was real.

The analysis of Romney not really being anybody's first choice may be true -- he wouldn't be the religious right candidate, the Bush heir apparent, the liberal Republican candidate, or the libertarian conservative candidate, but I think he may be a solid choice consensus candidate who most of the Republican coalition could agree on if they can't on anyone else.  The other potential ofr this candidate is Allen, and I think Romney is more intelligent and more electable.  

Romeny is definitely more intelligent that Allen.  No doubt about it.  But being everyone's second choice doesn't strike me as much of a way to win primaries.

is that it discounts a Frist candidacy. Yes, Frist is a boring speaker...now. But what Frist lacks in charisma, Bush lacked in eloquence two years before his 2000 election. If Frist is on the campaign trail for 2 years, he's going to get better. He will have more time to become polished, as he won't be distracted with his current task of herding chickens.

Further, the criticism that Frist is "too brainy" is not well received. People expect (or at least hope) doctors are highly intelligent.

Another oversight committed here is Frist's excellent connections. In every city he travels to around the country, he meets with dozens of key Republicans in that area. In essence, as MJ, he is building his base around the country in a way that other hopefuls have not.

Frist has money. Lots of it. Enough to make him a serious (and long-distance) contender.

Of course, "Senator Frist" is politically much less desirable than "Governor Frist" when campaigning for President. But a senator winning the presidency is not beyond the realm in a wide open primary.  

 

The discounting of the Frist Campaign was one of the few things that even made sense to me in this diary. lol

The Frist Presidential Campaign is DOA - but at least we'll be getting him out of the Senate. We need new leadership sooner than later.

He's the first choice of fiscal conservatives, based on his ability to take a $3B deficit and turn it into a $1B surplus without raising taxes. He did it through action, while McCain, Allen, Frist, Brownback and the rest of the glorified debate club were overseeing LBJ-style spending and huge deficit growth.

Spending control and deficit reduction are Job 1 in my book, and Romney is my first choice.

I concur that we need a MJ with his eye on conservative reforms, instead of the presidency.