The key to a winning GOP presidential candidate in a normal year is to find a candidate that appeals to both of the major wings of the party (social & fiscal) while not being viewed as threatening to the moderate/RINO wing.
That's how Bush got the nomination, and got elected. And, in spite of several major disappointments, it is how he's governed. Tax cuts/Mexican amnesty for the fiscals, SC judges for the socials and "compassionate" big government conservatism for the mushy middle.
Now, take a look at the supposed GOP candidates for '08:
Rudy & McCrazy - non-starters for the socials, for obvious reasons.
Romney - Representing the bluest state in the union, coupled with a Morman background, likely will be too much to overcome.
Newt - Interesting because, when it comes to ideas, he is easily the best of the bunch. However, his stint as Speaker showed having ideas and governing them are two different things. Newt was a poor leader once in power (see Breach of Trust by Tom Coburn). Plus, his personal life is about on a par with Rudy's.
With one exception, the rest of the bunch have virtually zero name recognition and even less money, making them non-starters as well.
That one exception is U.S. Senator (and former governor) George Allen of Virginia. He meets all three criteria for a winning GOP candidate, which is why the 'Rats (via Webb) and the Washington Compost (via the "macaca" nonsense) are trying so hard to trip him up before he gets positioned for the '08 primaries.
For those on the thread who would scream "War on Terror!" as reason for supporting Giuliani and/or McCain, lets stipulate that no GOP candidate is going to get the nomination unless they strongly support the WOT - none. Therefore, there is no absolutely reason to accept the RINO baggage of either Rudy or McCain - all that will do is ensure one of the major wings stays home, and Hillary strolls back to 1600 Pennsylvania.
You want to keep Hillary out? Nominate a conservative who is acceptable to each wing of the GOP. Otherwise, it is a third party situation just waiting to happen, with president HRC waiting in the wings.
The best news would be for Cheney to have a change of heart and accept the nomination for '08 - I believe he would walk over Hillary, especially once they get to debate. The next best news would be for a true conservative not currently on the radar screen to come out of the blue.
Considering the unlikeliness of either option, I believe Allen will be the best choice for conservatives in '08 - unless the left can destroy him before he gets there.
I thought he was mediocre, but OK. But, when I saw the transcript of his debate with Webb in the RTD a couple of Sundays ago, I realized that he is a total dope.
Mitt "endorsed once by the Republican Majority for Choice PAC, and twice by the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans" Romney will also prove unacceptable to Southern conservatives.
Mitt "support and sustain Roe v. Wade" Romney's decade-long record of support for abortion on demand will be found out.
As will Mitt "all people should be allowed to participate in Scouting regardless of sexual orientation" Romney's support for homosexual Scoutmasters and tax-paid same-sex benefits for the homosexual partners of govt employees and his appointment of two homosexual activists to the bench.
Plus Mitt "don't hold your breath waiting for the NRA's endorsement" Romney's support of the assault weapons ban and other gun control measures will go over like a lead-filled balloon down in the Southland.
The Bible Belt will not be unbuckled for Mitt Romney, except maybe to give him a good whippin'.
"You want to keep Hillary out? Nominate a conservative who is acceptable to each wing of the GOP."
We did this in 1996 with Bob Dole.
Better to pick Giuliani and win, in my view, and hold his feet to the fire over judicial nominees.