Fred Barnes has a WSJ column up subtitled, "Don't discount Sen. George Allen's presidential ambitions just yet.'" Unfortunately, most of the piece is a recap of all of the controversies Allen has found himself in during the Senate race, and Barnes doesn't make much of a case for why he should be viewed as a viable presidential candidate. The best he does is this:
Many conservatives are souring on
Virginia's junior senator as a presidential candidate. Still: Should Mr. Allen overcome the media onslaught, effectively counter Mr. Webb's call for a withdrawal from Iraq, finish the campaign without breaking ranks with President Bush, and win a slugfest by a modest margin, he may emerge as a tough-minded survivor. The press won't like him any better, but he might earn the respect of Republican voters around the country. Candidates have been "misunderestimated" before, and stranger things have happened in politics.
Yes, stranger things have happened, but that's not a very compelling reason to believe that Allen has a chance of winning the presidency. Personally, I have always been a bit perplexed as to why anybody would think that he's fit to hold the nation's highest office. Long before the "macaca" incident, Allen struck me as a lightweight who couldn't make a speech without quoting Ronald Reagan, Thomas Jefferson, or using a football metaphor. The events of the last few months have just confirmed that view. If there are any Allen defenders out there, I'm really curious to hear why you think this man would make a good Commander-in-Chief.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?