Centerfield

And when Robert Reich's magazine calls a Republican a "bad candidate", I'm supposed to do a double take?

Now there's a low blow. Calling someone like Bob Kerrey. How can Hagel show his face in public again?

Scott,

You may be confusing the liberal magazine The American Prospect with The American Spectator. The latter is the conservative magazine that led the charge to impeach Clinton. They think that both Hagel and McCain are not reliably conservative enough. Their "disendorsement" serves to me as an endorsement of the two senators centrism. Where both Hagel and McCain differ from most of us at the Centrist Coalition is that they are pro-life.

I'm inclined to conclude much the same as Rick from "disendorsement" by a conservative group.

Hagel I'm lukewarm on. But, Biden I've always liked. Not for his politics as much as for his style. He comes across as being one who simply calls a spade a spade. Which appeals to me very much. It's the same basic trait that I found so appealing in Perot, McCain and Dean.

Rick, you're right, my mistake.

According to them, he bears an untoward resemblance to former Sen. Bob Kerrey.

And that's bad? (That was the Kerry I always liked.)

Not for his politics as much as for his style. He comes across as being one who simply calls a spade a spade.

As long as someone else said it first and Xerox Joe doesn't have to properly footnote it. :-)

With you on Kerrey, Chris. Don't care too much for Hagel, though. Can't even say why right off the top of my head. But I don't think he resembles Kerrey much, although he plays him on TV in campaign season.

Hagel is too much like Pataki. They're both old news. It just feels like they've gone past their freshness date.

As a Republican, I'll stick to my field for commentary. My first choice is McCain, for obvious reasons. As Rick said, he's pro-life, but many centrists like myself are moderate on abortion, and McCain has always shown independence from the absolutists on the religious right. I doubt McCain would, for example, appoint judges to overturn Roe, though he would probably sign a sensible partial birth abortion ban.

My second choice is Mitt Romney, who has proven to be a very forward-thinking leader who has interesting ideas in both fiscal and domestic policy areas.

Rudy is right up there too, but he is truly a mixed bag, and he has tons of baggage. For every great quality the guy has, there seems to be a skeleton or two in his closet. And I don't just mean his personal life. We'll see what happens with him.

Romney cuts a striking figure--you could easily see him playing the role of a President in any movie, but he certainly seems to veer far right in his cultural appeal. Maybe it's just what he thinks he needs to do to win the nomination? Or, maybe it's his true character. I don't know.

As far as Biden goes, he didn't get those new teeth for nothing. It's very clear that he is trying to establish himself as the chief rival to Hillary.

IMHO, Romney's social views are actually quite centrist. I know many centrists are socially very liberal, but to me, centrism means centrism on all issues.

Stem cell research: Romney supports the research with current embryos but not cloning new ones --- a sensible position given the ethics involved.

Gay rights: civil unions but not gay marriage; a good compromise

Abortion: pro-choice for early term ones; supports some restrictions; don't know his late term views yet

I'm from Massachusetts and I've followed Romney ever since his first adventure in carpetbagging when he ran for Senate. The guy is absolutely NOT a centrist, he's a regular conservative, both fiscally and socially. If you don't believe me, just wait, you'll see.

If GW Bush is the beta version of Compassionate Conservative, Romney is the fully mature CompCon5.1, with all the features everyone wants and with most of the bugs fixed. Smarter, more polished, better rhetoric, more competent in appearance, much better speaker. Utter focus on the core GOP winning recipe: taxpayers and families, competition is good, God Bless America.

I'd be shocked if he doesn't get the nod. God knows he's been running for the job since he was in 3rd grade.
All he has to do is show his obvious and genuinely-held conservative cred, and couple that with " I can win in a blue state." Next thing you know, Bob's your uncle.

"I'd be shocked if he doesn't get the nod."

Really? The folks on conservative blogs are saying just the opposite. They think he's too mushy for them. And he recently came out with a line on abortion that made them very unhappy ("personally pro-life"). They were saying he sounded too "nuanced."

But since you've got a closer view than I do, I'll take your word for it that he's a contender. Do you really think he could beat McCain or Rudy in a primary though?

I don't think Rudy or McCain can win in the primaries. I love McCain, but he's a guy many Republicans call
not Republican enough. He gets called "Republican in name only. " Guiliani has limited appeal with social conservatives. This is none reason why I think that as centrists we should pick a proxy from one parties primaries to move the nominations closer to the middle. McCain would be the first guy actually on the ballot that I've ever voted for proudly. He's getting ptretty old though.

I am continually shocked by how many people think Romney is a moderate or a centrist. Even here in Masachusetts, it's like people can't read between the lines at all. He's a bonafide conservative.

Nuanced? That'll go away soon enough. Right now he's torn between two lovers because he's flirting with running for re-election to MA governor, but I'm sure he's too smart to do this and run the risk of losing. The recent string of GOP MA governors has had a big problem finishing out their terms and the electorate is bound to rebel at the idea of electing a guy weaseling his way out of saying whether he'll serve a full term. This is complicated by the fact that his likely opponent is Tom Reilly. Tom Reilly is a well-regarded older guy, a no-nonsense AG, a catholic, and a fairly straight shooter. I think he'll get elected easily as a a grandfatherly guy with no ambitions beyond the governorship. I think MA is primed to elect a guy who promises that he'll be like the mayor of MA, concentrating on filling potholes, keeping the budget in order, getting the trains to run on time, and eschewing partisan food fights.

Once Romney bows out of running for re-election, he'll go national hard and fast, his face wil be everywhere, kissing babies, earnestly listening to everyday people concerns, and so on. His resume is this: mormon teetotaler, big family man, EXTREMELY successful venture capitalist, saved the UTAH Olympics, got elected Republican governor in MA. It's a dream resume, carefully crafted for the impending run. He's Gregg Stillson. Only Christopher Walken can save us now.

I guess I'm not all that "up" on the current state of Mass politics. What are Romney's re-election prospects looking like? I guess that determines a lot.

Well, I think he stands a fair to good chance of getting re-elected if he runs, but that he's too smart to run again.

If he runs, he has to keep up that nuanced front that allowed him to get elected in MA by adopting weasel positions on social issues. He also has to promise to serve a whole term. Both of these things wound him should he be angling to run for Prez, as they make it easier for someone else to flank him on the right, and paint him as another flipflopper from MA.

Signs point to him declining to run for re-election in order to run for Prez. He's been making more conservative statements on issues and going directly to national press with them, bypassing local outlets. I don't see any downside at all in him declining to run for re-election to governor. If he does that, he still has MA gov on the resume, and he gets more free time and less aggravation for pursing the Prez. He'll go as long as he can without announcing that he's declining to run for re-election to gov, but I'd be shocked if he doesn't go this way. The only way I can see him running for re-election to Ma gov is if he has decided NOT to run for prez.

I predict a showy speech or two at some national conference like a governor's caucus, him making a national pronouncement on some high-profile issue, and probably an appearance with a GOP kingmaker. The wrinkle there is Jeb Bush. My guess is JB declines to run for prez right now, because he could lose on accumulated Bush fatigue alone. But the Bushes have big ones, so who knows? If Jeb decides to wait, I'd say there's a good chance GW kings Romney to solidify the social conservative base. Romney absolutely has those chops. He's a mormon, for god's sake.