There are no Ronald Reagan types running for President in '08. As soon as we face that reality, we will be able to gauge the strengths and weaknesses of the various contenders in the Republican field without getting that wistful look in our eyes. There will be no misguided optimism nor undue cynicism.

That said, I find myself befuddled as to who I will support in the Republican primaries. At the cusp of reaching voting age in 2000, I supported Alan Keyes on principle, and later supported George W. Bush. My political preferences have become more mature and nuanced in the time since, and require careful consideration of each candidate on a variety of fronts.

First, on a very superficial level, I would like to announce my distaste for all southeastern Republican candidates. I am tired of having my party represented by those who make easy targets for good ol' boy accusations and Christianized conspiracies. That sentiment (as shallow as it is) immediately puts Huckabee, Brownback (as our token Baueresque candidate), and potentially Fred Thompson on the chopping block.

Second, I don't think it wise to support little-known, outspoken candidates from the House of Representatives who are defined by single issues: Goodbye Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo.

Third, the pair of former governors from Wisconsin and Virginia are both very competent, but still lacking in their ability to generate widespread public appeal: See ya Thompson and Gilmore.

Don't get me started on Newt.

Finally, my field is whittled to the three that everyone is hyping as the top-tier contenders: Giuliani, McCain, and Romney. Remembering Martin Luther's wide saying that he'd rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a boneheaded Christian (my paraphrase), I certainly won't make religion my litmus test.

Giuliani is an incredible manager--he recognizes problems, proposes innovative solutions, and sees them through. His ability to fight crime is unparalleled, and his renovation of New York City was astounding. While he would be great on the foreign policy and domestic-fiscal fronts, his social progressivism is a cause of great distress. I have long looked for unqualified remarks about nominating strict-constructionists to the bench, regardless of views. Instead, every comment about strict-constructionists seems to be matched by tepid endorsements of Roe v. Wade.

McCain is a political maverick--earning scorn from some and respect from others. His dogged determination with regard to Iraq is a remarkable display of principled courage. He also has a fairly conservative track record on most issues of concern to conservatives. While his temper could be a liability (I remember a tantrum he threw on the Michael Reagan show in 2000), he seems to be sober-minded in general.

Romney is a more unknown quality. Many might be turned off by his religious preferences and his recent turnaround on several issues of importance. As mentioned before, religion should not be a matter of utmost concern, especially if he shows himself capable to lead. His splendid work in changing the course of the Salt Lake City olympics deserves notice, and his ability to brave liberal firebrands in Massachusetts shows his mettle. With regard to his turnaround on issues like abortion--so what? If he displays a change of heart, even fairly recent, that is fine--as long as he lands on the right spot.

All three of these candidates have solid resumes and glaring weaknesses. Right now, I am leaning toward Romney as the most politically-pure candidate. That may change over time.

I dream of a charismatic Republican leader. Where is my man, Rick Santorum?   Oh yeah.