Last week’s rhetorical question is becoming less rhetorical by the moment. He’s in full Nader messianic mode here: he didn’t leave the party, the party left him; we need fresh, new, independent, non-ideological ideas; and as far as what his meeting with Mike Bloomberg (who’s polling better than Rudy in NYC) was about, mum’s the word — although he offers that they didn’t “make any deals.”

The Prowler says they’re serious about it. But there’s a twist.

We might be looking at Perot 2.0. How’d that work out last time?

WashTimes has a scoop this morning about prominent Christian conservatives already throwing their support to Fred!, albeit anonymously just in case he doesn’t get in. My one hope for Fred’s campaign is that he doesn’t lay on the good ol’ boy crap too thick — I know it plays well with “the heartland” but, like Bainbridge, I’ve had enough of it, particularly when it bleeds over into anti-intellectualism. (Remember Bush’s overreaction to David Gregory asking a question of Jacques Chirac in French?)

As for the current ostensible frontrunner, having been fully exposed now as pro-choice, the attack on his weak points is ending and the attack on his strong points has begun. (As expected.)

Update: “[T]here were several ‘my daddy used to say’-s…” The more that keeps up, the further I drift towards Mitt as my social con alternative.

Update: This would answer my prayers for an intellectual Republican candidate, but I think Newt’s too well associated with Clinton-era partisanship to make him an attractive pick for 2008. Although maybe that’s what he’s counting on with Hillary expected to win the nomination — to entice Republicans into meeting Clinton with the anti-Clinton.