In search of Reagan
While hardly someone who could qualify as a political insider or political expert, I should be of interest to some as a young voter.

I was born in 1980, the year Ronald Reagan took office. I was eight years old when his second term ended, and George Bush took over.

If there is one thing that bothers me more than anything else about the political right, it's the reliance on the past. The Republicans are in an interesting situation coming into the 2008 election. They have a two-term president without a vice president waiting in the wings to run.

Perhaps because of that, I hear more and more about presentation and perception than reality. A entire column in Slate today was dedicated to Fred Thompson's performance at a debate.

But do debates really mean anything? We've become a culture obsessed with performance in front of the camera. Thompson may very well act as the best president; he may play the part the best. But that doesn't mean he is the best to face what this country is facing -- two wars, the threat of terrorism and climate alarmism.

Which brings me back to Reagan. I will be the first to say that Reagan was the best president in my lifetime, and was, in my opinion, one of the best of the last century.

But that was LAST century. The next president will face a different set of issues than Reagan. Reagan had the Cold War. The 44th president will have the War on Terror. Reagan did had the War on Drugs. The 44th president will have two actual wars to deal with.

The point is, Republican need to stop looking for the next Reagan. Reagan worked in the 1980s. Then again, so did ALF. Times have changed. If the Republicans want to win this election, they need to find the candidate best suited for the future.

Not one stuck in the past.