Interesting article, I largely agree with it.
…[George] Allen — even if he were to fight off a challenge from the right and claim the GOP nomination — would have a difficult time gaining his footing in a general election. Like many Republicans in the 1990s, he rose to state and national prominence with a caustic political approach. But he had few accomplishments during his one term in the House and one term in the Senate, and those accomplishments Allen had as governor — going after the welfare system and abolishing the state parole system — have zero resonance with the current electorate.
…Allen is a political anachronism, one that will be exposed even more clearly if he runs. “Macaca” may have been a slip-of-the-tongue, but it also exposed the inherent risks of living on the political edge as Allen always has. It cost him in 2006, and it could cost him again in 2012.
The problem for Republicans is that Allen is likely to be their nominee, unless they are able to unify around one “not George Allen” candidate. Instead, it’s likely Republicans will have at least 4 candidates – Jamie Radtke, Corey Stewart, Bob Marshall, George Allen, maybe others – and, as this excellent analysis points out, it’s not going to be pretty. All of which means, as we wrote the other day, Jim Webb may very well be a shoo-in for reelection in 2012; that is, of course, if he decides to run. If not, then Allen could sneak back into the “wounded sea slug” Senate he hated so much.