This has been one heckuva week.  The high point was the debate, which was exellent.  The low points were: (1) working my butt off on a writing assignement for the company I serve (albeit from my basement typing room); (2) meditating on some of the racist, nativist comments i get regarding immigration and various other issues.  In some cases, I don't answer (at least don't re-answer) some vicious screeds.  I'm getting better at ignoring the ignorant.  The immigration issue may be "settled" this week in the Senate, with the proposal collapsing.  That's sad, because it's the best proposal we'll ever get, and its demise will mean the next legislation may well be written by Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi.  I'm sure Hugh Hewitt and other bizarre figures will count that as a great victory for the "base" -- or at least the basest of the base.  The Republican "base," led by nativists and racists like Tancredo will have spoken.  Of course, we will still have 12 million illegals, two million of them reportedly criminals, and the numbers of both -- illegals and criminals -- will continue increasing.  The fence will go up slowly, and millions of people will continue to go around it, under it, maybe even through it if they can come up with a tank.  We Republicans will lose the votes of "legal" Hispanics (40 million in number currently), perhaps for many generations, just as we earlier lost the vote of Blacks and have lost the vote of women professionals.  We will continue our slow journey to becoming the "White Men's Party," which of course will become a perpetual minority Party.  Gee, that will be fun.  We'll probably never again appoint a Supreme Court justice, and Roe v. Wade will continue into the 22d century.  It is not a happy prospect.  Demographers tells us that, in 2050 (I'll be safely dead) a majority of the people in the country will be of Hispanic descent.  I hope they're nicer to us than we've been to them.  I assume they'll make Spanish our "official" language.  As for the Republican "base?'   Future generations, including their children and grandchildren, will be dismayed when they read about the antics of Tancredo and others like him.   Townhall will stick around for a few years, perhaps being "all comments all the time."   Hugh Hewitt will reminisce about the time "when giants walked the earth" -- he'll be referring to Romney, who will live to 103 and become "prophet, seer, and revelator" of the Mormon Church, the only other office he will ever hold.  Personally, I can't wait.


I'm writing so much today my arms are falling off (and most of the writing is now TH-related).  I'm sorry that I sometimes get irritated with certain people, some of whom are entirely irritating and others are only mildly so.  However, somebody today that he is "ready to hold [his] nose and vote for Rudy (rather than Hillary)."   I told him, with all sincerity, "don't bother.  Vote for someone else."   Maybe a protest, write-in vote for Ron Paul, who thinks bin Laden had good reason to invade America, or for Tom Tancredo, who said last night that he now opposes "legal" immigration, presumably because he hates the sound of the Spanish language.  I regard people like Guiliani and McCain as great American heroes, and if you have to hold your nose to vote for them, then perhaps the time would be better spent not in the voting booth, but rather in prayer, fasting, and self-flaggelation.   Someone like Rudy Giuliani will get most of the votes of the Republican "base" (including some from the nose-holding crowd).  But as I've explained, he's not aiming toward some tiny, self-indulgent base.  He's looking at about 80%  of the American people as possible supporters.  He's not concerned with pandering to the Tom Tancredos and Ron Pauls, the dangerous and loony wing of the Party.  He regards them, as I do, as a force that is destroying the Republican Party.  As Rudy showed on 9/11, he's a warrior and a healer, not somebody looking to feed pap to every sap.  We have a wonderful country.  There are many ways we can make it even better.


Wow, I'm meeting a lot of great people on TH.  Wil has published an extremely important comment, and I hope to have it and my reply up by tomrrow a.m. (Thursday).  As most of you know, I have endorsed Rudy Giuliani for the Republican nomination, and I believe he will be the next President of our country.  I also agree with Trent Lott's comment that John McCain is ready to be an outstanding (if extremely feisty!) President.  One of my guiding principles is that politics is a blunt instrument.  To paraphrase Mick Jagger, "you can't always get what you want."   We usually get about half what we want, which certainly beats getting nothing.  It now appears that with the immigration proposal, it might collapse, and we will get . . . nothing.   In other words, the situation will continue to get worse, the criminals among illegals will continue to wander about doing harm, and millions of new illegals will walk around the fence, which should be finished about the end of Hillary Clinton's second term.   We are not going to deport 12 million people.  There is no political will, outside the Tancredo household, to do so.  There are significant problems with campaign finance, ensuring that most of the liberal Democrats will be in Congress until they're taken out feet first.  What are we going to do about it?  The answer appears to be: nothing.   What are we going to attract a significant number of votes from women professionals?  I don't believe the answer is to have Phyllis Schafley give them a good lecture about the evils of feminism, which may be worse than doing nothing.  What are we going to do to attract more Black votes, which are now going 90%-plus against us?  Again, I don't think the correct answer is nothing.  What are we going to do about the fact that the U.S. has 20 times as many murders as a country like Canada?  Is the answer again . . . nothing?  What are we going to do to reduce the number of abortions in this country?  Wait until 2024 to appoint new justices (after two terms of Hillary and two of Obama) so they can overturn Roe v. Wade (which would then make abortion law a state matter)?  

One reason I support Rudy Giuliani is that "nothing" is not in his nature.  He realizes that an elected officials' job is to help make things better, and he has a plan to do so in every area I mention.  Sometimes that effort doesn't work.  But "staying the course" with terrible situations (e.g., the murder rate in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and every other big city) is not leadership.  It's cowardice.  

Rudy won't say so out loud, but he believes, as I'm starting to, that we need a New Base.  Too many members of the Old Base are tired and unwilling to take positive steps to deal with real problems.  Yes, Rudy would like their votes.  No, he doesn't believe they are essential to his election as President. 

Member of the supposed "base" who believe in a political philosophy of "nothing" are in fact engineering the defeats they so richly deserve. 



PLEASE BOOKMARK THIS SITE AND RETURN EVERY DAY BETWEEN NOW AND ELECTION DAY IN 2008.  THERE WILL BE DIFFERENT COLUMN EACH DAY.  YOUR COMMENTS ARE ALWAYS WELCOME.  AS YOU CAN SEE, THE SITE HAS HAD 6,000 VISITORS (IN JUST TWO MONTHS!), AND THE GOAL IS FOR 100,000 VISITORS BY ELECTION DAY.   
COLUMNS FROM THIS SITE HAVE BEEN REPUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTE, BUSINESS WEEK, AND OTHER OUTLETS.


Rich Galen has a piece in today's (Wednesday's) TH about "Hillary's Nightmare Scenario," which basically talks about Obama's taking a slight lead (maybe) in a national poll by USA TODAY.  In fact, that paper's polls are notoriously unreliable, so Hillary can stop holding her breath.  (Strangely, the poll includes not only Democrats but also Independents who are "leaning" Democrat).   Most other polls have Mrs. Clinton far ahead in the Democratic race. 

The real "nightmare scenario" is emerging for the Democrats, and we saw it last night with Rudy Giuliani's exceptionally strong performance in the debate. Yes, John McCain also did a very good job, but I'd like to focus on another man who got rave reviews:  Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas.  He's coming across as funny, articulate, and deeply anchored in basic American values.  If Giuiliani gets the presidential nomination, look for Huckabee to get serious consideration for vice-president.  He's that good. 

(Note:  It's one of the worst-kept secrets on Townhall, but Campaign2008Victory is poised to endorse Sarah Palin, Govenor of Alaska, for the vice-presidential nod.  However, Huckabee is a close second.  I'd also look favorably on two other men, Michael Steele, former Lt. Gov. of Maryland and Duncan Hunter, California congressman and national security expert.  More about Sarah Palin, nicknamed by Sanity102 as "The White Goddess," later this week.)

Why would Giulian-Palin or Guiliani-Huckabee be a nightmare for the Dems?  Actually, it's (almost) all about Rudy.  He's a candidate not liked by some of the over-rated (and numerically small) "'Republican base," also known as the anti-immigration crowd. 

But one of the reason for Rudy's enduring good poll numbers is that he brings his own base.  He is strong, sometimes very much so, in areas where Republicans recently have been weak. 

If Rudy runs with a strong conservative, such as Palin or Huckabee, he should carry all the states, especially in the South, Southwest, and Mountain States, carried in 2004 by GWB.  To the surprise of some, Rudy is strong in the states that voted for GWB, including the critical one of Florida. 

What's more, Giuliani would have an excellent chance of winning two important "Blue" states, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.  He'd also have a good chance of carrying Ohio, which has been leaning Democratic, especially in 2006. 

In Pennsylvania, Bush isn't exactly popular (to say the least), but he almost carried the state against Kerry.  Rudy should win the Keystone State with some ease against either Mrs. Clinton or Obama. 

In New Jersey, the Bush was tempted to contest it in 2004, but it resisted the temptation.  With a large Italian-American population and Republican strength in South Jersey, Giuliani should win there.  If he decides to contest New Jersey, which he should, that also means going over a big prize: the New York electoral votes. 

New York and New Jersey are a "two-fer."  To win NJ, Giuliani would need to advertise heavily in the expensive New York TV market, which also includes much of the Garden State.  Advertising in other NY markets, Buffalo, Syracuse, and Rochester, is not prohibitively expensive.

From what we know now, Giuliani would also be a probable -- key word -- winner in two other important Blue states: Michigan and Minnesota. 

What about the Big Cajuna -- California?   Giuliani is the most popular Republcan there, aside from "Arnold."  This isn't Reagn-in-1984, when he won 49 states, losing only --and barely -- in Mondale's home turf of Minnesota.  If Rudy's going hard after NY, NJ, and PA, he probably wouldn't have enough money to compete also in the Golden State. 

Am I just blowing smoke by saying Rudy has a real chance in New York?  At one point in 2004, Bush -- who spent no money in the Empire State -- got almost to 45% in NY polling.  Bush (and Rove) concentrated the available funds not on New York, but on Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, winning the first two and coming close in the third. 

Rudy Giulian -- running with a Palin or a Huckabee -- scares the Democrats.  People may disagree with him on this or that issue, but his favorability ratings are the highest of anyone -- Democrat or Republican -- in the race.  That's why he's the Dems' worst nightmare.