Giuliani's common sense...

If you want to see the type of common sense that has rarely been on display from the right on immigration, see Rudy Giuliani's comments in the Examiner today.

“Why don’t you throw out the people who are drug dealers, that are coming out of jail? And before they hit the streets, we can turn them over,” Giuliani recalled telling the INS. “We couldn’t work that out with them. They wouldn’t do it for us.

“They wouldn’t do it for us because they had, you know, some professor with a visa first, and they had two restaurant workers, and three gardeners. Now it may or may not be right for them to be here, but they’re not threatening anybody. These drug dealers are threatening people. I couldn’t get them to do that, so I had to handle the thing myself. And I handled it.”

I do not think it is unreasonable to insist that ICE have a proper sense of priorities. Drug dealers, gangsters, and terrorists must come first in trying to deport illegal immigrants (and we should be double-checking the legal immigrants to make sure that we did not get any terrorists, gang members, or drug dealers there, either.

Any detention that involves a professor, a restaurant worker, a cleaning lady, a gardener, or some kid in high school that never even knew he was here illegally until ICE took him into custody is a detention that is leaving a dangerous criminal in the United States to commit more crimes.

Who in their right mind would want that?

Rudy doesn't. I certainly believe that Mitt Romney would also be able to set priorities as well. That's why they got my donations - and why one of them will get my vote come February 5. Which is somewhat up in the air. Romney looks better all-around, but Giuliani would be a sure winner in the general election.

It's the kindof tough choice I like to have.

Believe it, Dems...

It seems some Democrats cannot believe Giuliani is the front-runner.

They need to believe it. In some areas, Giuliani is a welcome change from Geroge W. Bush. He is the type to engage in bare-knuckle fighting when necessary - just look at his comments about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. George W. Bush, for all the good stuff he has done, just never had his heart into a brawl - and the same could be said for Mitt Romney to a degree.

So, a lot of Republicans are putting disagreements with him on some issues aside. Primarily because he is their strongest candidate, but also because he does agree with them on the big issues (war on terror and economics). The social conservatives' strategic incompetence over the last two-plus years has also benefitted Giuliani (more on that later).

In essence, this has been Giuliani's to lose for a long time.

Good news and bad news for Fred...

From Fred's debut in the debates:
The good news: He had a quality outing - no real serious flubs, and he got better as the debate went on. He's like a pitcher who goes seven innings and allows two runs.

Now the bad news: If Fred has a quality outing, Romney had a better one (only one verbal misstep) - kind of like the pitcher who only gave up one run in seven innings, and Giuliani had an excellent debate - kind of like a pitcher tossing a one-hit shutout.

When did blackmail become a family value?

I'd love to hear James C. Dobson's answer to that question after his New York Times op-ed.

If you ask me, I guess he's not too concerned about the sanctity of life from terrorist bombings. Particularly if he is about to indirectly elect Hillary Clinton. Of course, his actions are in the name of principle, and so, according to the logic conservatives seem to be embracing these days, they cannot be questioned.

I call bullshit on that.

I hope the GOP will show that it doesn't give in to such blackmail.

Giuliani scared Pretty Boy Edwards...

Rudy seems to frighten John Edwards.

Personally, if Edwards thinks Giuliani is Bush on steroids, I might have to take a closer look at Rudy.

Besides, watching those two in a debate will be fun - if only to see Giuliani figuratively eviscerate John Edwards.

Romney says it...

Mitt Romney has finally spoken about what has passed for the dirty underside of the 2008 race for the Republican nomination for President: The anti-Mormon bigotry that has cropped up.

I've discussed this before. Brownback and Giuliani have promptly apologized when their aides went over the line in single events. That was very proper for them to do. John McCain's campaign, on the other hand, has had multiple incidents where his supporters raised Romney's religion as a negative.

That's a bit of a pattern. And given the recent unpleasantness with other unacceptable stuff that was allowed to stand, prompting my decision to suspend Townhall links until further notice, it does seem that among a certain segment of conservatism, anti-Mormon bigotry is acceptable.

What can I say?

Why Rudy will probably win...

I am, when it comes right down to it, a Mitt Romney guy. He gets the global war on terror and what has to be done, and I am far more certain of his ability to do well in making judicial nominations than I am of the other top GOP candidates. That said, after last night's debate, Rudy Giuliani is the likely GOP nominee, and he is very likely to win the Presidential election in a landslide.

It is something I am very much at peace with. Giuliani has been focusing on the Dems, and rightly so. It is a party where 61% are willing to consider the notion that Bush had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Yet at least two major conservative forums who I will not mention have been trying to nitpick the front-runners on abortion. It has been part of an increasing absolutism on social issues since the 2004 election that has, quite frankly, turned me off to social conservatives.

If you disagree with some of them on immigration, they insinuate treason. If you objected to the stridency of others, you were a party hack. That's from the tamer of the two sites. The other site allowed users to label those who backed a comprehensive immigration plan Quislings constantly, even an otherwise conservative candidate got the label.

If the powers that be at those sites expect people to sit down with them after they were called traitors and soul-sellers, they must be smoking some very interestingly flavored tobacco. It seems that a fair chunk of the GOP are as well. The conservatives didn't just try to push people out of the big tent, they were crapping in it. We saw the results in November, 2006. Lately, they have demonstrated to me that they seem to lack the perspective (see the recent trashing of Mitt Romney over a 13-year-old donation to Planned Parenthood by his wife - while ignoring the fact that Barbara Bush and Laura Bush both appear to be pro-choice themselves). Their focus on social issues and inside baseball also show a glaring inability to prioritize.

Are they seriously arguing that an appointment to the Appropriations Committee is somehow a bigger deal than Nancy Pelosi's efforts to hamstring our troops in Iraq? Or turning back Pat Leahy's attempts to give al-Qaeda's worst access to our courts? Or defeating Democratic attempts to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine via a "Hush Rush" Act?

If that is their sense of priorities, then they have a problem. It's not about principles - I tend to agree with most of their end goals. I just have no confidence in their judgement. If this means a divorce from conservatism, so be it. The only place conservative should come before country is in the dictionary.

Trying to take down Rudy...

The latest attempt to take down Rudy Giuliani is going to fall flat. The reasons are simple:


1. The social conservative wing of the GOP pretty much called the shots from 2005-2006, and the GOP lost Congress. Ernst Stavro Blofeld said in You Only Live Twice, "This organization does not tolerate failure." What is more intolerable is when those who led them to failure demand that they do the same thing as the last time, only taking a harder line.


2. People already have an idea about this, or they have decided that his positions on social issues are far less important than his ability to fight and win the war on terror. In essence, the hard-core Giuliani-haters are making the wrong argument.

3. The method being used by some of the hard-core Giuliani critics is going to turn people off. By labeling Giuliani's supporter's sell-outs, and implying a lack of principle, they're only going to cause Giuliani's supporters to close ranks. Mitt Romney's approach of stating his own views will work much better.

But can Romney overcome Giuliani's huge lead? It is possible. He does have the kind of organization that can help him win Iowa and make a very good showing in New Hampshire. He also has proven he can raise money, and a lot of Jeb Bush's people are with him, giving him an edge in Florida.

The race is really between Romney and Giuliani. Either way it turns out, the GOP will have nominated a good candidate.

McCain's weaseling... again...

McCain's victory in the South Carolina straw poll is somewhat tainted by the stench of some low blows his people pulled. Article VI Blog recapped some of the shots fired by his supporters, and last week discussed comments by McCain and Giuliani about whether Romney's religion should be an issue.

Giuliani fielded the question himself, and gave a good answer. McCain sent out a flunky to do his talking. That sort of thing speaks volumes to me. Giuliani, for whatever else you can say about him, seems to be a stand-up guy who doesn't mince words. McCain, on the other hand, has had some great moments, and served this country in a heroic fashion, but he also seems to have an ego, an inability to get off his high horse, and a tendency to hold double standards.

That's why 2008 will boil downto Romney-vs.-Giuliani, and why McCain will be an also-ran again.