- So all I see are positive reasons for not only border control from a homeland defense psosition, but to the betterment of everyone, even the immigrents themselves.

- Without it, border states like Cal are headed for financial disaster.

- And I did sign that online petition to stop that alliance you’re reffering to. It’s really not inevitable like people have been lead to believe. Good border control, enforcement of the illegal allien laws, guest worker programs, tamper proof personal identity cards, all of it will just make things better.

- BBH –

Contrary to the common consensus, trade improvements and border control are not mutually exclusive.

If placed in the context of a sterile, logical enviroment, that is correct. Reality dictates otherwise, as many corporations want the free labor.

Our politicians are beholden to these interests. Rudy is one of those politicians. NAFTA just isn’t a trade agreement, but the beginning of an open border policy for the whole of North America.

- Contrary to the common consensus, trade improvements and border control are not mutually exclusive.

- Here in San Diego, an area with two of the largest border ports of entry, We have built a wall and effectively increased border security about 6 fold. The results are rather telling. Cross border trade is up 50% in the past 4 years since these measures were implimented, while illegal traffic is down 90% on average. For a time, tunneling continued to be a problem, but with the addition of improved technology to ferret them out, that has been pretty much shut down too. Not suprisingly, pro-illegal immigration groups continue to propagandize the results, but the facts are there for all to see. As a matter of fact instead of hurting trade, it has actaully improved things dramatically. Along with that, San Diego is no longer considered a “good point” for drug and human trafficking, among the border gangs and coyotes. they’ve been forced to move further East, since the water ways are being shut down to a much greater extent now by the Coast Guard patrols.

- BBH -

If Rudy starts to hammer on the Border issue…

That won’t happen.

Rudy’s lawfirm represents the parties interested in the NAFTA superhighway.

- With that backdrop its interesting that Rove took his parting shot at Hillary, instead of Obama. You could read that in the same way as the Kerry/Edwards strategy. Of course as things turned out, Edwards proved to be an even worse empty suit than the Flipflopper, but they couldn’t have foreseen that at the time.

- In any event, I think you’ll see another Geraldene Farraro with Hillary if she does get the nomination, which is anything but assured at this point.

- One thing to keep in mind is 2006 was definately not a win for the far left loons, in spite of all the claims to the contrary. Yes the Dems won control, but barely, and not enough to really push a pile of legislation, and even at that is was a preponderance of “moderate” Dems that got voted in, not the fringe lunatics. So the Dems cannot put too much hope on that. It was a signal that the voters were angry with Republican lassitude, but not angry enough to swing to far to the left. So far the fact is the hard left has won nothing, only lost the one campaign they were at all prominent in, the Lieberman disaster.

- If Rudy starts to hammer on the Border issue, and takes a strong Iraq psosition, with a clear, discriptive path to some sort of stable exit, the Reps could take this one with a very comfortable margin, particularly when the Dems are forced to swerve back to the center, and have nothing to offer than “so are we”. Its really the Republicans race to lose this time around, in spite of their poor showing in recent years. The Dems have actually been hurt from 2006, because they’ve done virtually nothing but run investigations since they got in, so they havn’t been able to capitalize, but have rather ended up looking just as bad as the Reps.

- Personally, I’d give Hillary 1 chance in 8 of winning the White House, and even that only if she manages to hang on for the nomination. Rudy looks like the best odds, provided the Reps don’t find ways to give it away.

- BBH –

However, Republicans over the last two years have been misunderestimating (to borrow a term) how poorly they’ve looked since 2004 Presidential election. They didn’t think they’s lose the senate, but they did. Between that and the ole Clinton charm (and the fact that Shillary is a chameleon on the issues) she may stand a chance.

God help us all.

- On the Rep side, its probable that Fred’s handlers are trying to hold back as long as possible, not willing to stake Thompsons “celeb” against Rudy’s combination of face + experience. The Reps could gain some strength by choosing Condi for VP, even though she’s said she isn’t interested. It would offset the “Fem” aspect, and in some measure, bring in a higher Black vote, especially if Hillary can’t go with Obama for the reasons you cited. Fred seems to look as if he’s bumbling, because of the reticence to face off with Rudy, all of which is by way of saying, a year and a half later I still think a Rudy/Condi, or Thompson/Condi are the two strongest tickets for the Reps. I prefer Rudy for reasons of experience under fire, and I think he is best equipped to deal with the Far Left loons, just as he did in NY.

- BBH –