Wednesday’s CNN/YouTube Republican debate added further support to an idea that the shrewdest political observers have had for months. Namely, that the 2008 election will not hinge on Iraq, barring a truly cataclysmic event.

All of the candidates, save Ron Paul, essentially support the current strategy, which seems to be working. And none of the serious Democrat hopefuls will promise a specific pull-out date or plan because they know that leaving Iraq unstable will breed more violence in Iraq, and almost certainly in the region.

Most Americans know that our troops will be there for the foreseeable future.

What Americans don’t know is what kind of country their own is going to be.

This story continues below
Advertisement

Neither party has anything approaching a consensus on illegal immigration. But it’s as vital an issue to the future of the country as the threat of Islamofascism, and countless voters want desperately for something to be done.

The Democrats and their nominee are not likely to come up with anything to satisfy those voters. They’ll be content to sit back and hope Republicans take a stand that will energize their liberal base and push the Hispanic vote to Democrats.

But if Republicans play it right and agree on measures to substantially decrease illegal immigration and not offer unconditional amnesty to those already here, their base will be even more energetic, a critical factor in winning states like Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. And blue-collar Reagan Democrats — many of them in blue states — will vote Republican again.

The Republican nominee could very well be the one who realizes this and is best able to communicate a firm policy without sounding mean.

During the debate, I jotted down some off-the-cuff estimates of the odds on who that man will be:

Ron Paul is so right when he talks about the proper size and role of the federal government. But he is so wrong on Iraq, the issue that fuels a lot of his support. Even money he continues his campaign as a Libertarian or independent candidate. Odds on winning GOP nod: 500 to 1.

Congressmen Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter deserve much of the credit for bringing the immigration issue to the front burner. They both seem to care more about the issue than their own success, which makes them way too normal to get elected. Both are 100 to 1 long shots.

Mitt Romney comes off as the Republican John Edwards. He really, really wants to win and seems defensive and angry when questioned about his flip-flops. 15 to 1 and falling.

Poor Mike Huckabee. He kept trying to fit thoughtful, substantive answers in a forum designed to prevent such a thing. His sunny demeanor could keep him in the top tier for a while. 8 to 1.

John McCain probably dashed his chances by teaming with Ted Kennedy on the failed immigration bill that included de facto amnesty for some illegal immigrants. But his clear, strong support for the effort to win in Iraq and his long conservative record could be enough. 4 to 1.

Fred Thompson says all the right things while managing to seem decisive and laid-back. His debate ad criticizing Huckabee and Romney shows he might be making a serious push. 4 to 1.

Rudy Giuliani’s ability to stay in the lead with his less-than-conservative positions on guns, abortion and gay rights proves two things. Republicans want a president who wants to lead on issues of national security and terrorism. And Republicans will support anyone who they think can beat Hillary Clinton. He’s still a front-runner at 2 to 1, with his chances of beating Clinton at 5 to 4.

Aaron Keith Harris writes about politics, the media, pop culture and music and is a regular contributor to National Review Online and Bluegrass Unlimited. He can be reached at aaronkeithharris@gmail.com.