Lonewacko, CNN is hosting a Democratic debate in Las Vegas on Nov. 15. CNN is promising to cover Immigration. At least that is what they are advertising on TV. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/debates/ Also now it looks like the Republican Dec 9th Univision debate is back on. Rommney, Thompson and Ruddy have all announced they will attend. Who knows maybe even Tancredo will show up. What the hell do one of these guys have to loose if they decide to stand up to vitural "reconquista" anchor Jorge Ramos and deliver the Republican equivilent of a "Sista Soulja" moment? As well a whole lot has changed since the Democrats had their hispandering fiesta on Univison last September. As I predicted Edwards overnight lost a huge chuck of his support in Iowa the week after the Univision debates and fell back to a disappointing third place. Last month Nikki Tsongas almost got her ass kicked in MA. in her husband's old congressional district by a Republican campaigning over illegal immigration and outsourcing. The Spitzer drivers license fiasco showed that local Democratic pols mostly abandoned him in order to save themselves. Both the Dream Act and AgJobs bills died multiple deaths. Last Tuesday, the previously popular two term Democratic Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson was crushed by a Republican with almost no state party funding and facing strong local media opposition by capitalizing on a local tax revolt where the costs of illegal immigration was a contributing factor. Another thing will make the Las Vegas debates interesting. As predicted the leadership of the major unions like the AFL-CIO, SEIU and Commerical Food workers are all still supporting "CIR", Amnesty and the Dream Act. These unions are already powerful in Nevada however are threated by illegal immigration. Yet increasingly union locals clearly are in disagreement with their nationals over immigration related issues and otherwise favor Edwards on trade and offshoring. The union nationals have been hedging their bets and not supporting any single candidate inspite of the fact that both Clinton and Obama have horrible records on "Free Trade". Edwards hopefully now realizes that the union nationals are dominated by a lot of neo-wobbly "idealists" who are completely unrealistic when it comes to illegal and unsustainable legal immigration's impact on labor markets. The union nationals may never support him so why not appeal directly to the local memberships. Edwards up till now has clearly been blowing it by following the DLC/DNC party line on immigration. Edwards absolutely must win Iowa. He dam well knows the state's labor markets has been devastated by Illegal immigration in the livestock and meetpacking industries. Edwards either decides to change his positions reflecting public opposition to illegal immigration and further amnesties or he is finished.

One last thing. Since the last Democratic debate the SCHIP expansion went down in flames multiple times in large part because the Democratic party leadership was unwilling to respect overwhelming public sentiment that even otherwise popular programs not enhance the welfare magnet for illegal aliens. It turn what should have been an easy victory for Democrats into a slam dunk for Republicans. An awesome question for Democrats would be if they would make sure that any future expansions of social welfare programs include tough provisions excluding benefits for illegal aliens.

Typical HuffPo hatchet job on upcoming GOP/Univision Debate ROMNEY KEEPS UP TOUGH IMMIGRATION MESSAGE AFTER JOINING UNIVISION DEBATE http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/09/romney-keeps-up-tough-imm_n_71910.html

I wouldn't vote for any politician, much less a never-tell-it-like-it-is Democrat, that makes a political calculation to change his position on immigration and decides suddenly to become a restrictionist. Edwards is a southern White man who wishes to be anything but. All his money can't undo that. Too bad.