How to stop Dems in 2008

Ever since Ronald Reagan retired from political life, I've been voting primarily defensively in presidential elections.

It hasn't been about electing Republicans to the White House since then, it has been about preventing Democrats from winning.

TRENDING: Ben Carson tells off Maxine Waters for lack of 'basic manners'

For those who share my view, it appears the best way to prevent a Democrat – presumably Hillary Rodham Clinton – from winning the presidency in 2008 is to encourage a third-party candidacy committed to building a wall on the Mexican border and making enforcement of immigration laws the No. 1 priority.

At least that is the conclusive finding of Scott Rasmussen's latest eye-opening survey.

According to the poll, an unnamed Democrat is virtually unstoppable in 2008, with a 12-point advantage over an unnamed Republican. Of course, pretty much everyone knows the name of the Democratic candidate in 2008. It's hardly a secret. It's Hillary. And the only question left to answer is who her opponent will be.

But it really doesn't matter much, according to the Rasmussen poll. Because of the rejection of President Bush's immigration policies by the American people, the Republican nominee is not going to win. The best case for beating Hillary Clinton in 2008 is made, amazingly enough, by a third-party challenge focused like a laser beam on border security and immigration policy.

The poll finds 44 percent of Americans say they would vote for a Democrat if the presidential election were held today. Only 32 percent said they would vote for a Republican. It's a case of punishing Bush by taking it out on his successor.

But the dynamics of the race completely change when you introduce the possibility of a third-party candidate pledged to immigration enforcement and building a barrier along the Mexican border.

With that option, support for both major parties plummets. The Democrats hold on to 31 percent support, while the Republicans fall to 21 percent. But the third-party candidate finishes in a virtual tie with the Democrat at 31 percent.

Now, I know this is all very preliminary. I know we're still more than two years away from another presidential election. I know we have mid-term congressional elections later this year before we even start the campaigns for the presidency. I know. I know. I know.

But does anyone else see the significance of this survey?

For the first time in my lifetime, a third-party presidential candidate could actually have a chance at victory in 2008. I'd say that's pretty exciting.

Is such a candidate on the horizon?

Would such a candidacy by necessity have to be third party?

Could a candidate with such views win the Republican nomination?

And, where is Tom Tancredo and what is he doing for the next six years?

Tancredo has already pledged to run as a Republican if no other member of his party places sufficient emphasis on this crisis. But what about a third-party bid? If it looks like a Clinton-McCain race or a Clinton-Giuliani race, would Tancredo or some other leader on this issue consider a third-party run to save our country?

I don't use that phrase lightly – "save our country." No other issue can so quickly destroy our nation than this one.

There was an old joke: "One nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day."

But seriously, just one nuclear weapon smuggled across the Mexican border will forever, fundamentally change the course of our history. Millions of deaths is a cataclysm from which we could recover, but America would never truly be the same.

So, who is it going to be? Who will step forward to challenge the Democrat and Republican political establishments in 2008? Who will dare to shake up our preconceived notions of what we can and cannot do in American politics?