Busy with day job concerns today, but did notice this blistering email headline from a friend:

He was sending me Politico’s gushing story on the staffing up of the nascent Pawlenty Presidential effort:

Pawlenty, under the radar of D.C.’s political community, has locked up some of the key operatives who engineered then-President George W. Bush’s reelection campaign — a significant feat for a little-known Midwestern politician… Pawlenty will also announce two co-chairmen, William Strong, a Morgan Stanley vice chairman, and former Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.), both of whom are heavyweight GOP figures, along with a list of prominent Minnesota donors.

Great. A Wall Street parasite with (for a “ heavyweight GOP figure”) a very funny history of political donations, and in Steve Sailer’s description, “uberlobbyist” Vin Weber.

It is Vin Weber who should be a deal breaker for immigration reform patriots. In his twelve years in Congress 1981-93 Weber chalked up a perfect F- on the Numbers USA rating system. Since then he has been making a fortune as a Washington influence peddler, but has been seen lurking around on the wrong side of the Amnesty Wars. That he is Vice Chairman of Pawlenty’s campaign should tell patriots all they need to know.

Minnesota has plenty of immigration-caused problems, what with the Hmong and Somalis. Pawlenty, as Dave Gorak predicted in 2006, is ignoring them. Facing them is not the way to gain the patronage of the Big Money/Inside the Beltway crowd.

Visit VDARE.com’s Pawlenty archive here.

Reportedly, McCain has picked his running mate–and will announce his choice tomorrow. The leading candidates according to Intrade.com are Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty(odds are over 90% one of them will get the nomination). Tom Ridge, Joe Lieberman and Mike Huckabee have some chance of being chosen-and there is also speculation than female VP candidate like Meg Whitman, Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Sarah Palin may be chosen.

The major choices in the GOP VP race have a lot to do with immigration. Tim Pawlenty has been a vocal opponent of illegal immigration despite some questionable actions and overt support for expansion of H-1b visas.
Romney has been a dedicated cheerleader for H-1b expansion and there are real reasons to doubt his sincerity of his criticism of illegal immigration that came when criticism of illegal immigration was the only way he might hope to get the GOP nomination.

Sadly whatever way this choice goes, many American workers are destined for further exposure to world markets–and leaders intent on bringing the enormous economic inequality that exists in the world to America. Most likely, the most we can hope for from a McCain victory is that he dies before he does much damage on the immigration front. However his major VP choices are only marginally better than he is. The most we can hope for from them is that we get some containment of illegal immigration at the expense of expansion of H-1b visas and similar guest worker policies.

It seems like promoting H-1b expansion is becoming as much a litmus test for getting national prominence in the GOP as endorsing repeal of Roe vs. Wade. Eventually the GOP will have to decide whether they want to be a failed fund raising organization or a real political party. If Obama had added the credibility of a realistic immigration policy into his platform, McCain would be in big trouble.

PC Magazine writes:

Clinton: Supports an increase in the cap on H-1B visas, but pushed for “using the funds raised from the price of these visas to train Americans.”
McCain: Supports an increase in the number of H-1B visas.
Obama: Wants to overhaul entire immigration system, produce more American-born technology workers, and create a system that makes workers less dependent on their employers.

Sure sounds better, doesn’t it? Well, keep in mind, Obama’s record on the H-1b front is still an F.

Most of the public won’t look at the record–or any other serious analysis. That means that politicians with the help of corporate infomercials with pretenses to journalism can effectively delude the public quite a while.

However, Obama is at least bothering to have rhetoric that has some hope. John Edwards did something similar (he actually mentioned H-1b negatively in a few speeches after sponsoring H-1b expansion as a senator)–but he never put the resources into his team to do real analysis. Anyhow, Edwards may have had a slightly better record on H-1b–D+ vs. Obama’s F, but this issue is volatile enough, something real is going to have to be put on the table if Obama wants to be effective.

About the best play Obama has it is disposal if he wants to put some weight behind his words, is to pick Jim Webb as his running mate. Webb owes his senate position in large part to anti-H-1b activists in Northern Virginia–whose support he got by virtue of not being Harris Miller. Webb’s overall immigration record is a mediocre C-, but on H-1b issues, Webb has a B grade-which is better than any other serious presidential or VP hopeful. (A possible exception: Pawlenty of Minnesota who has been focused more on illegal immigration.)

Webb also has specific contact and knowledge of some prominent anti-H-1b activists–in part because even the idiots in DC are reluctant to put non-citizens with inadequate background checks in charge of government databases–so the effects of H-1b may have been softened a bit in DC compared to the NYC or Silicon Valley(which means the US technical community there still has some resources to fight back).

Anyhow, I personally have trouble imagining stomaching Obama without Webb on the ticket. I supported Nader in the last two presidential elections–and Perot the last two before that. I’m not sure if Webb will take the VP slot if offered–and that says quite a bit.

I think Obama will likely beat McCain in any event-and the current betting odds at Intrade agree with me. What I think folks at VDARE.com need to think about, is apart from the electoral outcome (which if recent history is any indication may be fabricated anyhow), what kind of results are beneficial for their issues?

Given the abysmal performance of both major parties on the immigration issue, would it be better for the next president to be elected by a clear minority of the popular vote? Did the fact that clearly happened in Bush’s first term maybe restrain the damage that he did during his presidency just a little bit? If McCain is going to loose anyhow–and he fails to take the basic steps to address issues like H-1b and immigration, wouldn’t it be best for VDARE.com readers to try to make that defeat as dramatic as possible?

Anyhow, I think Obama is playing a risky game with this H-1b gambit. It may be that some risks are necessarily for Obama to make what is from his perspective the optimal VP choice. Now, the question is just how can these presidential candidates be pushed as effectively as possible?

McCain is reportedly seriously considering tapping Mike Bloomberg as his VP candidate.

I would suggest this is a big nose-thumbing at the VDARE.com readership.

Just look at the Wikipedia entry on Bloomberg:

Bloomberg has attacked social conservatives on immigration calling their stance unrealistic, “We’re not going to deport 12 million people, so let’s stop this fiction. Let’s give them permanent status.” He supports a federal ID database that uses DNA and fingerprint technology to keep track of all citizens and to verify their legal status. Bloomberg believes that illegal immigrants should be offered citizenship and supports the congressional efforts of John McCain and Ted Kennedy in immigration reform. Regarding border security, Bloomberg compared it to the tide, stating, “It’s as if we expect border control agents to do what a century of communism could not: defeat the natural market forces of supply and demand… and defeat the natural human desire for freedom and opportunity. You might as well as sit in your beach chair and tell the tide not to come in. As long as America remains a nation dedicated to the proposition that “all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” people from near and far will continue to seek entry into our country

Basically, McCain is hoping that with a few symbolic arrests of illegal immigrants themselves, a big chunk of the political base will forget in November that a huge, nation-changing amnesty is the official policy of the GOP.

Now, I won’t vote for McCain regardless of who he picks as his VP. I can understand why a lot of VDARE.com readers may find much more in common with McCain than I would-and I can see why they might consider risking a McCain presidency if he picked someone like Pawlenty as his running mate, who has spoken somewhat sanely on the topic of immigration.

Regardless of McCain’s VP choice, Obama’s optimal election strategy is to pick someone less cosmopolitan-and more working class than himself. Obama already has a lot of electoral funds–and just doesn’t need the “juice” Bloomberg’s support would provide. If Bloomberg does run with or endorse McCain, Obama’s optimal strategy may be to choose a running mater like Jim Webb–and pursue populist issues much more aggressively.

The thing is, if McCain picks someone like Bloomberg as his running mate, it is in the interests of Paleocons to see McCain defeated as decisively as possible–say with a defeat worse than that suffered by Goldwater. That might at least delay McCain’s ideology from rising again for several years.

Increasingly, the 2008 presidential race looks to be between McCain and Obama.

McCain’s choice of VP is especially important because McCain’s age and health make it rather likely that he won’t serve two terms. McCain thus needs a running mate who is presidential enough that he’ll be able to step into the presidency rapidly. According to Intrade, the leading GOP VP possibilities are Gov. Pawlenty of Minnesota, Huckabee of Arkansas and Romney of Massachusetts. Pawlenty is an especially interesting case, because he endorsed McCain early on-but has also spoken out against illegal immigration. Basically McCain’s choice comes down to whether he wants to appeal the nationalist, religious or corporate factions in the GOP and independent voters.

The Democratic choices are a bit more complex as this table shows:

Basically Obama has shown he can appeal strongly to black voters and the group Pew Foundation called the “liberals”(largely urban professionals). The two questions for the Democrats are who would help them win the presidency in a year when it is theirs to loose-and who would be a strong candidate in 8 year after Obama has completed a second term.

Jim Webb, Ted Strickland and John Edwards all have some possible political credibility-and all could plausibly run for president in 8 years. Some of the other candidates, like Al Gore or Sam Nunn are simply too old for that to be realistic. Jim Webb is interesting because he is the only Democratic VP possibility other than Al Gore who has resisted H-1b donations successfully. Strickland would have some appeal to religious voters–but I suspect that the oratory of Huckabee would simply prove superior in that respect. Overall, Webb is the man who really would add something to the Democratic ticket.

For those of us concerned about immigration, the presidential race is starting to get boring–or sickening. McCain, Clinton and Obama all have rather poor records when it comes to immigration. However, once they get their parties’ nomination, the politics change just a bit.

What this means is that the leading contenders for the VP spot in both parties(other than the current presidential nominees themselves) have rather interesting track records on immigration.

According to Intrade, the leading GOP VP hopeful is Gov. Pawlenty of Minnesota–who has been openly critical of illegal immigration, despite his support for McCain. On the Democratic side, the candidate with the best chance at the VP spot after Ms. Clinton is Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia. Webb got his Democratic Senate nomination by beating the architect of expansion of H-1b visas, corporate lobbyist, Harris Miller. I’m not blown over by his record on immigration policy, but as Peter Brimelow has previously said, a Webb Vice presidency, promises to be “interesting“.

What this means is that anyone serious about winning the presidency is going to have to appeal successfully to voters that are rather revolted by the current state of presidential politics.

A couple years ago I, along with plenty of other folks, got pretty excited when Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty announced that he had had it with illegal aliens in his state and, by God, was going to do something about it.

Critics jumped all over what I, and plenty of other folks, thought was a true rule-of-law champion, calling his planned crackdown on illegals an election year stunt. Not so! I hissed at these charges. And then reality began to creep into my stupid, naive world where everybody is supposed to play by the rules.

Seeking to placate “immigrant rights” activists, Gov. Timmy went out of his way to tell the world that the Land of 10,000 Lakes actually was an “immigrant friendly” place and said he wanted an increase in the number of H-1B visas so foreigners could compete with his constituents’ children for high-tech jobs.

Now we hear that Gov. Timmy plans to resume his stumping for Sen. John McCain after the latter’s primary win in New Hampshire. And this announcement raises an interesting question:

Just how will Gov. Timmy’s recent bombshell about renewing his battle against illegal immigration going to fly with “Amnesty John” McCain if the latter ends up sitting in the Oval Office?

Memo to Gov. Timmy: What’s it going to be, your political career–or your country?

Late last year Gov. Pawlenty was walking the walk and talking the talk on illegal immigration.

“No more Mister Nice Guy,” he was telling his state’s estimated 80,000 illegal aliens. Political opponents who want his job and the illegal alien apologists jumped all over what they said was an election year stunt.

Looks like they may have been right, but Pawlenty wasn’t finished with showing folks just how badly he wants to remain in the governor’s mansion. In fact, he also let it be known that illegal aliens are not alone in having to watch their backs these days.

Only a few weeks later (probably at the insistence of his campaign handlers), Mr. Law Enforcement morphed into Pandering Pawlenty and began falling over himself in order to demonstrate that Minnesota also was very much an “immigrant-friendly” state.

Among the “Ya all come” goodies he waved in front of immigrant wannabees and foreign students already studying in the “Land of 10,000 Lakes” was a promise to go to Washington and lobby for more H-1B visas because the “artificial cap” of 65,000 wasn’t cutting the mustard.

This week he made good on that promise.

After kissing up to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), anotherH-1B huckster, here is what Pandering Pawlenty told the native-born kids (and their parents) of Minnesota who are pursuing (or thinking about it) careers in computer science, medicine, mathematics, etc:

There shouldn’t be any cap on H-1B visas. (Shades of Sen. Arlen Specter!)

“But 65,000 is ridiculously low, given how thirsty we are for engineers, researchers, computer programmers - we’ve got a big shortage in a lot of these areas,” (said Pawlenty). “We’d have an inverse brain drain into this country which would be very beneficial” with an increase in the visas.”

The “shortage” of American-trained high-tech professional that Pandering Pawlenty is referring to in his state is the same one that has plagued the high-tech industry for years.

Yes,that shortage, the one that continues to defy the law of economics that says when labor is in short supply wages rise. Hmmmmm.

Pawlenty probably would deny he’s now dancing to the music of a greedy and unprincipled high-tech industry and is only responding to statistics showing that enrollment in computer science courses around the country is tanking. And he would be half right. But what he can’t deny is that now we all know why interest in a field that was red hot for Americans 25 years has waned dramatically.

During a Feb. 7 “Lou Dobbs Tonight” interview, Ron Hira of the Rochester Institute of Technology reiterated to CNN reporter Bill Tucker what we’ve all known for some time:

“If there’s not good opportunities, why would you choose a profession, a career that’s fraught with risk, where your job could be offshored, where you could be replaced, you could become obsolete? And they’re (Americans) voting with their feet. They’ve decided that this profession is not as attractive as it once was.”

When the history of how this country surrendered its lead in fields it pioneered using home-grown talent is written, we’ll probably be told that it was because those jobs joined the others “Americans won’t do.” The more astute observer, however, will know it was due to the decades-long brain drain on Capitol Hill.

In his Jan. 18 State of the State Address Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Illinois’ favorite son of immigrants, said:

“And today - Illinois is a fairer state - than we were three years ago. We’re a state that guarantees more rights and more opportunities to African Americans, to Latinos, to immigrants, to women, and to gays and lesbians - in short, more opportunities for men and women across our state who for far too long have been denied an equal chance to live a better life.” ( The guv’s goodies package also includes a $1,000 tax credit for college students who maintain a B average. Gee, you don’t think illegals enjoying Blago’s instate tuition program will cash in here as well?)

I’d like to make a suggestion that would go a long way toward improving Blago’s “fairness” rating. How about telling Illinois taxpayers how much it costing them to support the 400,000 illegals living in the Land of Lincoln? The last figures we have ($153.4 million annually, 1994) came from Gov. Jim Edgar’s office, and I think an update is in order.

But I have to admit I’m not too optimistic about the chance of that happening. The last time somebody dared to raise the subject was in February 2003, but the idea died in an Illinois Senate rules committee with NO cosponsors. The upstart who introduced a bill requiring a costs study was state Sen. Chris Lauzen (R-Aurora) who, by the way, was the only one in his august chamber to vote against the instate tuition for illegals bill. (Don’t hold me to this, but I think Mr. Lauzen submitted a similar bill last year.)

But Mr. Lauzen now has in hand the recent stories about Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s illegal aliens costs study, and I’m sure he could use the encouragement to try again.

I mean, fair is fair, ain’t it, Mr. Blagojevich?

“If you’re an illegal immigrant, watch out.”< /strong> says the St. Paul Pioneer-Press. [Illegal immigration a 'real issue' Jan. 4, 2006]

Now the “election-year grandstanding” Pawlenty says he wants to create something called the “Minnesota Illegal Immigration Enforcement Team of 10″ that will make life miserable for illegals, their employers and even those rascals who earn a living cranking out phony IDs.

Waving some of those bogus ID documents in front of reporters, the iron-fisted Pawlenty stunned everyone:

“You’d have to be really living under a rock not to see this as a real issue”

A real issue for just about all of us, with the exception of politicians like the newly inaugurated St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman (e-mail him) who already has placed his oath of office in the Circular File:

“The governor is wrong on this issue. Inclusion is the future, and trying to differentiate between people, instead of including all people and working together, is just the wrong message and the wrong direction.”

God, what’s next? Will Minnesota lose its image of being a “welcoming state” for immigrants? Will Pawlenty succeed in creating an atmosphere that will forever change the “public perception of Hispanics?”

Stay tuned . . . .