Charles Bloch’s article about Human Events distancing itself from Pat Buchanan’s recent column “Did Hitler Really Want War?” picks away at the sore that blights the American Right: the modern “conservative” establishment–what has been called “Conservatism, Inc.”.

The growing menace of political correctness, and increasing political persecution from the intolerant radical Left, such as the $PLC, reveals the spinelessness of Conservatism, Inc. in defending historically core positions of the political Right.

The fact that all too many conservative careerists require backbone replacement surgery has allowed the political adversaries of the Right to gain the moral high ground in terms of what is acceptable and off-limits from civil discourse.

As a fixture on the Washington political scene, Human Events and other editors and owners of “conservative” publications (including “conservative” pundits and columnists, such as the late Robert Novak) tread carefully around “controversies” that can run afoul of the “PC” police. They crave political access — accessibility to political insiders on Capital Hill and various executive department offices — and accessibility requires acceptance. Anything that jeopardizes this fragile arrangement must go. Principled viewpoints are all too easily smeared as politically incorrect. Hosting parties for congressional candidates, politicians, committee chairmen, and key staff members and journalists from the MSM are more important than speaking candidly about politically inconvenient truths.

Pat Buchanan is one of the few remaining exceptions to this trend. He believes in speaking freely in a “free” society and letting the chips fall where they may.

The real irony is that Buchanan’s recent column would have fit right in with the pro-isolationist views of the founding editors of Human Events (Felix Morley and Frank Chodorov). The America

(more…)

From “McCain Rebukes Hispanic Voters” by Kirk Victor in the National Journal, via Larry Auster:

John McCain sounds angry and frustrated that, despite the risks he took in pushing immigration reform, Hispanic voters flocked to Democrat Barack Obama in last year’s presidential contest. McCain’s raw emotions burst forth recently as he heatedly told Hispanic business leaders that they should now look to Obama, not him, to take the lead on immigration.

The meeting in the Capitol’s Strom Thurmond Room on March 11 was a Republican effort led by Sens. McCain of Arizona, John Thune of South Dakota, and Mel Martinez of Florida to reach out to Hispanics. But two people who attended the session say they were taken aback by McCain’s anger.

What began as a collegial airing of views abruptly changed when McCain spoke about immigration” … He was angry,” one source said. “He was over the top. In some cases, he rolled his eyes a lot. There were portions of the meeting where he was just staring at the ceiling, and he wasn’t even listening to us. We came out of the meeting really upset.”

McCain’s message was obvious, the source continued: After bucking his party on immigration, he had no sympathy for Hispanics who are dissatisfied with President Obama’s pace on the issue. “He threw out [the words] ‘You people — you people made your choice. You made your choice during the election,’ ” the source said. “It was almost as if [he was saying] ‘You’re cut off!’ We felt very uncomfortable when we walked away from the meeting because of that.”

In 2006 and 2007, McCain was a leader on immigration, but his efforts ran aground largely because his legislation included what many Republicans derisively characterized as “amnesty,” a pathway to citizenship for the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal immigrants if they took a series of steps to earn legal status.

(more…)

In September, I wrote that there was potential for the this race to produce a Senate that would be more moderate on the issue of immigration.

Now, much has been made of the Republican rout. What does this really mean for the issue of immigration? The retirement of Jeffords means he’s going to be replaced by Socialist Bernie Saunders–who despite his explicit leftism, has a track record of greater moderation on the issue of immigration than former Republican Jeffords did. The exit of open borders radical Bill Frist from the Senate opens the chance that someone more moderate will occupy that seat.

The switches in party affiliation we saw in this election came down to the following seats:(with their accompanied grades from Americans for Better Immigration):

Missouri-Talent A
Virginia-Allen B
Pennsylvania-Santorum B-
Montana-Burns C+
Ohio-DeWine D+
Rhode Island-Chafee D-

Now, Talent and Allen are likely to be replaced by Democrats that are fairly moderate on the issue of immigration. Dewine’s Democratic oppononent had a more moderate issue on immigration than he did.

Montana’s Burns is being replaced by a Democrat who is explicitly opposed to an immigration amnesty. Bob Casey, who defeated Santorum in Pennsylvania promises to be tougher on the issue of employment of illegal aliens than the Republican he defeated. Chafee’s Democratic opponent promises to have a similar stands.

I don’t think the senate results are a cause for celebration among immigration restriction advocates. Allen’s defeat removes almost any possibility than the 2008 GOP presidential candidate will have any realism on the issue of immigration. Everyone left has already been bought and paid for by open borders interests. However, there is a real chance that the new senate will be more willing to tackle things like tougher sanction on employers of illegal aliens.

If Democrats can do that, then I fully expect them to improve their margins in 2008–and if they field a candidate like Al Gore with a more restrictionist track record on immigration, I expect they’ll take the presidency.

The next senate may turn out to be more restrictive on immigration than the existing Senate. There are four Senators retiring this year. Their grades from Americans for Better Immigration are (Dayton, MN)D+,(Sarbanes, MD) D,(Frist, TN)D- and (Jeffords, VT) F-. There are also 4 incumbents that are likely to loose their seats. Their grades are (Menendez , NJ)F-, (DeWine)D-, (Chafee, RI)F and (Santorum, PA) B+. The only immigration moderate that is in danger of loosing his seat(or getting forced out) is Santorum of Pennsylvania-who is far more conservative than the state he represents.

Part of this is sheer attrition. It just wasn’t as obvious a few years ago to many folks what a serious problem immigration is for American citizens. It is very expensive to run a senate race-which means that those seeking that office have to constantly calculate the tradeoff between fundraising and the popularity of a specific issues. As I’ve shown previously: there is big money resting on immigration(I’d figure the equivalent of about $100-200 Billion/year in pork). Anyhow, once a senator has taken a lot of money–or invested political capital–on an issue, it is really hard for them to dramatically change their stand.

Now, it isn’t obvious what the stands of new senators elected will be. We only have a few cases in which both candidates have clear records on immigration. For example, Katherine Harris in Florida has a C+ and is running against a Democratic incumbent Nelson with a D grade-but Nelson stands a 94% chance of retaining his seat. DeWine in Ohio with a D- grade runs a 65% of chance of being replaced by Sherrod Brown with a D grade.

My projections obtained from Intrade suggest that the GOP will likely hang onto the senate with at most 2 seat majority–or become dependent upon the deciding vote of the Vice President. 15 Republican seats and 18 Democratic seats are up for election (40 Republican Seats and 27 Democratic seats not up for election). The real money odds suggest that Democrats wind up with 21 seats and republicans with 10 sets in this election-with 2 seats too close to call.

These odds are obtained by looking at real money betting on elections in Ireland(where this is legal). Unlikely traditional “bookie joints” Intrade sets their odds by a market process something like a stock market(these odds were obtained on 9/15/06 and may change). Historically betting pools have been shown to be better predictors of electoral outcome than polls.

Some races especially interesting from an immigration angle include those in Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Steelein Maryland appears much more moderate on the topic of immigration than his opponent Ben Cardin with a F rating. Steele has also already won a statewide post. Frankly it is puzzling why the RNC hasn’t pulled out the stops getting Steele all the money he needs. In Missouri we have an an immigration restriction stalwart Jim Talent running in a tight race against a Democrat, McCaskill who also appears rather willing to restrict immigration. In Nevada, we have Jimmy Carter’s son Jack running in against a republican incumbent with a moderate record on immigration-and taking stands rather moderate by comparision to many Democrats. Republican Tom Kean in New Jersey is taking great pains to disassociate himself from Bush’s immigration policy–and that strategy appears to be working for him.

Tom Kean strongly disagrees with President Bush�s immigration plan and would have voted against the bill recently passed by the United States Senate that granted amnesty for those who have broken our laws and entered our country illegally.
As someone who supports President Bush�s plan, Bob Menendez not only voted for a program that provided a direct path to citizenship for those who have broken our laws, but also supported giving illegal aliens Social Security benefits.

As previously reported in VDARE.COM, in Pennsylvania, Santorum is actively campaigning on the topic of immigration-and this appears to be his only hope of retaining his seat. In Ohio, we have two candidates than have poor track records on immigration-but the democrat has a slightly better
track record.

Overall, it appears that both parties are just far too drunk on donations from the
wealthy interests that most strongly support increased immigration to seriously address the issue of immigration. These folks may think they are avoiding shooting themselves in the foot like they did before the major restriction of immigration in the 20’s–but they may in fact be undermining the faith of the American public in the two party system-and the Federal government itself. If The Democrats get a both a senate and house majority, the internal pressures in that party on immigration are especially likely to heat up.

*Denotes incumbent

When in early June I first commented on Senator Rick Santorum�s sudden adoption of the immigration issue in his desperate re-election battle I concluded

Some might find this distasteful opportunism. But to succeed immigration reform needs a coalition. When the rats start boarding your ship, you can be more confident it will float.

Santorum is a welcome sign.

Apparently Senator Santorum is feeling more confident about re election these days (or maybe he has been promised a big dollop of RNC campaign funds). In Sunday night�s Meet The Press debate between Santorum and his Democratic opponent Bob Casey not one word was said about immigration. Instead, apparently by agreement (Casey got to open) half the debate consisted of the ludicrous spectacle of these middle-aged Pennsylvanians competing to be the more bellicose over the Middle East. Casey wants to send more Special Forces to Iraq, Santorum to confront Iran.

The rest was some tax wonkery, abortion-baiting, and some personal trivia.

In essence, the program was an effective curtain raiser for the White House�s effort to militarise the November elections. Clearly, it was planned that way.

With a remarkable lack of professionalism, host Tim Russert allowed the debate to conclude without any consideration of an aspect of the race which has received a lot of MSM attention.

Or maybe it was professional. His paymasters in the Big Media absolutely do not want the subject discussed. It is more important to them who rules Iran than what life is like in small town Pennsylvania.

As for Casey, he neglected a subject where at least he has a constituency and where he could have forced Santorum into contradicting either himself or the White House. Instead he allowed himself to be manouvered into abject me-tooism on the Middle East. He is out of his league.

We at VDARE.COM have been interested in Senator Rick Santorum�s come-from-behind re-election bid in Pennsylvannia for quite a while. He has had the enterprise to raise the immigration issue in the race. Pennsylvannia has a much more serious immigration problem than the state�s elite hopes will be realized. Hazelton�s courageous Mayor Barletta (also Senatorial material?) deserves much credit for highlighting this issue.

Today�s Washington Times story: [Santorum shrinks Casey�s poll lead � Charles Hurt September 1 2006 ] indicates progress is being made:

Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, has dramatically narrowed the huge poll lead held by state Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. �Republican strategists say his tough stance on immigration has been a key factor.

“Rick’s immigration message is resonating,” said John Braybender, Mr. Santorum’s media consultant� “We did a certain amount of internal polling, and when it got to immigration, it was very clear,” Mr. Braybender said. “Rick’s position versus Casey’s was overwhelming.”

Earlier this year, polls had Mr. Santorum lagging far behind Mr. Casey, most by double-digit margins. One poll had Mr. Santorum 23 percentage points down. But in the past month, that margin has shrunk to about six percentage points, according to an average of polls compiled by the Web site RealClearPolitics.com.

A poll conducted last month by Strategic Vision found Mr. Casey leading Mr. Santorum by 47 percent to 41 percent. That same poll found Mr. Santorum 16 points behind earlier in the year.

The story concludes:

The two candidates will appear together Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” for their first debate of the campaign

.

That will be something for Patriots to monitor.

NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s appearance at Senator Specter’s Pro Amnesty jamboree in Philadelphia on Wednesday was fawningly and extensively presented by the MSM. He needed their help. A more careless account by the rabidly gung-ho-immigration New York newspaper Newsday allowed this foot-in-mouth comment to appear:

Bloomberg brought the world-view of a city of 8.1 million residents, many of them immigrants, legal and illegal.

He spoke of the importance of immigrants to the city’s vitality, and even urged the senators to expand the number of visas for temporary workers to fill jobs requiring both “elbow grease” and “intellectual capital.” [VDARE.com emphasis]

(Mayor’s stand on immigration by Tom Brune July 6 2006)

His fellow Americans will no doubt be flattered at the implications of this statement, the corollary of which is my headline.

Newsday condescendingly dismisses far more valuable testimony:

Hazleton, Pa., Mayor Louis Barletta brought a small-town view to the table. His city of 31,000 residents wants a crackdown on undocumented immigrants.

Strangely, Barletta’s account got very limited coverage except by small newspapers in his locality, notably this far more professional account:

Different cities, different views: Barletta, Bloomberg testify before U.S. Senate committee By L.A. Tarone, Standard-Speaker July 8,2006

Not surprisingly, the heavily top-down edited news-selection service which is part of the Bloomberg media empire just published a major negative account of Pennsylvannia Senator Rick Santorum’s use of immigration in his tough re-election battle:

Santorum, Trailing in Re-Election Bid, Seeks to `Shake Up’ Race (July 7, 2006,Bloomberg.com.)

It helps to own the Main Stream Media!

It is sad that plutocrat Bloomberg puts his own convenience before the interests of his less wealthy countrymen (like other rich people), and sadder to get this sense of how he despises them. It is even worse to read he is thinking of running for President! (Could this have been why Arlen Specter invited him to testify?)

Complain to Mayor Bloomberg.

Further evidence that in Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum may be closer to the electorate on immigration that his colleague Arlen Specter is provided by an interesting story on the race in the Sixth Congressional District. (In a tight race, immigration is the hot issue � By Tom Curry MSNBC July 5 2006).

WYOMISSING, Pa. - Why is Republican Rep. Jim Gerlach beginning his television campaign here in Pennsylvania�s Sixth Congressional District with an ad criticizing President Bush on illegal immigration?
Answers: Bush is unpopular and illegal immigration is a hot issue in the district, particularly in the city of Reading, which has a 40 percent Latino population and is partly represented by Gerlach�
“Clearly it�s one of the top issues in the district,� Gerlach says, adding that he was surprised by the number of comments from constituents about the “no” vote on the Senate’s immigration bill.

Like Santorum, Gerlach does not have a stellar record on immigration, and even now some of his remarks sound wobbly. But he is a professional, and he is responding to the facts on the ground: many of these old-established small towns in the state, a hundred miles and more from metropolitan centers, are being transformed for the worse. The natives were not asked and they resent it.

�Reading is just full of (immigrant) people who migrated here from New York. They come here for the entitlements,� said Brad Scribner, a Republican member of the Wyomissing Borough Council. �We�re just known as an easy take. You can just sign up for all sorts of programs.�

(VDARE.com understands the cheap housing stock in these not very prosperous areas is a key magnet.)

A significant aspect of this story is that Gerlach is having trouble in the richer areas of the district, where being against the Kennedy-Bush Amnesty/Immigration Bill will no doubt be seen as threatening economical yard work and child care.

As in the case of Helen Krieble, selfish rich Republicans are an obstacle to rational immigration reform

An extraordinary interview in today�s Washington Times [Specter puts borders first By Stephen Dinan, June 27. 2006] reveals the man who, as the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was the leading Republican promoter of the Kennedy-Bush Amnesty/Immigration Acceleration Bill in disorderly, almost comic retreat:

The security of the border should be the No. 1 priority for an immigration bill, Sen. Arlen Specter said yesterday, and he’s open to a compromise that sets goals for border and interior enforcement ahead of a guest-worker program and path to citizenship for illegal aliens�Mr. Specter said he is open to legislation that would make those proposals contingent on having a secure border and improved interior enforcement�Such an amendment was offered during the Senate floor debate, but failed by a vote of 55-40, with Mr. Specter joining most Democrats and some Republicans in defeating it.(VDARE.com emphasis)

Has he been frightened by Joe Guzzardi�s threat to attend his proposed hearings?

Amazingly, it appears that Specter (RINO-PA) might actually have followed the example of fellow Pennsylvanian Senator Santorum and listened to his constituents (a little):

The chairman said he is open to novel approaches to reducing illegal immigration, including a suggestion by Lou Barletta, the mayor of Hazleton, Pa., who says landlords should have to verify that their tenants are in the country legally, just as employers are supposed to verify that their workers are legal.

Where Hazelton leads, Washington follows?

While this is a credit to the determination of the Bill�s Congressional opponents, it is time for them to be especially wary. Specter has an atrocious record on immigration and has been associated with the most egregious abuses of it. The pro Amnesty forces are determined and many courtiers in the House will be eager to curry favor. Concessions are likely to be cosmetic and unenforced.

But they are clearly shaken. VDARE.com wants them to know: we are watching and we can think!

Some time ago, a VDARE blogger noted the existence of a MSM species, the �Conservative� pundit who would advance genteel, often complex arguments, but, in the end, always cave. They supply a pretence of balance, and can be useful tactically to their employers.

He also noted the species is now rare, their habitat having been largely expropriated by Neoconservatives, but that George Will remained an example.

True to form, Will has published a call to capitulation in Sunday�s Washington Post [Calculating Immigration Politics -June 18 2006]

Since there is absolutely nothing new or original in this article, which is just another attempt to scare Inside-the-Beltway types about the Hispanics, the more useful occupation is to consider why Will was set in motion just now.

Gratifyingly, he disapprovingly cites the Santorum race, which VDARE.com has noticed before. Santorum is getting attention in DC it seems. And perhaps it is not too much to see, in Will’s acknowledgement of the possibility of �Short-term Gain� from opposition to the Bill, an indication (also seen in the Wall Street Journal recently) that the Amnesty/Immigration Acceleration Bill managers are realizing the House will not commit electoral suicide on their behalf.

But they are telling us they will be back.