February 29, 2008

“He Can’t Win”—How Immigration Reform Patriots Betrayed Duncan Hunter (And Tom Tancredo)

By Joe Guzzardi

Despite Hunter’s strong resume that emphasizes his commitment to immigration reform, national security and patriotism, voters steadfastly refused to support him. Accordingly, Hunter dropped out of the race after several poor showings.

In her op-ed, New York Times’ editorial page editor Gail Collins speculates facetiously that Hunter failed because he “really didn’t seem to be trying.” Collins added sarcastically that she “went to more states during the early campaigning period than he did.” [Beyond the Fringe, By Gail Collins, New York Times, January 27, 2008]

But the momentum that should have been behind Hunter pushing him forward to “more states” never materialized.

You can parse Hunter’s results anyway you want to. But it’s impossible to escape the raw fact that in the end voters (many of whom are now grousing and groaning) preferred Establishment candidates.

The obvious result of Hunter and Tancredo’s failed campaigns is that we can’t vote for them in the general election in November.

But there are other unpleasant consequences, too.

Both have announced their retirement from Congress. The best that we can hope for—no guarantees— is that equally passionate immigration reformers will replace them. Hunter’s son, Duncan D. Hunter, is one of four Republicans running to succeed his father. [Relatives, Ex-law Makers Vie for Legislative, Congressional Seats, By Steve Lawrence, Associated Press, February 23, 2008]

And, because of the magnitude of their defeats, we now have to endure the slings and arrows of the MainStream Media and its non-stop pontificating about how immigration reform doesn’t resonate at the polls.

See, for one example, Collins’ editorial cited above with its reference to the “fringe”.

Or read former Mexican foreign minister Jorge Castañeda’s gloating conversation with a Miami Herald reporter wherein he called Hunter and Tancredo “two crazies…who went nowhere…” in the presidential primaries. [A Mexican view of U.S. immigration debate, By Casey Woods, Miami Herald, February 17, 2008]

(Read my response to Castañeda in my interview with Univision journalist Bill McIntosh here.)

Or for the best (worst?) example, try on for size the Washington Post’s editorial, the latest in its ongoing series of attacks on patriotic immigration reform, titled “Nativism’s Electoral Flop” with its rub-salt-into-the-wounds subtitle, ”Bashers of Illegal Immigration Are Failing at the Polls.” [Nativism’s Electoral Flop, Washington Post, February 14, 2008]

Excerpts from the editorial about the candidates who promoted immigration reform even if insincerely:

In contrast, about McCain the Post cannot be effusive enough:

Finally, beating up on us (again!), the Post has this closing paragraph:

”No doubt, the unrealistic and irresponsible advocates of harassment, roundups and deportations will show up at the polls this November, if only to cast ballots against candidates who would embrace workable reforms. The hope here is that their electoral clout will be outweighed by a backlash among fired-up and fed-up Latino voters.”

Of course, this is deeply dishonest. All the Republican candidates, including McCain, ran away from amnesty. All of them emphasized their determination to make the border secure. That’s a big change. And the presence of Tancredo and Hunter in the race had a lot to do with it.

Moreover, Huckabee and Paul, both still in the race, both signed NumbersUSA’s No Amnesty pledge. Maybe the GOP will be the McCain coronation that the Washington Post would like—or maybe there will be Dole-type doubts and despair, and the immigration issue will flare up again in a good floor fight.

But the core question is whether the Post’s central thesis is correct. Have we—“the unrealistic and irresponsible advocates” of immigration reform—failed at the polls?

Based on the evidence of Hunter and Tancredo’s 1 and 2 percent showings in the primaries and caucuses, the sad but true answer is “Yes”.

Apologists offer a million excuses for Hunter and Tancredo’s dismal showing: no GOP machine support, no money, no positive mainstream media coverage. And, of course, issue theft by the other candidates.

All those reasons are valid—up to a point. But they all could have been overcome with votes.

The failure is not in Hunter and Tancredo’s campaign—but our abandonment of them.

Maybe 2008 is the year we will finally learn our lesson:

Think of the success of the Right To Life Movement (with which I personally disagree) in getting the GOP to toe their line. Their issue polls far worse than patriotic immigration reform. But they are prepared to go the mat for it.

Next week, reviewing in greater detail than ever before, my own 2003 California gubernatorial effort—referred to from start to finish as the “he can’t win” campaign— I’ll explain how today’s poll failures can with a collective effort become tomorrow’s successes.

I wouldn’t have won. But I easily could have made plenty of noise and sent an unmistakable message—just as Patriotic Immigration Reform movement could and should have done with Hunter and Tancredo’s brave candidacies.