Not that there`s anything wrong with that, of course. After demolishing Fred Barnes`s latest effusion
, ("I`ll believe it when I read an article whose main source isn`t `Jeffrey Bell, a Republican consultant working for La Raza.` "
) he writes
P.S.: Steve Sailer takes somewhat more vigorous exception to Barnes` article—I wouldn`t use the phrase "bootlicking Bush acolyte," for example!—but has some plausible objections to the wording of the recent LAT poll questions, which seemed to show support for Bush`s position. ... It`s also worth reading Sailer to see what intelligent yet off-puttingly intense full-bore anti-illegal rhetoric sounds like. ... As so often happens, kf occupies the moderate middle ground in this debate!
Part of our role as a webzine is to be the immigration "bad cop"
so that we can shift the "Moderate Middle Ground"
over in our direction.
It`s possible Kaus has been taking a certain amount of heat for his recent
on the politics of immigration.
As far as "off-puttingly intense full-bore anti-illegal rhetoric" is concerned, Vdare.com follows the Thick End of the wedge Theory, (Yes, Thick End is correct) As Peter Brimelow wrote years ago:
THERE are basically two views about how you can influence public debate. The Thin End of the Wedge Theory, favored by gentle souls like James W. Michaels and John O`Sullivan, respectively my editors at Forbes and NATIONAL REVIEW, is that while emphasizing how much agreement there is between you and everyone else, you politely but firmly insinuate modifications into the discussion, all of such an eminently sensible character that no one can possibly (or, at least, reasonably) object. Over time, you turn people around.In contrast, there`s the Thick End Theory. You pick up the wedge by its thin end and pound the opposition with the thick end, as hard as possible. Then you stand back and see what happens.
VDARE - Alien Nation: Round 2