I’m just sick of overused terms like nativism and protectionism. They’ve become catch all phrases to be used as a weapon against a pretty wide range of perceived enemies.
Not a very convincing analysis.
WSJ Editors are the biggest bunch of elitist Country Club RINO’s to ever exist. They are the Open Borders Gang.
It’s my understanding that the Candidate himself is a tried and true Loser all around.
That’s how we ended up with McQueeg.
This is a weakly reasoned editorial (at best premature). Even the locals haven’t figured things out. http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/835763,2_1_AU11_14THDIST_S1.article
No mention of illegal immigration there but I guess the WSJ editorial board is more in tune with Illinois 14th district local politics than the 14th district Republicans.
I guess the GOP would have held the seat if our candidate had advocated open borders. (rolls eyes)
BTW, can you name a presidential election in which the majority of the Hispanic vote has gone Republican, or can you name a congressional district with a Hispanic majority that elects Republicans, other than the Cuban districts in Florida?
If you can’t, then why do you think the GOP will benefit from inviting millions and millions of additional immigrants from south of the border into our nation?
Illinois has become skewed as Democrat as New England states.
Peoria doesn’t play the same way as America, anymore.
WSJ has a blind spot for illegal aliens. The paper has no credibility on the issue.
"Nativist" is just the new buzz-word of the open borders crowd.
btt