>>How the heck does the MSM, Dems, OBL, WSJ, and Quisling Republicans all get on the same page without any precise
>>written communication of their thoughts and strategy?
There isn’t a coordinated effort among the various amnesty advocates, so there isn’t any need for a set of talking points, a blog, or a message board.
Instead, the amnesty advocates simply confirm Rufus Miles’ dictum, “where you stand depends upon where you sit”. For most people, self-interest trumps ideology as a factor of political belief. This is not the case among those with a strong belief in a particular political philosophy. Many people at FR might stand to personally benefit from illegal immigrant labor, but they do not subordinate their political beliefs to their desire for material gain.
Why doesn’t anyone explicate their self interest, that is, just come out and say it? I think there is an awareness that it is morally shabby. There can’t be much pride in doing what suits oneself at the expense of what one professes. Also, seeking self-interest at the expense of professed beliefs, what we call hypocrisy, is as common and plentiful as sand. The hypocritical act needs no justification, simply because it is so natural.
Bumping this profound piece back to the top.