Michelle Mittelstadt: "Voters weren't on the fence about illegal immigration"

Michelle Mittelstadt of the Houston Chronicle offers a slice of wishful thinking that the new Democratic Congress will lead to "sweeping immigration changes":
..."I do see a light at the end of the tunnel," Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, of Houston, the top Democrat on the House immigration subcommittee, said Wednesday.

Still, few were rushing to predict that Congress will quickly — or successfully — tackle a major immigration overhaul in the legislative session that begins in January.

"Some of the worst (political) barriers have been washed away," said Tamar Jacoby, an immigration expert with the conservative Manhattan Institute. "(But) it's still going to be extremely hard to accomplish it in Congress."

Immigration's huge impact on economic, national security, cultural and foreign policy arenas makes it among the most controversial of policy issues in the best of times.
At least the article isn't completely biased.
"It's a difficult issue," said newly re-elected Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas. But, she added, "We need to make every positive effort to work with the Democrats and have solutions. That's what the people want."
Then, after discussing Bush's press conference and how some Dem winners told voters they weren't for open borders:
..."Neither party can deliver immigration reform on its own," said Cecilia Munoz, vice president of the National Council of La Raza, which is pressing for legal status for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.

But she and her allies had a bounce in their step with the defeat of several ardently anti-immigration incumbents and exit polls suggesting Latino voters deserted the GOP in droves.
Gosh, and just a few months ago Karl Rove reached out to her group, yet that paragraph makes it sound like they more or less hate the GOP. Maybe we could add that to the long list of things about which Rove is wrong. And, of course, that's also one of the groups losing California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson genuflected before.

"Miami pollster Sergio Bendixen" doesn't like the tone of the issue. Then:
Still, "I think we've learned a lot during the debate," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. "My hope is we'll roll up our sleeves and sit down and work out a bipartisan bill that the president can sign."
The article closes on a hopeful note:
Some Republicans, however, made clear they won't budge from their opposition to a legalization plan.

"I just think it will be very difficult for the Democrats to pass legislation granting amnesty to illegal aliens," said Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston.


Graf and Hayworth probably lost because they were perceived as one-trick ponies who concentrated their campaigns on immigration to the virtual exclusion of everything else. Even Lou Dobbs covers issues other immigration on his program.

Naturally, TJ would chime in on how "Some of the worst (political) barriers have been washed away," but please note that in AZ where Graf and Hayward lost, several ballot issues regarding restricting illegal aliens (in-state tuition for one) passed handily. AZ, I believe, also turned back an attempt to ban single-sex marriage so as I noted in another posting, those who lost were probably more conservative on social issues that their districts. Graf for sure was.

"It's a difficult issue," said newly re-elected Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.

There is no lighter lightweight in a Senate seemingly full of them than Kay Bailey Hutchison; the fact that she could get re-elected is one sign the country is in terminal decline.

If two or three republicans lost with a hardline position on illegals; how many others lost with a Bush-like position on that issue?
Was it ten times as many?
If they're trying to say that an immigration restrictionist position is not in itself sufficient to assure the election of a republican candidate, or incumbent one, well, what of it?