I was more than a bit surprised to see Nick Gillespie of Reason Magazine squaring off with Rachel Maddow over Fast and Furious - and taking the American side of that issue [1]. Gillespie supports something akin to literally open borders, and Reason is funded in part by the bad-on-immigration Koch family. Given his and Reason's history, I would have been less surprised if he'd sided with the smugglers.

To a lesser degree, the same is true of sites like HotAir, Townhall, National Review, and other establishment conservative and libertarian sources including top bloggers. With a few obvious exceptions, those who support (truly) reducing illegal immigration and even legal immigration tend to get kicked out of such places. Not only are they "bad for business" (their ideas would cost some GOP sugardaddies money), but GOP "thinking" is that they'd interfere with the GOP's snipe hunt.

Many establishment conservatives are weak to bad on immigration, either by action or inaction. While there are a few exceptions, actually being good on immigration tends to get you kicked out of the club. Note that I'm referring to those who are actually good on this issue, not just those who engage in happy talk.

So, why do establishment conservatives and libertarians - those on or near the gravy trains of people like the Kochs or Peter Petersen - feel free to discuss this issue? Why did they get the OK to strongly go after Fast and Furious, but not go after the DREAM Act or comprehensive immigration reform?

Here are a few explanations I can think of. (Note: if you're a Teapartier, I need you to see [1] first. It's at the end of this post. Go see it and then come back).

* Fast and Furious touches on immigration, but it's much more tangentially related to immigration than issues like the DREAM Act or comprehensive immigration reform. Bringing up F&F isn't like bringing up, say, the impacts of 800,000 new legal workers.

* Brian Terry is a sympathetic victim of the scheme, and he forms a rallying point for others. Some of those could be just using him to push their agendas.

* It's a way to divert a broad concern about immigration into a topic that's safe to those who support mass immigration: bringing up F&F isn't going to cost conservative/libertarian funders any money.

* It just involves smuggling goods, not smuggling workers. Not that some illegal immigration supporters have any principled opposition to smuggling, just that - unlike with cheap labor - none (?) of them are getting an indirect cut.

* It involves secure the border, something that even many Democratic Party leaders feel safe in saying they support.

* It involves guns both directly and in conspiracy theories (a theory is that one purpose of the program was to bring about gun control in the U.S.) The "gun lobby" may play some role in making this topic acceptable.

* Eric Holder is a more important target than Janet Napolitano, for one reason or another.

If you have other explanations, leave a comment. If you don't think there are "approved topics" for establishment conservatives and libertarians, leave a comment explaining why you think that.

------------
[1] Because of Teaparty, there's a label. If you aren't in the Tea Parties movement, you can skip this footnote.

If you are in the Tea Parties movement, there's an excellent chance this post will activate your Jump Smear And Lie technique. This post isn't decrying coverage of Fast and Furious: it's asking why those who freely cover Fast and Furious are allowed to do so by those who pull their strings, when they clearly aren't allowed to cover other topics in the general immigration field. For instance, very few of those who cover F&F would know about or oppose groups like this; almost none of them would start a campaign against the National Immigration Forum. This post isn't saying Fast and Furious is unimportant; it is important. Based on its impact, it's less important than amnesties like the DREAM Act or comprehensive immigration reform. But, it still is an important topic that the media should cover and Congress should investigate.

This post isn't defending Rachel Maddow; see the link. This post isn't defending the establishment media, something I've done far more to hold accountable than anyone in your movement. Likewise, this post isn't defending Obama on immigration. In the only terms you can understand, I'm more "conservative" on immigration than your leaders like FreedomWorks, the Kochs, Marco Rubio, the Tea Party "Patriots", and most others.

-----------
[1] mediaite . com/tv/bill-maher-rachel-maddow-and-reasons-nick-gillespie-have-epic-showdown-over-fast-furious