By Christopher G. Adamo

 

The most telling aspect of Hillary Clinton’s travails of the past few weeks is neither her giant stumble in the Philadelphia debate nor her apparent redemption in Las Vegas on November 15.

Contrary to much of the commentary on her October 29 implosion, it was not any unfair tactics by debate moderator Tim Russert that caused her so much turmoil. Rather, it was her inability to walk the Democrat tightrope of enlarging the voting base with hordes of illegals, while maintaining a facade that ensures mainstream America remains dormant to the threat.

So when asked about New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s plan to grant defacto amnesty to illegals by issuing them driver’s licenses, she came down, after several tries, squarely on both sides of the issue.

After more than two weeks of political acrobatics sufficient to make Olga Korbut green with envy, Hillary was finally able to give the suitable response (Is that your final answer?) to moderator and collaborating propagandist Wolf Blitzer at the November 15 Las Vegas debate. She now claims to be firmly opposed to the Spitzer scheme.

That same evening, the other candidates, including Senator Barack Obama (D.-IL) were themselves driven to the obligatory political tap dance. But eventually they revealed the true intentions and interests of the Democrat Party, which is to use any means necessary to get foreigners with no interest or devotion to America’s future onto the voting rosters.

The current pandemonium over driver’s licenses for illegals bodes particularly ill for Democrats, in a surprising contrast from the political landscape of only a few months ago. And the situation could significantly worsen for them if certain astute Republicans maintain their resolve on the immigration issue, even in the face of the very predictable backlash from the open borders crowd and their “politically correct” toadies on Capitol Hill and in the media.

Consider how drastically the immigration issue has metamorphosed since last summer when real America found itself at such odds with virtually the entirety of the Federal Government. During the attempted amnesty juggernaut, clearly a bipartisan effort, Americans saw themselves, their national identity, and their national sovereignty being sold down the river by both parties, with President Bush leading the way.

However, as the watershed moment of its passage arrived, public outcry grew so intense that Washington finally took notice. A resolute minority of Republicans in both houses made it plain that, if amnesty were to become law, the blame would be laid squarely at the feet of the Democrats. And in the face of such strident public sentiment, while Senate and House phones rang off the hooks with calls that overwhelmingly opposed this sellout of the nation, the open-borders advocacy was driven back.

Ever since that moment, the subject of amnesty, despite any clever new disguise, has increasingly been recognized as a partisan issue with the Democrats clearly standing on the wrong side. Overwhelmingly, this change in perception has been the result of Republican foresight and resolve.

Now, even the Republican presidential candidates have taken up the banner, insisting almost to a man that if elected, they will indeed enforce the integrity of our national borders, though admittedly, many do not posses track records to back up such claims.

But, with the issue becoming one of partisan implications, Democrats are compelled to posture and otherwise minimize their malignant intentions to open the floodgates for their anticipated new voting “constituency.”

Still, the possibility remains that candidates might give lip service to the concept of border security while continuing to push for such destabilizing programs as the New York driver’s licenses for illegals. But that avenue of political retreat has just been shut down by a bold move from the newest member of the United States Senate, Republican John Barrasso of Wyoming.

On November 13, Senator Barrasso introduced legislation that would, if enacted, remove significant portions of federal highway funding from states that issue such licenses to illegal aliens. The funds would then be redistributed among those states that continue to respect citizenship and legitimacy as a worthy requisite for a license.

What Senator Barrasso’s bill so capably accomplishes is to pose a question that needs to be answered during the next twelve months by every aspiring candidate to the House, the Senate, and most of all, the Presidency. America needs to know unequivocally if each is a real supporter of substantive efforts to control the illegal invasion, or if he/she is merely a “Johnny Come Lately” (and in Hillary’s case, very lately) to the issue of American border integrity while on the campaign trail.

Even Senator Barrasso admits that his effort amounts to an uphill battle. In an institution where cronyism most often carries more weight than content, and being number 100 in seniority, he is going to have his work cut out for him as he contends with some of the long-standing Senate heavyweights. Like the earmark debate of the past few years, the status quo is reprehensible, but popular within political circles. It takes great courage to rock the boat by putting forth a measure of this nature.

But despite its outcome, the debate over Senator Barrasso’s bill will forever separate those in Congress who want to appear concerned about border security when in front of the cameras, from those who actually intend to do something effective about it. And this is a message that America desperately needs to hear.