Some initial thoughts:

-Without being able to peer into the mind of Donald Trump, it’s hard to discern what prompted him to pick Governor Pence. If we take his words at face value, party unity was one of the primary motivating factors. That undoubtedly played a role, although I doubt it will sway Republicans in the Dump Trump camp, whose obsession borders on the pathological and will undoubtedly persist through Cleveland. My take is that this choice is a bid to boost the perceived statesmanship of the GOP going into November. The gravitas deficit, a la Dick Cheney and Gaffes Biden, who was at one point inexplicably believed to add stature to a presidential ticket, is something HRC’s media lapdogs have tried to play up throughout this campaign. Keep in mind, Donald Trump’s opponent is a woman who owes her political career to the slanders she professed in defense of a man who used the Oval Office as a brothel, but this is the world we live in.

-While some analysts have already mocked Pence’s pronounced lack of charisma, the truth is that this is one area in which the Republican ticket needs no artificial enhancement. If Republicans had nominated another sacrificial lamb like Mitt Romney, a man who can be emasculated by the likes of Candy Crowley in front of a national television audience, then perhaps a fire-eater would be in order. However, Donald Trump is an individual who is not only capable of eviscerating his Democratic opponent and her myrmidons in the press, but relishes the opportunity. As Michael Malice has pointed out, Trump has already neutralized nearly the entire playbook the Democratic Party has used to great effect in previous campaigns. He has the rhetorical equivalent of a Predator drone at his disposal, while Hillary will be bringing a pistol whose cartridges are mostly blank. The need for Pence to assume the traditional attack dog role of a presidential running mate has not only been lessened, it’s been virtually eliminated.

-The ideological reservations expressed by Trump supporters is a more serious matter. Although I don’t share Ann Coulter’s revulsion, I do appreciate the sentiment, especially as a staunch advocate for lower immigration levels and more stringent immigration enforcement. There’s no getting around the fact that Mike Pence was-even if he’s not currently-a supporter of amnesty. Or, as some have dubbed it, amnesty lite. Even more disturbing is the reaction of the Club For Growth, which can only be described as jubilant. If you want a barometer for terrible immigration policy, then the CFG is your 501(c)(4). To compound matters, Pence is also an enthusiastic supporter of the TPP, a trade agreement that repulses both protectionists and genuine advocates of free trade but which is lauded by globalist, managed trade political consensus, i.e. Hillary’s base. That being said, even philosophically Pence is not a complete loss, as a predictably tendentious New York Times profile reminds us. Opposing both the fiscally calamitous-and potentially catastrophic-prescription drug benefit AND federalization of education bequeathed to us by an unholy alliance between Ted Kennedy and George W. Bush? The horror!

-So, we’ve established that Pence does have some conservative principles, although not nearly as many as conservative voters and Trump supporters would like. In my view, the above analysis is pretty superfluous at the end of the day because Vice-Presidents do not mean very much, an opinion shared by at least one former VP. The Trump candidacy will rise and fall based upon what is done by, and how the electorate responds to, Donald Trump. The same holds true for any theoretical presidency. With the exception of Vice-President Cheney, it’s hard to think of a VP in recent memory who exercised a significant influence over White House domestic or foreign policy and I don’t see why Mike Pence would be the exception to that rule. For all the sturm und drang over this pick-which is, admittedly, the most important personnel decision Trump has made so far-it doesn’t really matter. This election will be determined by how voters feel about Donald Trump and his opponent, a politician who is truly frightening.

Update: Neil Munro explores Speaker Paul Ryan’s bizarre Republican trinity.

I had the pleasure of attending an informal discussion held by writer/political pundit Fred Barnes recently, where the topics ranged from his biography of Jack Kemp-co-written with McLaughlin Group colleague Morton Kondracke-to his thoughts on the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump. Taking place prior to the New York primary, and subsequent devastating losses by Ted Cruz to the now presumptive Republican nominee, it served as a fascinating overview of the internal divisions within the conservative establishment, which are even more pronounced now that the worst nightmare of many has come to fruition.

Even as Fred Barnes-like a handful of other Republican Party stalwarts-has maintained an anybody but Clinton posture-while delineating his many disagreements with Trump both tactically and strategically-the vast majority of thought leaders among formerly influential conservative think tanks, periodicals-as well as statesmen-seem to have taken the opposite tack. Some even going so far as to wholeheartedly embrace a woman who until relatively recently was seen as the bete noire of the establishment right. This is a process which seems to be accelerating with each day that elapses.

A  Trump critic in the audience-who nonetheless came to the conclusion that he was infinitely preferable, given the options, to Hillary Clinton-asked a compelling question. Namely, from where does this deep-seated animus-and unrelenting energy to thwart Donald Trump’s election, to limited effect thus far-stem? Granted, he breaks from  Republican orthodoxy on a number of issues, but if that’s the crux of the problem, then why were there no comparable anti-Romney or anti-McCain movements by the conservative intelligentsia?

If it’s simply a matter of the support Trump has drawn from loathsome figures, then why was there no corresponding outrage when John McCain aligned himself with virulent Mexican chauvinist Juan Hernandez? I’ve never subscribed to the association fallacy, but it’s worth noting that Donald Trump has never enlisted the help of The Daily Stormer in order to cultivate his popularity among white ethnics. Is the galvanizing issue for the anti-Trump movement his use of vulgarity? As absurd as that seems, the chief complaint voiced by the Stop Trump Pac appears to be Donald Trump’s penchant for uttering naughty words.

In reality, I think their objection-and the animating reason for the existence of the Dump Trump movement-is a deeply rooted fear of their own increasing irrelevance. The idea that the bond between conservative intellectuals and successful Republican campaigns is largely illusory is something that those in the anti-Trump faction simply can’t countenance. Especially the ones who manage magazines which have exiled the few writers on their staffs with a modicum of talent and intellectual integrity from their pages.

The Stop Trump crusade-if that word isn’t too offensive-is something to occupy the energies of writers and editors at The Federalist, Red State, National Review, The Weekly Standard, and virtually every other conservative publication of any consequence, through the remainder of this election cycle. It’s a raison d’être for those who would otherwise be preoccupied telling poor white people they need to die and explaining why you’re not a Christian because you happen to support a candidate they dislike, although I’m almost certain we’ll see similar broadsides in the months ahead from those who believe you’re an idiot is a persuasive riposte.

For the record, none of the aforesaid criticism means that Donald Trump is an ideal candidate, or that I believe sincere Trump critics are grievously mistaken for opposing his candidacy. The truth is that there are many objectionable aspects of Trump as a potential POTUS. Although I have several disagreements with him, I think his shockingly ignorant remarks about the attempted massacre of courageous American patriots-including my dear friend Pamela Geller-in Garland, Texas-which, to the best of my knowledge, he’s never retracted-raise the most important questions about his fitness for office.

However, it strains credibility to use this valid concern as an excuse for endorsing a woman who-lest we forget-fought to have a critic of Islam thrown into a dungeon after her own catastrophically bad foreign policy decisions led to the deaths of a United States ambassador, foreign service officer, and 2 CIA contractors.

The decision to enlist in Hillary Clinton’s unceasing quest to sink her talons into the White House is only explicable as a psychological exercise. Namely, as a means of salving the guilty consciences of those who had no meaningful impact in the fight against Obamacare, the successful grassroots campaign to derail legislative amnesty, or any of the myriad cultural wars which have embroiled our nation over the past 2 decades. It’s a way of ignoring the fact that the premiere conservative conference is a venue for selling snake oil rather than exploring the ideas which actual conservatives care about.

And the more true conservatives maintain that the primary concern of millions Americans is immaterial to true conservatism, the more irrelevant these high priests of conservative dogma will become. Just as real alpha females don’t need an inane listicle explaining how to be an alpha female, real conservatives don’t need a hackneyed blogger at Red State or contemptuous John Malkovich lookalike at National Review to explain to them why the unmaking of their country is less important than thwarting the political aspirations of the first Republican presidential candidate to intently listen to their plight and express their reservations about the direction in which this country is headed.

As a political and ideological ethos, Dump Trump is an empty vessel. However, as a case of deflection, it explains a hell of a lot.

Update: Just a few quick impressions,

1. Romney’s most substantive critique of the Trump campaign-arguably, the only one highlighted in this speech-revolved around Donald Trump’s support for high import tariffs. It should be noted that even some of his harshest critics don’t believe he’ll follow through on his promises, re: retaliatory trade measures. Whether that is a credit or a debit in his column is up to the voters. 

2. The foreign policy portion of his speech was arguably the worst part, accentuating the divide between ordinary, disillusioned Republican voters and the establishment which has supported-and to a large degree, enabled-previous foreign entanglements, with their disastrous consequences. For a contrary view, I suggest reading this impassioned post on Ricochet from a former conservative. 

3. It continues to baffle me why the Republican Party apparatus believes that trotting out establishment politicians and pundits to publicly and unambiguously reject Trump voters-in addition to the Trump candidacy itself-will diminish the appeal of Donald Trump. The only way the Romney speech could have been more tin-eared is if it had been a joint press conference with Jeb Bush.

4. Although it was, as Fox News anchor Stuart Varney described, “20 minutes of venom,” this speech was, for the most part, bereft of any emotional energy/anger. It was a reminder of why Mitt Romney-despite other admirable qualities as a political candidate-never connected with a large segment of the American public during his 2 prior presidential campaigns. 

Watch it live.

After much speculation, and devastating comments from his colleagues, the heir apparent is heir no longer. In what will henceforth be known as the briefest Speakership to be since the ignominious resignation of Congressman Bob Livingston, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy has decided to forgo his candidacy. Naturally, this means that the race will be postponed until Barack Obama’s Mini-Me has found a suitable shill to thwart the goals of conservatives, i.e. the people who are responsible for the current Republican leadership being enthroned.

Of course, the people who brought you Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush are never short of terrible ideas, so keep your eyes on this space for future developments.

The fact that Obama has even alienated the most fervent corporate shills and mass immigration enthusiasts among the GOP should give you an inkling of how noxious this politically opportunistic power grab truly is.

As  a Facebook friend remarked when posting a link to this story, “what morons are running this godforsaken idiot party?” Good question, my friend. The answer, apparently, is liberal open borders, multimillionaire  Sheldon Adelson. Leaving aside the dubious provenance of Mr. Adelson’s wealth,  you have to wonder why Republican presidential aspirants would be so eager to court an benefactor who has a nearly unblemished record of bankrolling losing candidates.

The answer, of course, is that the leaders of the current Republican Party  are beholden to corporate donors and are willing to do their bidding, especially when it coincides with their own deeply-held beliefs. Jeb Bush is merely the most pliant instrument of the open borders lobby, but his views, unfortunately, are shared by many of the front-runners in the 2016 GOP presidential sweepstakes. Including pre-Bridgegate media darling, Governor Chris Christie.

The battle has been joined, it’s time patriotic Americans weighed in, don’t you think?

It turns out that the Coulter-Kaus debate was broadcast on one of  C-SPAN’s many outlets yesterday, despite the unofficial CPAC ban on discussion of the most important domestic political issue. You can watch the full debate here. In addition to covering the political costs of amnesty and the legally and constitutionally dubious nature of the Obama administration’s administrative amnesty, they also explore the Democratic and Republican presidential fields and the political and economic consequences of Obamacare, as well as entitlement reform. 

One of the inerrant truths of our time is that if a bad idea exists, the New York Times is certain to endorse it without reservation. Conversely, if a good idea is percolating in the public consciousness, the editors at the Old Gray Lady will inveigh against it to their newspaper’s last barrel of ink. Nothing illustrates this newspaper’s consistently wrongheaded approach to almost everything more than its public position on immigration enforcement, mass immigration, and the multigenerational transformation of this country through legislative as well as extraconstitutional means. 

Whether it’s opposing statewide efforts to rectify a problem caused in large measure by the federal government, or supporting yet another sweeping amnesty that will allow tens of millions of illegal aliens to further burden American society-to say nothing of the millions of legal immigrants that would be naturalized in such a compromise-you can rest assured that the Times will stand behind any “solution” to the immigration crisis that adversely impacts Americans, rarely allowing a dissenting perspective to be broached within its op-ed pages. However, its stance on immigration-related matters has gotten progressively worse with each passing year, especially under the reign of Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger, heir to a journalistic dynasty which he has assiduously driven into the ground.

That’s why the backgrounder written by Jerry Kammer, of the Center for Immigration Studies, is such a welcome relief. Sulzberger’s Voice explores the reasons, both psychological and political, behind the NYT’s hidebound opposition to reasonable immigration policy and intolerance of anyone who critiques their open borers dogmatism. It’s well worth reading for anyone who wants to understand why the “paper of record” continually stands behind ideas that the overwhelming majority of American citizens categorically reject. and what this philosophical chasm portends for the current immigration debate.

As sundry pundits, political consultants, and elected officials search for answers in the wake of the GOP’s decisive election loss, it’s worth noting that while the Republican Party yielded ground in the Senate, House of Representatives, and various state legislatures-to say nothing of its presidential nominee’s defeat-there were several important races where immigration patriots won, or open borders shills were soundly beaten. Overall, it was a much better night for those believe in responsible immigration policies than the reelection of El Presidente might initially suggest.

Contrary to the self-serving narrative constructed by professional Hispanics and those eager for an endless supply of government-bankrolled cheap labor, the Republican Party’s losses this November did not stem from its allegedly rigid opposition to illegal immigration, as the resounding defeat of  an anti-SB 1070 exemplar in the state of Arizona demonstrates. This is not so startling when you consider that 62% still believe that stopping illegal immigration is extremely important, according to a post-election Gallup survey.

Although Hispanic voters overwhelmingly favored the reelection of President Barack Obama, and increased his margin of victory in several densely populated blue states,  they did not play a decisive role in any of the major swing states. Of course, as the rest of the country inexorably turns into California, that could very well change in future presidential elections. However, the one way to ensure that those races are not competitive is by enacting those schemes which so many in the Republican Party believe-or purport to believe- will ingratiate them to Hispanic voters.

In order to understand why this is a fatal delusion, I recommend you read a lengthy and data rich, but nonetheless illuminating, post by Tino Sanandaji on his Super-Economy blog which delineates in painstaking detail why Hispanics are natural Democrats. His analysis, unlike the siren song of open borders Republicans such as Linda Chavez and rootless, neoconservative ideologues like Jennifer Rubin is grounded in empirical evidence, not self-deluding fantasies.

We’ve trod this ground many times before at American Rattlesnake, but it’s worth revisiting because the same insipid arguments for embracing amnesty-which are as ethically obtuse as they are intellectually bankrupt-will be marshaled once Congress reconvenes in 2013, if not sooner. You need to be armed with factual, incontrovertible evidence that demonstrates why embracing the path of amnesty is a strategy of failure, for the nation, for future generations saddled with non-working age immigrants partaking of our vast welfare state, and for a party which seems intent upon legislating itself out of existence.

Last week’s election results undoubtedly left many readers deeply disappointed, if not disaffected, including those of you who couldn’t bring yourselves to cast your ballot for Mitt Romney for any number of well documented reasons. The prospect of a president unencumbered by electoral consequences, whose administration has already shown itself to be flagrantly indifferent to-if not contemptuous of-the rule of law and quaint Constitutional notions like the separation of powers, seems daunting to ordinary, patriotic citizens.

What’s more, the same malleable, anemic species of Republican which has represented GOP voters for the past two years, and whose leadership has led not only to political defeat but unprecedented encroachments upon personal autonomy, has been returned to Congress. Not to stand up for the principles of the men and women who elected them, but with the intent of compromising with the  President and cementing his agenda into law, including the completion through congressional action of the vast amnesty Barack Obama has begun to implement through executive action.

Make no mistake, President Obama will attempt to fulfill his promise to repay the support he received from Latino voters this election cycle. The implementation of DACA and promulgation of administrative amnesty over the past two years was merely the down payment of a much larger loan floated by the Democratic Party’s most prized constituency. Repaid, of course, with citizenship for the 11-20 million illegal aliens currently living in this country.

I doubt that either Barack Obama or John Boehner will wait for the next session of Congress to begin; certainly it doesn’t appear that members of Congress are hesitant to begin strip-mining what remains of American citizenship. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s rumblings about neutering the filibuster-which was the only legislative tool that prevented the DREAM Act from being enacted in the last lame duck session of Congress-don’t augur well for those of us who want to prevent this from happening. This upcoming session will see a reprise of the last lame duck session, only with fewer opportunities to obstruct whatever stalking horse for  amnesty is presented before Congress.

The fact that every credible exit poll, like every other measurable barometer of public opinion, demonstrated overwhelming voter opposition to amnesty will mean nothing to the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, much less the man who owes his office to individuals, unions, and corporations who will be the chief beneficiaries of any future negations of federal immigration law. The American people serve as an impediment which needs to be removed in a nation where too many old, white men exist, according to the despicable Al Cardenas, the current head of the curiously named American Conservative Union.

This meta-narrative, fostered by the usual suspects in the mainstream media and elsewhere among open borders dogmatists, will be emphasized in the weeks and months ahead. And just as in previous years with equally catastrophic amnesty proposals, this theme will be regurgitated by cretinous political apparatchiks, putative conservatives-such as Charles Krauthammer-and Republican Party lackies like Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity.

What makes this upcoming battle even more difficult is the seeming justification open borders enthusiasts have in pursuing their agenda by virtue of the latest electoral outcome. Almost to a man, they are touting the defeat of Mitt “Green Card Stapler” Romney-a man who endorsed the codification of DACA into federal law-as vindication of their mantra that the Republican Party needs to abandon any pretense  of  respect for our national borders, our language or our unique heritage as Americans.

While it’s easy to grasp why Democrats would want to enact legislation ensuring a spigot of reliable, straight ticket voters in future elections, it’s more difficult to discern why the Republican Party would want to legalize-and ultimately, enfranchise-millions upon millions of voters who will ultimately deprive its officeholders and political candidates of any decision-making authority. As poorly as Mitt Romney fared in capturing the Hispanic vote in aggregate terms, he performed even worse with specific sub-demographics within the Latino electorate. As the Pew Hispanic Center points out, Romney’s share of Hispanic voters who identified themselves as non-college graduates was thirteen points less than that among those who had graduated from college.

What better solution to the Republican Party’s demographic bind than to naturalize and enfranchise millions of future voters who have not only failed to attend college, but have not even progressed beyond high school? Makes perfect sense to me. Why even bother compromising your principles if Texas is going to become a blue state in a mere four years, as Jeb Bush-a potential presidential nominee to some of our country’s more sun-addled inhabitants-believes?

Furthermore, the notion that Hispanic voters-particularly, first and second generation immigrants-support the Democrats because of their support for unfettered immigration, or conversely, oppose Republicans due to their perceived opposition to such a policy, is empirically false. As Heather Mac Donald has pointed out repeatedly-including in the immediate aftermath of Mitt Romney’s loss-what binds this community to the Democratic Party, like past waves of immigrants who aligned with that party’s standard bearers, is support for and dependency upon a vast network of welfare programs, as well as wealth transfers which take the form of  confiscatory taxes levied upon high income earners.

That is why the Democratic Party-including Barack Obama and Harry Reid, among others-is so eager to legalize millions of illegal aliens, over sixty percent of whom come from Mexico. It sees these individuals as part of its immutable political base and a gateway to power, just as leaders of public sector and service employees’ unions see them as potential dues-paying members, i.e. a gateway to the accumulation of wealth, most of it extracted at the expense of American taxpayers.

Unfortunately, unlike past waves of immigrants, there are very few incentives for these newcomers to assimilate our language, much less adopt the free market ethos that open borders fetishists at places like the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Cato Institute ostensibly venerate. Add to this the reality that there is no time for these newcomers to assimilate-even if they had the inclination to do so-as successive waves of immigration further dilute their attenuated connection to this country, and we are left stranded at the current impasse where our nation, along with much of Europe, is functionally bankrupt.

There is no sugarcoating the challenge we face in the days ahead, but face it we must. Amnesty is not the answer.