Opinion: A New Conspiracy Theory?

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

Since it seems voting machines didn’t screw up too badly, some conspiracy theorists have hatched a new explanation for why the Democrats won.

The Minuteman Project posited today that the President did in fact ‘sandbag’ his own party by waiting until after the election to give Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld his walking papers. The motive? Securing a Congress friendly to his ideal immigration program, emphasizing border security, worksite enforcement, a guest-worker program, and a path to legalization for the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country.

Bloggers haven’t jumped on the theory yet, but they do point out murmurings from the Bush team on chances for change on immigration. Lonewacko -- a staunch opponent to Bush-McCain-Kennedy and similar plans -- notes that Bush met today with Mexico’s President-Elect Felipe Calderon and joined him in making the usual U.S.-Mexico joint call for immigration reform. (You can read a transcript of that talk here and earlier talks like it here, here and here.)

Bush’s post-election wrap-up concluded with a mention that immigration is ‘an issue where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.’ White House spokesman Tony Snow also mentioned it briefly in his latest press talk and, apparently, to reporters after hours on election day, a tidbit Fox News reported and that Lonewacko, Dan Stein, and National Review’s The Corner all note.

So, conspiracy or no, is it true that Democrats will usher immigration reform to Bush’s desk? Depends on who you ask. FAIR argues that a lot of newly elected Democrats won on a tough-on-immigration platform. But National Immigration Forum claims in a Nov. 7 press release that ‘embracing the anti-immigration strategy and a tough as nails focus on border security is not really delivering as an election issue.’ Immigration2006, a new group of ‘activists and pollsters,’ agree -- that the vote for Democrats was a vote against tough, security-only immigration policies.