Rig--

I never did say the WSJ is objective in its editorial policy now. In fact it is not. (Objective editorial policy is , after all, an oxymoron, as you know.)   The editorial page, like all other editorial pages, is the farthest from objective you can imagine--and usually fits your accusation of "business-oriented point of view" to a T. I read it for comic relief--and to find out what the enemy is thinking.   That's why it's amazing when it actually agrees with me--and this very rarely happens.

But the actual reporting is forever detailing abuses of workers by business, the downside of free trade, unfair health care policies, destruction of the environment, problems in Iraq, and in general the flaws of whatever crackpot idea the Bushites-- (including the ones on the editorial page)-- have in mind at any given point.

That's the other side--and at this point the WSJ management makes no attempt to tone the criticism down. I fear this would change--dramatically--under Murdoch.

Clare McCaskill--sorry I got the name wrong. I don't claim to be perfect. But McCaskill's vote against cutting off debate does not tell you anything about how she would have voted on the bill itself. It certainly does not mean she stands with the restrictionists. More likely, she had or knew of amendments she wanted voted on. Also, if you note, Webb did have his own amendment--which would have eliminated touchback. A good step forward.

But if you don't think the growing Hispanic vote will have a--strong--influence on the next immigration reform bill, I think you're deluding yourself.

"Enterprising business..."--sorry, not likely. To pick peaches, for instance you need a person who knows what to look for--a machine can't do it. Also, are you envisioning a machine that would completely construct a house to your specifications? There will always be low-to-moderate skill jobs which cannot be mechanized. If you disagree, I'd like to hear details.