The open-borders Wall Street Journal, in a subscription-only editorial today, is crowing that the election results on Tuesday represent a repudiation of the idea of aggressively enforcing immigration laws, and says:
In Arizona, which is ground zero in the illegal alien debate, two Republicans defined by their opposition to immigration were defeated by wide margins. Representative J.D. Hayworth, who is so proud of his desire to turn the U.S. into a single gated community that he wrote a book about it, lost handily. So did Randy Graf, another anti-immigration absolutist who ran for an open seat in a district that borders Mexico and sees more illegal immigrant traffic than perhaps any other Congressional seat in the nation.
Graf did lose rather handily (Michelle Malkin, for one, in the later section of her early-afternoon post, believes there were many factors other than immigration involved), but Hayworth is holding out, and would seem to have some reason to:
Hayworth declined interview requests with the Tribune, but in television and radio interviews the six-term Republican said he planned to wait out the final count.
Election officials said more than 250,000 ballots cast in Maricopa County have yet to be counted. They were unable to immediately determine how many of those ballots were from the 5th district, which includes Scottsdale, Tempe, Ahwatukee Foothills, Fountain Hills and surrounding areas.
Unofficial results late Wednesday had Democratic challenger Harry Mitchell ahead with 50.5 percent, followed by Hayworth with 46.2 percent and Libertarian Warren Severin with 3.3 percent.
Mitchell led by 5,955 votes among 140,819 votes counted so far.
The WSJ’s definition of a “wide margin” is in need of adjustment, as is its take on the effect of Tuesday’s result on the immigration debate. More on that over the weekend.