Writing on VDARE’s blog, James Fulford notes the Wall Street Journal’s vile attack on Manhattan Institute scholar Heather MacDonald:

Meanwhile, social conservatives preaching ethnocentrism fret that too many undesirables from south of the border are soiling our Anglo-American cultural fabric. At least one Manhattan Institute scholar is convinced that Latino men are congenital gangbangers.

More recently, blogger (and former Bush campaign staffer) Patrick Ruffini has insinuated that those of us who questioned the now-discredited exit poll data on Hispanic voting patterns in the 2004 presidential election harbor an “obsessive” preoccupation with minimizing Hispanic assimilation:

I have two notes of advice for conservatives who are trying to diminish the President’s gains with Hispanics. You often wonder why people think you’re unreasonable anti-immigration zealots. Stuff like this is why. You’re employing all manner of hairsplitting and technical minutae in an attempt to destroy any notion that Hispanics might be moving into the mainstream of American society. This isn’t even a big debate over the fundamentals of amnesty or open borders — but a technical dispute over the NEP estimates — yet still the obsessive focus on diminishing Hispanic integration remains.

He also implies that Sailer and myself have made “vitriolic” statements about the need to enforce immigration laws and hints that there is something sinister about our agreement with Democrat-leaning pollsters about the faulty exit polls:

I still find it curious that those on the right who have made the most vitriolic statements on the immigration issue joined with partisan Democrats in an attempt to diminish this victory with Latino voters–based exclusively on state exit polls, not exactly the most reliable indicators.

As I noted in this post,” I’m glad Bush did well among Hispanics, but the media echo chamber’s blind faith in flawed exit poll data is annoying.” Got that, Ruffini?

According to Ruffini, “conservatives on different sides of the immigration debate should EMBRACE the high estimates of Bush’s support among Hispanics.” Even though those high estimates clearly are incorrect?

Don’t take my word for it that the exit polls are wrong. Look at what The Houston Chronicle, NBC News and the Associated Press are saying.

As for the claim that my position on immigration is “vitriolic,” I’ll say it again: Pro-enforcement is not the same as anti-immigant.

And pro-truth is not anti-Hispanic. As Steve Sailer noted in a comment on Ruffini’s site,

My basic prejudice is that conservatives should embrace the truth. (I also think that’s a good approach for moderates, liberals, monarchists, and socialists.) The problem with the 44% figure, whatever the advantages and disadvantages of it in terms of political spin, was always that it was clearly NOT TRUE.

Ruffini says in his insincere response to Sailer that “I’m happy the number was corrected if it leads to a more truthful and honest assessment of the Hispanic vote.” But if he really feels that way, why did he say conservatvies should embrace the inflated numbers? And why is he criticizing those, such as Sailer, whose critiques of the faulty exit poll numbers preceded (and probably led to) the NBC News and Associated Press corrections?

Sailer informed me that he will have more to say about Ruffini’s post in his VDARE column tomorrow.

Update: Teixeira has a post on the screwed up Hispanic data here. (Oops, I forgot I am not supposed to link to Democrat-leaning pollsters. Silly me.)