It was during the Republican presidential nominating convention of 1920 that the expression "smoke-filled room" was introduced into the political lexicon as a way to refer to the hijacking of a political party by backroom powerbrokers.

Judging by some prominent Republican grumbling, the 2004 nominating convention, set to kick off in Manhattan, may require an updated expression -- this one (tobacco-free, naturally) to refer to the hijacking of a political party by boardroom powerbrokers.

The tension between special interests and popular national interests is a fact of politics, of course, equally plaguing both parties, and the major fault line in both parties is the immigration issue. But in the GOP, the political earthquake may be imminent.

On one side of the GOP fault is the Wall Street Journal wing of the party so named for that newspaper's repeated editorial call, citing the cheap labor benefit to business interests, for a Constitutional amendment stating "There shall be open borders." The Wall Street Journal wing is typified by the lead Republican supporter in congress of amnesty for illegal aliens, Chris Cannon of Utah.

On the other side is the, well, democratic wing of the party, which stands with the 82 percent of self-identified Republican voters who, according to a recent Pew survey, support tighter immigration policies (Democrats and Independents both polled at 76 percent).  The democratic wing is typified in congress by Republican Tom Tancredo of Colorado.

The two sides may end up colliding at Madison Square Garden on August 30.

Sources say that in recent weeks, word has gone out from Karl Rove’s office that Republican congressional candidates who fail to “stay away” from the issue of illegal immigration risk losing the financial support of their national party.  While this is not surprising (when the Wall Street Journal called for contributions recently to the campaign of Chris Cannon, whose support for amnesties forced him into a bruising primary, former Enron lobbyist and Republican National Committee chair Ed Gillespie responded with a personal donation of $500.00), it’s difficult to see the wisdom in preventing Republican candidates from speaking about an issue that polls consistently show the vast majority of Americans of both parties care so deeply about.

While the White House works to suppress the issue of illegal immigration at the convention, there is talk in as many as a dozen state GOP parties about adopting state party "no amnesty" planks.  That nearly a quarter of the country's GOP hierarchy would consider what amounts to open rebellion against the unpopular Gillespie and the Wall Street Journal extremists demonstrates the fissure that is widening between rank and file Republicans and the corporate globalists who wield such influence within the party.

Standing astride the fracture where the voters and the lobbyists collide will be Rep. Melissa Hart (R-PA), recently named chair of the convention’s immigration subcommittee.  While she's no Tom Tancredo, Rep. Hart's immigration voting record in Congress indicates she is much more inclined to support the tighter immigration policies favored by the overwhelming majority of the American people than she is to support the complete elimination of the nation's borders the Wall Street Journal's editorial page has been demanding for nearly two decades.

When asked if Rep. Hart agreed with the position of the Wall Street Journal wing of the party, her spokesperson said that when the party’s platform is complete, it will be written and ratified by the delegates.

However, this is no guarantee the platform will represent the views of Republican voters.

One person with knowledge of the process says national party leaders and campaign officials vetted every delegate to the GOP convention to ensure support for an illegal alien amnesty eagerly sought by corporate lobbyists in Washington.

President Bush could show strong leadership and political courage by coming out strongly for an anti-amnesty plank in the Republican platform.  Not only would he be standing for the rule of law, and with the American people, he would help the party avoid a nasty floor fight, and, at the same time, give the party an enormous boost against the hapless John Kerry and a Democratic Party almost completely neutered by the ethnic-identity special interests that have hijacked THAT party.

He could convince even us skeptics that it was more than a political ploy by removing the Enron lobbyist he appointed to head the Republican National Committee.