Add Meg Whitman to the list of Republican nominees who are trying to pivot away from the divisiveness or extremism that helped them get nominated. As reported by Salon's Alex Pareene:

According to this ad that will run in California during today's World Cup Mexico-France game, gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman respects the Latino community. The ad is in Spanish, so white Republicans will never know that Whitman suddenly loves those scary immigrants. The ad says Whitman's "the Republican who opposed the Arizona law and opposed Proposition 187."

Of course, during the primary Whitman ran ads touting her opposition to amnesty and drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, and suggested that she might even send the National Guard to the border. She didn't take it to the racist extremes of Arizona Republicans, but she wasn't above marginalizing immigrants in order to secure her own Republican base. Now, she's turning around and trying to make nice. She also flat out lied when she denied using the border fence in an ad, even though she actually did. Fences pretty well define Republicanism. Demonize a minority to unify the paranoid. Divide and conquer.

The Whitman pivot is part of a trend. Extremist Republican Senate nominees Sharron Angle and Rand Paul are attempting the same tactic. Despite entire careers built on the far right fringe, they are now attempting to recast themselves as reasonable moderates. Of course, Faux News has been there to help. As Sam Stein explained, on June 14:

On Monday morning, Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharon Angle told "Fox and Friends" that, contrary to popular belief, she does not in fact want Social Security to be privatized.

She now says she wants to "personalize" Social Security, rather than privatize it. Whatever that means. Take a cue from Bush and come up with cute pet names?

Media Matters took Faux to task, quoting from Angle's campaign website (emphasis MM):

Free market alternatives, which offer retirement choices to employees and employers, must be developed and offered to those still in their wage earning years, as the Social Security system is transitioned out. Young workers must be encouraged to investigate personal retirement account options.

But as Media Matters noted, this is how Faux's Steve Doocy posed the question to Angle (emphases mine):

Before you go, Sharron, just, you know, perhaps it's misinformation or mischaracterization, but some have said that you are out to get rid of Social Security. That's not true, right?

Which is where Angle pivoted to her "personalize" nonsense. Of course, on previous Faux broadcasts, Faux's own people had been clear about Angle's views:

On the June 12 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends Saturday, host Alisyn Camerota asked Sarah Palin: "You supported Sharron Angle. I don't have to tell you that she has some controversial positions. She wants to do away with the federal income tax and she wants to phase out Social Security. Do you support those positions?"

Stein:

Regardless of the set-up, the response remains noteworthy. Angle, as pointed out by Jon Ralston, the dean of the Nevada political press corps, has been fairly unapologetic in the past about her desire to see Social Security privatized. At one point, she said the program itself is "hard to justify." That she's now tempering that position illustrates the clear sense among the national Republican establishment that she needs to moderate her platform if she stands a chance of beating Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the fall.

And moderate she will. For the next several months, anyway. And she won't be alone.

Stein:

Prior to her was Rand Paul, the Tea Party candidate from Kentucky, who insisted during an interview with Fox News's Sean Hannity last week that he certainly would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, despite refusing to answer the question directly during previous interviews. Paul, similarly, has toned down earlier remarks saying that the government was being too rough on BP in the wake of the oil spill in the Gulf, telling a local Kentucky radio station that the federal regulations in place "apparently wasn't enough."

As Angle and Paul, and their enablers at Faux, attempt to fool voters into electing candidates whose positions the voters clearly don't like, it will be incumbent upon us to keep a close watch and to keep the discussions honest. Because whatever Angle and Paul now do isn't what matters most. What matters most is what they will do if they get to Washington. And you can be certain that if they do get to Washington, they won't be the nice, sensible people they are now trying to pretend to be. They will be themselves.

As for Whitman, it's hard to say what she will stand for. Or stand on. Or whom she will stand on. It doesn't seem to matter, just so she's the one standing on top.