The author has been writing about immigration policy for some time. From the bio at the end of the report, this includes 'four and a half years on Capitol Hill on the Senate Immigration Subcommittee' and a 2010 book titled 'Immigration'.
It's therefore very unlikely that this piece concerns the specific views of any of the current candidates but is instead the author's long-term interest.
Moreover, the National Foundation for American Policy focuses "on trade, immigration and related issues" and the board includes "former INS Commissioner James Ziglar." The NFAP is set up to influence policy decisions, and meant to be read by those who regularly read the 'Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post', etc.
All this goes strongly against your hypothesis that it is "a political jab at the various GOP candidates' opinions".
The author previously worked at Cato and other libertian think tanks. These are often aligned with business interests by wanting to reduce the constraints on what a large business is allowed to do. Which is the association that jmspring correctly, IMO, makes.
The H-1B is a dual-intent[1] temporary work visa, and most H-1B visa holders intend to stay here permanently, and eventually are sponsored green cards (permanent residency) by their employers.
Rubio, Cruz, et al have called for legislation that punishes employers that do not sponsor green cards for their H-1B employees (by restricting their ability to hire more H-1B workers).
So, no, most of them do not support "guest worker visas". They support permanent skilled immigration.
