Video: WSJ editorial board gleefully slanders conservatives

posted at 4:17 pm on June 1, 2007 by Bryan

This vid has been making the rounds, but we haven’t posted it here and it is a must-watch. If you oppose the shamnesty bill, prepare to be insulted, called a racist, and generally dismissed as a crank.

JunkYardBlog sums it up well:

Rather than acknowledging (let alone refuting) our claims about national security, social services, human rights and working conditions for near-indentured servants, they’re content to adjudge us all know-nothings. It’s much easier to fling around these baseless smears of racism at National Review and “the Right”.* It’s called race-baiting, and it’s a term the WSJ understands quite well. As outspoken conservatives, these men know full well how infuriating groundless accusations of racism are, and yet they’re surprised that Mark Levin, or more broadly, the party base, don’t just sit there and take it with a smile.

We all know that feeling quite well these days.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Yeeees! Thank you Bryan for making a thread out of this. Nerves of steel needed to make it to the end.

Entelechy on June 1, 2007 at 4:21 PM

So far, the editors of the WSJ haven’t accepted to debate with others either. It’s nice in that pocket-bulged tower.

Entelechy on June 1, 2007 at 4:23 PM

How long before WSJ subscriptions drop the way RNC donations have?

thirteen28 on June 1, 2007 at 4:24 PM

How long before WSJ subscriptions drop the way RNC donations have?

thirteen28 on June 1, 2007 at 4:24 PM

They won’t. The WSJ is playing to its base.

Bryan on June 1, 2007 at 4:25 PM

(James Taranto keeps quiet, and Peggy Noonan isn’t there.)

Whew, maybe I can at least keep reading James’ BOTW!

Brat on June 1, 2007 at 4:28 PM

Keep tabs on the National Review throwdown.

I used to respect some of the people in that room. Typical ivory tower drivel.

The rational compromise is enforcement first with full and immediate funding like we were supposed to get after the 1986 amnesty bill. Otherwise, it will never happen.

Valiant on June 1, 2007 at 4:28 PM

Why did the WSJ post this video? It makes no sense to me. They look and sound as elitist and arrogant…

I think I just answered my own question.

CrimsonFisted on June 1, 2007 at 4:33 PM

Looks like my use of the ‘s’ word, and no not THAT ‘s’ word, has the filter doing flips again.

Limerick on June 1, 2007 at 4:33 PM

They have agreed to the debate according to either Powerline or Instapundit.
Note to WSJ Rupert Murdoch is fittin to be your new boss.

LakeRuins on June 1, 2007 at 4:36 PM

Aren’t there any black Americans, women, Hispanic Americans or Asian Americans on the WSJ editorial staff? Looks like a fat white fools club meeting.

F_ them. Let the $72 Trillion long-term expense come out of their paychecks.

Griz on June 1, 2007 at 4:36 PM

They do make a point about having to be for something, since we wont get anything as good with Hillary and Pelosi. That said, do they actually think this bill will do something about illegals coming over? It sounds to me like they just dont give a damn about illegal immigration because it suits big business, which is their base.

Dash on June 1, 2007 at 4:36 PM

I like the token chick in the background.

BobH on June 1, 2007 at 4:37 PM

Intellectually dishonest scumbags… the whole lot of them.

greggish on June 1, 2007 at 4:37 PM

They gain strength from their group-hate.

It’s like a coven of witches.

natesnake on June 1, 2007 at 4:41 PM

Note to WSJ Rupert Murdoch is fittin to be your new boss.

Throwing fundraisers for Hillary takes much of the tooth out of that bite.

natesnake on June 1, 2007 at 4:42 PM

If one of them called me a racist in a studio debate, or intimated that I only wanted immigrants from “Western Europe”, we would have a little impromptu updated re-enactment of Bill Buckley v. Gore Vidal.

How ’bout you, Bryan? You ready to make sure only Western European immigrants come into the country?

P.S. I wonder which one is Joseph Rago?

see-dubya on June 1, 2007 at 4:48 PM

Why did the WSJ post this video?

Because they are that clueless and cloistered; they actually believe that that meeting made them look good.

baldilocks on June 1, 2007 at 4:48 PM

SOBs!!

I cannot believe these guys.

I am SICK to death of ANY elites telling me what I think and whom I am against.

These are the people who DO NOT address the issues!
They simply call us bigots, racists, and latinophobes.

Where is the substance?

They ignore the fact that the very bureaucracy that they don’t want running their businesses they are willing to believe will fulfill all these ‘triggers’.

WAKE UP WSJ!

Let the government show us they can do ONE thing right and then we will negotiate some of these other issues.

AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGG!

BobH on June 1, 2007 at 4:49 PM

BTW, I will happily pay $5 for a head of lettuce if this is resolved properly.

BobH on June 1, 2007 at 4:50 PM

It sounds to me like they just dont give a damn about illegal immigration because it suits big business, which is their base.

Actually I think big business is more than their base, I think big business is probably pulling some of these guys strings. Big business needs the WSJ to convince what’s left of the GOP to go along with the bill.

I’d love to see these guys debate the National Review folks, but they won’t.

reaganaut on June 1, 2007 at 4:52 PM

I’ll give $5 for a list of the non-obscene filter words.

Limerick on June 1, 2007 at 4:53 PM

Did they get a permit from the Fire Department to burn that many straw men at once?

And note to Robert Pollock: Who’s being hurt by these “silly” immigration laws?! How about my paycheck and the future standard of living for my children, you bufoon! Try looking up “Rule of Law” sometime, too. It’s what we whirling dirvishes of the Right are demanding.

common sensineer on June 1, 2007 at 4:53 PM

Two points…

1. This group is very interesting, because they were all in agreement… no opposing viewpoints, which you need to come to a reasonable conclusion.

2. In one respect they are correct, it is cultural. Its the culture of Law and Order old time America, being corrupted by outsiders, and its own internal power groups (like these guys) dismissing the derires of the Voter. Its elitists against us “common folk”.

Romeo13 on June 1, 2007 at 4:57 PM

HOW DARE AN EDITORIAL BOARD HAVE OPINIONS! DIVISIVE OPINIONS! And did you guys watch the end of the video? They all seemed to think the bill was horrible.

Nonfactor on June 1, 2007 at 4:57 PM

They won’t. The WSJ is playing to its base.

Bryan on June 1, 2007 at 4:25 PM

True – the cheap labor lobby that thinks the bottom line trumps all other concerns.

thirteen28 on June 1, 2007 at 5:02 PM

They don’t think it’s “horrible”, they think it can’t pass in its present form.

AND they’re disappointed about THAT.

BobH on June 1, 2007 at 5:04 PM

And the “race-baiting” isn’t a straw man. I’ve seen many conservatives, on this blog and on the national stage, who are genuinely scared of seeing Caucasians lose the majority. I think even John McCain answered a question about how he was in favor of capping how many people of a certain race could enter the country (Actually, I think it was on Bill O’Reily a couple days ago). The WSJ Editorial Board isn’t making this stuff up.

1. This group is very interesting, because they were all in agreement… no opposing viewpoints, which you need to come to a reasonable conclusion.

Were we watching the same video? You do realize John Fund is a conservative, right? He was talking the most (or second to most), you realize that, right?

internal power groups (like these guys) dismissing the derires of the Voter

I thought a majority of Americans were for allowing illegal immigrants a path to citizenship?

Its elitists against us “common folk”.

Romeo13 on June 1, 2007 at 4:57 PM

Those “elitists” sound a lot more common than some of the people I see posting comments on this blog.

Nonfactor on June 1, 2007 at 5:05 PM

Thank you Bryan for giving a glimpse of what is behind some of the MSM publications. They really are not only out of touch, have liberal bias, and are more interested in social engineering than the intersts of the nation.

What Fools! The issue has NOTHING to do with race or cultural heritage. The illegal aliens are here for one reason: economic advantage at the expense of the nation. They take away jobs, lower wages, increase crime, are in effect given preferential treatment over citizens (criminal complaints they simply skip out on as well as health care), a significant portion of them have openly advocated revolution against the United States (Aztlan), and many have no intention of assimilation.

The biggest single weakness this country has is the Left, and we see an example of their autocratic style in this video.

omegaram on June 1, 2007 at 5:06 PM

They don’t think it’s “horrible”, they think it can’t pass in its present form.

AND they’re disappointed about THAT.

BobH on June 1, 2007 at 5:04 PM

Nope, I watched the end just to make sure. None of them were voicing agreement with the bill. They were talking about the philosophy behind the debate.

Nonfactor on June 1, 2007 at 5:06 PM

I repeat:

Let the government show us they can do ONE thing right and then we will negotiate some of these other issues.

BobH on June 1, 2007 at 5:08 PM

They take away jobs, lower wages, increase crime, are in effect given preferential treatment over citizens (criminal complaints they simply skip out on as well as health care)

Wow, for a second there I forgot you were talking about Mexicans in 2007 and thought you were talking about blacks in 1960.

Nonfactor on June 1, 2007 at 5:08 PM

They do make a point about having to be for something, since we wont get anything as good with Hillary and Pelosi. That said, do they actually think this bill will do something about illegals coming over? It sounds to me like they just dont give a damn about illegal immigration because it suits big business, which is their base.

Dash on June 1, 2007 at 4:36 PM

Hillary and Pelosi won’t pass an immigration bill without the cover that Republicans are giving them, especially with every poll showing a large majority of Americans being against this type of “reform”. It’s safe for them now because it can always be pinned on George Bush and the Republican senators that helped him get it. Without that cover though, they know they’d take the blame – and the resulting brunt of electoral losses.

thirteen28 on June 1, 2007 at 5:10 PM

HOW DARE AN EDITORIAL BOARD HAVE OPINIONS! DIVISIVE OPINIONS!

You keep keep putting an “S” on the end of the word “opinion”. There was only one opinion in that smug arrogant group, and even that “one” wasn’t about the issue at hand, the legislation. It was about the obviously irrational racist conservatives that opposed it.

greggish on June 1, 2007 at 5:10 PM

Nonfactor on June 1, 2007 at 5:08 PM

What a crock. The mud ain’t sticking Nonfactor. My garden hose takes it right off.

Limerick on June 1, 2007 at 5:12 PM

People, let’s ignore the troll nonfactor and make him what his name says he is, given that he’s here to do nothing but sidetrack the debate by playing the race card in a Johnny Chochrane/Freda Chavez manner.

thirteen28 on June 1, 2007 at 5:13 PM

Oh. My. God!

The first half wasn’t too bad. It was annoying, sure, but my blood didn’t start boiling until that one dork asserted that, really, although we claim to only oppose illegal immigrants, we don’t want legal ones either. And I’ll be interested to hear what Mark Levin has to say about Paul Gigot basically calling him a liar and a racist.

Gigot was incredibly inane about it, too. He responds to Levin’s assertion of support for legal immigrants by asking “who?” derisively, as though it’s impossible for Levin to be telling the truth. After all, what racist would support legal immigration?

Infuriating!

Kensington on June 1, 2007 at 5:15 PM

I don’t understand where they get off with all the “We ought to..” prefixes about how to handle this bill. Who are they to be deciding strategy for the entire country?

Do they think they are the only voters? Or maybe they think their platform affords them the ability to tell the rest of us what to think.

I think they made the video because the regular platform has waned in effectiveness.

unamused on June 1, 2007 at 5:20 PM

Sorry, the link was messed up. Here it is: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

gmaninatl on June 1, 2007 at 5:25 PM

The WSJ editorial board is not “The Left” by any stretch of the imagination. But they’re just as out of the mainstream of American thought. I’m amused by the way someone in the room thought that Ireland wasn’t part of Western Europe. And I always knew I didn’t like something about Henninger; now I get I know what it is.

I enjoy having a diverse population around me, but I don’t like the way this bill sounds, compromising national security and rewarding illegal activity through forgiving taxes. By all means have some sort of path to legality for illegal immigrants, just not one that makes their legal counterparts look like suckers while turning the southern U.S. into northern Mexico (and, by extension, southern Mexico into Central America).

calbear on June 1, 2007 at 5:26 PM

I thought a majority of Americans were for allowing illegal immigrants a path to citizenship?

Yes, when the other choice is deportation.

V15J on June 1, 2007 at 5:34 PM

He speaks of assimilation? I would own him in a debate. If he has the guts to go up against NRO. All you have to do is list ten court cases on the subject of English only laws. Every single one of them will have Hispanic surnames or a Hispanic organazation as the plaintiff. Why is it only Hispanics have a problem with speaking English?

He has the nerve to compare Hispnics to Italians. How many Italian language radio stations are there in New York? How many German language radio stations in Wisconsin? How many Dutch language radio stations in Iowa? He should shut his ignorant mouth.

Theworldisnotenough on June 1, 2007 at 5:40 PM

what a bunch of jackasses. I don’t care if they are coming from mexico or canada, i want people to come LEGALLY. fine, call me a nationalist, but don’t you dare call me a racist.

wryteacher on June 1, 2007 at 5:41 PM

Other than Fund’s 100% correct point of virulent anti-assimilation among many illegal immigrants, the editorial content of the video is painful to watch. However, the technical look/feel/capabilities of that Brightcove video player that WSJ uses for their site is awesome.

HotAir.com could really benefit from using a Brightcove player for Vents and the other great videos posted on HotAir because:

1) It will be easier to embed any HotAir videos in our blogs without worrying that YouTube will pull it down
2) It would drastically cut your bandwidth costs
3) It could generate revenue with pre-roll video ads

Just something to consider…

ScottMcC on June 1, 2007 at 5:42 PM

oh yeah, and what’s why can’t the black guy and the woman sit at the table?????

wryteacher on June 1, 2007 at 5:42 PM

The Wall Street Journal is for sale… and Rupert Murdoch is the front runner purchaser. In fact, the owners and publisher of the WSJ has dropped ALL opposition to Rupert Murdoch purchasing the WSJ. It’s just a matter of time, probably.

So, will Rupert Murdoch make some essential and desperately needed changes at the WSJ? He’s not known for making poor and unproductive purchases. In fact, he is well known for making purchases, doing a hatchet job on the old stale administrative heads, and turning his purchases into money making machines.

The “…non-profit news service providing breaking news and views for the Progressive Community”, CommonDreams.org, is calling the potential sale, “…bad for journalism and bad for democracy.” They’re already putting the screws to the ‘most ethical Congress, evar!’ by claiming, “The fact that no law currently prevents such a merger is a grave policy failure that Congress should address through changes in media ownership rules.”

I smell fear.

I believe this could get very interesting once the “progressive ball” gets rolling.

SilverStar830 on June 1, 2007 at 5:47 PM

Wow. Ivory tower. I guess criminal immigrants obiously can’t make it past security up to whatever floor of the building they are on there.

Notice most of this ‘discussion’ is not really a discussion at all. They have already decided what is the right policy and thier ‘discussion’ is just talking about how the opponents are “not rational”. None of this is a discussion that justifies or explains the policy agenda they feel they have a divine right to say is correct.

Props to the one guy in the room who points out there are “assimiliation problems”. He is then promptly told he is wrong, basically.

Resolute on June 1, 2007 at 5:51 PM

I’m less than outraged. I’m not currently a subscriber, but I took the WSJ for years and believe it or not they are one of , if not THE most conservative mainstream publications in the country. Yes the WSJ has their lefties, but unlike many papers they also have an equal or greater number of righties. I didn’t hear anyone being called a racist, they were saying that lots of people on the right don’t want America to become Mexico and there is nothing racist about that. But if your not real careful how you say that, the left will be very quick to call you a racist anyway. So conservatives just don’t say it, they just don’t go there, and that’s what these guys were acknowledging, or at least that what some of them were saying.

If you were really listening, then you heard John Fund say he thought this bill should go down, but then quickly added that a new bill would need to be more deceptive, which I didn’t appreciate. He was showing his “I’m smarter than you attitude” in that instance. But Fund also criticized Congress for trying to ram this bill through.

Actually I found a little reason for hope in this clip because the group overall seemed to think the bill was going down. And unlike most newspapers, I found the WSJ to be right more often than wrong.

Maxx on June 1, 2007 at 5:51 PM

My headache just went to migraine!

Yes, it looks like we will have a three party government in the future, the far left party, the moonbat party, and the aztlan party.

abinitioadinfinitum on June 1, 2007 at 5:53 PM

I found the WSJ to be right more often than wrong.
Maxx on June 1, 2007 at 5:51 PM

They may be right most often (and I agree), but when they get it wrong MAN do they get it wrong.

BobH on June 1, 2007 at 5:54 PM

I wonder, when was the last time one of these rich stuffed shirt elitist clowns had to worry about making ends meet or budgeting for the end of the month, or any other typically middle-class concern. Just like the politico elites, they have no clue what life is like in the real world.

infidel4life on June 1, 2007 at 5:58 PM

Gigot: “But the other thing that’s fascinating to me is the degree to which the right isn’t even rational about this anymore. It doesn’t really make arguments about this or that part of the bill. It’s now just, ‘we don’t even want any kind of immigration reform because all it’s gonna do is legitimize twelve million people, who by the way are already here and are not leaving, and so let’s just build a fence and that’s it. That seems to be the essence now of the conservative majority’s immigration policy.”

Wow! Talk about projection… Paul, it’s you and your ilk that are not making “arguments about this or that part of the bill”. Where in that meeting did you talk about the specific parts of the bill that 80% of Americans are opposed to? Shame on you.

greggish on June 1, 2007 at 6:01 PM

My advice to you Republicans/conservatives:

You guys are playing right into the game. Instead of concentrating on pushing forward your arguments for why this bill is wrong, what kind of alternatives would be better, you are all whining and bitching about supposedly being pigeon-holed as bigots and racists.

Eyes on the prize kids.

Seixon on June 1, 2007 at 6:04 PM

I have to admit I am mystified by the amount of trust ANYONE puts in the government to fulfill all its promises,
BUT I am especially flumuxed by Conservatives doing it.

All we are asking is for the government to do the hard thing- enforce the border and other immigration laws -then we will work on what to do with all these people.

AND can we agree that an immigrant is someone who comes here seeking to be an American, not someone who simply wants more money?

BobH on June 1, 2007 at 6:05 PM

Robert Pollock,

Hey you don’t know who is being hurt by illegal immigration? Let me spell it out to you: A-M-E-R-I-C-A-N T-A-X-P-A-Y-E-R-S

How the hell did someone as stupid as you get on the WSJ staff I’ll never know. Maybe I should apply, I have to have at least 100 IQ points more than him.

The crux of the issue isn’t culturalists or such. The difference between immigration today and immigration 100 years ago is….. drum roll please ….Public Benefits didn’t exist. It was sink or swim, now it is swim or we will give you a life raft.

Tim Burton on June 1, 2007 at 6:08 PM

What the “Racist” Right wants:

1. Whatever it takes to secure our borders against illegal crossings

2. Whatever it takes to ensure our tax dollars aren’t being spent to support anyone in the world who manages to step across a line in the desert or jump their visa.

3. Whatever it takes to fry companies that knowingly attract and exploit illegals as indentured servants.

4. Whatever it takes to help law abiding citizens, employers, and enforcement agencies spot law-breaking illegals and pitch ‘em out of the country they don’t belong in to begin with.

5. THEN – AND ONLY THEN - are we ready to invite guest-workers. If 1-4 is in place, invite away and we’ll be thrilled to have ‘em join us in a country that respects and protects its citizens.

Is that so hard to understand?

The Ritz on June 1, 2007 at 6:23 PM

The first question I would ask in the debate is this: Econ 101 is the law of Supply and Demand which states that an increase in aggregate supply will lower the price of a good or service. So how does a steady stream of cheap unskilled labor not drive down labor rates and income of American unskilled labor?

Bill C on June 1, 2007 at 6:53 PM

LOL! This is hilarious. Is this supposed to sell the public on how thoughtful the WSJ is on “guiding” the nation with its superior intellect? These guys are so painfully in love with themselves they don’t get it. I can hear it now, “Okay guys, we’re gonna stage a meeting to demonstrate how smart and thoughtful we are. Honey, after you get done with the coffee you go sit on the ledge and show a little leg. We want sex appeal! Where’s Jack? He’s black. Tell him to come up from receiving and sit in that chair in the corner. When the time comes, have him just say this line. Now, we’re gonna have your names fly into the screen to impress everyone with who you are when you start talking. Should we still the camera at that point and play the theme song to Batman? Hmm. No, that might be a little much. We’ll just keep rolling. Okay, everyone places. Put on your jackets, tighten your ties and by all means, act like you are certain about what you’re talking about. Thoughtful commentary people – thoughtful commentary! Okay, let’s roll em … and…. ACTION!”

Murdoch needs to take over this paper and relegate these pompous windbags to the historical dung heap …

warriorlawyer on June 1, 2007 at 6:55 PM

Just cancelled my subscription to WSJ.

Helloyawl on June 1, 2007 at 7:00 PM

These pencil neck geeks are creamin in their jeans with the prospect of making the Republicans a permanent minority. NEWSFLASH! You A-Holes don’t set the policy standards any longer and we will defeat this POS bill! Put an Mandatory Americanization Clause in the bill and and enforce it. These people are here with the intent to colonize the U.S. This bill is setting an unconstitutional precident and a class action lawsuit should be brought against the United States Government.

sonnyspats1 on June 1, 2007 at 7:04 PM

The only rational one on the board seems to be John Fund, my journalistic hero, who pointed out how the Hispanics in LA are used as a voting block, which Paul Gigot discounted as he tells us that the Irish and Italians, in the early days, didn’t work that way.

Excuse me! I grew up in Boston and that’s exactly how the voting was done. Boston changed from a city run by WASPs to a city run by Irish Catholics because they voted as a block. And I’m sure the Italians in New York did the same thing.

Gigot, who openly disdains the Right for wanting to consider the legality of immigration wants, instead, to be thinking of the humanity of it. “They’re here, so let them be” he says.

What happened in Boston is a microcosm of what will occur nationally if the bill is passed and in 20 years 40 million Hispanics become the largest voting block in the country.

When that occurs, it will be easy to extrapolate what the future will hold for America.

And the staffer who poo poo’d the idea that it will mean the end of the Republican Party – is a fool.

pocomoco on June 1, 2007 at 7:37 PM

My father was born in 1939 to two Sicilian immigrants in New Jersey. That means that my father was actually learning to speak at a time when the United States was fighting a war against my grandfather’s former homeland. In fact, when my father was just 3 years old, American GI’s were invading Sicily and fighting battles in and around my grandfather’s hometown. But you know what? My father never once spoke a word of Italian (or more accurately, the Sicilian dialect my grandfather spoke). The only language my father ever spoke was English. My grandfather laid down the law upon himself and his wife — they were not allowed to talk to their own child in their mother tongue. They forced themselves to struggle with a foreign tongue so that their child would grow up speaking the language of their adopted nation.

So, excuse me if I take exception to the current wave of immigration so massive that it dwarfs the wave of which my grandfather was a part. Excuse me if I point out that the combination of open boarders with a third world neighbor and a welfare state does not make sense. Excuse me if I am insulted by bilingual education for illegal immigrants unwilling to assimilate the language and culture of this great nation.

tommylotto on June 1, 2007 at 7:38 PM

It just shows the arrogance of the elitist in this country from both the left AND the right. They not only hold disdain for the average Joe but think they are somehow above it all. They are “morally” superior to you and me. They forget themselves.

We are so ignorant that we will just “calm down about it all in 3 or 4 weeks”. I’ve got news for both them and the majority of our elected officials.

Altura Ct. on June 1, 2007 at 7:51 PM

What the “Racist” Right wants:

1. Whatever it takes…

Woah. I hope that was hyperbole.

Nonfactor on June 1, 2007 at 8:03 PM

I’m old enough to remember when the WSJ editorial board was the very definition of Conservatism and American Patriotism.

Sure, even back then they were also the very definition of the ‘elite’, but their Conservative, Patriotic values trumped all else.

Now, they are merely ‘ivory tower’ elite globalists, little different from a typical college professor. The only difference between most of these guys and …say… Noam Chomsky is that these guys know how to make money in the ‘real’ world.

Yes, I too noted with interest that the woman and the ‘black’ gentleman were not allowed to sit at the table. But at least they let the man sit, and to speak momentarily.

WSJ Editorial Board: A parody of themselves.

LegendHasIt on June 1, 2007 at 8:07 PM

Eyes on the prize kids.

Very good point!

Altura Ct. on June 1, 2007 at 8:44 PM

What the “Racist” Right wants:

1. Whatever it takes…
Woah. I hope that was hyperbole.

Hope what was hyperbole?

The exact quote was “whatever it takes to control our borders” If we can’t control our borders then this whole debate is moot. Again what is it you hope was hyperbole?

Altura Ct. on June 1, 2007 at 8:46 PM

This is the “conservative” flagship newspaper? They agree that the “right” is against immigration reform because it’s entirely “cultural,” but we just won’t admit it. So, now any argument is not just presumably racist; it’s also dishonest.

A really interesting question to ask these guys is: If Bush had shown an interest in actually enforcing existing laws, do you think that the American people would believe him on immigration reform?

I’m sorry, but Bush and Congress have completely ignored the law and the American people. And the WSJ thinks we’re dishonest.

cmay on June 1, 2007 at 8:53 PM

Again what is it you hope was hyperbole?

Altura Ct. on June 1, 2007 at 8:46 PM

Don’t pay attention to that child, Altura. I know it’s hard not to pick up a whining baby, but if you don’t just let them cry they grow up to be Marxists.

Whoops! Too late in this case…

Bottom line: Set phasers to “Ignore”

ScottMcC on June 1, 2007 at 9:01 PM

I made it to where he did the quote thing with his fingers. That gesture reminds me of a gesture I would like to send to each of them. But, I’m too much of a lady to do that. What a room full of egotistical buttheads.

ChrisIansNana on June 1, 2007 at 9:02 PM

Nonfactor on June 1, 2007 at 8:03 PM

Welcome back .

sonnyspats1 on June 1, 2007 at 9:23 PM

Nonfactor on June 1, 2007 at 8:03 PM

Oh I need to get it right! enjoy….

sonnyspats1 on June 1, 2007 at 9:28 PM

THEY STILL DON’T GET 2006!!!!

We need to flood them with calls telling them it was about RINOs not about being too conservative.

- The Cat

MirCat on June 1, 2007 at 10:50 PM

And was that last guy actually not reporting policy but talking about presenting it?

MirCat on June 1, 2007 at 11:13 PM

…increase crime…given preferential treatment… criminal complaints they simply skip out on…a significant portion of them have openly advocated revolution…many have no intention of assimilation…

…I forgot you were talking about Mexicans in 2007…

Nonfactor on June 1, 2007 at 5:08 PM

Nonfactor, look at that phraseology one more time. Are you CERTAIN that he wasn’t referring to trolls that lurk in the blogosphere? — like yourself fr’instance?

CyberCipher on June 2, 2007 at 1:20 AM

How long before WSJ subscriptions drop the way RNC donations have?

thirteen28 on June 1, 2007 at 4:24 PM

I dropped my subscription last winter and sent the renew money to Hot Air!

LeeSmith on June 2, 2007 at 2:05 AM

Wow. That video’s just sad.
Why was I thinking that WSJ was a Conservative rag?

eforhan on June 2, 2007 at 2:37 AM

This is pandering like nobody’s business.

The WSJ is bought by businessmen. They post this video gladly because they believe it shows them to be “pro-business”. But in doing so, they are pulling classic liberal dodges and min-maxing of arguments.

I dare them to find a reasonable conservative who is actually anti-immigration. It’s patently untrue and unfair to characterize opponents of this worthless bill as being racist or anti-mexican, the proper label is pro-enforcement.

The idea of letting someone, who has managed to successfully break the law for years, suddenly be rewarded with the goal of their lawbreaking at the expense of a small fine (fee), is like discovering that someone was embezzling from a business for 15 years, and giving them a promotion if they’ll just pay back 5% of what they took. It’s insane, and I defy the WSJ board to refute that analogy.

Freelancer on June 2, 2007 at 3:10 AM

Is this what condescending, patronizing pr**ks went to school for?

I’ve always known that the WSJ gang is about money and making as much of it as possible, but I knew they were willing to whore their own country for it!

Teddy on June 2, 2007 at 4:29 AM

never knew they were…

Teddy on June 2, 2007 at 4:30 AM

Does anyone else suspect that that uneasy rumbling under our feet is the sound of huge tectonic plates shifting and the GOP about to split apart?

Halley on June 2, 2007 at 6:49 AM

Bryan, feel free to point this comment out to Mr. Gigot and his cronies at the WSJ.

Dear Mr. Gigot,

Guess what? The vast majority of Americans WANT THE BORDERS SECURED and see through this shamnesty bill for what it is. Is this so hard for you to understand?

Rather than call us names and insult us, perhaps you should step down from the plantation house veranda, put down your mint julep, take off the white cotton massa suit and put on a pair of blue jeans like us regular folk and listen to what the majority of Americans want.

We don’t want AMNESTY for illegal aliens. It isn’t a “National Review” talking point but the heartfelt opinion of the majority of Americans.

We don’t want 1 million people sneaking over our boarders every year. The majority of Americans view this as a threat to NATIONAL SECURITY.

We don’t want OUR income driven down through the use of illegal aliens just so that YOU and YOUR cronies can build a bigger vacation home in Vail or buy a newer Gulf Stream jet. Because we are smart enough to realize that the pro-business lobby’s endorsement of this bill has only one purpose: make more money for YOU by lowering our wages through illegal competition in the job market.

And while YOU were pontificating on how stupid and racist WE are, I noticed that “the token chick” wasn’t sitting at the table with the rest of you “movers, shakers, and opinion leaders,” but was relegated to sitting on a table behind John Fund, like the (no doubt) “good little second class citizen women are” mindset warrants.

Sincerely,
Gerogej, a nobody who, because of the generosity of a woman (that would be Michelle Malkin), is allowed to comment here at Hot Air.

georgej on June 2, 2007 at 7:09 AM

They’re the racists – they basically want slavery. All these people working their butts off for less than minimum wage. Its just an accepted form of slavery in a way. I can’t understand why these people just don’t get the big picture.

Stevel on June 2, 2007 at 9:06 AM

Does anyone else suspect that that uneasy rumbling under our feet is the sound of huge tectonic plates shifting and the GOP about to split apart?

Halley on June 2, 2007 at 6:49 AM

No Halley.

I think just the opposite.

This is an issue with the potential to consolidate the Conservative movement (which now resides with the Republicans, and will for the forseeable future continue to)
and make it stronger than ever.

BobH on June 2, 2007 at 10:23 AM

I imagine that in the 1850s a group of landed gentry just like this sat around a table in a well appointed southern plantation talking about about the burdens placed on cotton growers if the slaves were freed. They would have already settled on succession, the only questions open for debate would be how and when.

Make no mistake about it, for these people, this is about cheap labor and they are willing to play any PC card necessary to get it. They have no problem passing their true labor costs onto the taxpayers in order to fill their own pockets. The represent the worst instincts of capitalists. They don’t care what the long term consequences are so long as they live well now and accumulate wealth to pass on so that their bloodlines can remain part of the gentry.

TheBigOldDog on June 2, 2007 at 11:09 AM

Agree with TheBigOldDog. They want to exploit Mexicans for their cheap labor, but we’re the ones with a “cultural” issue?

Henninger was particularly reprehensible in this video. I’ll never be able to read anything he writes again without thinking of this.

And did I see Gigot make scare quotes in the air with his fingers? Wonder what Taranto thinks about that.

David on June 2, 2007 at 11:32 AM

Oh I need to get it right! enjoy….

sonnyspats1 on June 1, 2007 at 9:28 PM

What does Savage’s site have to do with anything? You posted it before and it didn’t make sense then.

Make no mistake about it, for these people, this is about cheap labor and they are willing to play any PC card necessary to get it.

TheBigOldDog on June 2, 2007 at 11:09 AM

I guess it’s one big conspiracy that stretches all the way to the White House! A friend of my mother owns a shop in Colorado, she hired illegal immigrants to work for her, we visited and they were nice. They weren’t being hired because their labor was cheap, they were getting paid the same as any other employee would, but they were being hired because they were good at what they did. She even commented how “I’d like to hire high school students, but these guys do the work three times better and don’t complain.” If I were an economist I’d see illegal immigration as healthy competition. But I guess that was your point, that these economists “don’t care what the long term consequences are,” (which can be applied to drilling in the arctic or NAFTA agreement, but that’s another topic), which makes me ask: “what are the long term consequences?” Hypothetically if the borders were 100% secured and the working illegals in this country paid a fine and took some tests to become legal what would be the long term consequences?

Nonfactor on June 2, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Wow, that was a shock on a Saturday afternoon.

Catie96706 on June 2, 2007 at 5:12 PM

That is a shock… but we’ll see who’s has the last laugh.

Zorro on June 2, 2007 at 6:23 PM

Halley on June 2, 2007 at 6:49 AM

Yes. It is lining up for a real spanking.

Bradky on June 3, 2007 at 2:24 AM

you are a bunch of racist cranks. thank good we have a president who does what is right and not what the base slings their feces about.

jummy on June 7, 2007 at 12:23 PM

Jummy and NonFactor. Posting comments real Americans won’t do…

Guardian on June 28, 2007 at 8:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2