New Vent: Gorilla warfare against the open borders WSJ

posted at 7:50 am on June 7, 2007 by Bryan

The Wall Street Journal editorial board thinks conservatives who oppose the immigration bill are either xenophobes or bigots. Michelle engages in guerilla gorilla warfare to prove them wrong.

Download for your iPod


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

We make no arguments? All they did in the entire video was slander us as bigots. What are their arguments. I hear none.

The whole clip had an eerie high school yearbook committee quality.

ronsfi on June 7, 2007 at 6:05 PM

We named the Monkey Michelle.

SO, how much more distortion will go on?

Mazztek on June 7, 2007 at 6:13 PM

Another Great Vent… Bravo!

The WSJ should know by now, when Michelle speaks to this issue, she is “dealing with reality”.

Now I’m gonna go pop some microwave popcorn.

Zorro on June 7, 2007 at 6:40 PM

The Wall Street Journal editorial board, PWNED by Hot Air.

Beautiful work, Michelle & Bryan.

The Ugly American on June 7, 2007 at 6:57 PM

And don’t think that we didn’t notice your new “I haven’t been on vacation at the beach, really”, tan.

Cause we did.

The Ugly American on June 7, 2007 at 7:05 PM

I work for The Journal. Go ahead throw your stones now and get it out of the way.

If any of you posting have actually taken the time to watch the entire 7+ minute video segment, you’ll know that this wasn’t a bunch of elitist liberal editors trying to throw the Right under the bus or out the window about immigration. Their discussion centered on the Immigration Bill and the debate by both the Right and the Left on its merits. Call Gigot an elitist, but he’s far from Liberal. And if you’re NOT a Journal subscriber or reader, it might be easy to call him one after this segment but that’s simply not the case. Those guys & gals ALL bash the establishment, the legal system, Shillary, foreign governments…and yes, they DID speak out against the horrendous trial in TX against Compean & Ramos. While I LOVE this Vent (every one, ’cause Michelle ROCKS!), the selective use of comments don’t represent the context at all.

The Journal doesn’t write flowery puff pieces about industry and get big advertising contracts in return (trust me). In fact, people walk up to me and complain about articles that are critical of their industry, business model, or company and SWEAR they’re going to make sure that their company NEVER advertises in The Journal again. “I’m a big fan of voting with my dollar,” I tell them, “so if that is in the best interest of your business, then do what you think is right.” We lose some business and we gain some business as a result. And we’ll lose some of you as a result of what you’ve interpreted as elitist lefties calling you names. That’s unfortunate, because you will now not only miss out on The Journal’s valuable content, you’ll miss their pieces with which you undoubtedly agree. I’d challenge each of you to go back and read the Op-Ed page over the last 6 months and find ONE column that offends you as this video has. I’m willing to bet that you’ve probably agreed with 99% of what those same editors have written because A) they’re PRO-business (and not necessarily big business I might add. A majority of WSJ readers are either self-employed or word for small businesses) B) PRO-Democracy globally and C) PRO-smart legislation that puts more money in YOUR pockets and less in the gub’ment’s….

Regarding the token black guy and the white gal comments: This is by far the most diverse work environment within which I’ve ever worked. With a staff of 12 on site in my division, we have 5 white guys, 3 of whom are gay. We have 7 women: 1 Asian lesbian with twins, a BBBW, 1 Creole, 1 Mexican, and 2 white. Say what you want, but this company’s far from the stereotype y’all are stuck on.

Finally, the immigration issue itself: We’ve published articles on OpinionJournal.com noting the declining birth rates (replacement rates) in first world countries and the increasing birth rates in countries that are primarily Muslim. Unless we improve our on our currently broken immigration system, we’re not only going to end up with even bigger social service/crime/terror issues than we have now, we’re going to face third world countries with unbelievably high, irritated, Muslim populations looking for something to do. And that’s not good.

None of you want amnesty, nor do I. The quote from The Journal in 1984 was a nice *pull* from the archives, but geez. Things have changed and I see NOTHING that indicates this edit board has ANY interest in running right over the COTUS to support an immigration bill that is all but amnesty.

Last question and then I’ll leave you all to fume:
If Gigot had said ‘the Left’ instead of ‘the Right’, would you all be cheering because the liberal elitist in the Ivory Tower called the Lefties a bunch of bigots???

Enjoy your evening, and the fact that we live in the US of A and can debate this openly, freely, and without any name calling :)

Biffstir on June 7, 2007 at 7:48 PM

Biffstir, I understand your defensiveness but the full video was posted here some time ago. Most of us watched it few times. The WSJ editorial board is usually pretty good and I do watch Gigot on FNCs Journal Report but on this issue they are just wrong.

Zorro on June 7, 2007 at 8:09 PM

Biffstir,
I think everyone understands that the WSJ is a publication for business, small and large. And business, the Democratic Party and illegal immigrants are the only ones that benifit from illegal immigration while the people pay the bill. The WSJ is not looking out for the “common man” on this issue.

brtex on June 7, 2007 at 8:20 PM

Their was a terrorist (Millennium Bomber, I think) that was caught as he came over the Canadian border. If we were not screening that border, he might have been able to carry out his plot.

JadeNYU on June 7, 2007 at 1:24 PM

If I remember correctly, the border wasn’t being screened. He came through at a checkpoint, and the border patrol agent that let him through was suspicious and notified the authorities.

Anyway, after seeing this, and recognizing a few faces, I have to wonder how long it will take now for the Wall Street Journal Editorial Report to get cancelled for want of ratings. I know I’m not going to watch it anymore, even if I never actually set out to watch it the times that I have.

Wolfman on June 7, 2007 at 8:54 PM

One day in the future, when our beloved Michelle is the Queen of All Media, her opinion pieces the talk of the town from coast to coast, do you think this clip of her beating her chest and grunting in a foaming-at-the-mouth gorrilla head might come back to haunt her? I’m thinking maybe, possibly yes.

Just for the record, I prefer Michelle with her normal head.

And did she finish that bag of popcorn? I’m thinking not. The guys polished that off, didn’t they?

Tantor on June 7, 2007 at 10:31 PM

I was starting to doubt evolution for a minute. Whew!

Michelle, don’t change a thing if you get your own show. Don’t go all “normal” on us.

Mojave Mark on June 7, 2007 at 10:32 PM

Ok, I would like to know who these right-wing, foaming at the mouth, bigots are…? There are no videos of these people are there? I wish that when my leaders and writers of my favorite paper choose to bash their base and supporters, that they could give some examples, because I’m getting the feeling that they’re making these characters up to try guilting us into shutting up. And it’s really starting to bug me!

4shoes on June 7, 2007 at 10:49 PM

Biffstir on June 7, 2007 at 7:48 PM

Biffstir,

What 4shoes said.

4shoes on June 7, 2007 at 10:49 PM

It is noble of you to defend the WSJ, however remember The WSJ went after conservatives first.

I take offense when I am called a bigot or neanderthal by a major newspaper and they have no clue who I am, or what I believe.

Don’t act surprised/outraged that Michelle took your paper to town via your own video.

The simple fact is that the WSJ insulted conservatives opposed to the amnesty bill, by saying we are bigots/neanderthal’s etc and “we don’t get it”….

Michelle called you on it and the WSJ got caught.

The only words I have for you is….

Boo-Freakin-Hoo

F15Mech on June 7, 2007 at 11:39 PM

*Clap* Clap*Clap *Clap* Clap* Clap
Stomp*Stomp*Stomp*Stomp*Stomp
*Clap* Clap*Clap *Clap* Clap* Clap
Stomp*Stomp*Stomp*Stomp*Stomp
*Clap* Clap*Clap *Clap* Clap* Clap
Stomp*Stomp*Stomp*Stomp*Stomp
*Clap* Clap*Clap *Clap* Clap* Clap
Stomp*Stomp*Stomp*Stomp*Stomp

Way to slap those arrogant bas**rds down. And with great FACTS! TtHE FIRST THING I NOTICED when it first hit the web WAS the seating arrangements AND the black guy sitting so far off and AWAY from the table. Un-freeking real. Big business hates us because they wanted to use the cheap labor. Period.

auspatriotman on June 8, 2007 at 1:13 AM

Isn’t it funny how the WSJ “conservatives” are exactly what people swore conservatives were not? A coterie of rich old white guys willing to sell America up the river for corporate interests. They’ve become the parody of themselves. Lehosh

Yeah, kinda like “Four legs good, two legs bad.” Then finally (Animal Farm) “Two legs–good.”

auspatriotman on June 8, 2007 at 1:15 AM

And did she finish that bag of popcorn? I’m thinking not. The guys polished that off, didn’t they?

I think they slide the leftovers and some pills under the basement door every night for Allah.

saint kansas on June 8, 2007 at 4:52 AM

One of the best Vents ever (as others have said). And to think I was considering a subscription to the WSJ! It seems that the media in general takes their own reports on “fear-mongering”, “foaming-at-the-mouth” conservatives at face value. This editorial board is certainly not talking to actual conservatives interested in enforcing the border.

insomni on June 8, 2007 at 8:59 AM

The Journal has one target audience. Corporations. Follow the money. If the WSJ were to take a position against illegal immigration, all those businesses which employ illegals would be angry with them.

Although they did as fine a job of insulting rational law-abiding citizens as the President, with them it’s not about that, it’s about pandering to their audience, nothing more. They are the soulless sellouts to the almighty dollar, and inconvenient federal laws? “To the curb with you!”

If you expected anything else from Wall Street, think again.

Freelancer on June 8, 2007 at 9:26 AM

This is one of the best vents I have ever seen here. Those “Smarter than anyone else” gentlemen remind me of the chess club from my high school days. They almost pity the lowly unintelligent masses that someone like me represent.
So, I should just simply step out of they way and give up… my tax dollars… to pay for unbelieveable demands in welfare, healthcae, legal services, insurance…etc. I should ignore how my own social security is going to suffer because I need to share that with illegals. I should look the other way as jobs vanish, as criminals from other countries walk in to take what they “deserve”. Yes criminals. And finally I should not be disturbed that my own nation’s leaders are working so hard to give away our country.

I only wish our government was so passionate about real Americans, legal American workers.

hoosierken on June 8, 2007 at 10:26 AM

Regarding the token black guy and the white gal comments: This is by far the most diverse work environment within which I’ve ever worked. With a staff of 12 on site in my division, we have 5 white guys, 3 of whom are gay. We have 7 women: 1 Asian lesbian with twins, a BBBW, 1 Creole, 1 Mexican, and 2 white. Say what you want, but this company’s far from the stereotype y’all are stuck on.

don’t sweat it. the border freaks are accosiating themselves with no small amount of classical, iron cross and white hoods type racism, so it’s nessesary to displace some of the shame they shoulld be feeling for themselves onto their critics.

jummy on June 8, 2007 at 11:24 AM

jummy on June 8, 2007 at 11:24 AM

jummy, you are absolutely full of crap and nonsense on this. We have made security, law enforcement, logical and other strict arguments on this issue, and your resorting to smearing us with the KKK betrays that you’re either not listening to what we’re saying or you’re content to be an open and obvious liar when it suits you. Which is it?

Bryan on June 8, 2007 at 11:52 AM

there’s another part to this. it also intersects with the worst parts of the radical left. the difference being that historians wont forgive the right for it’s zealotry against illegal immigration as it has cesar chavez and his violent “wet line”.

nor will the left rob us of any of the credit for any of the alienation of latinos which might arise on behalf of the big unions. nope. all that “america is racist” crap will be directed at conservatives, regardless of the union contribution.

the issue really is theirs to begin with, or haven’t you noticed the more than a little marxist-sounding rhetoric ingraham is spouting lately?

and if you really want your mind blown, read this nutty article about how the entire anti-illegal immigration movement was started by a left-wing radical hopped up on malthusian pseudoscience…

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2608/

jummy on June 8, 2007 at 12:44 PM

Superb Vent as usual.

JEFF_IN_NC on June 8, 2007 at 12:47 PM

None of what you wrote has anything to do with the arguments we have put forward, jummy. One more time–are you a liar or are you just ignorant of the arguments we have put forward here?

Bryan on June 8, 2007 at 12:51 PM

what did i write? i don’t see any evidence that i wrote anything.

jummy on June 8, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Uh, that’s not your comment posted at 12:44 pm?

Bryan on June 8, 2007 at 12:55 PM

that’s an appendix to the comment you’re holding in the approval que.

jummy on June 8, 2007 at 12:56 PM

There’s nothing in comment moderation.

Bryan on June 8, 2007 at 12:58 PM

The sovereignity of our nation, the security of our borders, and the enforcement of current law IS NOT a sign of KKK-ism, iron cross waiving, etc.

EVERY nation has the right to secure its borders and enforce its immigration laws. Why is it that when America does this, it is looked upon as a sign of unfairness, of hatred towards Latin America and OTMs? But, if OTHER nations enforce their immigration laws and secure their borders, THAT is looked upon as their right to ensure their sovereignity?

Indeed, if one wants an example of KKK behavior and iron cross mentality concerning border protection, we can all look to Mexico’s southern border and how their border patrol deals with illegals….NOT VERY HUMANE. One Mexican border patrolman SHOT an illegal alien because….HE DID NOT LOOK LIKE A MEXICAN.

Yet, American Border Patrol provides water, medical care, etc.

This is a question of law enforcement, border security, and yes, maintaining our culture as a nation with a proud and unique history where we have rendered more services and contributions to the world than any other nation.

The False Dervish on June 8, 2007 at 12:59 PM

yes there is. when i try to repost it, i get a message telling me it’s duplicate.

jummy on June 8, 2007 at 1:00 PM

It just went and looked–nada. It’s not in moderation and it’s not in spam, both of which are automatically invoked if certain criteria are met (negating your accusation that I’m “holding” your comment or anything else).

But still–you’re calling us Iron Cross racists. Does it even matter to you that in my case I’m married to an immigrant from a non-European country and that my own son is a dual citizen until he’s an adult? Obviously those facts ought to disturb your chosen narrative here. But I doubt that they will.

Bryan on June 8, 2007 at 1:07 PM

actually, i didn’t say that you were iron cross racists, i said you were associating yourselves with iron cross racists, and that’s just not disputable. that’s what i said when i first commented on this at length here under a post in which the very idea that there’s any intersection between border enforcement and radical white nationalism was mocked. my point in those comments is that the way a decent center-right would proceed would be to aknowlege that, “yes, there are racists, and no, they have nothing to do with principled support for a better enforced, more robust immigration policy.” instead the choice was made to pretend that white nationalists don’t exist, the way mainstream liberals pretended communists didn’t exist behind many of their campaigns. i think that’s dishonest.

jummy on June 8, 2007 at 1:19 PM

i just don’t get it bryan. that’s basicly it. i never understood what the problem would be with the worst case scenareo.

that worst case scenareo, by the way, isn’t “security”. the “security” argument is the thinnest of all. you can see above where even people who are inclined to support mass deportation and the like have pointed out that m****e’s association of latinos jumping the mexican border and 9-11 is utterly without basis.

jummy on June 8, 2007 at 1:24 PM

the worst case scenareo is that our cities will be flooded with working-class catholics who vote democrat. as an irishman i say, oh darn! oh golly! how will the republic survive?!

illegal immigration is illegal, and i’m certain it has costs. it needs to be addressed in a sober, constructive way. but the discussion about the border and the movement driving it hasn’t been constructive or sober, nor has the passion driving it been at all proportionate to the problem.

jummy on June 8, 2007 at 1:25 PM

the reason this is that border enforcement zealotry penetrated mainstream conservative discourse from a paralel movement.

jummy on June 8, 2007 at 1:29 PM

that paralel movement is radical nationalist, not conservative,

jummy on June 8, 2007 at 1:30 PM

Wow. That was amazing. WSJ ‘torial board just got SERVED.

I generally like Gigot, who has been very hawkish on the war, which is a little oxymoronic considering the ancestry of his name, but he’s dead wrong here and was great to see Michelle with the posterizing putback.

In your face Paul!

Schweggie on June 8, 2007 at 1:31 PM

though it is not strictly racist, it has been prone to intersection with white nationalist groups and their demagoguery.

it is a radical poison through which idiot conspiracism about the “amero” and the bilderbergs and all kinds of other crap has come to poison the mainstream conservative movement. two global effects i’ve noticed: 1) conservatives, poisened with this radicalism, have attacked the border issue with a zeal most have been unable to muster in support of the war we’re fighting overseas, and which resembles the “nutroots” model of maoist political absolutism we deride on the left. and 2) the border has become for nazis a soft entry point into the center-right similar to what the israel/palestine, antiwar issue is for the left.

it’s gotten ugly. the last time someone pried into my background and published my real name around the internet in an effort to intimidate me, as PRCalDude has, it was the local chapter of the revolutionary communist party. i’ve been told i’m not a conservative on the basis of this issue; told to go to the other side where i belong. which makes the mentality on the mainstream right a perfect match for the mentality at dkos or du. i used to mock them for that sort of stalinist mindset. now i mock the people here because they behave exactly the same.

jummy on June 8, 2007 at 1:33 PM

do you have the word “r a c i a l i s t” in some kind of filter?

jummy on June 8, 2007 at 1:37 PM

actually, i didn’t say that you were iron cross racists, i said you were associating yourselves with iron cross racists, and that’s just not disputable.

jummy on June 8, 2007 at 1:19 PM

Oh, really?

you are a bunch of racist cranks who’s primary objection is cultural.

jummy on June 7, 2007 at 12:46 PM

(Emphasis mine)

Or are you using some arcane definition of the word “you” with which I’m unacquainted?

p.v. cornelius on June 8, 2007 at 1:38 PM

i just don’t get it bryan. that’s basicly it. i never understood what the problem would be with the worst case scenareo.

that worst case scenareo, by the way, isn’t “security”. the “security” argument is the thinnest of all. you can see above where even people who are inclined to support mass deportation and the like have pointed out that m****e’s association of latinos jumping the mexican border and 9-11 is utterly without basis.

the worst case scenareo is that our cities will be flooded with working-class catholics who vote democrat. as an irishman i say, oh darn! oh golly! how will the republic survive?!

illegal immigration is illegal, and i’m certain it has costs. it needs to be addressed in a sober, constructive way. but the discussion about the border and the movement driving it hasn’t been constructive or sober, nor has the passion driving it been at all proportionate to the problem.

the reason this is that border enforcement zealotry penetrated mainstream conservative discourse from a paralel movement. that paralel movement is radical nationalist, not conservative, and though it is not strictly r a c i s t, it has been prone to intersection with white nationalist groups and their demagoguery.

it is a radical poison through which idiot conspiracism about the “amero” and the bilderbergs and all kinds of other crap has come to poison the mainstream conservative movement. two global effects i’ve noticed: 1) conservatives, poisened with this radicalism, have attacked the border issue with a zeal most have been unable to muster in support of the war we’re fighting overseas, and which resembles the “nutroots” model of maoist political absolutism we deride on the left. and 2) the border has become for nazis a soft entry point into the center-right similar to what the israel/palestine, antiwar issue is for the left.

it’s gotten ugly. the last time someone pried into my background and published my real name around the internet in an effort to intimidate me, as PRCalDude has, it was the local chapter of the revolutionary communist party. i’ve been told i’m not a conservative on the basis of this issue; told to go to the other side where i belong. which makes the mentality on the mainstream right a perfect match for the mentality at dkos or du. i used to mock them for that sort of stalinist mindset. now i mock the people here because they behave exactly the same.

jummy on June 8, 2007 at 1:40 PM

p.v. cornelius on June 8, 2007 at 1:38 PM

Consider yourself pwn3d, jummy.

Bryan on June 8, 2007 at 1:41 PM

p.v. cornelius on June 8, 2007 at 1:38 PM

that was a different discussion. i’m talking with the editorship here in the first quote you cited. in the second quote, i was addressing the general readership, who have been slinging around words like “wetback” and “beaner”.

jummy on June 8, 2007 at 1:42 PM

Bryan on June 8, 2007 at 1:41 PM

i’m provoked to question whether your blog’s programming was witholding my comment above on the basis of the word “r a c i a l i s t” and hiding it from you out of the sort of puckishness not commonly found in dumb strings of code, or if it were you who just didn’t want to deal with my objections.

jummy on June 8, 2007 at 1:46 PM

So now you’re questioning my honesty, jummy. Well, I ought to expect that from someone who’s been smearing us in comments here for the past several days.

Your objections are garbage and nonsense. I mean, really, the “bilderbergs?” We have made the substantive arguments against illegal immigration that you claim to want. For that, the WSJ smeared us and people who have made the same arguments. Coming here today, you smeared us. I challenged you on it, and you’re resorting to long-winded crap tossing instead of just dealing with our arguments on the merits. It’s gotten ugly because people like you smear people like me and don’t care when you’re called on it.

Just get your own blog already and you can smear us to your heart’s content. But don’t use our bandwidth for that anymore.

Bryan on June 8, 2007 at 2:13 PM

Btw, it turns out that the spam filter probably did snare your comments, jummy. There’s a word inside your favorite word that gets spammed around the web an awful lot. I didn’t see it because the spam trap has hundreds of critters in it at the moment.

Bryan on June 8, 2007 at 2:35 PM

C I A L I S!

lol!

so, did you read the article about the radical leftwing environmentalist who invented the border-enforcement movement?

here’s that link again: http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2608/

read it. i”ll be back around again when “the base” regains their heads.

jummy on June 8, 2007 at 2:43 PM

Biffster, you protest WAYYY too much.

I, as BizzyBlog, am the original “puller” of the 1984 “There Shall Be Open Borders” editorial. I have probably read or scanned through 90% or more of all the editorials the Journal has generated in the past 20-plus years since.

I “pulled” the 1984 editorial precisely because it was by no means an isolated one — just the earliest. I went back to the library database to make sure I’m right about the following:

- The 1984 editorial was the first of several that specifically recited the “There Shall Be Open Borders” theme, using those exact words.

- The Journal specifically reiterated its “There Shall Be Open Borders” mantra in different editorials on July 3, 1986, 1987, 1989, and 1990. Those editorials made clear that The Journal didn’t even like the idea of having border guards (this is from 1990):

Yet other, less noble images lurk in the background of our July 4th celebrations: the guards who patrol our 2,000-mile border with Mexico or reports by government agencies that the nation’s immigration law has indeed caused widespread hiring discrimination against non-whites.

- As late as July 2, 2001, three months before 9/11, the late Robert Bartley, who got so many things right but had this issue so terribly wrong, thought “open NAFTA borders” would be just peachy, and derided even the fitful border-enforcement efforts going on at the time. On July 3, 2000, Bartley wrote that “There is reason to hope that the anti-immigration wave is ebbing before reality.”

The fact is that The Journal, since that “puller” in 1984, has never visibly budged from a principle that is both incredibly naive and dangerous. I agreed with the Journal until the early 1990s, when it became obvious to me that my idealism about the contributions and nobility of legal immigrants wasn’t, and still isn’t, in any way transferable to those who come here illegally.

But no amount of “reality” will move your editorial board from its stubborn stance, including:
- downed 100-plus story towers mere miles away from where you are.
- rampant gang-related crime (including, in the past year, one Mexican gang murder and another group gang assault where no one was killed but many could have been — all within 5 miles of where I am, in supposedly serene suburban Cincinnati).
- a steadily eroding social fabric.

Even “your own” Peggy Noonan has called your nonsense out. Listen to her. Please.

Tom Blumer
BizzyBlog.com

Tom Blumer on June 8, 2007 at 2:46 PM

jummy, that article characterizes the border-security types as “anti-immigration.” That’s a false premise, or did you not read the biographical details I sketched out about myself? From false premises flow false assumptions, as you have illustrated by example throughout the day.

Bryan on June 8, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Jummy, regarding your link to the John Tanton article: Like the proverbial broken clock that is 100% correct twice each day, it is possible to find a leftist who is occasionally right, even if it’s for the wrong reasons.

Similarly, you are welcome to be wrong on this one. Just realize that your insipid insistence on insults doesn’t help anything.

Regardless of what you believe, Jummy, for virtually all of those on the border-security side of this issue, this isn’t about maintaining some insane racial purity, whatever that might mean.

We aren’t anti-immigration. Some of us are first generation immigrants ourselves. Others of us pre-date the Mayflower.

This isn’t about ethnicity, or at this point even a common language. It’s about maintaining some semblance of law and order, and societal values that have a chance of allowing our society to survive.

Schweggie on June 8, 2007 at 3:25 PM

I do not like Hot Air’s new format of links in the place of a Vent. I though Hot Air was all about the videos with supporting stories. /shrug

I miss the old Vents and the grass roots collaborations of the men and women of the conservative net.

Oh well. I suppose everything matures and melts into everything out there.

Oh ya, I didn’t watch this Vent either. The Vent used to be the main reason to link in! Now I find myself linking here out of habit, but linking out by habit as well.

Montana on June 8, 2007 at 6:19 PM

THOSE White dudes control the WSJ? I guess there’s nothing like advocating a new slavery class, eh?

SouthernGent on June 8, 2007 at 10:49 PM

Tom,
Thanks for taking the time to note your work, I appreciate that. Certainly wasn’t questioning the ‘pull’, just the age of it. But I see and understand your methodology now.

My only response would be that there’s a huge difference between ‘open borders’ that allow legal transience of persons vs. ‘open borders’ that allow illegals. To a person I suspect that the edit board would tell you they’re against illegal immigration, don’t favor amnesty for those here illegally, and would push for logical immigration policy. However, the (now failed) bill of late was bad from the get-go as many on this site agree. My opinion is that the video segment showed the edit board calling a spade a spade (figure of speech, not a racist comment!): the Right has reacted rabidly to this bill and the President’s call to action. Our nation WILL NOT SURVIVE if we do not stem the tide of illegal immigration, but it will be torn apart from the inside if we do not agree on sensible policy for the illegals here now, and immigrants of the future. If the President has busted his @$$ to get a bipartisan compromise, and the Right has in effect filibustered(sp?) that effort, you can’t blame him for being testy. He’s getting beat up at every turn and is trying to make headway somehow, somewhere, with his administration. The beauty of the US is that we can, regardless of which side of the aisle we’re on, voice our displeasure and modify the course of history! I love this place :)

The Journal’s edit staff, as a post’r noted further up, is typically very hawkish/Right/conservative. So for them to lob a grenade within their own camp (Gigot more than the others) is IMHO puzzling to say the least. However, they have in the past and will continue to moving forward, press the hot button issues and keep them in play. Honestly, as I noted above, if this was the NYT’s edit board and they were slamming their own as bigots and racist, this blog would be 20 posts featuring e-high fives and the thread would close in about 24 hrs due to lack of interest. But it wasn’t…and the Right has, as a result, been even more fired up about the immigration bill and voila! It’s dead. Score two pts for the good guys.

SouthernGent, re: your comment: THOSE white dudes don’t control the WSJ. They’re responsible for the op-ed columns. In case you missed it, the Bancroft family et. al. control The Journal. For now, anyhow ;)

Enjoy your weekend and keep our troops in your thoughts folks.

Biffstir on June 8, 2007 at 11:36 PM

I have long had the opinion Paul Gigot of the WSJ and his cohorts were smart and much smarter than the impression this video debacle shows. Why were they videotaping their meeting anyway?

I think there must be a connection to Rupert Murdoch’s attempt to buy out the Dow Jones & Co which owns the WSJ. Maybe Gigot and company was trying to scare off Murdoch by appearing as a bunch of flakes running the WSJ Editorial Board.

Texas Mike on June 9, 2007 at 3:41 AM

I think this is in the running of one of my top favorite Vents so far… ranking right up there with Michelle singing to her tater tots and her appearance on the Dance Dance Revolution machine.

I got a fever! And the prescription is more Vent!

Dave Shay on June 9, 2007 at 8:46 AM

THOSE White dudes control the WSJ? I guess there’s nothing like advocating a new slavery class, eh?

SouthernGent on June 8, 2007 at 10:49 PM

Maybe instead of slavery they’d like to go old school on us and bring back the Serf class.

Dave Shay on June 9, 2007 at 8:48 AM

Biffstir (sorry for the misspell in the previous comment):

I think you are naive about your paper’s stance. I don’t see any evidence that Bob Bartley’s progeny are in any way troubled by illegal immigration, even to this day. Their editorials specifically expressed lack of such concern until just a few months before 9/11. “Open borders” to the WSJ means no fence, no guards …. basically no rules. I have NEVER seen the Journal identify illegal-immigrant enforcement mechanisms it would consider acceptable. I have NEVER seen the Journal acknowledge the illegal-immigrant crime wave. And I have NEVER seen the Journal acknowledge employers’ responsibility to make best efforts to hire only people who are here legally.

Tom Blumer on June 9, 2007 at 10:36 AM

Great Vent, Thanks again for saving my voice Michelle. Anyone who wants to argue about this now just gets this link.

RobertCSampson on June 9, 2007 at 5:47 PM

Who is slandering and fear-mongering?

Why the WSJ.

I guess they paid for their term papers in Philosophy, skipped as many classes as possible and avoided absorbing even the rudiments of Logic 101, Epsitemology 202, Critical Reasoning 303, and Comparative Ideologies 404.

Pathetic ad hominem irrationalism posing as Higher Wisdom.

Their Motto:

America, Sell It or Sublet it.

profitsbeard on June 9, 2007 at 6:20 PM

That’s “Epistemology“, for googlers.

(“Epsitemology” is a discilpine too new to have a name.)

profitsbeard on June 9, 2007 at 6:23 PM

It isn’t about the border, or the WSJ, or immigration for jummy. It’s about his stance that criticism of the President by the Right is blasphemy. In his world, if the Right doesn’t believe and obey every word from President Bush, then we have turned into the Left.

What he doesn’t see is that the President has moved so close to the Left, that those of us on the Right with clear vision refuse to follow him there.

jummy, consider this. Every issue in the current political spectrum finds the Left railing against President Bush EXCEPT:

1. Border enforcement/illegal alien citizenship
2. Education
3. Entitlements

They agree with him on ONLY those things where we on the Right believe they (and he) are wrong. Or did you support the President signing McCain/Feingold even though it was horrendous law?

Freelancer on June 10, 2007 at 4:10 AM

Great out-takes, too Michelle!

(Is that popcorn in your nose, or are you just a Right-Wing fanatic?)

profitsbeard on June 10, 2007 at 1:59 PM

Tom,
It sounds like you’re much more heavily invested in the research aspect of this dialogue, so I’ll tip the hat to your last comment. While it’s been a LONG time since someone’s used naive and my name in the same breath, I’ll admit that I’ve only avidly read the op-ed page in the 4+ years I’ve been here. Ergo, my exposure to the edit board’s stance is minimal in comparison to yours.

That said…I look forward to continued dialogue with all of you on the immigration topic. Until then…buy American, vote (with your dollar too!), and support the troops :)
Biffstir

Biffstir on June 11, 2007 at 3:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2