There are two facts about the incontrovertible facts about the WSJ.
1. It wants immigration reform down to its toes. It's totally for amnesty. In its heart of hearts it wants out and out open borders-a position so radical in the debate even Democrats don't discuss this in public-what would be the point?
2. It is pro Republican down to its toes.
3. The trouble is that 1 and 2 are in mortal conflict with each other as the Republicans party is against immigration down to its toes.
4. I've made this point-Trump is not an outlier in the party, nor is he 'pulling the GOP Right'-he's simply amplifying the party's anti-immigration-including legal immigration-position.
The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal has long been an indispensable voice of conservatism. As President Bush said in 2003 in awarding the Medal of Freedom to editorial page editor Robert L. Bartley shortly before his death, he—and by extension his editorial page—has been "a champion of free markets, individual liberty and the values necessary for a free society."
"But there is one area in which the editorial page's policy diverges strikingly from conservative orthodoxy, and that is on the matter of immigration. To varying degrees, the paper's editorialists have argued in favor of a more flexible attitude toward immigration. That tendency reaches its apotheosis in the recently-released book by WSJ editorial board member Jason Riley: Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders."
"Riley appeared on this weekend's Journal Editorial Report on FNC to discuss his book with host Paul Gigot and make the case that borders should indeed be opened. Riley seemed surprisingly passive in the defense of his controversial proposal, and I personally came away unpersuaded."
1. It wants immigration reform down to its toes. It's totally for amnesty. In its heart of hearts it wants out and out open borders-a position so radical in the debate even Democrats don't discuss this in public-what would be the point?
2. It is pro Republican down to its toes.
3. The trouble is that 1 and 2 are in mortal conflict with each other as the Republicans party is against immigration down to its toes.
4. I've made this point-Trump is not an outlier in the party, nor is he 'pulling the GOP Right'-he's simply amplifying the party's anti-immigration-including legal immigration-position.
The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal has long been an indispensable voice of conservatism. As President Bush said in 2003 in awarding the Medal of Freedom to editorial page editor Robert L. Bartley shortly before his death, he—and by extension his editorial page—has been "a champion of free markets, individual liberty and the values necessary for a free society."
"But there is one area in which the editorial page's policy diverges strikingly from conservative orthodoxy, and that is on the matter of immigration. To varying degrees, the paper's editorialists have argued in favor of a more flexible attitude toward immigration. That tendency reaches its apotheosis in the recently-released book by WSJ editorial board member Jason Riley: Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders."
"Riley appeared on this weekend's Journal Editorial Report on FNC to discuss his book with host Paul Gigot and make the case that borders should indeed be opened. Riley seemed surprisingly passive in the defense of his controversial proposal, and I personally came away unpersuaded."
- See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/05/18/let-them-wsj-editor-argues-open-borders#sthash.zuNm8Jdv.dpuf
That's typical of the WSJ: in the face of conservative resistance to its liberal immigration preferences, it pulls back so as not to fall out with it partisan brethren in the GOP.
"The trouble is that while the WSJ has been pretty consistent in showing the folly of this virulent anti immigration mania it has been too compromised by its own politics to really do anything about it. By now it's way too late-that cow left the barn a long time ago. The time for the WSJ was when Heritage came out with that study a few years ago that said that maybe the GOP didn't need the Latino vote after all-it should just try to maximize the white vote even more than in the past-even as the white vote was shrinking as a percentage of the electorate. In any case. the WSJ might have been taken more seriously if it could have admitted that it supported the bipartisan Senate immigration reform bill in 2013. But it feared alienating the House GOP and the base by lauding this plan that the House had dismissed as the Senate Democrat plan. And then even Marco Rubio who had been the lead Senate Republican on the bill-it was named after him-repudiated it. The WSJ just couldn't do the unthinkable and admit that for once the Democrats were right about something. So it's way too little too late for their piece even though it's totally correct."
"The trouble is that while the WSJ has been pretty consistent in showing the folly of this virulent anti immigration mania it has been too compromised by its own politics to really do anything about it. By now it's way too late-that cow left the barn a long time ago. The time for the WSJ was when Heritage came out with that study a few years ago that said that maybe the GOP didn't need the Latino vote after all-it should just try to maximize the white vote even more than in the past-even as the white vote was shrinking as a percentage of the electorate. In any case. the WSJ might have been taken more seriously if it could have admitted that it supported the bipartisan Senate immigration reform bill in 2013. But it feared alienating the House GOP and the base by lauding this plan that the House had dismissed as the Senate Democrat plan. And then even Marco Rubio who had been the lead Senate Republican on the bill-it was named after him-repudiated it. The WSJ just couldn't do the unthinkable and admit that for once the Democrats were right about something. So it's way too little too late for their piece even though it's totally correct."
- See more at: http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-wall-st-journals-war-with.html#sthash.FpNOXfvA.dpuf
So now it has the spectre of being on the same side of Trumpian attacks on China because of a couple of tough days in the equities market.
So the WSJ is-sort of like Jeb Bush-Subjectively for open borders, but objectively Trumpian. They may think they are pro open borders. But their uncritical support of the Republican party-why not just admit that on immigration the GOP House has acted wrongly and should have supported the Senate bill or at least voted on it?-puts them objectively on the side of those who want to deport 11 million people, 'build a beautiful wall' and end birthright citizenship.
So now it has the spectre of being on the same side of Trumpian attacks on China because of a couple of tough days in the equities market.
So the WSJ is-sort of like Jeb Bush-Subjectively for open borders, but objectively Trumpian. They may think they are pro open borders. But their uncritical support of the Republican party-why not just admit that on immigration the GOP House has acted wrongly and should have supported the Senate bill or at least voted on it?-puts them objectively on the side of those who want to deport 11 million people, 'build a beautiful wall' and end birthright citizenship.
I'm telling you Mike, the WSJ and it's sensitive readership can be brought into the Trump / Mickelson / pro-slavery fold: once they realize how little wages slaves require. And I'm just the guy to turn 'em around on this!
ReplyDeleteSlavery will literally blow the bottom out of the minimum wage concept... perhaps making it potentially go BELOW zero! ... Think about it... if slaves have to pay for their own room and board, it means they'll be forced to turn to organ harvesting or selling their relatives and offspring into slavery to try to escape accumulating debt, thus turning America into a neo-liberal wonderland of market driven efficiency!
DeletePlus, think of the riches the market will provide once it tosses off the last of the hand-wringing nanny state restrictions on the sale of human animals, meat, and transplantable organs and other spare parts!
America will truly be the shining city on the hill again. By God we WILL make America great again!
See I think you're basically knocking down an open door. What makes anyone think GOPers would draw a line at slavery?
DeleteWe already have Mickelson. The argument for slavery recall is old-arguments like this were serious once in the Old South. LOL.
No, they're already there. I mean I've been saying there is nothing that Trump has said about immigration that is new to the Republican party including slavery-as Mickelson.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is crazier than imagination even. LOL